|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 9, 2011 1:42:54 GMT -5
Afghan Sitrep: A Grunt from the Front Sounds OffLa Ciotat, France Inside Versailles on the Potomac, pressure is building on President Obama to reduce his promised withdrawal of combat troops in Afghanistan to a cosmetic level, and perhaps more to the point, to protect the defense budget from efforts to reduce the deficit. The two -- i.e., perpetual war and the defense budget -- are joined at the hip (as I explained here). The Pentagon's mouthpieces in thinktanks are therefore dutifully filling the op-ed pages with fact-free arguments to justify continuing the ten year war unabated. Attached below is a more informed, less self-interested view. It is from an email written by an active duty colonel who travels all over Afghanistan. For obvious reasons, he must remain anonymous, but it came to me from a trusted source. This colonel, unlike many of his peers, actually goes on foot patrols with troops to see things for himself. His message, which is only a few days old, is bad Ju Ju, I am afraid.
I urge readers to also read the op-ed links embedded in in the colonel's email and then compare their intellectual content the Patrick Seale's essay, Washington Wrestles with Afghan Options. Ask yourself who is better plugged into reality: The colonel and Seale or O'Hanlon and the Kagans?
Chuck Spinney
The Blaster
-----------------
Email to Col XXX
The mendacity is getting so egregious that I am fast losing the ability to remain quiet; these yarns of "significant progress" are being covered up by the blood and limbs of hundreds - HUNDREDS - of American uniformed service members each and every month, and you know that the rest of this summer is going to see the peak of that bloodshed.
The article by Michael O'Hanlon last week (i.e. Success worth paying for in Afghanistan) and the one in today's WSJ by Kagan and Kagan (i.e., We Have the Momentum in Afghanistan) made me sick to my stomach - especially the latter. Have you seen it yet? It is the most breathless piece of yellow journalism I've seen in the entire OIF-OEF generation.
According to the Kagans, "If Mr. Obama announces the withdrawal of all surge forces from Afghanistan in 2012, the war will likely be lost. Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and other global terrorist groups will almost certainly re-establish sanctuaries in Afghanistan. The Afghan state would likely collapse and the country would descend into ethnic civil war. The outcome of this withdrawal policy would be far worse than Nixon's decision to accept defeat in Vietnam, for it would directly increase the threat to the American homeland. Apparently they forgot, "there's a commie behind every bush," "the Russians are coming!" and "if Vietnam falls, all of Asia falls to the Communists!" That logic was absurd in the 1960/70s, and its even more laughable today - or it would be laughable if it didn't cost so damn many American lives to prop up the fantasy.
These people are actually arguing for increased involvement. In fact, they are saying that we should expect high casualties this summer (after which - without explanation - we'll have beaten the TB in the south), then we'll move the troops up to RC-East where there's still a lot of fighting - and as a result, we'll have another spike in the 'fighting season' of 2013, after which (according to the neat schedule the Kagans map out) we'll be ready to hand over control of the country to GoIRA and the ANSF on schedule in 2014.
It's sheer madness, and so far as I can tell, in the mainstream media and reputable publications, it is going almost entirely without challenge.
Colonel YYY
battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/06/08/afghan-sitrep-a-grunt-from-the-front-sounds-off/?xid=huffpo-direct
NOTE: There are embedded links in the above article that can only be accessed by clicking on the main link.
|
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 9, 2011 2:02:52 GMT -5
|
|
pappyjohn99
Familiar Member
The driveway needs a little work.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 1:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 928
|
Post by pappyjohn99 on Jun 9, 2011 2:38:31 GMT -5
Lakhota, this is the best piece you have ever posted.  Yes, the comments are right on as well. |
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 9, 2011 2:47:21 GMT -5
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 9, 2011 2:57:21 GMT -5
Washington Wrestles with Afghan OptionsObama seems to give more weight to the war-mongers among his advisers than the peace-makers. He has failed to make peace between the Arabs and Israel. Is he to fail in Afghanistan also? Asks Patrick Seale. Middle East Online What is President Barack Obama’s biggest foreign policy headache? Is it China’s emergence as a global rival? Is it the tricky relationship with a sullen Russia? Is it holding back a belligerent Israel from attacking Iran? Or is it America’s failure to pressure Israel to make peace with the Palestinians and the damage this must inevitably cause to U.S. relations with the whole Arab world, and especially with the young revolutionaries of the “Arab Spring”? There is little doubt that these highly important questions preoccupy a great many people in Washington. But they are overshadowed by an even more difficult and more urgent problem: what to do about Afghanistan. America’s Afghan war has now lasted ten years, with no end in sight and no credible exit strategy. NATO has deployed 140,000 men in Afghanistan, of which 100,000 are American. Combat operations are planned to continue until the end of 2014, if not beyond -- in other words, for another three to four years of agony. So far, some 1,500 American service men and men have been killed in action in Afghanistan and another 11,500 wounded. These casualties are painful enough, but the really spectacular figures are in dollars rather than in lives. The war has so far cost the United States $420bn (about half the cost of the catastrophic Iraq war.) The bill in Afghanistan for this fiscal year alone is estimated at $113bn, with another $107bn earmarked for 2012. These are colossal sums. If spent on job creation they could have transformed the Arab world or Africa. They could have resolved the Palestine refugee problem, brought drinking water to millions, eradicated diseases, and much else besides. They could have done great things in repairing America’s own dilapidated infrastructure. But they have been squandered on an unwinnable war. In the words of Senator John Kerry, expenditure on this scale is simply “unsustainable,” especially at a time of America’s soaring federal deficits. Not the least of the many absurdities of the Afghan war is the $28bn the United States has spent beefing up the Afghan army, which now numbers close to 350,000 men. The Pentagon has asked for another $12.8bn for 2012. But who will pay for this inflated army when the U.S. withdraws? No Afghan government could conceivably afford such a luxury. Will the U.S. be condemned to foot the bill for the foreseeable future? The situation in Afghanistan cannot be separated from the almost equally dire situation across the border in Pakistan: hence the American appellation of ‘Afpak’ to describe the joint theatre of operations. These two fragile states, one of them a nuclear power, are home to some 200 million people, many of them poor, angry and extremely hostile to America because of the death and destruction which war has brought to their lives. The danger of large-scale social and political chaos is ever-present. Most observers of the Afghan scene agree that there is no military solution to the conflict, only a political one. But how, when and by whom can this solution be brought about? The Obama administration does not seem to have put its mind to answering these questions with sufficient urgency. The argument in Washington tends to be about force levels in Afghanistan, rather than about peace. Vice-President Joe Biden is known to favour a reasonably rapid drawdown of U.S. forces. He was none too keen on a ‘surge’ in U.S. forces in the first place, although Obama went ahead and agreed to send an extra 30,000 men. Another leading adviser who expressed doubts to Obama about the wisdom of maintaining high force levels in Afghanistan was General James Cartwright of the Marine Corps. Obama liked and respected him and intended to nominate him to replace Admiral Mike Mullen as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But Cartwright has been passed over. His mistake was to take his advice straight to the President without informing Admiral Mullen and Defence Secretary Robert Gates, both enthusiastic backers of the troops’ surge. The job of chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- in effect chief military adviser of the President -- is going to General Martin Dempsey, at present head of the U.S. army. Cartwright has paid the price and is retiring. General David Petraeus, overall commander in Afghanistan, was the leading advocate of the ‘surge’. He was evidently hoping to replicate in Afghanistan the success he had with a ‘surge’ in Iraq. But Petraeus is due to leave Afghanistan in September when he takes over as director of the CIA. These different views illustrate the current disputes in Washington and among its allies. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a powerful voice in the current debate, opposes a reduction in America’s force levels. “To reduce the force would be a mistake,” he told Britain’s Financial Times in an interview published on 31 May. “We don’t want to leave a security vacuum in the country after we have gone.” His argument was that “maintaining high military pressure [on the Taliban] facilitates the reconciliation process.” In the view of many experts, this is a highly doubtful conclusion. Rasmussen’s motives are suspect. His main concern would seem to be to maintain NATO’s prestige. He may think that anything like a scuttle out of Afghanistan would damage the Alliance’s image. Whereas Rasmussen favours continued counter-insurgency operations requiring large numbers of men, other experts recommend that the United States should switch its focus to counter-terrorist operations, which require only small hard-hitting teams, such as the one which killed Bin Laden. Others still argue that it is utter folly for America to hunt down and kill the Afghan Taliban since they are the very people with whom a political settlement will eventually have to be negotiated. On this view, an atmosphere suitable for peace talks should be created by reducing missile attacks by unmanned drones, as well as air strikes and night raids on residential areas, all of which inevitably kill civilians. A NATO air strike on 28 May killed 14 Afghan civilians, including 11 children, aged 2 to 7. A furious President Hamid Karzai issued a ‘last’ warning to NATO to cease such attacks. NATO made an apology. But the damage was done. In an article in the International Herald Tribune on 24 March, Lakhdar Brahimi, a former UN special representative for Afghanistan, and Thomas Pickering, a former U.S. under secretary of state, recommended that a “neutral international facilitator” be appointed to explore with all potential parties the possibility of a negotiated end to the conflict. The facilitator, they wrote, could be a person, a group, an international organisation, a neutral state, or a group of states. A settlement, they added, would require making room for Taliban representatives in central and provincial governments as well as guaranteeing that foreign forces would be withdrawn. Financial aid would be necessary -- no doubt only a fraction of what the war is costing -- as well as some way for the international community to keep the peace and enforce any agreement reached. This is the voice of wisdom. So far, however, Obama seems to give more weight to the war-mongers among his advisers than the peace-makers. He has failed to make peace between the Arabs and Israel. Is he to fail in Afghanistan also? Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East. His latest book is The Struggle for Arab Independence: Riad el-Solh and the Makers of the Modern Middle East (Cambridge University Press). www.middle-east-online.com/ENGLISH/?id=46516
|
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 9, 2011 3:26:39 GMT -5
Ryan Crocker, Ambassador Nominee: Goal In Afghanistan Is Not 'Hopeless' WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's choice for U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan insisted on Wednesday that the United States must continue its multibillion-dollar investment to achieve a "good enough" government in Kabul that would prevent the country from backsliding into a sanctuary for terrorists. Ryan Crocker was challenged repeatedly by skeptical senators who questioned a costly war now in its 10th year and nation building that a fresh congressional report found has had limited success despite nearly $19 billion in foreign aid over a decade. That's more than the United States has spent in any other country, including Iraq. "Our current commitment, in troops and dollars, is neither proportional to our interests nor sustainable," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Looming large as senators pressed Crocker to state an Afghanistan end game was Obama's upcoming decision on how many of the 100,000 American troops to withdraw from Afghanistan in July. The killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, reservations about unreliable ally Pakistan and significant U.S. budget constraints have forced even the more hawkish members of Congress to rethink continued U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. More: www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/ryan-crocker-ambassador-hearing-afghanistan_n_873413.htmlJust more warmongering bullshit.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 9, 2011 11:15:02 GMT -5
I'm fairly hawkish, but I don't see why we need to be in Afghanistan anymore.
We can make it clear that is some country allows terrorist to use it as a base to launch an attack on us, we will respond with disproportionate overwhelming force.
Unfortunately we do need to keep forces in the region because our vital interests are so closely tied to oil, but we can station them in "safer' non-combat areas where they can be ready to respond as needed.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293 
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 9, 2011 11:16:03 GMT -5
Just bring the troops home. We can't afford more troops in Afghanistan. If the Taliban comes back, just nuke them.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 9, 2011 11:28:27 GMT -5
I don't have a clue why we are still in the Afghan...we are spending billions there to restore their infrastructure while ours is falling apart, we are spending billions there for their schools and hospitals while ours are firing employees for lack of funds, we are spending billions on their military while many of them are killing our troops, we are spending billions on their weapons and equipment while funds for ours is going to be drastically cut.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that the Afghan is a waste of my taxes...and want to see that money spent here and not there
Congressman Ron Paul is trying to get a bil to the floor to debate this Afghan funding but so far he has been told to stuff it up his old wahzooooooo..
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 9, 2011 11:37:58 GMT -5
Every single sent that goes to the military instead of tax cuts is money wasted.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 9, 2011 11:42:31 GMT -5
Every single sent that goes to the military instead of tax cuts is money wasted. Excuse me for pointing a little know fact of life that money going to the military for pay and allowances including pension is not money wasted. I try my damnest to not waste my military pension ...and I have to account to the Powers To Be for every red cent...in case you are curious ?? |
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 9, 2011 11:47:26 GMT -5
Every single sent that goes to the military instead of tax cuts is money wasted. Excuse me for pointing a little know fact of life that money going to the military for pay and allowances including pension is not money wasted. I try my damnest to not waste my military pension ...and I have to account to the Powers To Be for every red cent...in case you are curious ?? There is no pension in the private sector. We need to get rid of pensions in the public sector. It is bankrupting this country. We can't afford to pay for pensions or Social Security. People should have saved for their own retirement. If they didn't they can live in the streets for all I care. I would rather have my money back in the form of tax cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 9, 2011 11:54:12 GMT -5
OK you may see some pension reforms ..ie means tests or eliminate COLA are being considered by congress
Edited on the advice of my attorney to remove personal data
.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Jun 9, 2011 11:54:57 GMT -5
This entire mess has been brought on by the naivety of liberal progressives who advocate bringing in millions of people from vastly different cultures who naturally do not like the American way and even plot against the country that took in their sorry asses from the hellholes they came from. The cost of the wars is not even close to the total burden which includes massive security infrastructures and a whole new federal department, Homeland Security. And to boot, millions of real Americans are inconvenienced every day at airports and other hubs of travel. With the support terrorists get from progressives it has been an easy campaign to bankrupt America, and they have succeeded as is perfectly clear.
Dalton McGuinty Burns III
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 9, 2011 11:55:49 GMT -5
There is no pension in the private sector. We need to get rid of pensions in the public sector. It is bankrupting this country. We can't afford to pay for pensions or Social Security. People should have saved for their own retirement. If they didn't they can live in the streets for all I care. I would rather have my money back in the form of tax cuts. ...[/quote] Look, I am personally sorry for your situation but I don't think America can afford a big military any more. The budget deficits are ridiculous. <post modified by moon because something was wrong with the quoting which was making everything else squish off to the right> |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 9, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
OK, but if you are as student of Military History when our government cut the Pentagon Budget it costs us later. Carter cut the Defense Budget but he used an Axe instead of a scapel..IMHO
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 15:19:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2011 12:30:54 GMT -5
I agree that we should find a way to get out of Afghanistan. I really could care less if there is a revolution there after we are out & everybody kills everybody else.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 9, 2011 13:33:42 GMT -5
Excuse me for pointing a little know fact of life that money going to the military for pay and allowances including pension is not money wasted. I try my damnest to not waste my military pension ...and I have to account to the Powers To Be for every red cent...in case you are curious ?? mmmm, think I have heard this before from you, on ALL your posts, got your thoughts. There is no pension in the private sector. We need to get rid of pensions in the public sector. It is bankrupting this country. We can't afford to pay for pensions or Social Security. People should have saved for their own retirement. If they didn't they can live in the streets for all I care. I would rather have my money back in the form of tax cuts.   |
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 9, 2011 15:25:23 GMT -5
I agree but don't think I want to give up my military pension, life insurance or medical plan.....now that I am too old to return to the military or come out of retirement, and don't get much from Social Security since I never contributed to that plan while on active duty status...but I see where you are coming from and perhaps means tests might be a way to go for military pensions...Look, I am personally sorry for your situation but I don't think America can afford a big military any more. The budget deficits are ridiculous. <post modified by moon because something was wrong with the quoting which was making everything else squish off to the right> I'm always a little skeptical of people from both extremes that say they don't care about other people, both those who say that they don't care if others have to pay more in taxes as long as they gets theirs and those that say they don't care and we should just throw people in the streets. |
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 9, 2011 15:49:56 GMT -5
Look, I am personally sorry for your situation but I don't think America can afford a big military any more. The budget deficits are ridiculous. <post modified by moon because something was wrong with the quoting which was making everything else squish off to the right> I'm always a little skeptical of people from both extremes that say they don't care about other people, both those who say that they don't care if others have to pay more in taxes as long as they gets theirs and those that say they don't care and we should just throw people in the streets. There is a big difference. One group is trying to mooch off of others, and the other group is trying to protect what is theirs. |
|
❤ mollymouser ❤
Senior Associate
Sarcasm is my Superpower
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 12,857 
Today's Mood: Gen X ... so I'm sarcastic and annoyed
Location: Central California
Favorite Drink: Diet Mountain Dew
|
Post by ❤ mollymouser ❤ on Jun 9, 2011 16:02:03 GMT -5
I would love to see us end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. And, heck, Libya. (And let's not go to war in Yemen!)
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 9, 2011 16:03:21 GMT -5
I would love to see us end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. And, heck, Libya. (And let's not go to war in Yemen!) |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 15:19:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2011 20:09:50 GMT -5
There is no pension in the private sector. We need to get rid of pensions in the public sector. It is bankrupting this country. We can't afford to pay for pensions or Social Security. People should have saved for their own retirement. If they didn't they can live in the streets for all I care. I would rather have my money back in the form of tax cuts.
First I'll say that I don't know what military pay is like now because I haven't kept up with it.
I will say that when I was earning my pension part of the package was that I was being paid a LOT less than the going rate for even migrant workers. Yes, less even than minimum wage. That's why they offered a retirement, to try to keep people in the military while they were working for sub standard pay. Basically what they did was defer that money to later in life (rob Peter to pay Paul 20 years later). My retirement is set off of the base pay that I earned when I retired. We live pretty well because we both earned a retirement & live in a LCOL area. Not because we are paid so much that we can use even dollar bills to light our stove.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 9, 2011 20:17:31 GMT -5
There is no pension in the private sector. We need to get rid of pensions in the public sector. It is bankrupting this country. We can't afford to pay for pensions or Social Security. People should have saved for their own retirement. If they didn't they can live in the streets for all I care. I would rather have my money back in the form of tax cuts.First I'll say that I don't know what military pay is like now because I haven't kept up with it. I will say that when I was earning my pension part of the package was that I was being paid a LOT less than the going rate for even migrant workers. Yes, less even than minimum wage. That's why they offered a retirement, to try to keep people in the military while they were working for sub standard pay. Basically what they did was defer that money to later in life (rob Peter to pay Paul 20 years later). My retirement is set off of the base pay that I earned when I retired. We live pretty well because we both earned a retirement & live in a LCOL area. Not because we are paid so much that we can use even dollar bills to light our stove. Not exactly poverty level, plus you get free room and board, healthcare, education funding, so you have to take all of that into account. More importantly, these folks would be WalMart greeters otherwise in many cases. It's not like they gave up a great career to join the military. So they are already being overpaid. Finally, the county can't afford to pay so much. Do you know what the deficit is? |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 9, 2011 20:23:10 GMT -5
First I'll say that I don't know what military pay is like now because I haven't kept up with it.
You can find the pension pay on the military webpages..
I can give you a swag and the average for an enlisted with 20 years of service average pension =@ $1300.00 per month...
But you can google military pay and pensions to get a better average if you are interested....any my swag may be not that accurate but in the ballpark, I think??
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 9, 2011 20:28:23 GMT -5
Why you gotta put down Walmart greeters like that bro? Tru dat, mon. |
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 9, 2011 20:29:07 GMT -5
First I'll say that I don't know what military pay is like now because I haven't kept up with it. You can find the pension pay on the military webpages..
I can give you a swag and the average for an enlisted with 20 years of service average pension =@ $1300.00 per month...But you can google military pay and pensions to get a better average if you are interested....any my swag may be not that accurate but in the ballpark, I think?? Wrong. I posted it already. Much higher. Try twice. |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 9, 2011 20:33:58 GMT -5
Wrong. I posted it already. Much higher. Try twice.
$2600.00 for 20 years?? Is that an average for enlisted??
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 9, 2011 20:37:05 GMT -5
Did you check the link that I provided in the previous page? E6 at 20 years is 3600/month.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 9, 2011 20:37:52 GMT -5
Did you check the link that I provided in the previous page? E6 at 20 years is 3600/month. No I missed the link |
|
