Ambassador McWilliams,

I think you hit some important issues right on the nose. Incentives for top quality civil servants continues to be a cause for the lack of commitment, expertise, and passion in the public administration. There are programs addressing this need, including some financed by the US Dept. of State. The disparity in pay only further drives the migration of talented workers into the donor-driven sector, while many others look for a way out of the country altogether.

The official Public Administration Reform could enjoy greater support from top administration. The focus on services to citizens as well as proper compensation to civil servants is key to the maintenance and development of a central state. This is not to mention the importance of de-centralizing important functions of this state. In the Western world citizens are relatively demanding of a response by government authorities to correct imperfections of the public domain; in Afghanistan more patience is necessary, and I believe this also applies to the environment of security.

However, one piece that is possibly missing here is the mechanism by which political authority finds itself responsible to the reasonable demands of the public. I wish not that the international community drives the domestic interests of Afghanistan apart, but that it supports Afghans in participating in the government's reform. There are many opportunities for hope. International solidarity will be key to sustaining peace and prosperity to Afghanistan. We all have something to learn from the Afghan people, and the future of coordinated development will depend on the facility of donors and the allies to engage the public on the ground in a long-term perspective.

That being said, I think that donor-funded development work has achieved significant progress by indicators from physical infrastructure reconstruction to health, education, and other social requirements. True, much work is to be done, and it is up to the critical voters and readers of this blog to decide where the priorities lie. My hope lies with the enhancement of the commitment to the state of Afghanistan.

Alex:

Useful comments - particularly given your presence on the ground. I only wish Karzai's officials were as anxious as your NGO people to get out to the provinces. I don't have the impression that the Afghan Governmet can rise to the occasion. On a personal trip back there in early 2002 I found Afghanistan's best and brightest(even then) rapidly lining up with NGOs and Foreign Government institutions leaving Afghans of lesser capcity to populate the Karzai administration. Problems of competence and corruption appear to limit, perhaps fatally, the Karzai administration.

Ulitmately, Afghan hopes are far more consonant with those of the US/NATO than with the Taliban - on the basis of that fundamental reality - I retain some hope.

I hope you will be safe in your good work.

Ambassador McWilliams,

I agree that the under-resourced effort in Afghanistan will probably continue to suffer the administration's (and probably the American people's) lack of resolve. I also agree that working with the societal infrastructure is crucial to establishing a relevant government administration in Afghanistan. However, I am hopeful - there are still scenarios where the international effort in Afghan will be sustainable. By continually supporting the elections, the international community can give the democratic opposition a chance to fix the lack of leadership and coordination currently seen. I think one would go too far to call Karzai an Afghan "Ngo Dinh Diem," after all the CIA hasn't killed him yet. :)

Being a product of Vietnamese refugees myself, I would hate to see another country fail after a quasi-commitment of the US. I would say that many development projects have made significant progress for Afghanistan, although be necessity some progress has been incremental. Developing societal infrastructure takes time and patience. The American people have both of these, but they also need to recognize the limitations presented by poverty and political disagreement.

Without a doubt, baseline security is a requisite for re-inforcing the societal infrastructure you speak about. For example, the staff on the project I work with is "dying" to get out of Kabul and into the provinces (no pun inteneded). But assisting the mass of rank-and-file Afghans will be impossible without the long-term commitment of the US security as well as that of other allies.

I think there is no question but that the US has under-resourced the effort in Afghanistan treating it as a sideshow to what we mistakenly thought to be the main event - in Iraq (.. much as Obama has contended). That said, we are unlikely to reverse course in this administration - there simply is no stomach for ramping up resources, particularly given the sorry state of our Afghan surrogates in Kabul. I would argue -as I did when I was Special Envoy in 1988-89 (see "Ghost Wars") that we need to work much more closely with the tribes - the only societal infrastructure intact in Afghanistan. Sadly, Kabul is a rathole down which we have already dumped too much treasure - comprised of the same reprobates we wrongly supported in 1989. Karzai is a decent man but vastly over his head - an Afghan Ngo Dinh Diem.

Ray Robison,

I will gladly recheck my facts if you will do the same. Where do you think 'the students' came from, outer space?

Posted by: The Rev | February 27, 2008 10:51 PM

No need to recheck, I just gave them to you. Read Ghost War's by Steve Coll. Brilliant history of the CIA war in Afghanistan. And as I said in the previous post, the "students" are primarily from the border areas, from both sides, many if not most of them Pakistanis. To say we created the Taliban is just a lie.

We are having problems in Afghanistan because Bush started a war with Iraq that was not necessary at the time.If we had put our forces into Afghanistan instead we would not be having this problem.

we have no real picture of what is really happening in Afghanistan but the really stupid Europeans must fine someone to blame, its part of the political ideals of that part of this world. anyway all so called europeans will be muslims within the next 30 years.

Ray Robison,

I will gladly recheck my facts if you will do the same. Where do you think 'the students' came from, outer space?

"Opium is not the problem, America created its own problem in Afghanistan when it sided with 'the students just over a decade ago against the Soviets."

Posted by: The Rev | February 26, 2008 09:47 PM

Oh Lord, here they go again.

1) "the students" or the Taliban did not exist as a fighting force during the US support of the mujahideen against the soviets.

2) the Taliban was drawn primarily from pakistan/afghan border regions, people who were trained, lead, and supported by pakistan under Benazir Bhutto with a few Afghans thrown into leadership positions to give it an Afghan face.

3) in the real world (as opposed to fantasy liberal -Arkin land), the Taliban overthrew the Afghan mujahideen governing body that the US had supported against the soviets.

3b) in point of fact, when the Taliban started taking over Afghanistan, many nations thought they might be a stablizing force in a civil war, warlord fractured country. Until they took over more moderate Afghan villages and started whole sale slaughter. Thats when most of the world and the US realized the initial assessment had been optimistic and the Taliban was far more brutal than the mujahideen they had replaced.

4)while I am at it, the evidence shows the US did not support the arab mujahideen, of which Usama bin Laden was one part in Afghanistan either. Bin Laden was a competitor for influence in Afghanistan not a client.

5) read Steve Koll, noted writer/liberal, his book Ghost wars explains this well without the liberal mythology that the US created the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Read real work on the subject, not these stupid websites like mother jones or Bill Arkin's quackery.

Good God what an idiot.

1) there is no Taliban resurgency as the NATO chiefs have been trying to tell us to get around people like Arkin. But the media wont report what they are saying.

2) A rise in violence is caused by a NATO offensive not the Taliban.

3) the Taliban has lost geographic region not gained. We ran the Taliban out of the cities and into the country and the WaPo spins this as "the Taliban expanded into rural areas". Enjoy your mud huts jihadis.

4)So the very premise that Gates is blaming NATO for our loss is idiotic because we are winning.

5) Do we want more foreign troops actually in the fight as opposed to running logistics duties in the restive area, you bet.

6) Are we winning without them? YES! Canadians, Aussies, and Brits have taken real losses to win this fight. But more of our NATO allies need to cough up some troops and it looks like France is going to do just that.

Good lord, our highest ranking military officer in NATO told us this weeks ago, that it is not true that the Taliban is resurgent and yet hacks like Arkin still spin this myth.

Don't believe me? Go to icasualties.org and see how many American forces were killed in February in Afghanistan. I already did.

The answer: 1

One soldier killed in an entire month in a war we are losing?

Good God WaPo, please, please stop providing a platform for this disgrace of a man to call himself a military analyst, he knows nothing.

What a disgrace.

And if the gov'ts of the US and EU don't do this; then, they are admitting they are part of the drug cartels -

Plainfacto

And based upon what I have read and hear, this is apparently, what the average person in Afghanistan believes.

We all appreciate the contribution that you have made personally, given your involvment in drug interdiction. I know of individuals who had to be hidden for sticking their noses out for the rest of us, just as you have done.

In meetings in our nation's capitol, I have participated in discussions that had to do with drug interdiction from Colombia and elsewhere. In fact many of the so-called third world nations, and their respective government officials were present at those meetings.

The ultimate solution is to eliminate the demand, for as long as demand exists, someone will supply the need.

The U.S.A. cannot do it all! One day we will realize that and stop paying lipservice to that reality. Instead, we will learn to respectfully elicit the support of other nations, stop being so mercenary and dogmatic as a nation, and allow the international process to work!

I suspect that a whole lot of international problems like the one's with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan would go away, if we would allow the international process to work.

And that process will have to be permitted to work in a fashion other than the way which the United States wants it to work. We are not only dictating to singular nations like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran or Pakistan, on a daily basis we are dictating to all nations of the world!

UNESCO?

plainfacto,

It would appear that we both agree that the United States needs to change its
policy, with respect to Afghanistan.

And I would agree that we need the support of Russia and the more informed nations of the world, non-militarily, if we are going to be a positive change agent in Afghanistan - particularly those nations who share that region of the world.

And we should still address America's contribution to the burgeoning opium trade in Afghanistan by cutting off the demand supply-lines for opium, that emanates from the United States. I would call that fighting the war that should be fought at home!

This sounds like a job for UNESCO, and not the United States military!

//We need to come up with a viable solution to resolve this stalemate, which we are not winning. General McNeil again, head of NATO, said that it would take 400,000 soldiers to conquer Afghanistan.\\

(1)The smartest way to do this is by cutting off the enemies supplies - by have the US eradicate the opium crops for a few years so they lose amy money and military materiel long enough to shut them down.
(2)Divert their land use to legitimate crops - whtever their land may support and that pays well - would suffice.
(3)Have NATO forces maintain a 'no grow' zone for opium planting/cultivation. The need for troops would be far reduced if we 'nip it in the bud'.
(4)Use aircraft to monitor growth of the opium plants. Opium poppies are hard to disguise; they have large red and white flowers and can be seen miles away in the open spaces of Afghanistan. Guerilla farming of opium is nearly impossible to accomplish - unlike marijuana - which can be easily hidden if grown in small quantities. But even Pot can be spotted by the DEA by using a special camera that differenciates green scales and makes them stand out. Any large production of opium is anything but covert; water and growing conditions severely influences where it can be grown successfully. It takes a great deal of acreage to equate to their peak productions - this is not a small scale operation.
(5)Create a situation where legitimate farming of useful crops can be met with int'l market demands. Soybeans - as an example - are needed in EU and many other places in the world. They wouldn't have any problems selling a legitimate crop like this and get a fair price for their efforts. Besides, the people who are involved with smuggling and distributing opium are the ones that make the greatest profits - the opium farmer doesn't see the lion's share of its profit anyway.

Finally, 40,000 combined NATO and US troops properly equipped with enough air support and new defoliants can conquer the significant majority of poppy production. Any area of resistance would be populated by the Taliban and the drug cartels that are protecting thier cash cow. If we have to get into a fire fight with them - at least we won't be facing a small force - we would be forcing them out in the open and take prisoners or fighting those who are most directly involved. That gives us the advantage. I'm sure that we could even get the Russians to kick in with some added help if we press them - if it becomes necessary.

As far as Karzai is concerned, if he fails to agree with this changes, then it would be fair to assume that he is involved in this illegal crop that affects our part of the world directly. If he agrees and concedes to UN demands to eradicte, then we are on the way. Or is this too simple or wrong to stop those who wish to do us harm with opium and the terrorists that it supports?

//Opium is a strawman, you, in my opinion are ascribing too much of the blame to
the opium trade.\\

Respectfully Rev - I have not begun to blame the opium business. There is a direct lint to terrorism, int'l drug cartels, urban decay, and general human misery.

As you are already aware of, I have done detective work for my bro - who is a criminal attorney. I, myself, had done undercover work in local gangs and have uncovered many twisted stories about the drug trade that - in itself - would need a book to give it the proper expose.

I am in a constant state of alert because my life is in constant danger. I have NO sympathy for the dealers; only for their abused victims. While they smile all the way to the bank and buy themselves new SUV's or Hummers. Simply, I have NO sympathy for the local dealers OR those who grow the poppy!

Plainfacto,

Opium is a strawman, you, in my opinion are ascribing too much of the blame to
the opium trade.

Opium is not the problem, America created its own problem in Afghanistan when it sided with 'the students just over a decade ago against the Soviets.

And, it came back to bite us.

You said: "If it destoys the livihoods of Afghanis because of opium - I have absolutely no sympathy for them".

All I can say is, I hope you don't really mean that.

It is the innocent people of Afghanistan, children, women and the elderly, who are suffering, and they have nothing to do with this whole mess. In warfare, 4 of 10 individuals who loose their lives are innocent civilians.

We need to come up with a viable solution to resolve this stalemate, which we are not winning. General McNeil again, head of NATO, said that it would take 400,000 soldiers to conquer Afghanistan.

We don't have 400,000 soldiers plainfacto,
so now what do we do?

Goldfish might envy public understandings of the current fighting in Afghanistan, but there's not much reason to. Public memory about the process continues at the goldfish level.

Promptly after President Bush announced his plan to bring al-Qaeda to justice, the government of Afghanistan, named the Taliban, offered to capture al-Qaeda and hand it over. They repeated the offer. Bush rejected it -- just as his father had when Saddam Hussein agreed to pull out of Kuwait and did in fact pull out of Kuwait in compliance with the Bush I demand.

US and allied forces attacked Afghanistan, a nation without a navy, an air force, or much of an army; a nation with a large share of its population at starving point. Allied forces defeated the Afghan nation in a campaign that included bombing -- twice -- the United Nations food warehouse in Kabul, there to feed the starving. The air war against the food stocks was a 100% success.

The United States then voted hundreds of millions of dollars to help out defeated Afghanistan. Very little of this made it to that nation. Investigations were promised into why this was so. I am unaware of any report on such investigations.

Washington switched its attention to invading Iraq without understanding that its work in Afghanistan wasn't nearly done. America is now paying a price in blood and money for that foolishness. So are its allies.

Early in the Afghan start of the war against terror, the US, briefly and with heavy bribes -- shown in European news programs at the time: heavily armed Americans prudently guarded the man in the military camo without a name tape as he handed out the cash -- recruited a Northern Alliance from the ranks of the leading Afghan poppy farmers to "defeat the Taliban". The alliance seems to have dissolved in weeks. Many of its members are back to poppy farming on a much higher level than existed in 2001 or ever before. Doubtless the US bribes helped them purchase the needed extra farming machinery, transportation, etc to develop their flourishing businesses.

Clearly, al-Qaeda has not been brought to justice.

This is largely because of the US president's mammoth breach of operational security, probably the greatest in US history. He repeatedly told the world through television, radio, the Internet and the press that he was going to send the military to Afghanistan to capture or kill al-Qaeda. Not wanting to be captured or killed, al-Qaeda had evacuated Afghanistan before the first Americans arrived. What would you have done?

Elements of the Taliban continue to express their disagreement with the current Allied occupation of their homeland, and there seems little reason to expect them to stop. It's suggested that the current Afghan president controls little of his homeland. Certainly his first bodyguards after he won his election were American soldiers or ex-soldiers. Strange thing in any nation: a bodyguard of foreigners to protect a president from his people. Since that times, Afghans have been found to take the job.

The whole exercise seems to have been pretty pointless, wouldn't you think?

//Come on Plainfacto, you aren't providing
us with the plain facts this time.\\

I have to disagree with you this time - Rev.
How long does it take for us to realize that striking down the poppy is striking a major blow against Taliban/AQ terrorism roots? How many times must one be struck in the head before one realizes that it hurts, who is doing it, and that it is time to put and end to it, and fight back?

//Let's review supply-side economics, and
the law of supply and demand. Aren't we
being hypocritical given that Americans
are buying recreational drugs from Columbia and Afghanistan, at the same time we are condemning them?\\

Afghanistan supplies ninety percent of the worlds opium. People cannot recreate on what they cannot get - provided that we shut off the flow from Afghanistan. Columbian cocaine is another story; it is a bad thing - too! But NOTHING has done as much damage - historically - as opiates have. Nothing!

//Should we turn around and destroy the livelihood of many Afghanistans by destroying the poppies without replacing that industry with some other commodity that is useful to Americans.\\

Yes, we absolutely have the moral high ground if we destroy their poppy production. How many countries are affected by their $h!t? Even Russia, Iran and a host of others are and have been - and are presently - adversely affected. If it destoys the livihoods of Afghanis because of opium - I have absolutely no sympathy for them. None; they know better - ignorance isn't an excuse nor a defense. Yes, thay can grow many other things that a legitimate society can and does. Let them grow soybeans; I do!

//How come we don't lodge a domestic war against contraband, or harshly punish those Americans who help support the poppey industry in Afghanistan?\\

Let's smite the source of opium and let the chips fall where they may. Futhermore, we are forcing the Taliban and AQ out of arms and money to fight us. Unplug them all!

//We have been in bed with 'the students' before, now let's get in bed with them and helped to create jobs and social uplift for the people of Afghanistan.\\

Fine. Just be sure to take away opium production for five years and put NATO in to ensure it doesn't happen again.

//The only people individuals that are being hurt by the American incursion into Afghanistan are the people! I understand that so-called Warlords are doing well around Kandehar, Kabul and elsewhere in
the South!\\

Our troops and NATO troops are standing around and throwing pebbles at each other and watching the poppies grow. They know this is the problem - too! Ask them and they will tell you so.

Hey Rev:

Maybe - maybe not...
I hope that I have drawn the line in the sand, so that those who wish to perpetuate the poppy are exposed and we focus on what IS right.
Again - we will see...

America's Exclusive Enemy in The World ...

is TRUTH!

And we won't destroy that Plainfacto!

Opium, poppy growth...

Come on Plainfacto, you aren't providing
us with the plain facts this time.

Let's review supply-side economics, and
the law of supply and demand. Aren't we
being hypocritical given that Americans
are buying recreational drugs from Columbia and Afghanistan, at the same time we are condemning them?

Should we turn around and destroy the livelihood of many Afghanistans by destroying the poppies without replacing that industry with some other commodity that is useful to Americans.

How come we don't lodge a domestic war against contraband, or harshly punish those Americans who help support the poppey industry in Afghanistan?

We have been in bed with 'the students' before, now let's get in bed with them and helped to create jobs and social uplift for the people of Afghanistan.

The only people individuals that are being hurt by the American incursion into Afghanistan are the people! I understand that so-called Warlords are doing well around Kandehar, Kabul and elsewhere in
the South!

America

... is in Afghanistan in order to destroy its political enemies, not to help to create social uplift for the people of Afghanistan. And that is why America's flawed policy in Afghanistan failed.

Had America wanted to help the indigenous
people of Afghanistan, we have had years
prior to the invasion to do so, we would have done so years ago!

Imagine how we could have helped Afghanistan, if for every bomb we dropped, or missle that we shot - we had used those dollars for foreign aid. Greedy Americans would have had a new market to exploit!

I suspect then that the Afghans would
have had a more favorable response to
the U.S.A., had we helped them to build their infrastructure

I understand that many individuals in Afghanistan believe that the U.S.A. is actually in bed with the Students (some of whom trained in America institutions of Higher Learning)!

Our policy-makers in Washington and many rank and file Americans, lack a long-term vision of what it take in order to make the world a peaceful place! And the rest of us suffer given their ignorance!

Afghanistan is held and knitted together with opium gum. It is a gov't predicated upon the misery of people all over the world - and the West in particular.

The profits of opium have corrupted its gov't and people from top to bottom. The money is made by int'l drug mobs and profits paid incountry are used to support and equip the Taliban and AQ in particular.

To destroy all poppy growth for the next five years would assuredly cut OBL legs off at the ankles. Now, that would give our forces and EU forces something to truely fight for. In any war, the moral highground must be established so the troops that fight for that cause know full well what is at stake, what victory looks like, and understand the sacrifices and mistakes that are made to this end. With such, we have realized what is right and what is wrong; and our enemies can only fail and we can only win.

And if the gov'ts of the US and EU don't do this; then, they are admitting they are part of the drug cartels - and everything they say and do is just nothing more than window dressing. Let's unplug the drug scourge of Afghanistan. Lord willing, we can if we recognize that it is proper to do so...

Just a few facts first: "Afghanistan" doesn't really exist, in the sense it is less a country than a line of political demarcation on the map, similar to the case of Yugoslavia and Iraq. It is the result of the Durand line being drawn by a British general in 1893 in delineation of how far imperial India could control Central Asia, and this only after two disastrous campaigns beyond the Khyber Pass which pretty much made the issue clear. According to a CIA analysis, the people who live there are roughly 42% Pashtun, 27% Tajik, 9% Hazara, 9% Uzbek, 4% Aimak, 3% Turkmen, 2% Balochi, and 4% from other mid-Asian tribes, all with different languages, cultures, and histories. In the last hundred years or so, the Pashtun have largely had internal control because they are the largest ethnic group, secondly because they have a strong national identity and a warrior culture, and thirdly because most Pashtun do not live there. Roughly three-fifths of the Pashtun populations reside in Pakistan, providing what may be thought of as strategic depth, with a base of power that is both local and "transnational". Many in history have attempted to control this area. None to date have succeeded.

What exactly is the U.S. trying to accomplish in Afghanistan? Most would say to prevent al-Qaeda and "Taliban" resurgence by the establishment of a stable central government adherent to this goal. Before the feasibility of this effort is approached, it is useful to briefly review how we got there, and to note one most salient fact.

During the Soviet war effort in Afghanistan, the CIA financed and armed a transnational Islamic grouping to bleed the Soviets by a force of Muslim mujahadeen, self-professed holy warriors fighting a jihad against godless communism. They would never give up and were not afraid of death. Men with only a rifle or other weapons as they may physically carry or devise on the scene, are formidable no matter what else you may care to think of them.

Perhaps most importantly, we apparently did not know or possibly care that within the context of Islam the larger purpose of the mujahadeen was to defend the Ummah, meaning the "Community of Believers", thus Islamic world interests as Muslims saw them to be, and to avenge injustices and humiliation forced upon them. After ten years of quagmire the Soviets went home, the various warlords of the resistance took to fighting among themselves, and generalized chaos ensued. In due course, the Pashtun coalesced under the name of Taliban, a word meaning "students of religion" and came to dominate most of Afghanistan except the Panshir valley where a notable Tajik leader, Ahmad Shah Masoud, held power.

Our problems only arose after certain resident Arabs of the anti-Soviet mujahadeen led by Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization, focused in their resentment at American foreign policy and with Saudi foot soldiers, formed and executed the 9/11 plot. The rest is current events.

It is nearly certain any American administration would seek to destroy the leadership and structure of those responsible for the shock of the collapsing twin towers and an exploding Pentagon. So we invaded Afghanistan, overthrew the Pashtun Taliban and for a while went after bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization, thereby to protect the USA from further plots like 9/11. There was no thought at the time that our purpose could only succeed by building a stable western-style and liberally based political system, a possibly unending nation building commitment, and fundamentally changing the ethos of the Pashtun peoples.

Honestly ask yourself: If we only think in terms of the "Taliban" label, do we understand what may be a far more complex situation? Can the western backed and funded Kabul administration, whose writ barely extends to the limits of the city, gain effective control of the country if it is seen by many there as a foreign imposition? Can western military forces kill enough Pashtun to accomplish a successful outcome? Can air strikes on guerilla forces blending into the population that also kill large numbers of civilians on a regular basis, crush or inflame the will of the armed resistance? Can infrastructure projects engender Pashtun acquiescence if they see things in terms of foreign armies forcibly and fundamentally changing their culture? Can we uproot the narco-based economy which now funds the resistance if it is almost entirely the basis of their very survival? Can the government of Pakistan forcibly alter any part of this equation if it too is increasingly seen by Pashtun on both sides of the Durand Line as a western proxy and cannot even control its own ungoverned areas where most Pashtun reside, not to mention bin Laden? If Afghanistan is the Good War, exactly how and when can we win it?

May I paraphrase a statement by the 'publican John Connally when he was secretary of the Treasury and taking the US off the gold standard (thereby created financial havoc in Europe)?

Your war; your problem, America!!

Europe is NOT some protectorate of the US, and we have no intention of bending over and spreading them at the whim of the US, particularly against the wills of our peoples. What is with this bullying attitude?

Why should Europe belly up to help the US out of a situation she brought on herself? America needs some tough love. Maybe then she'll grow up and stop behaving like some spoiled child (not surprising as the top guy himself exhibits all the "earmarks" of being such a one).

America had best start treating Europe with respect and as an equal partner. The US has insulted, belittled, and patronized Europe for years. I suggest she show some humility and empathy and, above all, respect for the exercise of the will of the PEOPLE in European democracies. Otherwise, she may discover herself isolated and friendless. Very large numbers of Europeans are fed up with US arrogance and are about ready to wash their hands of the blithering, babbling, bungling bunch of buffoons fronting for the administrative branch (which, unfortunately, is the face of the US to the rest of the world).

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Take heed!!

Alex,

We were warned over the weekend to be weary of apologists who would pretend that the situation in Afghanistan was rosey. The truth of the matter (6 years after the war began):

1. Last week was the deadliest week in Afghan since the fighting began 6 years ago.
2. According to an independent study, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan.
3. Another 3200 troops are being sent this week.
4. There is an insufficent amount of resources and aid to Afghanistan, people are starving, even children in orphanages!
5. The Taliban controls many districts in Afghanistan and works alongside many other local governments (in their country I might add).
6. Criminal enterprises thrive in Afghanistan with American approval; even to get a driver's license.
7. There is enormous inflation (a Gov't salary on average is about $50.00 per month), and not worth much as a result.
8. The best jobs are in the Opium business, where you can earn $25 a day.
9. The people are shaken down almost daily first by the govt', and then by Taliban or alQeada. Ergo the people have to switch sides almost daily in order to survive.
10. The U.S.A. lacks the troop strength to win $400,000 needed.
11. The billion dollars in aid forked over by the U.S.A. the last time, never reached the rank and file citizens.

This war has been going on now for 6 years, and the Taliban have been reconstituted. Perhaps if the U.S.A. had kept its focus on its purported enemy instead of traipsing off into Iraq, the mission would have been accomplished Alex.

The American people cannot afford to pay for GB's ill-advised excursions into other nation. And, the U.S.A. cannot expect the N.A.T.O. nations to jump, each time it decides to attack a sovereign nation in the world!

The Executive Branch in our nation might act without a declaration of war, however, in other N.A.T.O. nations, the military is subject to the will of the people and the laws of their country - unlike our government!

Have you heard about the foreclosure rate in America. Just how long should the American people ignore our dynsfunctional and misguided government policies?

And while you are apologizing for the government, the President and his boyz decided that rather than contribute to the war effort over the past 6-years, they gave themselves tax breaks. Hmm!!

From the perspective of a development worker in Afghanistan, WE NEED BETTER COMMITMENTS FOR SECURITY in order to continue our work in the provinces.

OK, let's be real. Reconstruction and development requires the burdens of security, and the burdens of security should be shared across the NATO coalition. No one really wants to go out and hunt terrorists for fun.

Hence, you have a dilemma: reconstruction and development need security, but security progress doesn't happen without reconstruction. I won't mention any names, but several missions that I know of (including my own) have cancelled development projects in now-unpeaceful districts. Yes, peaceful development actors will share some costs and risks with ISAF and ANA/ANP, but it is not our job to attract fire while on the job.

In my opinion, if the sentiment against Western activities in Afghanistan (apparent on this page) continue, Congress and other legislative bodies will have no reservation pulling out the aid for Afghan people. Hey, it's up to you, the voters. We're doing our jobs. But if the voters don't want us here, hell we don't want to risk our butts either. However, if we leave early, we are going to leave the country to fester into a terrible catastrophe, much worse than otherwise.

Without proper security, Afghanistan's current achievements would not have materialized. Let's look at the positives: Afghanistan has its first elected government; average economic growth is well above 10% annually (much higher than even China); girls and women are back in schools; people can sing, dance, and watch TV again (not to mention use the internet to read articles like this one); child mortality rates are dropping; and on and on...

What are we going to sacrifice by continuing to blame each other for past mistakes and lost opportunities? Get over it already and let's work work together and think POSITIVE.

American Creed:

Domestic: You cannot legislate morality; people have a right to decide; the majority wins!

Offshore: Kill as many as you can until there is a majority that thinks like and will side with America!

The problem is, other disparate people are not Americans. And not only is Europe right this time, the majority of the nations of the world and America's allies are right - and were right when they opposed the America's illegal invasion of Iraq!

Anonymous' dog is smarter than that, and he only knows 'bow wow'!!

America is not as eager to receive
input from Europe when it comes to
making determinations about which
nations ought to be attacked, and
which nations ought to be left alone.

General McNeil head of the NATO Forces
believes that 400,000 troops are needed
to ultimately conquer Afghanistan.

Had America had some foreward looking
thinkers in place years ago, it would
not have opposed the Soviets when they were at war with Afghanistan.

However, America was in bed with 'the
Students', the same students who turned
around and attacked America. And of
late those students have regained a foothold in Afghanistan.

Europe is smart, our national leaders are
not so smart! If the Rev was a Head of
State, I would tell America to knock
it off, and to learn to live among
the family of nations. If my nation
was an ally of the U.S.A., I would
recommended that find a new ally!

Take today's headlines as an example of how little the U.S. is interested in 'democracy' for the people of the region.

Afghanistan says needs stable and democratic Pakistan
International Herald Tribune - France
By Wojciech Moskwa Reuters

OSLO: Afghanistan needs a stable and democratic Pakistan to help it fight off Taliban militants, Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen ...

That MEANS, if I understand DEMOCRATIC correctly, that Musharraf MUST GO... That's what the electorate of Pakistan demanded by an overwhelming majority and no matter how many strings we have attached to the weaselly little crony, democracy says:

"He must go".

OTOH, The ONLY WAY the U.S. MIGHT allow that is to happen is if he's.. umn...guffaw. "Neutralized" or somesuch...

Then we'd make a play at installing, through whatever means necessary, including MURDERING countless civilians directly or indirectly, someone the U.S. can 'deal' with.

The U.S. inhibits democratic change in Pakistan... again.

...and by extension, according to the wishes of the Afghani government, are f*cking over the selfsame people we claim to be helping fight the talib.

Only "change WE can profit from" counts as democracy in America's eyes, to twist a phrase from another run-of-the-mill beneficiary of the military-industrial complex who's currently running for president.

We need our troops home now... to make AMERICA safe for democracy... and then MAYBE some people will follow our lead.

Until such a time, get our military presence out of Afghanistan and the region NOW.

But most importantly, be aware that we are being sold another white-hot war on cold hearted disingenuous pretenses

Even as far back as 2003-04, I witnessed our NATO allies in Kabul spending the majority of their time hanging out at the bar (Unlike the U.S., they could drink while in country). Not once did I ever see any non-US personnel actually out seeking to engage and destroy the enemy; the same enemy that was surely seeking to destroy them -- during my time there many a British and Canadian convoy were hit by suicide bombers.

NATO troops make fine peace keepers I'm sure, but you have to secure the peace first. And that only comes once you've defeated the enemy. This enemy will never formally surrender, so they either must all be killed or one of us must walk away from the fight. If we continue to leave Afghanistan in NATO's hands I think it's pretty clear which conclusion we're going to end up with.

Buck Sargent
OEF '03-04
OIF '05-06
OIF '08-
americancitizensoldier@hotmail.com

How about the US of A learns to mind it's own business and take care of issues at home first. It always amazes me when these goofy politicians start rattling the sabre and talking tough. They KNOW their kids will have an exemption and the less fortunates will carry the load as always.
It doesn't take a lot of courage to send someone else's kids off to war. It takes a boatload to send your own off. We don't seem to have that sort anymore. Get out,
out, out of the Middle East and let them kill each other. Or better yet, give the Israelis a blank check on arms and munitions and they will put that part of the world in order.

This is correct. Its taken you a long time to grasp the fact that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. The Europeans are smarter than the US in this: they know that military operations are completely ineffective. Afghanistan is a corrupt, feudal, religiously primitive and ethnically riven state undergoing a civil war. Referring to the insurgents as the "Taliban" betrays a total lack of understanding of what is going on. The Taliban is a small faction with a simple and popular message which appeals to the majority of aggrieved Pashtuns: restore Pashtun dominance, get the foreigners out of Afghanistan, and obey the laws of Islam.. America, once again, has to apply simplistic labels and slogans: "war on terror", the "Taliban" and "Al Qaida"; stokes the American public with irrelevancies for Afghanistan such as democracy, freedom and women's rights; and ends up believing and acting-on its own nonsense. Your military is strategically incompetent in Afghanistan. I know, I was there in 2003 when the Europeans were having their arms twisted to field "provincial reconstruction teams" throughout Afghanistan: a brainless scheme which envisaged combat troops carrying-out development projects in the provinces to improve security. Bullied by the US and reluctant to antagonise it, some countries went along with the plan but with little enthusiasm by those in the know. The poodle Brits and the naive Canadians went into the worst (Pashtun) areas: The smarter Dutch, French, and Germans chose the more secure terrotory of the Northern Alliance. The reason why they wont add more troops now is that they feel they have met their obligation to stand with the US and believe no more should be done to support a deeply flawed approach. The solution, such as it is, is to let the Afghans fight it out and come up with a winner. They only understand and respect power, and that comes from the gun, not the ballot box. The west has been putting its money on a westernised Afghan expatriate elite which is completely out of tune with Afghanistan's political and social realities. Afghanistan is a failed state and there is nothing we can do militarily to fix it.

Your perspective is skewed by the belief that the coalition of the coerced is actually doing anything beneficial for the people of Afghanistan, and that presumption is thoroughly flawed in word, deed, and most importantly, action of the outside forces acting on a sovereign government.

Example: Karzai said "stop bombing civilians".

We have not, nor will we.

They are in the way.

Okay, lets try to put this into perspective:

I send a letter to you telling you that I'm going to kill your grandmother because she voted for the Democrats last election. You take the letter to the police and tell them where I live. What do the police do? They show up on my doorstep and arrest me. If I have a gun and I shoot at them, they send in the swat team and kill me.

This is NO different than what they are doing in Southern Afghanistan. Without actively seeking out the people that are threatening civilians and their freedoms, the reconstruction means nothing. I agree that more reconstruction is needed. But until there are enough armed men working for the government that the 'bad guys' don't feel like they can do anything they want, building schools doesn't mean anything because people will be too scared to send their children there.

"My difficulty in Iraq and Afghanistan is that there is nothing approaching consensus on what it means "to win". "

The Bush administration "won" the ability to us the "nation at war" defense to silence critics, accuse them of being unpatriotic and distract the public from their dangerous and unsupportable grab for power. They "won" billions for their friend at the expense of hundreds of lives. If the focus had stayed on Afghanistan, and the Al Q'da threat removed, America would have won the respect of the world. Now, it'll take a generation to repair the damage done.

I, too, am skeptical of the Kill, Kill, Kill, more of the same strategy. As President Bush says, we'll all be dead. It must also surely be relevant that the Afghan Taliban knew nothing of the plot. Can we really say the same thing about the Pakistani and American Taliban?

America can rationalize ANY reason for war.

Then pass the blame on for why it isn't working out as planned.

Iraq not working out for you bubbie?

No worries. We can waste MORE money on another war built on lies in Afghanistan or wherever else natural resources are needed which require looting.

For what it's worth, we just gave AQ, the rationale given for invading Afghanistan, NOT THE TALIBAN (who we were paying to the last minute) another country to operate out of.

Backing it one hundred percent too!:

"Fireworks lit up the night sky over Kosovo's capital Pristina, where thousands of giddy ethnic Albanians braved subfreezing temperatures to ride on the roofs of their cars, singing patriotic songs and chanting: "KLA! KLA!" the acronym for the now-disbanded rebel Kosovo Liberation Army."

Source: http://www.forbes.com/topstories/home/feeds/ap/2008/02/17/ap4664597.html

To put it in terms that most Americans can easily understand, if not easily comprehend:

"During his stint as NATO Supreme Commander (1997-2000), Wesley Clark was in permanent liaison with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Under Wesley Clark's command, NATO directly sponsored a terrorist paramilitary army, with links to Al Qaeda and the trans-Balkan narcotics trade."

(Narcotics trade fueling the political infrastructure of the new government of Kosovo? For a looooong time now. Just as the Russian ambassador said, to U.S. dismay and bleating denials.)

Source: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2003/10.html

Hypocrites or warmonger...

That's what anyone who supports their dirty little war in Afghanistan is.

My difficulty in Iraq and Afghanistan is that there is nothing approaching consensus on what it means "to win". Without a defined idea of where you are trying to go or achieve you are always destined to fail. In Iraq, the target is constantly redifined to avoid failure to achieve. I suspect the problem is similar in other theaters. So, what do we want and by when? In Iraq, the most cogent goal was for a self governing nation able to police itself and run a sustainable government. We are not anywhere near that and probably never will be. What we have done is eliminate Hussein and create a massive displacement of civilians and a chaotic country with no agreement on where it should go because it has no "nationhood". In Afghanistan, I suspect the goal is the same, a sustainable self governing state able to police itself and maintain civil order. We aren't going to see that soon either. Part of the difficulty is that we keep insisting on a democratically elected government, but only if they elect the leaders we desire. If they decide they would prefer an islamic fundamentalist state, we are saying no, no no. I think we need to get our thinking worked out first if we hope to be successful.

Th problem that happened in Iraq was at the invasion no-one had any idea of what to do once the invasion was successful, except the British, who decided to police and rebuild, this from their days in Northern Ireland, but the Americans just went gung ho and still do in a lot of places, as they have no experiance in policing situations, they are learning the hard way. In Afganistan the US is still going at it gung ho and paying the price, the Europeans on the other hand have learnt from the Northern Ireland situation, fire power is not the be all to end it all, the British and Americans took the south and the rest worked out what was needed elsewhere to rebuild the country, because the Afgans want peace and prosperity like the rest of us, because one country is building roads or schools, does not need the US to critazie them for their contribution it will take alsorts to rebuild Afganistan not just fire power, politicly the Country needs to be strong and not having some US general or politician telling them what to do.

Check out this very vivid front line account of Afghan war in the NYT Sunday magazine

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/magazine/24afghanistan-t.html

The story illustrates the problem with fighting a counter-insurgency campaign with heavy firepower: it leads to civilian casualties, which are an insurgency recruiting tool - particularly in a region when family members are honor-bound to avenge a relative's death in blood.

The alternative approach - a less lethal response, less use of air power -- may well mean more US casualties.

I would prefer a full American operation as far as Western troops are concerned. However, we need to work with Afghanistan's neighbors, because it is in their interest to have a stable Afghanistan on their borders. This includes Iran! I have never been overly concerned about Iran or Iraq having nuclear weapons. They seem small potatoes after the Soviet Union. We have nuclear deterrent coming out of our ears. Since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, I am more concerned about the safety of ordinary nuclear power plants.

Special ops and Airpower are NOT the answer, though spec ops can do alot, they will have there legs cut out from under them if there left in the desert while the conventional forces go home. and yes, europe is being short sighted and cowardly by pulling out, the reality is that europe is being increasingly populated my potentionaly threatening imagrating poeples coming in from the middle east. Its easy to say that the war has run too long and we need to run away, but we know that the enemy forces in all three current combat zones have great resolve and have to potential to strike the U.S. again as well as further strikes on europe. it is far lees threatening to fight insurgents on their soil rather than ours.

I spent some time with a small American detachment working on a Canadian-run FOB near Kandahar in late 2006. Under their NATO commander, the Canadians could not engage in any "offensive" operations, meaning that they sat on the FOB and watched insurgents move and transport equipment through their area.

The Americans, under a US Army captain, would do "recon by fire"--that is, finding the bad guys by driving around until we were attacked--at which time we could call for a quick reaction force. This was the only time the Canadians could do anything other than purely defensive measures. I don't know what the commanders thought, but the joes loved us for it. They could see what was happening right in front of them.

Non-kinetic operations cannot take place in the absence of security. Security requires boots and the ground and active engagement of the Taliban remnants. You won't build any nations in a place where people are beheaded for selling Americans cigarettes, and letters are spread promising death to entire families should anyone accept humanitarian aid.

We saw what happened early last year when NATO decided not to hold the previously-secured Musa Qah'leh. A "gentleman's agreement" with the local Talibs resulted in the town becoming a major Taliban stronghold--from the same district center that we had occupied (and fortified) weeks earlier. Taking it back required a price paid in blood.

If Secretary Gates were advocating some other strategy, no doubt you would be castigating him for not heeding the lessons learned at such cost in Iraq.

sig@sigspace.net

The German Army has excellent field Officers,
some of the finest in the world,
why should they be allowed to shirk their duties?

I read their public opinion polls too
and in my estimation
the German politikos
have not presented the case well to the public
for helping out the good people of Afghanistan.

Charity work on this level
is not for the feint of heart
especially when somebody is trying to shove a Kalashnikov
down your throat.

So just how do you purpose securing
the next generation of Afghanis
from the local bullies?

They need education, good roads
and fair trade too you know.

Hiding under the bed
is all good and fine
but it takes a special someone
a person with real heart
to get this job done.

Afghanistan is the poorest nation on the planet.
and people talk about helping out Darfur?
please...
they don't know what it takes
to change the world.

It takes heart
It takes commitment.
It takes a lot of LOVE.

The German Army has excellent field Officers,
some fo the finest in the world,
why should they be allowed to shirk their duties?

I read their public opinion polls too
and in my estimation
the German politikos
have not presented the case well to the public
for helping out the good people of Afghanistan.

Charity work on this level
is not for the feint of heart
especially when somebody is trying to shove a Kalashnikov
down your throat.

So just how do you purpose securing
the next generation of Afghanis
from the local bullies?

They need education, good roads
and fair trade too you know.

Hiding under the bed
is all good and fine
but it takes a special someone
a person with real heart
to get this job done.

Afghanistan is the poorest nation on the planet.
and people talk about helping out Darfur?
please...
they don't know what it takes
to change the world.

It takes heart
It takes commitment.
It takes a lot of LOVE.