Af/Pak: What Now?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Afghanistan 2009
Posted on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 11:13:49 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The recent revelations by Wikileaks regarding the Afghanistan conflict raises many issues, but one, and in my view the most important, is not new - and it is the strength of jihadism in Pakistan. And at the highest levels. The NYTimes reported:

Americans fighting the war in Afghanistan have long harbored strong suspicions that Pakistan’s military spy service has guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants, according to a trove of secret military field reports made public Sunday.

The documents, made available by an organization called WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.

That powerful forces in the Pakistani government are strongly tied to the Taliban should comes as no surprise to anyone. This has been at the heart of the issue. As a supporter of the President's policy in Afghanistan, I hope, and indeed, feel confident that this is understood. Now what to do about it? Let's discuss on the flip.

To revisit my earlier arguments on the subject, see my post in February 2009 and December 2009.

On both occasions, I stressed the importance of Pakistan, both as a potential fallout area and the key to success in Afghanistan itself. In his December 2009 speech, the President said:

[W]e will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

[. . .] We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

The Wikileaks revelations are of the past six years, not about what has happened in the last six months. Has the Obama strategy worked? I certainly do not know. But I still believe it provides the best chance for success.

Speaking for me only

< (Occasionally) Patronizing Beltway Bloggers | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Af/Pak: What Now? | 75 comments (75 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It isn't Jihadism (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by msaroff on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:01:53 PM EST

The support of the Taliban is because the Pakistani state security apparatus sees the Taliban as inherently anti-India, and so they support it because the threat of a pro-India Afghanistan is their real concern here.

: Well (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:03:49 PM EST

That may well be, but the practical effect is support for jihadism.

: The support of ISI is not so black (none / 0) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:34:11 PM EST

and white. That in itself is part of the problem, some officers in the PakMil obviously support the ISI and some don't.

Oh brother (5.00 / 0) (#69)
by DancingOpossum on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 09:21:08 AM EST

The right-wing loonies are out in full force today.

Who could have predicted that invading a country that never did us any harm and enacting wholesale slaughter of its infrastructure and its civilian population, could have made people in the region hate us? And who could have predicted that doing the same thing to another country would lead to a rise in "terrorism"?

The definitions of "success" in Afghanistan keep moving, like phantom goalposts. As with Iraq, we keep coming up with different aims, different definitions, different justifications--but it all boils down to the same thing. By any legal or moral standard, what we've done is committed a war crime (indeed, the very war crime that the Nuremberg hearings defined as the single greatest war crime, the base war crime from which all others flow).

Leaving is the ONLY alternative in any moral or rational universe. The only thing we have to do in Afghanistan (and Iraq) is apologize, get the hell out, and make massive, huge, enormous reparations for what we've done to those countries. Oh and we better include Pakistan in those reparations too, since our "success" includes

Leaving Afghanistan (1.00 / 0) (#52)
by Kathy J on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 05:54:56 PM EST

I see lots of comments about everyone wanting to leave Afghanistan. Yet I fail to see someone offer a practical alternative for how we are to stop the spread of terrorism in the region.

I am all for leaving too, but not unless we have a alternate plan. Saying that we are making things worse is not a reason to pull out. It is a reason to change tactics and change the plan.

We must prevail here or either we or our children will die as a result. They won't die fighting either. They will die in a mushroom cloud detonated by some a-hole who wold rather sacrifice himself or herself for Allah.

Kill or be killed. Would you rather have our best soldiers hunting them down over there? Or, would you rather sit over here in blissful ignorance hoping that they don't ever pull another stunt again?

If you don't like the current plan, offer a better solution. Any Monday morning Quarterback can say that we should have done something different. Only a dimwit would forfeit the game at half-time.

Plastic Sheets & Depends (2.33 / 3) (#53)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 06:01:12 PM EST

You sound scared, and oh, the children. Good thing that it takes 100 Afghani children to equal one American child, otherwise your head would explode.


Wow....who ever said it takes (5.00 / 4) (#58)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:30:04 PM EST

100 Afghan children to equal an American child? Oh yeah, that would be you. Attack and demonize much?

This person does sound very concerned, no more outrageously concerned than anyone else though today, but concerned about some different things and possibly feeling unheard.

Not dealing with Afghanistan poses risks that a lot of people don't actually want to talk about. They want to talk about other stuff and pretend that there is no other risks involved.


Good (none / 0) (#60)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:52:19 PM EST

You explain it to Kathy J. To me it sounds like incendiary right wing talking points, or someone who has absorbed them without even knowing it.

And as for her not seeing anywhere anyone giving an alternate approach to halt the spread of terrorism, other than leaving, she is not looking very hard.

And the false equivalences are enough to make me puke.

Would you rather have our best soldiers hunting them down over there? Or, would you rather sit over here in blissful ignorance hoping that they don't ever pull another stunt again?

False equivalences (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by Kathy J on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 09:27:14 PM EST

Please forgive my ignorance.

I don't understand your comment about false equivalences.

Do you perceive the situation differently? I think I spoke the truth there, at least according to what my common sense tells me.

We do have our best soldiers over there fighting the terrorists. Do we not? I happen to think they are damn fine.

Pulling our troops out now without a solid plan to diminish terrorism in the region (which is the point I made) and assuming that Al-Qaeda will not plan an even bigger event than last time, is wishful thinking. Is it not? And, foolish thinking that will lead to more death and destruction than we and the people of the Middle East are currently witnessing.

If you think this response to an attack against our country was bad, what do you suppose our response would be to a nuclear or biological attack? What do you suppose our president and congress would be forced to do? How bad would it be if the Republicans were in power?

Full on war, the likes of which will make WWII look like a kiddie fight. How much death and destruction will come of that?

How many family trees will be wiped out? Which ones will be wiped out? Mine? Yours? How many Afghans will die then? How many innocent people will die then?

If you are diagnosed with a cancerous tumor on your foot, do you have surgery to remove the tumor or do you wait until it spreads throughout your body?

Seems pretty clear to me.

Why don't you educate me and point me to a viable alternative? I am all ears. I have yet to hear one that sounds plausible.


Medication (1.00 / 3) (#62)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 09:46:30 PM EST

May help the fear.


Oh, And (none / 0) (#63)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 09:52:30 PM EST

A good question to think about, was the most excellent question that Helen Thomas asked:

Why do they want to do us harm?


Hate US (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by star on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 08:38:34 AM EST

They hated us long before majority of Americans even knew where Afghanistan was and it really was not BUSH's fault. Embassy bombings, Cole attack and finally 9/11 had nothing to do with anything America did. What they hate is the equality and liberty enjoyed by Americans. and the fact that they are not all MUSLIMS yet. I would know, cause that is what my Imam preached in my quite neighbourhood mosque.

Infact, Had America not helped them covertly , there is no way the ragtag afghans and Mujahids from other arab countries could have defeated the soviets.

America LEFT Afghanistan after helping them for a decade to fight Soviets. It is into that vaccume that Taliban came in and you know what happened to Afghanistan under Taliban.

Unless islamic fundamentalism is not acknowledged for what it is by all - espescially moderate muslims, there will be no end to the mayhem and blooshed.

Sorry (none / 0) (#64)
by Kathy J on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 10:08:35 PM EST

I am sorry Squeaker. I thought this blog was for adults. My mistake. I shall resign from this talk as I can see I am wasting my time looking for intelligent conversation.


: OK By Me (none / 0) (#65)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 10:35:33 PM EST

And just to show you I'm not all that bad here is a link to pro war lobby, it includes lots of names and organizations, and even one blog that is pro war.
A bit outdated, but Blogs of War, seems current.
And DOD live seems good, the best are running it, so it must be good.
Lots on Afghanistan war there.
Oh, and my views are my own and not representative of this blog. Many others may wind up engaging with you, and give you what you are looking for here. So don't jump ship on account of me.

I think two years of actually caring (none / 0) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 11:29:14 AM EST

isn't long enough to know. Two years of actually applying something to the grindstone isn't enough grinding. At the beginning, the early easy inroads of Obama's Afghanistan were amazing. I heard so many people saying...."gee, if only we had done this six years ago where would be today?"

Everyone knew that the hard stuff was up ahead though, and now we are there. And one of things I cannot fault McChrystal for is saying that is a toss up, because that is exactly where we are at now.

We have a much closer relationship with PAKMIL though now than the leaks would longterm indicate. Two years of actually applying ourselves to that problem too have born fruit. Is it enough? I don't know....only something omnipotent has a chance of knowing that at this point.

The fight is getting much much tougher now in a COIN strategy. Even my husband has spoken of going back...already. But Joshua will be in Halo traction soon and I can't do that and do an Afghan tour too. I don't have that stamina. This is the job though that most of them in uniform meant to do if the need arose.

By how much do we have to fix (none / 0) (#18)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 02:27:23 PM EST

the Afghan government to achieve success there?

I liked the seeming situation a couple of years ago: Al Qaeda in caves, a messy Karzai government having supplanted the Taliban, and most important, our guys not taking large numbers of casualties....

We don't need perfection in Afghanistan; a status quo of a couple of years seemed perfectly workable....

But to clean up the Karzai government seems a very tall order....


I wish I knew how much is enough (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:39:32 PM EST

I think we will be playing a role in the region for a very long time. Longer than most of us wants to admit that we suspect.

Some of these reports are everything and the kitchen sink reports from different officers. Much of these reports are from when Afghanistan was very very under resourced, so understand that anything and everything that some commander has heard from any source no matter how fantastical, is going to be in there. They had almost nothing to work with and they were trying to save lives, anticipating and sharing any and all info was very important. Being able to get further verifications was not possible simply because we did not have the people on the ground to get it done.


Maddow's reporting (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:43:36 PM EST

did show that the people of Afghanistan as a whole do not like the Taliban and prefer the U.S. A ray of hope perhaps....

But the Taliban intimidates them.....


Maddow's reporting? (none / 0) (#66)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:25:21 AM EST

I don't watch her, so asking a genuine question. Do you mean that she talked to a half a dozen or so people and they told her they liked the U.S. better, or did she get access to some poll we didn't know about or what?

IOW, what's the basis for the statment?


I don't watch her either (none / 0) (#71)
by CST on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 09:28:19 AM EST

but I have read a number of reports on this matter. The local population really does not like the taliban. They ruled with an iron fist and the population did not do well under them. One way you can tell people really don't like the Taliban is the fact that now they are gone they are quickly taking advantage of many of the newer freedoms available to them. That being said, they will support whomever they think will win and ultimately rule them.

I think the people are scared that at the end of the day the U.S. will leave, everything will go back to the way it was, and those who opposed the Taliban will suffer.

Considering how much people don't like the Taliban, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to hear they like the U.S. better. That doesn't necessarily mean they will support us in this fight though.

One thing I haven't seen out of Afghanistan is a large amount of clamoring from Afghanis for the U.S. to leave. That should be one good indication. I feel like during the height of the Iraq debacle you had a lot of Iraqis speaking up about the fact that they wanted the U.S. out. The fact that we aren't hearing that out of Afghanistan is pretty telling to me.


True, anecdotal mainly (none / 0) (#73)
by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:19:58 PM EST

but also a convass apparently of those with broad experience in Afghanistan.

Maddow spent a week in Afghanistan, doing Walter Cronkite style reporting....MSNBC and NBC are clearly trying to boost her stock as a reporter, but, interestingly, not Tweety or Olbermann.


: a "canvass" apparently of those (none / 0) (#74)
by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:21:19 PM EST

word replacement (none / 0) (#3)
by CoralGables on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:02:18 PM EST

That powerful forces in the Pakistani government are strongly tied to the Taliban should comes as no surprise to anyone.

I can't help but be somewhat amused that sometime ago that same sentence would have been only slightly different and written as...

"That powerful forces in the U.S. government are strongly tied to the Taliban should comes as no surprise to anyone."

I respect your chops, Tent (none / 0) (#5)
by Dadler on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:06:57 PM EST

But I can't understand your rationale for supporting the Afghanistan policy, except in the context of nukes. And if it's fear of jihadis getting nukes or Pakistan's government falling and its nukes going rogue, then our current policy of war and occupation is madness. Never going to gather any critical support by violently going about things as we are, warring and occupying and killing by drone in creepy futuristic nightmares become real.

These wars and occupations are so destructive to our nation, IMO, I would suggest we'd be better served -- and I'm not saying we should do this -- by going to the opposite extreme and disengage, in every possible way, from the entire region, a divorce where the parties never even talk to each other again.

You could argue that, well, the divorcing parties have very troubled "children" and need to maintain a relationship for the kids; but I would reply that the offspring of our misadventures in that part of the world need to be free of ALL "parents" far more than they need any of this war.

Yes, we should be vigilant and police nuclear material as best we possibly can, in cooperative fashion, but short of being clairvoyant...there will ALWAYS exist the chance. Just as there will always exist the chance I will die in a car accident or two hundred people will be incinerated when their airline crashes to earth, or someone will rob me and shoot me in the head.

But I realize one fear is so fearsome it requires, for many people, more "therapy" to deal with.

There's a more practical reason to leave (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Slado on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:16:03 PM EST

We're broke.

Every dollar we are spending there is borrowed from our future and from a program that would actually benefit Americans.

This was originally a justifiable war of revenge and prevention against Al Qaeda.

Now Al Qaeda is spread to the wind and we are left to justify why we are there almost a decade later.

We simply can't afford to keep sending our young women and men to die in a far off land with the money of the Chinese.

We need to declare victory. Leave a small emergency force (because we never really ever leave) and stop roaming the countryside trying to bring a middle ages country into the 21st century.

We can't afford to do it any longer.


: There's an even more practical reason to leave (none / 0) (#49)
by Demi Moaned on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 04:46:01 PM EST

We're making things worse.

The next world war (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:12:55 PM EST

would occur in the Pakistan/India region.

This is in fact, a small part of the entire picture. But not an unimportant one.

I remember an interview I did with Specter about 6 months ago in which he spoke very eloquently about the interface between the Af/Pak situation and the India/Pakistan situation.

Unlike the disastrous and costly Iraq Debacle, there are really big stakes at play here.

Even now, the Iraq Debacle pales in comparison to what is at stake here.

This may not be the way to go, but a strategy is essential here.


I'd.like.to.see.the.argument.that.US. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by observed on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:45:27 PM EST

presence.lessens.the.likelihood.of.war,because.the.opposite.seems.almost.an.axiom.


I agree (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 02:30:48 PM EST

Afghanistan is not Iraq or Vietnam--both of which did not really matter to U.S. security.

I do not see a way that Afghanistan does not matter.....

Perhaps we could leave, and then just come back with limited strikes on al Qaeda bases as needed. Someone said we could have pulled out militarily and come back twice now at the same cost as staying....

This is very tough problem.


To.say.that.Afghanistan.is.more. (none / 0) (#22)
by observed on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 02:33:46 PM EST

important.than.Iraq.with.all.its.oil.reserves,is.such.a.bizarre.premise,that.any.conclusion.has.to.b e.suspect.


We can get oil elsewhere (none / 0) (#23)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 02:42:06 PM EST

Afghanistan is where Al Qaeda is from....

If we allow the Taliban and Al Qaeda to thrive in Afghanistan, then they become stronger in Pakistan too. And, if they get stronger in Pakistan, they could topple the government and get the nukes.....

India would be the first to suffer, but leave no doubt, the U.S. would then be facing an avowed terrorist enemy with nukes.....The Taliban with nukes--maybe give some of the nukes to their ally Al Qaeda?

You are talking about economic imperialism....

The issue is nuclear terrorism. Pakistan has nukes and a delivery system.


Al.Qaeda.is.from.Saudi.Arabia. (none / 0) (#24)
by observed on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 02:48:01 PM EST

: Yes, a Sunni Muslim group (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:11:02 PM EST

Also, drawing adherents from Egypt and other places as well.
Pakistan is largely Sunni....
Iran is Shia, and a majority of Iraq is Shia--this is why an alliance between secular (albeit nominally Sunni) Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda was very unlikely, even in theory.....And why Iran and Iraq (controlled by the Sunnis) tended to balance each other....We had no reason to go into Iraq....We have only made it easier--by knocking off the secular Sunni government--for Shia Iraq to become allied with Shia Iran....
No doubt, the royal Saudis fear the daylights out of Al Qaeda....But they have a strong grasp on power as far as is known--and do not have nukes....
The situation in Pakistan is different--very volatile....With Bhutto being assasinated, and the military playing both ends against the middle, and a strong minority being comprised of Talbian supporters, it is a powder keg....
The key is to weaken the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and it appears we have done that militarily with drone strikes and by keeping Al Qaeda and the Taliban on the run in Afghanistan....Perhaps the drone strikes in Pakistan also hurt the war for hearts and minds but it appears to have had a military impact....
The question is: Could we continue to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda in both Afghanistan and Pakistan from afar? Maybe. But that is a helluva risk. And I don't think a military strategy like that has really worked before. I can't think of any examples? Can you?

Perhaps U.S. should invade Pakistan and India (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:00:12 PM EST

also. We are about to provide the latter with increased civil nuclear capabilities.


We have already invaded portions of (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:15:43 PM EST

Pakistan--in effect--with our military actions there....

I suppose we could pull our troops out of Afghanistan, in recognition of the failures of the Soviets, and the British before us.....

But I would like to see an argument for a strategy that has us washing our hands completely of the region....We will need to be there in one form or fashion. The question is how best to do that....

India?? (none / 0) (#45)
by star on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 04:08:48 PM EST

Why on earth should India be invaded? the largest democracy , have never attacked anyone, been a victim of terrorism way more than USA

It is naive to compare India to Pakistan in any sense. Inspite of repeated provocation from Pak, India has not crossed the border or launched pre emtive l military aggression against any of its neighbors.


: Irony, methinks (none / 0) (#48)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 04:23:23 PM EST

As in since we like invading countries willy-nilly, why not invade India while we're at it?
Our support, going back to the Cold War, of India--a functioning democracy--remains firm....
What makes this a complete mess is that in order to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda we need the Pakistani military on our side--and they are completely bonkers-paranoid over India and Kashmir. Came close to war when Bill was President.....A very tricky tightrope....
India will just have to understand if we play footsie with Pakistan.
Or, shorter version, thank God Hillary is Secretary of State and involved....

Hard call (none / 0) (#26)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 02:55:02 PM EST

We are d@mned if we stay, d@mned if we leave. What Lind of message dies it send to those in the future who wish to do us harm - wait out the US and they will eventually leave? On the other hand, how many more soldiers and innocent civilians must die?


: I don't know how many more civilians (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:23:09 PM EST

I do know that civilian deaths are also the most important part of jihadist attacks. How many more soldiers? I don't know either but they all know what they are putting on the line and they are choosing to.
I will never be okay with sending our troops to slaughter in order to possess some dictator's natural resources. But when our national security and security of the very world itself is on the line, this is why people compete to go to West Point and people get up at 4:00 a.m. to run five miles every morning and eat crappy chowhall food. Afghanistan is what they have all trained so hard for. And such things may not happen on your twenty year watch, and such things may happen. Anyone still in this fight knows that their possible death is on the table though.
If and when my husband goes back, he will be most likely on the roads a lot more. Certain keys things are in place now in safe areas, now they will be putting those key things in more places not so safe. Our national security is on the line though. He's trained his whole life for this. He has made certain that the kids have a home paid for, and college educations in the event of his death. Police officers, fire fighters, so many other people have dangerous jobs too and can lose their lives confronting dangers. I don't know how a career soldier who knows what is on the line is more precious or in this circumstance that much different.

I think you are right about this (none / 0) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:41:21 PM EST

A lot of people think you are right about this.


Strategic region (none / 0) (#42)
by star on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 04:02:31 PM EST

I agree this is a very strategic region mainly in light of it being in the neighborhood of China. The next big change in the world is going to be BY/FOR/ BECAUSE of china.
Even now, war between India and pak is being encouraged and funded(for ISI) and armed by China.
I believe that is a major but shadow reason why USA will maintain a foothold in the region for a foreseeable future.


: China??? (none / 0) (#67)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:29:45 AM EST

Good grief.

The the known-about-all-along (none / 0) (#75)
by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:38:55 PM EST

flash points of India-Pakistan and Israel-Palestine bring even more into focus what a MONUMENTALLY stupid, disastrous and criminal waste of lives, resources and opportunity the Iraq invasion and occupation was.


The idioacy of this policy (none / 0) (#7)
by Buckeye on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 12:13:12 PM EST

is incredible. The Obama administration apparently thinks it can support and promote a corrupt Karzai regime in Afganistan (that is building ties with Russia and Iran who are not friends of Pakistan), increasing Indian presence in Afganistan (in other words, opening a western front to Pakistan's sworn enemy), and then demanding Pakistan help the US and NATO forces against the Taliban. It was Musharraf backing dubya in Afganistan that pushed Pakistan to civil war and is driving the country to become a failed state. Pakistan has no long-term interest in helping the US in Afganistan. This is not going to end well I am afraid.

: We have a nuclear Pakistan (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:39:23 PM EST

With Jihadists nearby that at times have powerful connections within the Pak military. We will be part of some sort of military or CIA action in the region. The only question that actually remains that I can make out is what will that action be?
I prefer to have a military on the ground that can be leaked on verses nobody knows nuthin, the bombs fall from 30,000 feet all the time and who died or who killed who nobody really knows for sure. But that's just me :)

"Stay on target!" (none / 0) (#10)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:35:23 PM EST

This is about war crimes. This is about the murder of innocent men, women and children. The continued US policy of terrorism against the civilian population of Afghanistan will only worsen the situation. Renounce terrorism of all kinds. Their money will dry up, and jihadism will disappear like tears in the rain. JMHO

: Right On! (none / 0) (#12)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:40:21 PM EST

Nice to hear from you Che's Lounge. Don't be a stranger.

: What about the continued terrorism (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:40:34 PM EST

of the jihadists in the region on innocent men, women, and children enacted all over the globe?

Space.bar.not.working.so.I.haven't (none / 0) (#15)
by observed on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:41:46 PM EST

been.commenting,but.I.just.want.to.say.that.the.proper.focus.is.on.how.people.sitting.in.offices.tho usands.of.miles.away.from.the.battle.make.life.and.death.decisions.about.bombing::The.psychological. aspects.of.this.kind.of."fighting".are.very.troubling.especially.when.we.see.the.virtually.indiscrim inate.wholesale.slaughter.of.civilians.carried.out.by.these.faceless.drones.::.

Agreed (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 01:45:23 PM EST

Terrible consequences (none / 0) (#35)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:38:10 PM EST

But what is the way out?

Perhaps better intel before drone strikes....

But no drone strikes at all? Wish that would be the way....

But it appears right now that the drone strikes have weakened the Taliban militarily in Pakistan and given the Pakistani military the upper hand....We do not have to win hearts and minds in Pakistan--just not create too much of a backlash....


The.Taliban.is.weakened??? (none / 0) (#38)
by observed on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:43:36 PM EST

That's.news.to.me...


: In Pakistan (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:47:48 PM EST

I do believe that has been the case....
Not in Afghanistan....
The Pakistani military completed a major military offensive against al Qaeda in their own country....That they could do so without creating an uprising in Pakistan tells us that the military still has control in Pakistan....Taliban is a minority in Pakistan.....

These new "Pentagon Papers" (none / 0) (#19)
by KeysDan on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 02:30:16 PM EST

should affirm for all, what early skeptics felt about the folly of a war strategy that purported to rest upon (a) primarily US military intervention in a civil war, (b) holding the conquered territory just until the Afghans could assume effective governance and security, which meant (i) developing a government where none essentially existed outside Kabul, (ii) relying on a corrupt and inept Karzai as our "man-in-the-plant", and (iii) occupiers winning the minds and hearts of the populace

When all that was said and done, our first arriving troops would be leaving (maybe by 20ll) shortly after the last to arrive. Pakistan would cooperate because getting rid of the Taliban was in their best interest and, besides, they get $1 Billion a year to play with. An update to the ineffectiveness of the strategy as well as to its implementation was provided by one of its key authors and executor, General McChrystal, in Rolling Stone.

"Trust Obama" (none / 0) (#21)
by dk on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 02:33:42 PM EST

Not sure how else to read BTD's conclusion for supporting this war:

Has the Obama strategy worked? I certainly do not know. But I still believe it provides the best chance for success.

If you don't know that it's working, then why would you believe it provides the "best" chance?

"Trust Obama" seems odd coming from BTD. A wise man once told me that pols are pols and do what they do.

Not a trust Obama strategy (none / 0) (#25)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 02:53:45 PM EST

More of a "only viable alternative" strategy.

Perhaps we could leave and just monitor Al Qaeda from afar.....But we have a good idea what Afghanistan would look like without U.S. soldiers--what it did before U.S. involvement: Taliban and Al Qaeda in control.....

Being on the gound in Afghanistan makes it virtually impossible for Al Qaeda to mass there, and more difficult for the Taliban....They are true enemies of the U.S. We let them gain more power at our own peril--especially with nukes next door and madrassas dearly loving to get them.

In some ways, the last 10 years have not been a failure--we have kept Al Qaeda on the run and the Taliban at bay--for the most part....We do not need a corrupt-free Karzai government--just one that keeps Al Qaeda out, and the Taliban out of power except for a few areas....

We do not need to eradicate the poppy crop....Just keep the Taliban off balance and Al Qaeda in caves...


Except Karzai keeps talking about (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:01:55 PM EST

negotiationg with the Taliban and AQ is now also in Yemen. Nigeria? Where else?


: True (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:23:11 PM EST

And who knows, maybe we can negotiate with some Taliban but not others.....
It is a mess.....We do not need clarity or consistency, just a Taliban weakened--militarily or co-opted by bribes makes no difference, and Al Qaeda in their caves....
If it were not for Pakistan, then I would have no problem jumping on your Yemen and Nigeria bandwagon.....But those countries do not have nukes and are not strategically important to U.S. interests....
Pakistan controlled by the Taliban could easily launch against India.....And create untold havoc with their missiles in other ways....and with their alliance with Al Qaeda....
The status quo--but for U.S. casualties--is not bad.

Hasn't Al Queda regrouped in Africa? (none / 0) (#54)
by BackFromOhio on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 07:19:19 PM EST

They are a flexible lot.


What Now? Steve Clemons' take: (none / 0) (#33)
by KeysDan on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:26:04 PM EST

"The question is whether Obama has the backbone and temerity to reframe this engagement and stop the hemorrhaging of American lives and those of allies as well as the gross expenditures of funds for a war that shows a diminished America that is killing hundreds of innocent people and lying about it, of an enemy that is animated and funded in part by our supposed allies in Pakistan, and U.S. tolerance for a staggering level of abuse, incompetence and corruption in our Afghan allies and the Karzai government. The Washington Note, July 26.

Probably true (none / 0) (#34)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:31:38 PM EST

But what is the alternative?

Just leaving?


Well, certainly (none / 0) (#40)
by KeysDan on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:53:01 PM EST

we should start by leaving this strategy and its tactics.


Sure, a better strategy would be good (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 04:02:44 PM EST

But what strategy?

Better implementation of the existing?.....Tweaking it some?....

Abandoning any any attempt to have troops control the country?

We can't just do what the Republicans do on the domestic agenda and just say "no." We have got to have an alternative....What is that?


What alternative? (none / 0) (#50)
by KeysDan on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 05:10:18 PM EST

Well, in my view, this is upside down. The burden of demonstrating success and what that means, is on the Administration. From my perspective these observations are known, knowns: We have a war of nine years, with vintage objectives, newer model strategies and old-fashioned collateral damage. After two years of the new and improved strategy, the success of the military component seems to be mixed at best (see Barg-e-Mahtal, Marja and re-positioning on Kandahar); corruption and malfeasance of the the Afghan government are unabated, and the nation-building necessary to the strategy still out-of-reach and, probably, reality. The unpredictability and unreliability of Karzai just adds to the soup. The Taliban have not been weakened, although we are getting into the single digits in the al Qaeda department.

The first step would be to recognize that the "successes" being sold are false illusions, the second step would be undertake a fundamental re-thinking. Can any alternative to those "on-the-table" do much better than the failed one? Or maybe it has not failed, and if we just keeping doing the same thing over and over again, it will get better. Or, we withdraw all combat troops and work on transactional diplomacy and intelligence (of all kinds).


"Transactional diplomacy" with (none / 0) (#51)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 05:44:18 PM EST

Al Qaeda?

Perhaps with some elements of the Taliban.

Yes, we need an alternative--this is not a rhetorical exercise; we will need to do something in Afghanistan.

I do not think the last 10 years have been a complete failure. What has happened is that U.S. casualties have increased.

If you define success as a corruption-free Afghan government and complete elimination of the Taliban, then we have not had success.

If you define success as elimination of Al Qaeda as a functioning military force in Afghanistan, then we have been very successful indeed. If you also define it as marginalizing the Taliban, then the results are mixed, with the Taliban gaining more ground--in Afghanistan--recently.

The corruption of the Karzai government is not the key issue. If we can keep the Taliban in a box--of some dimensions--to prevent it from running the country, then corruption is not paramount. To be sure, better to be rid of it, but creating a functioning, corrupt-free democracy should never be a goal of ours in Afghanistan.

And I don't think a corrupt-free Karzai government is necessary to convincing the people to shy away from the Taliban. The people who side with Taliban apparently do so because they worry the Taliban will kill them if they don't, not because they are frustrated with Karzai-style corruption--at least that appeared to be the upshot of the Maddow reporting.

We don't need a Wilsonian, idealized democracy here. We need not nation build. We need to militarily isolate the Taliban. As part of that, some nation building etc., may be helpful--but it is at most the means not the ends....


Where does Pakistan (none / 0) (#55)
by BackFromOhio on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 07:22:48 PM EST

come in under your alternative?


Strengthening ties between India (5.00 / 0) (#56)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:24:16 PM EST

and Pakistan is a good place to start, and though I have little fondness for Holbrooke based on is past preformances he was hard at it today.

Nobody is sitting on their hands anymore or ignoring the obvious. Everyone is working their tails off. If Holbrooke achieves some success in his endeavor I might even have to give him a second chance or something.


Thanks, MT (none / 0) (#57)
by BackFromOhio on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:27:06 PM EST

will read on subway ride home.

My question was actually addressed to MKS....


: Sorry for butting in (none / 0) (#59)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 08:34:19 PM EST

I really do not have a preferred (none / 0) (#72)
by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:15:23 PM EST

alternative. I am quite persuadable on this issue.

As to Pakistan, that is the most important component--because it has nukes and the missiles to deliver them, and because there are enough of the Taliban and religious extremists to make a coup or revolution a very real possibility.

Strengthening the ties between India and Pakistan is important. But the real tricky issue is how to deal with the Pakistani military. We need them to control Pakistan, so that the Taliban does not. But we would also like a democracy in Pakistan--mebbe. The assassination of Bhutto was a huge blow....

But from a cynical, U.S.-interests point of view, as long as the Pakistani military and the ISI (Pakistani intelligence service) are in control of Pakistan and supporting the U.S., we have achieved success. But the ISI and the Pakistani military have supported the Taliban in the past....We have to stop them from doing that to any significant degree in the future. We have apparently been trying to bribe them with $1 billion a year in aid. But the ISI has notoriously played both sides against the middle for a long time....

And, apparently the ISI and Pakistani military could stop the Taliban in their tracks in Afghanistan if they wanted to.

So, rather than winning the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan, we need to win the hearts and minds of the Pakistani military and the ISI. A few shekels may help.


I see this argument as a huge copout (none / 0) (#44)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 04:03:50 PM EST

Some strategy is going to be used in the region. Joe Biden, James Jones, Holbrooke....they all want a small footprint and rely on bombing from the air much more than we do.

I think we all have to have a plan to use instead if we are going to argue against what is in place and has only been in place for less than two years. There are people out there who have a different plan that will be put forth, has been put forth if this plan fails, and it is nothing greater than fewer soldiers on the ground and much much more bombing. I don't intend to allow them to have their bombing free for all by winning my argument that we must leave now.


This half-in, half out (none / 0) (#46)
by MKS on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 04:13:43 PM EST

strategy may sound good: We get to have our cake and eat it too; fewer U.S. troops on the ground and thus fewer at risk.....and we still have a hand in militarily confronting Al Qaeda....

But it seems more like a domestic political compromise on the way to admitting defeat and withdrawing entirely.....and I don't see that as a viable option....


: I'm resigned to never saying (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 04:23:01 PM EST

we won anything in Afghanistan. To steal the words used by many military leaders at this time, this will look like an argument settled.
I'm happy with some sort of stabilizing. And I take General Petraues' recent actions enabling new covert CIA operations as a bad sign too of where we are in all this. I don't think we get to win in this, I think the majority of us in the end get to live. I would like as many Afghans and Paks to get the same win.

yes (none / 0) (#41)
by DancingOpossum on Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:54:52 PM EST

Why is "just leaving" never an option when it comes to our bloody overseas misadventures? The damage we are wreaking in both Iraq and Afghanistan is incalculable and it amounts to pure evil. There's no other word for it. I have not been persuaded by a single rationale for our presence in Afghanistan, certainly not one that justifies the ongoing war crimes being committed daily by our brave boys in uniform, and certainly nothing that doesn't have the trappings of neocon arguments for our Iraq debacle (with Iran coming next).

whoops (none / 0) (#70)
by DancingOpossum on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 09:22:16 AM EST

meant to add, our "success" includes indiscriminately killing some of their children too.

Af/Pak: What Now?

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment