Current Article

We Need to Pay More Attention to New Plans for Afghanistan

By Niaf Sag Tan on March 25, 2009 at 1:05 PM in Afghanistan

While we are all focusing on retaining bonuses to executives at AIG, a pittance compared to the numbers from our larger economic woes, the rest of the world is being ignored.

Our eyes are off the ball. This is how Vietnam escalated. No one paid attention, and no one stood up to stop the buildup. The demonstrations started much later. We are at the same place in Afghanistan Today. Troop buildup will further unite the Muslim world against us. And at what cost? Change we can believe in?

Here are some excerpts from three recent major stories:

The New York Times article, U.S. Plans Vastly Expanded Afghan Security Force, states:

A plan awaiting final approval by the president would set a goal of about 400,000 troops and national police officers, more than twice the forces’ current size, and more than three times the size that American officials believed would be adequate for Afghanistan in 2002, when the Taliban and Al Qaeda appeared to have been routed.

The officials said Mr. Obama was expected to approve a version of the plan in coming days as part of a broader Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy. But even members of Mr. Obama’s national security team appeared taken aback by the cost projections of the program, which range from $10 billion to $20 billion over the next six or seven years.

By comparison, the annual budget for the entire Afghan government, which is largely provided by the United States and other international donors, is about $1.1 billion, which means the annual price of the program would be about twice the cost of operating the government of President Hamid Karzai.

From The Washington Post Road Map for Afghanistan

Now President Obama is in the final stages of his strategy review for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Kilcullen, meanwhile, has just published a book that distills the advice he has been offering to the White House (Bush and Obama, both) and to Gen. David Petraeus, the Centcom commander. The book, “The Accidental Guerrilla,” offers the clearest road map I’ve seen for moving ahead in Afghanistan.

Obama’s policy choices for Afghanistan are usually presented in stark terms: Either he authorizes a major new escalation, well beyond the 17,000 additional troops he has already approved, or he scales back the mission to a narrower counterterrorism effort aimed at preventing al-Qaeda from mounting attacks.

Kilcullen argues that either of these extreme options would be a mistake. “It would be the height of folly to commit to a large-scale escalation now,” when the political climate in both Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan is so uncertain. We should use the extra 17,000 troops to stabilize the situation but delay the big decision about escalation until after Afghanistan’s presidential election in August.

And again from the Washington Post Civilians to Join Afghan Buildup

The additional 17,000 U.S. troops scheduled for deployment this year — bringing the total to about 55,000 — will increase the combat imbalance between the United States and NATO, and scheduled withdrawals of Canadian and Dutch troops over the next two years will make Afghanistan even more of a U.S.-dominated war.

Obama has pledged to improve the civil-military balance in U.S. operations, and to put more of a civilian face on development and governance efforts. Although the overall civilian deployment plan for Afghanistan awaits Obama’s approval, the State Department has already solicited applications for 51 new positions it expects to fill by July. Up to 300 additional civilians are anticipated under the strategy proposals.

Contact President Obama and let him know your thoughts.

politicalidentitycrisis

Yep. Don’t watch the shiny bauble over here, the real story is always over there (and most likely there, and there, and there, when it comes to Ofraudma).
http://bullmoosegal.blogspot.com bullmoosegal

Interestingly enough, I’ve heard several reports that the Administration is looking for ways to force Karzai out (no matter what one thinks of him, he was chosen by his people with our blessings), and to actively choose a new leader for Afghanistan – very undemocratic of us if true.
Seattle Moss

History shows that Afganistan is the grave yard of Empires.
Taking the eye off the ball would be Iraq if we negate the gains we have made by retreating without protecting our interests.
Obama will continue to mask the real reason that we are in Afganistan.
Our troops can’t come home as the unemployment rate is too high.
Call it a giant works program..That’s why we’re making the push in Afganistan
Jude

Like many, I am afraid that sending troops to Afganistan could ruin us just like it did the USSR. That said, Afganistan’s drug trade makes tons of money for the Taliban and godknows whoelse. Karzi’s brother is major involved in the drug trade. Using US troops to get rid of the poppy fields would be a good idea since Karzi has done nothing to contain it.

Second, Pakistan IMHO is THE problem right now and Afganistan would be a great place for a base of operations. Of course, the administration cannot say so because, as John McCain pointed out to Obama during the campaign, you don’t want to tell your secrets.

Thoughts?
Docelder

True enough, but also by the “Vietnamization” (sic) of Afghanistan he has the perpetual effigy of Bush to rail against and indeed to run against again in 2012.
JohnnyB

The International Narcotics Control Strategy Report said the area of land used to cultivate opium poppies reached 71,000 acres, compared with 4,160 acres in 2001.

Afghanistan overtook Burma – whose production fell for the sixth straight year, to 630 tonnes – as the leading opium producer.

The Tailban had banned the production of Opium during their rule of Afghanistan. After we began the bombing and put Karazi in as President, the number of hectares of poppies went up 30 times.
These are 2001 figures. Now, Afghanistan produces 90% of the world’s supply of Heroin.

Seattle Moss: Yes, they are employed in the Nat. Guard on duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the other 125 countries where we have a military presence. The Military Industrial Complex and the World Oil groups are harvesting all the profit from dollars being sent to these “war” zones. Now we add more troops from the MAN that was to end the Iraq war.
Patience

I fear troops on the ground in Afghanistan will just become bloody cannon fodder. There were too many casualties in Iraq and it’s a flat desert as opposed to the mountainous topography of Afghanistan.

Given the history of military failure there, and the inability to effectively deal with suicide bombers and low-tech warfare, I wonder if it’s wise to have troops on the ground in the first place? Can’t our carriers and aircraft, with the help of increasingly informative technical surveillance, keep a lid on Taliban activity without putting our troops in harm’s way? What, is the plan to bribe tribal leaders and back them up with our soldiers or something?

I even doubt that aid to improve Afghan infrastructure would necessarily turn public opinion in our favor, especially since such aid/programs have been a failure so far with little to show. I know it’s a big generality, but it seems foreign aid all too often ends up in the pockets of leaders, essentially as bribes to make them complacent, and little of it trickles down. Thus, it doesn’t end up having the hoped-for effect on public opinion, and sometimes even backfires if the leader is a despot. Could this be the case in Afghanistan?
http://deleted Buzz Latte

Perfect Analogy. We need patriotically political sharpshooters to keep firing questions to get to the bottom of Obama’s deception.
tricia spiegel

Totally agree–we need to pay much more attention to the Middle East. Obama only mentioned Iran in his last news conference–not a word about Afghanistan (or Iraq).

What a pile of messes we are in!
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia Online

Buy Propecia Online…

http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia Online…
mountainaires

The NEOCONS ARE BACK–like a bad virus, or a computer trojan, they have morphed into a new form.

Campbell Brown’s husband, Dan Senor–you remember Dan, don’t you?–is among them. “No bias, no bull,” huh Campbell? Wink, wink.

March 26, 2009
Neocons Launch New Foreign Policy Group

by Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe

A newly-formed and still obscure neoconservative foreign policy organization is giving some observers flashbacks to the 1990s, when its predecessor staked out the aggressively unilateralist foreign policy that came to fruition under the George W. Bush administration.

The blandly-named Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) – the brainchild of Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, neoconservative foreign policy guru Robert Kagan, and former Bush administration official Dan Senor – has thus far kept a low profile; its only activity to this point has been to sponsor a conference pushing for a U.S. “surge” in Afghanistan.

But some see FPI as a likely successor to Kristol’s and Kagan’s previous organization, the now-defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which they launched in 1997 and which became best known for leading the public campaign to oust former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein both before and after the Sep. 11 attacks.

PNAC’s charter members included many figures who later held top positions under Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his top deputy, Paul Wolfowitz.

FPI was founded earlier this year, but few details are available about the group, which has so far attracted no media attention. The organization’s website lists Kagan, Kristol, and Senor, who came to prominence as a spokesman for the occupation authorities in Iraq, as the three members of its board of directors.

Two of FPI’s three staffers, policy director Jamie Fly and Christian Whiton, have come directly from foreign policy posts in the Bush administration, while the third, Rachel Hoff, last worked for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Contacted by IPS at the group’s office, Fly referred all questions to Senor, who did not return the call.

The organization’s mission statement argues that the “United States remains the world’s indispensable nation,” and warns that “strategic overreach is not the problem and retrenchment is not the solution” to Washington’s current financial and strategic woes. It calls for “continued engagement – diplomatic, economic, and military – in the world and rejection of policies that would lead us down the path to isolationism.”

The mission statement opens by listing a familiar litany of threats to the U.S., including “rogue states,” “failed states,” “autocracies” and “terrorism,” but gives pride of place to the “challenges” posed by “rising and resurgent powers,” of which only China and Russia are named.

Their prominence may reflect the influence of Kagan, who has argued in recent years that the 21st century will be dominated by a struggle between the forces of democracy (led by the U.S.) and autocracy (led by China and Russia). He has called for a League of Democracies as a mechanism for combating Chinese and Russian power, and the FPI statement stresses the need for “robust support for America’s democratic allies.”

This emphasis may also indicate that FPI intends to make confrontation with China and Russia the centerpiece of its foreign policy stance. If this is the case, it would mark a return to the early days of the Bush administration, before 9/11, when Kristol’s Weekly Standard took the lead in attacking Washington for its alleged “appeasement” of Beijing.

For its formal coming out, however, FPI has chosen to push for escalating the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan. The organization’s first event, to be held here Mar. 31, will be a conference entitled “Afghanistan: Planning for Success.”

The lead speaker will be Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate and long a favorite of both Kagan and Kristol. In February, McCain gave a well-publicized speech at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) arguing that the U.S. could not afford to scale back its military commitment in Afghanistan and calling for a redoubled effort to win the war.

Read the rest at:

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lubanlobe.php?articleid=14463
mary

Great post here Niaf!

The danger of another Vietnam that’s going to cost trillions is becoming more and more real!

Obama lied to the nation and the world when he said to Peter Mansbridge of the prominent Canadian news broadcaster “CBC” that he “believe(s) in Diplomacy and Development, not Military power…” Meantime, the night before the interview and his visit to Ottawa Obama had signed for the deployment of 17,000 TROOPs to be sent to Afganistan! Guess Soros and Brezinksy, GE and co are pushing him to send troops at Taxpayers’ expense to guard the interests of the oil pipelines…..SHAME!