Recommended Posts
nerdgirl 0
The most insightful, meaningful, and non-partisan, imo, challenges w/r/t the Afghan strategy came earlier this morning from Sen Dick Lugar (R-IN) during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) testimony on Afghanistan: The Road Ahead. Sen Lugar’s opening statement.
Foxnews.com article “Afghanistan Plan ‘Incomplete’ Without Pakistan Push, Lugar Says,” which catches only about a quarter of what Sen Lugar emphasized, again im-ever--ho. E.g., misses emphasis, at the start, that Sen Lugar made on civil-military coordination, nuclear Pakistan, and recognition of the value of not making quick decisions just because that might be politically popular:
As I type SecDef Gates is testifying (pop-up link from the SFRC site, probably available via C-SPAN too) and talking about Charlie Wilson and the “mistake” (from the days when he was CIA) of only supplying guns but not pursuing reconstruction efforts.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Foxnews.com article “Afghanistan Plan ‘Incomplete’ Without Pakistan Push, Lugar Says,” which catches only about a quarter of what Sen Lugar emphasized, again im-ever--ho. E.g., misses emphasis, at the start, that Sen Lugar made on civil-military coordination, nuclear Pakistan, and recognition of the value of not making quick decisions just because that might be politically popular:
“the advocacy of the President and his national security team must be as broad-minded and thorough as his policy review appeared to be.”
As I type SecDef Gates is testifying (pop-up link from the SFRC site, probably available via C-SPAN too) and talking about Charlie Wilson and the “mistake” (from the days when he was CIA) of only supplying guns but not pursuing reconstruction efforts.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
jcd11235 0
QuoteCarter authorized covert funding to forces that were in opposition to the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, not because they were socialist, but because it was an effort to weaken the Soviet Union.
I think the distinction is largely semantics. We opposed the USSR primarily due to their socialist economic system.
QuoteThe equality-centered government of the PDRA …, was popular with urban Afghans, but was not popular with rural farmers, that preferred Islamic rule.
That sounds very similar to the political climate in the USA, except that the US rural residents tend to favor Christian rule rather than Islamic rule (not that Christian rule is any better/worse).
QuoteCarter attempted to use that as a way to create a resistance to the PDRA, so that the neighboring Soviet government would become more isolated. The end result was that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
Carter began supporting the mujahideen terrorists as a way increase the probability of a Soviet invasion. According to Carter's national security advisor, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a 1998 interview:
According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
…
We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
…
That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
The September 11 attacks were al Qaeda's way of initiating the same strategy against the USA. They wanted the USA to commit troops in Afghanistan, aka the graveyard of empires, where powerful occupying forces still face defeat, the British lost there in the nineteenth century, The Soviets lost there in the twentieth century, and now, in the twenty-first century, the USA (and our allies) are losing there.
It appears that the folks in the Pentagon are unwilling and/or unable to learn from history. At least they aren't trying to fight a war on two fronts- oh, wait, yes they are.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
In his interview, Dr. Brzezinski adds:
What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
…
[Islamic fundamentalism does not represent a global threat today.] It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
It would appear that Dr. Brzezinski failed to consider the long term consequences of direct and indirect support for jihadists by the USA.
QuoteAfghanistan was no more than a pawn on the chessboard of the Cold War.
Agreed. Our interference was an implementation of the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" philosophy during the cold war. Unfortunately, that philosophy can be dangerous, such as it was with Operation Cyclone. Our cold war enemy was supporting a government that promised secular rule of the Afghanis.
Our direct and indirect support of the mujahideen terrorists was a huge foreign policy mistake that left few, if any, people better off. Afghanis lost, Americans lost, and the Soviets lost. The Taliban and other mujahideen groups made out well, though.
QuoteOf course, the Soviets tried to do the same thing to us, which resulted in the Cuban missile crises.
Soviet support of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam is more analogous, IMO.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
QuoteWe opposed the USSR primarily due to their socialist economic system.
Are you sure about that? I thought it was their funny hats and accent.
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Quoteand recognition of the value of not making quick decisions just because that might be politically popular:
I have posted in the past that I had confidence that Obama taking time to make a decision would not affect the recommended timeline. The reason I said this because he could have made sure preparations were being made by the military while he took time to decide. The link below gives me reason to believe this was not the case.
Now I can say the war in Afghanistan is officially Obama's.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/03/afghanistan.troop.issues/index.html
www.FourWheelerHB.com
kallend 2,150
QuoteQuoteand recognition of the value of not making quick decisions just because that might be politically popular:
I have posted in the past that I had confidence that Obama taking time to make a decision would not affect the recommended timeline. The reason I said this because he could have made sure preparations were being made by the military while he took time to decide. The link below gives me reason to believe this was not the case.
Now I can say the war in Afghanistan is officially Obama's.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/03/afghanistan.troop.issues/index.html
You can say officially what you like.
I can say that the reason there is a quagmire in Afghanistan is officially Bush's incompetence.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
nerdgirl 0
QuoteNow I can say the war in Afghanistan is officially Obama's.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/03/afghanistan.troop.issues/index.html
Thanks for the link. Logistics … the not-so-sexy but oh-so-critical side of military operations.
Remember the issue with Manas AB in Kyrgyzstan? As of mid-November, it’s still unresolved … & Russia has been/is playing international politics. (I think they Kyrgyz President failed to sign the bill … so back to Parliament … I think.) NATO forces from France and Belgium were forced off Manas AB and are using a base in Tajikistan, iirc.
On the topic of President Obama’s announcement & whose war something is or isn't (but not related to logistics): “Statement of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan [i.e., the ‘official’ name of the Taliban - nerdgirl] Regarding Obama’s New Strategy.” Interesting & quick read, imo, but no major surprises. They deny having bases in Pakistan, claim they’re not the bad guys (the “deceit”[ful] US/west is), and blame President Bush too: “it [OEF/NATO ISAF] has been formulated under the pressure of (army) generals of Pentagon, the American Neo-conservatives and the wealthiest fews [sic] of America and for the protection of their interests.” The Taliban statment is largely formulated for the domestic Afghan-Pashtun audience and parts of the US domestic audience, imo. There’s a brand new entry on the site on “Who Are [sic] Responsible for the Anarchy in Afghanistan?” too. (Short answer: it’s our fault.)
In addition to posting an English language version, the Taliban also translate also into Urdu, “Persian” (Farsi), and Arabic. Strategic communications redux, eh? “It is just plain embarrassing that al-Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the internet than America”? USCENTCOM has Farsi and Arabic versions too. The Taliban (& other Islamists/jihadists sites) started posting translations well before we did. NATO ISAF is in English only.
By a skein of logic (that may only be apparent to me sitting here at DCA
-[at myself]), you’ve got me thinking about what President Obama & his DoD is doing w/r/t strategic communications – thanks! JFQ this past summer. I’m having trouble bringing op the piece; it’s written about here from UK’s The Guardian "Mullen blasts US 'strategic communication' efforts in Afghanistan." Something for me to further look into. As one of my favorite Marines might say, it’s 4GW.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
the alemarah.info site is down apparently
www.FourWheelerHB.com
nerdgirl 0
Quotethe alemarah.info site is down apparently
The pages are loading for me. So not sure whether it's my coimputer/connection or something else?
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Probably because they're cached on your pc... otherwise I don't know.
www.FourWheelerHB.com
mnealtx 0
QuoteSo not sure whether it's my coimputer/connection or something else?
It's all about the Cray!
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,150
nerdgirl 0
Hmmm … I’ve accessed the site successfully from three different computers. Anyone else able to access the site yesterday? Cause now I’m curious. I’ve got a couple speculations … but would like to add a couple more data points.
Attached pdf versions of the statements.
I think the banners, which don’t show up in the pdf versions (had to size for dz.com limits) are interesting too, imo. The English language version of the Voices of Jihad site incorporates only a version of the traditional seal of Afghanistan. The other language versions (Pashto, Urdu, Farsi/Dari, and Arabic) use the white Taliban flag with the Shahada Islamic creed, i.e., “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God” in Arabic on a blue background. They are specifically altering internet-based propaganda to the (anticipated) audience.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Attached pdf versions of the statements.
I think the banners, which don’t show up in the pdf versions (had to size for dz.com limits) are interesting too, imo. The English language version of the Voices of Jihad site incorporates only a version of the traditional seal of Afghanistan. The other language versions (Pashto, Urdu, Farsi/Dari, and Arabic) use the white Taliban flag with the Shahada Islamic creed, i.e., “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God” in Arabic on a blue background. They are specifically altering internet-based propaganda to the (anticipated) audience.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Quote“it [OEF/NATO ISAF] has been formulated under the pressure of (army) generals of Pentagon, the American Neo-conservatives and the wealthiest fews [sic] of America and for the protection of their interests.”
"It" being Obama's strategy so I don't necessarily see that as blaming Bush as much as I see it as an attempted low blow at Obama. Not to say Bush isn't responsible for the current situation in Afghanistan but I don't feel giving Obama amnesty when it comes to future failures in Afghanistan while giving him credit for all the successes is fair for the American and Afghan people. Especially the Afghan people. If we allow Obama a scapegoat for future failures then what is his motiviation to make the right decision? This is why I personally wanted a specific time so I could appoint the War in Afghanistan as officially Obama's war. He needs to be held accountable. With Obama disregarding the General's recommendation of 40,000 more troops, he made it easy for me.
Remember from September of 2008 "a surge won't work in Afghanistan"? I do. How do we go from that to a year long 30,000 strong troop surge strategy 14 months later? Perhaps this was a major part of the delay in decision making these past couple of months.
QuoteAs one of my favorite Marines might say, it’s 4GW.
Tell him I think the 4GW thing is shite and only serves to close minds through oversimplification rather than open them as it was intended.
www.FourWheelerHB.com
[ChurchLadyVoice] Could it beee Say-tunn?[/CLV]
Lobbing me the slow balls...
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites