By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on July 21, 2008 at 10:31 PM in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Current Affairs, John McCain
The ignorance and stupidity displayed by both aspiring presidential candidates when it comes to devising a policy for Afghanistan is shocking. Apparently, McCain has adopted the “policy” of Barack. And what might that be. According to MyDD’s Todd Beeton:
I’m not entirely sure why the Obama campaign is not shouting from the highest mountain that John McCain has adopted Obama’s position on the issue but their strategy appears to be, instead, to use this latest McCain flip as an opportunity to continue the “confused” meme that they have introduced into the ether, for not only did McCain flip but his multiple strained explanations and clarifications that followed it made him look like quite the fool.
First the Obama campaign released a campaign memo yesterday that documented McCain’s deep confusion (via Ambinder):
TODAY (MORNING): McCain Called for Sending Three Additional Brigades to Afghanistan and Suggests They Would Come From Iraq. According to a press release issued by the McCain campaign on Tuesday morning, McCain would announce in a speech that he now supports sending at least three additional brigades to Afghanistan: “The status quo in Afghanistan is unacceptable, and from the moment the next President walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions about Afghanistan. … John McCain Supports Sending At Least Three Additional Brigades To Afghanistan. Our commanders on the ground say they need these troops, and thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them.” [McCain press release, 7/15/08]
TODAY (AFTERNOON): McCain Clarifies His Proposal On Increasing the Number of Troops, Saying They Could Come From NATO. “Speaking to reporters on his bus after today’s speech, McCain indicated that he’d be open to those additional troops coming from NATO.” [MSNBC, 7/15/08]
TODAY (EVEN LATER IN THE AFTERNOON): McCain Campaign Further Clarifies Proposal, Saying The Troop Increase Would Be Comprised Of Both NATO And US Forces. “McCain spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace said later that U.S. troops will compose some of the additional brigades McCain would send to Afghanistan, but not all of them. `Will we contribute? Of course we will,’ she said.” [Washington Post, 5/15/08]
Both come to this crazy prescription from different angles. For McCranky McCain, the surge of troops has worked in Iraq and we can now afford to start drawing down those forces and shifting them to Afghanistan. McCain is wrong (more about that later) about the fundamental cause of the drop in violence. And, like a typical naval aviator, fails to understand why the ground war in Afghanistan is not making much headway.
Barky Obama is even more off-base. As I discussed in a previous post, Obama insists we must pull our troops out of Iraq because the Army is broken and we cannot sustain the surge. So how does one fix the Army under Barky’s plan? He sends more troops to Afghanistan.
There is a genuine problem with the Army that neither Barack nor McCain are addressing. We have met recruiting goals by enlisting a higher percentage of Category 4 recruits. This means more kids who did not graduate high school, more kids with a history of drug use, and more kids with criminal records. What this means is that our commanders will have more problems developing disciplined, competent troops.
There are only two ways I know to meet recruiting goals without lowering standards–1) significantly increase pay and benefits to attract higher caliber kids or 2) a draft. I do not see either candidate pushing for either alternative.
Apart from the manpower issue is the need to rebuild the the military’s transportation infrastructure–our existing fixed wing airlift capability (e.g., C-17s, C-141s, C-130s, and C-5A) and rotary wing force needs updating and replacement. There also are mountains of rusting, destroyed humvees in dumps in Iraq no longer available–we need new vehicles. Here again, both candidates are silent on rebuilding what Bush has destroyed.
But is the problem in Afghanistan caused by too few troops? Not necessarily. The fundamental problem is there is no single chain of command and strategic focus. NATO, for example, is in Afghanistan but it is pursuing its own mission independent of the U.S. Central Command (that is now General Petraeus). But General Petraeus, unlike the situation in Iraq, does not have full control over the forces operating in country. The CIA, employing tactics learned from the Green Berets (i.e. U.S Army Special Forces), is pursuing targets independent of Central Command and the forces under its control. To make matters worse, the CIA Chief in Kabul pursues a policy independent of the CIA Chief in neighboring Pakistan.
Bottomline? No one is in charge and we are not employing our military, diplomatic, political, and economic resources in a coordinated fashion.
Both McCain and Obama are acting as if Afghanistan and Iraq are interchangeable. They are not. The tribal and ethnic composition of Afghanistan is radically different from Iraq. The largest tribe in the world–the Pushtun–sits astride the Afghan/Pakistan border. Family ties outweigh artificial lines on a map.
Then there is the terrain. The mountains and valleys of Afghanistan limit ground and air assets. We enjoy far less freedom of movement in Afghanistan. All of this means that any troops we deploy to Afghanistan require different training and different tactics.
There is some good news–the Taleban cannot sustain combat operations throughout the year. They are forced to hunker down in the winter. This buys us time to train new forces and to develop new intelligence operations that can support offensive military missions come the spring.
Any strategy must include Pakistan as an integral measure. We used Pakistan, as described in Charlie Wilson’s War, as a terrestrial aircraft carrier during the war with the Soviets in the 1980s to mount offensive ops and resupply the muj. Well, we better damn well ensure we have the Paks with us in cobbling together a policy to quell the Taleban in Afghanistan.
My friends in the intelligence community tell me there is clear, compelling evidence that some members of Pakistan’s intelligence services are directly helping the Taleban. The aid includes weapons, money, and intelligence. We also must get that in check if peace is going to eventually be brought back to Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, neither Obama or McCain seemed to have grasped the nuances and difficulties facing us in putting together a credible, sustainable campaign to defeat the Taleban. Let’s face it–we are being offered a Tweedledum vs Tweedledee vision for Iraq. Neither man has a clear, sensible vision.
It is time that McCain and Obama stop pretending
UPDATE: Great minds think alike. James Meek put up a post yesterday at the NY Daily News. Here’s the link. Just discovered it after I put mine up. Meek gets credit for coming up with the great title first.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Here is his statement on Iraq:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkyWk2MK7xeDw2b1jPhFS6KsvPegD922J38G0
and I’ve just come from watching Jon Stewart where they have McCain on video saying “the problem is on the Afghan-Pakistan border”
with a map behind JON clearly showing they don’t even touch and that IRAN is inbetween them!!
then they switched to a clip of McCain sleeping in his senate seat
then they switched to a clip of Barry in Iraq with the troops about to wet themselves with JOY over seeing his GREATNESS!
(arghhhhhhhh)
it’s just too late Larry
I’m afraid it’s just too late
I hope I’m wrong but McCain is making it so easy for Barry.
Come ON HILLARYYYYYYYY !
Funny Stewart didn’t see fit to include the bit about Obama not knowing what language they speak in Afghanistan. They are all in love with him, don’t ask me why.
Stewart tends to deal with current events. Might be a factor in today’s choice of clips.
The bulk of that piece had to do with the faux reporters rhapsodizing over how Barack gives them boners.
It was hardly genuine adulation on either side–it ‘mocked’ both candidates pretty roundly.
Can’t you just take five seconds to educate yourself?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iran&btnG=Google+Search
excuse me I meant “Iraq/Afghan border”
doh
Even I knew what you meant.
I knew what McCain meant when he said it.
We all have slips of the tongue. It’s what we call NORMAL. Slips of the tongue should not be mistaken for real idiocy.
Is McCain a slip of the tongue or an idiot?
Is Obama a slip of the tongue, or just an Idiot?
Answer that honestly and you will know who to vote for.
Iran is west of Afghan and Pakistan is East of Afghan, and indeed Afghanistan and Pakistan is right next to each other. Yes, and the US attacked this border a while ago when the US defeated the Taliban and tried to get Osama Bin laden(around 5 years ago).
Why are you smearing McCain like this?
I’m not smearing him (he doesn’t need my help)
I thought JON STEWART was
what ever
I am not a fan of either of these dudes.
I want HILLARY!
Or the bit about not wearing green in the Middle East. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/The_wearing_of_the_green.html?showall
How many people here have ever fallen asleep in a meeting? (Submitter raises hand.) Or a college class? (Hand again raised.)
DAMM IT!DAMM IT!!
WE NEED HILLARY!
Where oh where is HRC when you need her?
it was horrid
I’ve never been so disappointed in a Jon STewart show
he made it look like the ONLY Hillary hold outs are OLD JEWS in FLORIDA!
did a STUPID bit on it (at least it was stupid and insulting to me and I’m not even Jewish OR retired)
I don’t enjoy Jon Stewart. I just find him too adolescent and self-satisfied in his humor. Besides, this is not a joke–our lives and the planet are at stake. It’s pretty pathetic when people have to go to a comedy show to get some semblance of real news, and I know a lot of people watch him and Colbert because at least they tend to mock both candidates.
Must Read: US Policy Shift On Iran-Iraq Again Shows Brzezinski Rules In Washington
‘Looming Attack On Pakistan Spells Nuclear Confrontations With China, Russia & Their Allies’
Groaning under the weight of two lost wars, the terminal crisis of the US dollar, banking panic, and hyperinflation, the US ruling elite is attempting to unify itself around Obama for a breathtaking reversal of their entire strategic and ideological field. The intent is to largely jettison the post-9/11 enemy image of Islamic terrorism and the focus on the Middle East, and to shift target to Russia, China, and their allies in a vast global showdown or planetary end game for which Trilateral asset Obama is supposed to be the figurehead. As outlined by the cold warrior and Russia-hater Brzezinski, the first phase is to eject the Chinese from Africa, cutting off their access to oil and raw materials, and thus sabotaging their current rapid industrial development. All of Africa is rapidly becoming a battlefield of the US against the Chinese, and Obama is the ideal front man for this. Chinese allies like Sudan and Zimbabwe, and also Pakistan and Burma, are all being targeted as part of this plan. With Iran and Syria, the effort will not to attack them, but to turn them against Russia and China. This Brzezinski design is why Obama says he wants to negotiate with Iran, but bomb Pakistan. China is being weakened and destabilized by the Tibetan insurrection and other operations, and Zbig would like to stage a large-scale incident under the cover of the summer Olympics. In the final stage, Zbig thinks he can drive the oil-starved Chinese in on Russia’s provinces of eastern Siberia, where there is much oil and few Russians. Obama is thus the bearer of a plan for Sino-Russian World War III that far surpasses the insanity of the neocons. Since Russia and China are both well aware of the Brzezinski plan, this entire lunatic project is sure to blow up in our faces, with cataclysmic results. The Iraq war will seem a tea party by comparison. The main grounds for aggression in the new phase will be humanitarian and human rights claims, not terrorism, so as to maximize left cover. The Bin Laden pretext is now mainly for Afghanistan-Pakistan, where the existing war is being expanded and re-directed to fit the new policy.
An Obama regime is a one-way ticket to thermonuclear war, an outcome several orders of magnitude worse than anything the neocons has ever plotted. Brzezinski and his friends are more aggressive, more adventurous, more intelligent, and more insane than the neocons. The American people, if they succumb to Obama, are about to leap out of the frying pan and into the fire.
More..
http://www.rense.com/general82/uspol.htm
I saw no attribution links where Zbig said any of that? It sounds fantastic and far reaching.
The website is very amateurish as well.
Just my immediate reaction to the link I just followed.
I’ll wait for Larry’s analysis.
I’ll give you the Wargames 101 analysis.
Every time two nations with nuclear capability enter into a conventional war, the side that starts to lose inevitably uses nukes. Always.
Every wargame scenario between two nuclear adversaries ends with that outcome.
If Obambi starts a war with Pakistan, it will result in nuclear retaliation by Pakistan.
As far as Zbig instigating a war between China and Russia, he has a history of just that. Zbig instigated the Soviets invasion into Afghanistan hoping to give the Soviets their own “Vietnam”.
It is not a bad strategy, to have your enemies duke it out while you prosper in peace. It worked well for the Middle East, when Iraq and Iran were enemies of equal strength. They fough to a draw while other Middle East nations were investing wealth in areas other than the military.
It was a strategic mistake to elimiate Iraq’s military capability, with nothing to fill that gap. Suddenly Iran became the dominant player in the Middle East, and did not have to lift a finger.
This is exactly why informed and intellegent players in Mid East policy do not want to leave Iraq until it once again can stand up to Iran. Iraq had been the major force keeping Iran in check.
Back to China and Russia, it’s not a real good idea to be what the French call an “Agent Provocateur” when the nations being instigated both have nukes. The inevitable outcome always results in one nation using them.
If you are worried about McCains age, you should be real worried about Zbig, who at 80 is nearly 10 years McCains Senior. Zbig has not much life to lose if his plans result in nuclear holocaust. As an existentialist, and not particularly God fearing, Zbig is not conscious of how the outcome may affect the rest of us who plan to live a little longer and want to pass a decent future to our offspring.
I sure hope we don’t see World War III.
Here’s the thing. It’s absolutely true that there are many Taliban sympathizers in the Pak military and the ISI. No doubt. Be that as it may, Obama’s sabre rattling is very dangerous, plays into the hands of anti-American elements in Pakistan (whose numbers continue to grow) and sounds like “more of the same” to a Pakistani public that is at greater risk of suffering the risks of terrorism than the average American. Obama’s remarks are nothing short of inflammatory and not helpful at a time when Pakistan is fighting to hold together a ramshackle coalition government. “Hope” and “change”? Not as far as the residents of Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi are concerned. I’m not by any means advocating letting Pakistan off the hook, but launching a unilateral attack against a country that’s supposed to be an ally doesn’t sound like the wisest course of action. Then again, I don’t have Anthony Lake and Susan Rice advising me so what do I know?
Neither RICE are capable imo.
That’s why you’re a voice of sanity.
Quick comment on your broken military comments above. I agree with you 100% on this, but no presidential candidate can come within 100 yards of this topic without getting branded as “disrespecting the troops”. Any suggestion that the troops are less than “America’s best” will sink a candidate faster than an over-sized tanker’s helmet. Our best hope for this to be addressed is after one or the other is in office.
The congress has the ability to deal with this issue right now. It’s their job to raise the army. The only thing stopping them is them.
maybe you should take over larry….you seem to know exactly what is wrong with Obama and McCains’ plans….get Hillary and Bill and get on over there - show them your stuff!!
Yes, he’s tap dancing on mine fields when he casually throws a campaign pitch across meeting people who really need to keep much of their western contact limited from media hype.
You time aid announcements, etc. around the perception of those leaders and any assumed electoral impact as well.
By pouring fuel onto the fire he might be making the worst course of action into the only choice.
When someone’s drowing, throw ‘em an anchor. Navy saying, from the old school. Think McCain could make the comparison on that inexperienced moment?
Keep in mind that any plan given, has to come with the tacit understanding that it is an Iraqi plan. Saying it is from anyone else would offend the sense of sovereignty such plans need to gain legitmate backing in the country.
Making it easy for Obama is a understatement, McCain looks as if he has thrown in the towel, and sometimes I really wonder why the hell did he get in this race, if he is not going to put up a fight for it,
McCain wants to be Mr.Nice, but that does not work in politics, every dam thing for him is this gentleman stance its getting sickening now, no fight and he does not want to play ruff and tumble he is going to lose.
something needs to change and NOT by electing OBAMA
soon
gnite ya’ll
peace
Reuters has an interesting article on the Pakistan problem. What a hornets nest.
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSISL21506
Thanks, Larry, for this information packed article — the clash of cultures is one of the real problems. In Iraq having the US military bashing into homes oops wrong home — doesn’t matter, put all the young men in jail. Just stopping that one mindless activity seems to be a logical way to NOT to be the enemy.
And yes the Navy fly boy does have a very different perspective — and then the “Academic” has zero understanding of how the military works.
Fixing the broken military — and there is the National Guard. Has the National Guard regained any of their equipment sent to Iraq? Seems to me that the NG equipment needed after hurricane Katrina was in Iraq. The National Guard is broken as well — what happens when the next major natural disaster hits — oh like wild fires on the West Coast, or earth quake or how about hurricanes??
But given the choice between a Zero and someone who at least has “some” military knowledge — well hell — how do we get Hillary as the democratic candidate??
Neither of these two guys is able to clean up after 8 years of the juvenile bush. They don’t even know where to start.
PUMA!
David Gergen gave Obama hell tonight, for being so loose mouthed.
Gergen said a political candidate has no business acting to negotiate for the U.S. And he had no business blabbing conversations from personal conferences with dignataries, in a place where we have a military presence..
Obama is blabbing his mouth because he has no experience and doesn’t know the first thing about what a POTUS should do. I am so pissed…he is a candidate and already thinks he is President, a stupid one at that. It’s getting pretty bad when Bush is starting to look better and better everyday. Yeah, it looks like the war on terror is being won, but not by us. They are succeeding at destroying us from within. Wake up Pelosi and all you other power grubbing, glory hounds and do something. Otherwise resign!
By what measure is Obama fit for any command position in any military organization? His “superior judgement”? (Gales of derisive laughter!)
Pakistan can’t even control its own provinces and tribal areas. Some of which are already under the control of the Taleban.
And every time the Paki Army tried to take control they got their asses kicked and many deserted to the Taleban’s side as well.
And oh yeah then there’s Muslim Pakis beating and killing of non-Muslim Pakistanis. Something the MSM never mentions.
The ISI had and is riddled with Islamic extremists. They were the ones after all who bankrolled and trained the original Taleban and they are they people keeping the violence in Kasmir going.
Then there are the thousands of Madrassas funded by the Saudis that are nothing but training centers for future Jihadists/suicide bombers. This ensures the Taleban have a unlimited number of mindless, bloodthirsty killers to draw upon.
Its prime ministers from Bhutto to Musharraf were neck deep into promoting violence and murder against non-Muslims in Kasmir and furthermore Musharref was one of the ISI officials who promoted the use of the Taleban to take over Afghanistan.
Afghanistan itself is a lost cause. First off the last one to pacify that hell hole was Timur the Lane. Furthermore we and NATO are infidels in the eyes of the Afghanis, we’re aliens compared to the Taleban who share their religion and culture.
Hell the Taleban already have judges and officials working for them and promoting the shariah. Ever wonder what happened to those schools for girls - most of them shut down by Taleban sympathizers working for Karzai.
Oh yeah then there’s our CIA puppet - Karzai. The man who needs a platoon of Dyncorp/Blackwater/CIA goons as bodyguards since his own people want him dead. Like he has support - not.
And you think you’re gonna win the hearts and minds of people who let over 200 Taleban stage in their village and then proceeded to kick Army ass and almost cost us a outpost. BTW that post doesn’t exist anymore, we fled.
Its so bad that the Army practically begged on TV to Washington to send more troops. Troops we don’t have.
There is some good news–the Taleban cannot sustain combat operations throughout the year. They are forced to hunker down in the winter.
This is good news for our troops.
And as a woman, nothing gives me more pleasure than to think of the Taleban freezing their disgusting asses off.
NATO’s back is already broken from this.
Euro scale economies are built upon an ageing work force, to compensate they have built an underclass of immigrants to a high proprtion of their work force.
Competition and pay scale for upper work went up, and the better pay, shorter work weeks, and better benefits reflect the same.
There’s no there over there, when it comes to having incentive necessary to develop and maintain a large military.
You can’t pay them enough(literally) and their blue collar ranks where you’d draw the most help for doing that are already outsourced to immigrants in state.
Someone has to be the good cop. Looks like the USA is becoming the world’s merc outfit. Seems like Obama also wants to increase the use of mercs.
Ironic, no?
I was having an apopleptic fit last night reading what lambert and amberglow were saying at Correntwire.
I think the post is still up…all about OBoy skipping the GE and taking charge as Commander in Chief. Are they batsh** crazy lately? Or have I just missed this extreme view from them?
The promise to build up our commitment to Afghanistan in the number of troops contingencies, and in the “infrstructure rebuilding” Obama wants to do is a carrot/stick message to Iraq’s puppet gov’t.
Follow the Money.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-39,RNWE:en&q=afghanistan+energy+futures+pipeline+bids
So much for hope and change. Hopes of oil producers as subcontractors for USAID cash, change from taxpayers pockets.
Billions worth of change?
For years now, one of the Left’s key arguments against the war in Iraq has been that more attention must be paid to Afghanistan — as if that would be a simple re-prioritization.
Larry’s cogent explanations in this HIGHLY IMPORTANT post make clear just how daunting the task will be to address the chaos in Afghanistan.
It will take our best minds with the most knowledge to get a grip on what’s going on in Afghanistan and to reorganize the structure.
And Obama’s amateurish notion of shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan demonstrates — once again — that he simply does NOT HAVE THE BACKGROUND, the UNDERSTANDING, the KNOWLEDGE to grapple with this complex problem. Just these two paragraphs from Larry’s story illustrate this perfectly:
Ironically obama’s mother would probably have understood this — the cultural differences and political organizations in these countries — because of her interest in Cultural Anthropology.
SusanUnPC what got my attention is Mr.Johnson saying the chief of staions for Pakistan and Afganistan are persuing different agendas and are not taking a “unified approach” to the common issues.
How does this jive with the lack of unified command structures in the military assets? No interface between DIA and CIA? What FUBAR. No co-ordination between the assest we wield. Not good.
To many cooks in the kitchen and no one making the Ratatouille.
Suddenly, it’s all about the war??? It’s about the economy! Let’s come down to earth.
Whew! But, then at least the playing field has been leveled and McC. has thrown himself into the mix over what O started when he went overseas. This entire broughaha (sp?) was started when Obama got the idea to do negotiating BEFORE HE WAS LEGITIMIZED! He is an embarrassment of the most extreme kind.
It’s ONE way to distract the public from the party going on on the Oblahblah aircraft hops.
Anyone else feel this is all a big chess board for the boys in power? And they just want the rest of us to shut up because we’re spoiling the game.
Scary shit going on right now. The whole world seems to be at a tipping point. And where, oh where are the true leaders? You know, the ones who actually know what they’re doing???
I’m thinking seriously of buying a gun. Never thought I’d contemplate that idea. But hell, there are a whole lot of things I never thought I’d contemplate until this summer.
Strange, strange times.
PUMApac.org
Thankfully I’m a Navy brat — and our dads taught us how to shoot. I don’t like guns — but I know how to use them.
Just sit back and let the macho males strut and show off. We know obama is out of his depth (he’s so shallow).
What I’m seeing is that obama is bat shit crazy — he is out of control — his ego is taking over.
Obama’s advisor Zbig literally wrote the book…’The Grandchess Board’.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465027261/qid=1098564728/sr=2-2/ref=pd_ka_b_2_2/102-5136684-6309758
Here is a page with some quotes from it…
http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard
oops…Grand Chessboard….
I think McCain needs to continue to hit O. hard until the election is over. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and even Europe knows that this is dead time.
The rhetoric is too high flying and is meant to sway not accomplish anything. Everybody knows that and McCain should hit Obama harder every day.
What is interesting is that Obama wants to continue the “War” in Afghanistan, and send more troops, but he has not explained why.
Why is Afghanistan a more important conflict than what is happening in Iraq? What are the goals and mission for the military in Afghanistan? What are the conditions that will keep troops in Afghanistan, and under what condition will all the troops return to the US.
McCain can answer these questions. How about you Barky?
The NY Post article states “The problem really is in neighboring Pakistan, where Taliban and Al Qaeda commanders lurk, said Rubin, an informal Obama adviser. “If you add more troops in Afghanistan, you’ll probably just lead to more [Taliban] recruitment,” he said.”
This was the major argument against the troop surge in Iraq. It was said that increasing the American presence would further iritate the Iraqi’s and would lead to more terrorist recruitment.
It was a false argument, because as we now now, the surge did work. More importantly, there was already an enormous American Presence in Iraq. The recruitment incentive was already there. Adding 30,000 more troops to the 140,000 already in Iraq would not make much difference in motivating a recruit.
What would motivate a recruit is winning or losing. When the US invaded Iraq, it created a recruitment for Al Qaeda in Iraq. As Al Qaeda was successful at disrupting peace, so to were they successful at recruiting.
When the surge and change in tactics occured, Al Qaeda began to retreat. Getting their ass kicked did not help their recruitment numbers.
When we add troops to Afghanistan, it is not going to be a recruiting boon, as long as we are successful and winning, as we were in Iraq.
A new strategy in Afghanistan is needed, and the complexity of the region begs for more troops to carry out that mission. As Larry correctly points out, the troops can’t merely come from Iraq. They need to be specially trained and equipped for the mission and terrain.
The Commander in Chief not only has to creat the mission, he will need to overhaul the command and control and coordinate the interagency effort, and NATO. Larry has doubts over which candidate to trust to develop and implement this mission. I do not.
Hey Larry:
Freezing their ass in the mountains and going to ground in the winter isn’t really true any longer. I just got back from Afghanistan. I’ve spent the better part of the last year and half over there.
The truth is they have so much support in the country now they don’t have to run away in the winter. Plus they know our troops are waiting for them in the mountain passes and they aren’t up for being shot.
Kabul - just so everyone understands - is surrounded on three sides: The Taliban control the villages to the east, the west and the south 20 Ks out. The Taliban control most of the south and are making headway in the east. Three brigades even with central command isn’t going to help.
The bottom line is Karzai is universally hated in Afghanistan. He is up for re-election next year and will only win in a rigged election. Three quarters of the parliament are drug lords and war lords who have all started their own security companies. This is simply so they can stockpile weapons since everyone is waiting for the civil war to start again. People shouldn’t be naive to think the Taliban can’t do real damage in Kabul either. They haven’t really hit the place yet not because they can’t but because they haven’t chosen to yet.
I am glad I am out because neither the military, the embassy, the politicians or the press have a fucking clue what is really going on over there. Apparently nobody has noticed that today the streets in Kabul - once filled with hopeful women in head scarves - are today in full on burqas because they are scared shitless.
The assault on Kabul is coming. I give it Spring latest.
Thanks for your service. Sadr’s truce is the same way in Iraq.
Neither war has the resources to address the level to which the culture and history of those nations are at odds with the west, to the extent we want to change them. Military action isn’t an answer.
Both are ticking bombs….
Thank you for the great read!
I am wondering why the USA has to be the country to go into Afghanistan. It seems to me that the Europeans should be doing this. Obama is suppose to be getting us out of the war. I have no confidence in his ability to be commander in chief.
NATO cannot use my children to do their dirty work!! NO. NO. NO. We are taking care of Iraq, let other members of NATO carry out these operations
…our children are not Europe’s cannon fire.
I really wonder about the consequences of Obama’s hubris and his naive foreign policy. I read that while on his world rock star tour, he’s making promises to people, to former warlords in Afganistan, to leaders in Iraq. What happens if Obama is not elected? Do people in Afganistan riot? Do terrorists take it out on Americans? What if he is elected and can’t or won’t deliver on his promises? Do people take it out on America?
There’s a reason we don’t do electioneering and
campaigning overseas. What about people trying to influence our elections here at home? We worry about lobbyists, well what about promising an exchange of favors with foreign leaders?
I’m reminded of Kenya and the way that country descended into chaos. So much violence and bloodshed, partially because people felt like they were promised something and it was snatched away.
Obama is all idealism and no wisdom. He doesn’t seem to be aware of the consequences of his actions. Idealism can sure lead to a lot of bloodshed.
Where is a viable, smart third party when we need it?
Both of the guys are scary as hell!
No wonder I can’t sleep at night….I read too much of this stuff!!!!
Yes, Tricia…both these men are scary….check out CYNTHIA McKINNEY, GREEN CANDIDATE….
At least she’s estrogen-fueled and her wits haven’t left her yet altho they may be a bit to the left of the Manchurian Candidate BHO!
Black Blogosphere is abuzin with anti-Obama commentary and check out Brothahaneef’s
Obama = Death of Black nationalism
Black americans turning against Precious Obama, at last!!!
GREAT STUFF, LARRY!
I read the article and comments on Afghanistan and end up very confused about what is really going on and who has a grip on the situation. The comments remind me of the old story about several blind men describing an elephant, each one touching a different part of the elephant. Seems the leading candidates don’t have a clue, and the intelligence community seems to muddle things as usual I don’t know how to make any intelligent comment on the situation since I am totally in the dark about what is really going on or what kind of policy the US should be pursuing there. The candidates seem to be mainly posturizing for political gain. And what is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee doing, if anything? I tend to agree with the guy who said 2 or 3 brigades is not going to be enough to make a difference. I think NATO or the UN should be dealing with this problem. I hate to see the US getting more and more involved in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Maybe we should just let the Arabs deal with their own problems and border disputes. We don’t really have a grasp on how they think, their border disputes, and their endless tribal wars. Do we have to solve all the world’s problems? Seems like more American arrogance that alienates us further from so much of the world. I really don’t think more troops, more bombs, bigger weapons, and more killing is the answer. Are we tooling up for World War III? Perhaps.
[...] Obama and McCain Clueless on Afghanistan (by Larry Johnson, former CIA, former State Department, and a security expert, at No Quarter) The ignorance and stupidity displayed by both aspiring presidential candidates when it comes to devising a policy for Afghanistan is shocking. Apparently, McCain has adopted the “policy” of Barack… Both come to [the] crazy prescription [of taking troops from Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan]… But is the problem in Afghanistan caused by too few troops? Not necessarily. The fundamental problem is there is no single chain of command and strategic focus… Then there is the terrain. The mountains and valleys of Afghanistan limit ground and air assets. We enjoy far less freedom of movement in Afghanistan. All of this means that any troops we deploy to Afghanistan require different training and different tactics… [N]either Obama or McCain seemed to have grasped the nuances and difficulties facing us in putting together a credible, sustainable campaign to defeat the Taleban. [...]
[...] Obama and McCain Clueless on Afghanistan (Updated) [...]
Wasn’t the invasion of Afghanistan supposed to be about 9/11 and holding Al Qaeda responsible? Bringing Bin Laden to justice in an international court was just a terrible idea according to the Bush regime. We had to have a military invasion.
Then we had to invade Iraq also, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Now we are bogged down in those two countries with no end in sight. Our economy is trashed, we are in debt like never before in our history. No recent mention of Osama bin Laden what so ever.
Does anyone seriously believe BO has the remotest idea what to do about all these problems? Does anyone know what his plans are? Does he know what his plans are? There is no way around it that we are seriously screwed if Obama becomes president.
We are still screwed with McCain also, but at least the Democratic Congress might provide some oversight on McCain, as the Constitution requires them to do.
HILLARY AGONISTES! WHERE ART THOU?
YOU ARE NEEDED FOR ACTION IN THE FIELD….NOW!!!
HILLARY, COME BACK BEFORE THESE TWO MORONS, MCSTUMBLE AND MCFUMBLE DESTROY WHATEVER’S LEFT STANDING IN IRAQ, AFGANISTAN…OR U.S.
MCCAVE AND OBAMYOPIA MAKE CYNTHIA MCKINNEY LOOK NOT GREEN BUT ….ALMOST PRESIDENTIAL!!!
HILLARY, CAN YOU HEAR THE PUMAS ROARrrrr?
An eyopener, Larry. Thanks for the great read!
Now will Mr. McFumble and Mr. McStumble take a snore and a snort and retire while the DNC comes to its senses and democratically nominates the only competent presidential candidate who can do the job!
Then perhaps ObaMyopia can send his anorexic resume to a rapper-wannabe competition and Sen. McCain can recall what he said to Tim Russert (Meet the Press) back in 2005 in Baghdad about Hillary:
“I have no doubt in my mind that Sen. Hillary Clinton will make a great President” — Sen. John McCain….
Thank you, Sen. McCain. Now will Hillary Agonistes come back to us please!
Go Pumas, roar!
[...] Obama and McCain Clueless on Afghanistan (by Larry Johnson, former CIA, former State Department, and a security expert, at No Quarter) The ignorance and stupidity displayed by both aspiring presidential candidates when it comes to devising a policy for Afghanistan is shocking. Apparently, McCain has adopted the “policy” of Barack… Both come to [the] crazy prescription [of taking troops from Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan]… But is the problem in Afghanistan caused by too few troops? Not necessarily. The fundamental problem is there is no single chain of command and strategic focus… Then there is the terrain. The mountains and valleys of Afghanistan limit ground and air assets. We enjoy far less freedom of movement in Afghanistan. All of this means that any troops we deploy to Afghanistan require different training and different tactics… [N]either Obama or McCain seemed to have grasped the nuances and difficulties facing us in putting together a credible, sustainable campaign to defeat the Taleban. [...]
What the hell is the USA doing in Afghanistan anyway? The supposed War on Terrorism is a War of Terrorism, with millions of innocent Afghanistanis dead -
GENOCIDE…according to UNICEF figures.
In fact, the USA led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has resulted in more infant and adult deaths than Jews killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust.
20% of the Afghanistan population support the USA there. What is the objective? Kill off the other 80%?
No, bring the troops home from Iraq AND Afghanistan. The USA can no longer afford to pay $10 billion dollars a week for a war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have problems here at home, we don’t need innocents (for every supposed terrorist in Afghanistan killed 30 civilians die)mass murdered( massive complaints by Afghanistani civilians are registered against US Military which has outright acknowledged that they ‘regretably’ have killed civilians). And the incredibly slimy sinister detention centers in Afghanistan run by the military and CIA are much like the Abu Ghraib facility with allegations of torture and other inhumane perverted treatment of prisoners.
Give me back my country the United States of America and hold accountable this administration under Bush and Cheney that are war criminals and should be tried and dealt with like Hitler and Saddam.
DON’T LET OBAMA BECOME THE NEXT HEIR TO THE BUSH WAR REGIME!
Thousands of vets of Iraq and Afghanistan know the real situation and the slaughter taking place over there in Iraq and Afghanistan…we don’t want anymore innocent blood on our flag!