The New York Times reports today that senior officials within the Obama administration are pressing for an accelerated withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan.
The rationale for that pressure is supposedly the success of Americas efforts against al Qaeda and the fact that the counterterrorism campaign, which was favored by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2009, has outperformed the more troop-intensive counterinsurgency campaign pushed by Mr. Gates, Gen. David H. Petraeus and other top military planners.
This rationaleor rationalization?is specious. It demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between our efforts in Afghanistan and our successes in Pakistan, as well as of the inseparability of effective counter-terrorism operations from the counter-insurgency strategy President Obama announced in December 2009.
Simply put, if the U.S. abandons the mission in Afghanistan before achieving the objectives President Obama announced at West Point, the counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan will also fail.
We should recall that tough fighting conducted by conventional American military forces in 2002 drove al Qaeda into Pakistan in the first place. The Taliban regime may have been brought down largely by American airpower and CIA operatives with bags of cash, but al Qaedas leaders did not flee the country when the regime fell. They attempted to reconstitute, rather, in southeastern Afghanistan, particularly in the mountainous terrain in Zormat district of Paktya province known as the Shah-i Kot valley.
It required a significant military operation conducted by conventional American forcesOperation ANACONDAto drive them from that mountain fastness and persuade them that they could not rely on refuge in Afghanistan.
Thereafter, they established themselves in Pakistan, at bases familiar to them from the days of the anti-Soviet war but from which they had not operated since the Soviet withdrawal. They continued to cooperate closely with the Haqqani Network, the group with which they had been most closely allied while fighting the Soviets, which operates in Paktya and the surrounding provinces of Khost and Paktika. But American forcesboth conventional and unconventionalhave remained in those provinces continuously since 2002.
The al Qaeda leadership has therefore never seen an opportunity to move back into terrain that had been historically extremely congenial to them. Instead they made their homes among the tribes of Waziristan and, over time, even in metropolitan Pakistan. American unconventional forces with intermittent assistance from the Pakistani government and military have continued to hunt them down.
When President Obama came to office, the group had already been severely degraded and reduced to a relatively small number of senior leaders in Pakistan. The group did not have a significant presence in Afghanistanlargely because, as Ambassador Ryan Crocker noted during his confirmation testimony, the U.S. remained there.
Al Qaeda has, nevertheless, sought to re-establish itself more quietly in Afghanistan, as demonstrated by the periodic forays of mid-level commanders that allow U.S. strike forces to kill them in Afghanistan.
It is faulty logic of the worst kind to take the situation in Afghanistan that makes it so inhospitable to al Qaeda as a given, regardless of the presence or absence of U.S. forces or their activities. If the U.S. withdraws prematurely from Afghanistan and the country collapses again into ethnic civil war, then al Qaeda will have regained its original and most dangerous sanctuary.
Al Qaeda is not finished because of bin Ladens death, moreover. Senior leaders continue to live and work in Pakistan, coordinating operations with other al Qaeda franchises around the world to attack Americans and America.
What is the strategy for finishing this fight if we abandon Afghanistan prematurely or put progress toward stabilizing that country at risk?
Where did the helicopter assault force that killed bin Laden launch from? Afghanistan. That is a location that will become even more important now that Pakistan has publicly expelled both the CIA and Special Forces operatives who were working against al Qaeda and working with the Pakistani counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism forces themselves.
If the U.S. loses its Afghan bases, as well as its position in Pakistan, the presidents ability to continue the struggle against al Qaeda will be severely degraded.
There is a direct connection between American and international efforts in Afghanistan and the successes we have had against al Qaeda in Pakistan. Any rationalization that relies on separating those two undertakings is, in fact, misinformed and dangerous. Counter-terrorism in Pakistan cannot be separated from the success of the current counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan.
#1
The definition of success in Afghanistan is still lacking. The cessation of terrorism export from Afghanistan does not amount to success, since it can resume any time the madrassas stir up the gunnies.
#2
PEOPLE'S DAILY FORUM > US PENTAGON ASKS TO EXTEND SURGE UNTIL 2012, i.e. to just month before planned US troop withdrawals begin.
and
* SAME > AL-QAEDA'S ZAWAHIRI BIGGER THREAT THAN OSAMA!, as per Raymond Ibrahim, author of 2007 book "THE AL-QAEDA PRIMER".
Physician Ayman more covertly akin to DRS. MENGELE, MOREAU, or MORIARITY, etc. than Marcus Welby, MD or House.
ARTIC = Ibrahim believes that AYMAN ZAWAHIRI is primarily responsible for redirecting the Jihadists' terror attacks from the Middle East only to agz the USA in order to induce an "ALL-OR-NOTHING" MASS CONFLAGRATION = WAR BETWEEN THE US-WEST + ISLAMISTS.
IOW, ISLAMIST JIHAD = actually "ALL-OUT" = TOTAL WAR = WAR OF ANNIHILATION AGZ THE US-WEST, even iff US-World Diplomats + Medias, etc. refuse to describe or label it as such.
Ibrahim also denotes that to understand OSAMA'S PERSONAL, IDEO "WORLD VIEW", ONE MUST UNDERSTAND AYMAN'S POTENT INFLUENCES ON OSAMA.
#2
OTOH, I believe part of the war's unpopularity may be due to Karzai and the people who run Pakistan. It is truly galling to shell out billions of dollars to these people even if we can afford it.
#4
I don't think in general the American public is that against the war in Afghanistan as much as they were in Iraq. Even up here in NoVa, there doesn't seem to be the urgency there was to pull out of Iraq 2008/2009. I hope the politicians understand that.
#5
The figures are slightly wrong, I've read estimates that the war in Afganistan is substansially higher then the $100 billion. Ofcourse doesn't matter, but I have read sources that cite the U.S have spent well over $2 trillion on Afgan since '01.
So erm, what's the plan when you guys hit the debt ceiling in several months?
#6
Afghanistan used to cost $800 million/month when we had 10,000 troops there. With the buildup to 100,000+ troops, it now costs $10 billion/month. Wasted money that could be used to reduce US energy dependence.
#8
Wouldn't it be cheaper to make Pakistan our formal enemy? At least that country has a coastline.
I see what you did thar. Now of course from a pure Operational Analysis it would make even better sense to stage an assault on Saudi. They got the good prots.
:)
Posted by: Goldies Every Damn Where ||
06/20/2011 16:58 Comments ||
Top||
Buckle up: An agent testifies that surveillance stopped at the border, meaning the operation didn't actually trace guns to cartels to make arrests. The only conclusion? Law enforcement wasn't the point, orchestrated violence was, and that's a history-making scandal.
The most damning revelation coming out of the hearings held by the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Operation Fast and Furious are the unmistakable indications that the program was never designed to succeed as a law enforcement operation at all.
A quartet of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and supervisors turned into whistleblowers to bring the operation down, but only after U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down in the Arizona desert. Two of the weapons recovered at the scene of Terry's murder were traced to the operation.
Fast and Furious, also known by the more accurate "Gunwalker," allowed known straw purchasers to buy large quantities of firearms -- often a dozen or more semi-automatic rifles -- at a time with the full knowledge of ATF agents and executives. The guns were then smuggled into Mexico, as frustrated front-line ATF agents watched, under strict orders to do nothing.
ATF agents testifying in front of the House oversight committee could not explain how the operation was supposed to succeed when their surveillance efforts stopped at the border and interdiction was never an option.
ATF agent John Dodson, testifying in front of the committee, said that in his entire law enforcement career, he had "never been involved in or even heard of an operation in which law enforcement officers let guns walk."
"I cannot begin to think of how the risk of letting guns fall into the hands of known criminals could possibly advance any legitimate law enforcement interest."
The obvious answer is that Gunwalker's objective was never intended to be a "legitimate law enforcement interest." Instead, it appears that ATF acting director Ken Melson and Department of Justice senior executives specifically created an operation that was designed from the outset to arm Mexican narco-terrorists and increase violence substantially along both sides of the Southwest border.
Success was measured not by the number of criminals being incarcerated, but by the number of weapons transiting the border and the violence those weapons caused. An ATF manager was "delighted" when Gunwalker guns started showing up at drug busts. It would be entirely consistent with this theory if DOJ communications reflected the approval of the ATF senior officials they were colluding with -- but as we know, Holder's Department of Justice refuses to cooperate.
At the same time in 2009 that federal law enforcement agencies (the ATF, the DOJ, and presumably Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security) were creating the operation that led to the Executive Branch being the largest gun smuggler in the Southwest, the president's team was crafting the rhetoric to sell the crisis they were creating.
On television, in various news outlets and even in a joint appearance with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama pushed the 90 percent lie, implying that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexican cartel violence came from U.S. gun shops.
At the same time they were damning gun dealers in public, the administration was secretly forcing them to provide weapons to the cartels, by the armful and without oversight. More than one gun industry insider suggests that the administration extorted cooperation and silence from these gun shops. As the ATF has the power to summarily shut dealers down for the most minor of offenses, that is very, very possible.
The administration has spared no effort to stop the investigation in its tracks. Democrat senators attempted to poison the well the day before the Oversight Committee's hearings. The ranking Democrat on the committee did as well, before being flummoxed into silence by the testimony presented. Rest at link at Pajamas Media. Needless to say, if this all is even remotely true it shows a huge crime against the people of Mexico and the people of the United States. Prison, impeachment and extradition are the least of the things that need to happen to the people that greenlighted this. This is above and beyond politics and is an illegal attempt to seize power and erode our rights and make us slaves to government state with no means to defend ourselves. I'm really beyond jaded at this point and see Obumble as a true domestic threat to our constitution and freedoms.
#1
Although "Gunrunner" was most likely from the very top, some mid-level managers at ATFE may bear the blame but it's guaranteed that little will make it up the chain in this scandal. Treasonous.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/20/2011 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'll apply Ocams Ear Twirly and come up with Career Bureaucrats seeing names in paper and a sure promotion. ATF has THE STUPID.
Posted by: Goldies Every Damn Where ||
06/20/2011 17:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I had a similar opinion, some dipshit thought this a good idea until there were dead Mexican police, starting spinning before the news broke.
But that does not explain the operation. Somebody had to approve this action, a Rantburger and apologies for forgetting who, pointed out that it is a bit more complicated then a go/no go but would have to have active work done by a higher up to release the weapons. When this broke we all looked at the plan and could not figure out how it was supposed to work without at the very least close cooperation with Mexico. So why did the approver approve such a high risk low reward, flawed plan?
#6
So why did the approver approve such a high risk low reward, flawed plan?
Never deny the STUPID.
Srsly. The STUPID is with us, usually 3 steps behind you.
Posted by: Goldies Every Damn Where ||
06/20/2011 18:33 Comments ||
Top||
#7
You think?
Did they really think that supplying the Mexican Drug Cartels with tons of guns would somehow magically reveal some sinister parallel gun-running operation from here? When they couldn't track the guns once they crossed the border.
Personally I think this was an operation to flood the Mexican Cartel market with American made guns - so that they can later claim that most guns in the conflict came from the US (making Bambi's 90% lie true) and we need tighter gun control.
#8
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence...
Posted by: Bisa ||
06/20/2011 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
#9
it doesn't have to be an "either or". They have already proven their baldfaced dishonesty and incompetence. I suspect both, as in a malicious program to flood US guns to Mexico that would create a "crisis!!11!" (you may heard that term before in this administration?) necessitating registration and gun-grabbing, particularly in that pesky Southwest that doesn't vote Donk enough
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/20/2011 19:22 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Now lets not make Assumptions. Personally I don't think Obama has it in his spine to do this, yet alone Holder, for the sole purpose of Gun Control. Now some mid-level Desk Lackey looking to score idealogical points, maybe.
Posted by: Charles ||
06/20/2011 20:28 Comments ||
Top||
#13
So why did the approver approve such a high risk low reward, flawed plan?
#14
I'm not at conspiracy, at least not yet. It would be interesting if the timing of the gun control campaign where Calderon went before Congress etc matched up with damage control timeline.
President Obama wants to give away to Russia our Strategic Defense technology with no promise of anything in return in a naive "hope" that Russia will be "nice to us" after.
Palin has something to say about it, too, on her Facebook notes.
This man is not a Jimmy Carter an I don't think there is anyone in history to adequately describe what I believe he is doing to this country. At this point he is in a class all by himself.
The difference between Obama and Carter is that Carter was incompetent but he meant well.
#4
ION FREEREPUBLIC > THE DEFENSE RESTS. SecDef Gates leaving, in part, because he believes the the USA is going down the drain = in forced decline? during POTUS OBAMA's watch???
US BEING "FORCED" TO UNILATER GIVE UP ITS MIL, GEOPOL = COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES, + wid no clear description of any loss or benefit,etc. to the US + Amer People for doing so???
* WORLD NEWS > GATES: WEAK AL-QAEDA COULD SPLINTER, post-Osama into various Regional factions.
Decentralization for survival = rebuild + fight another day???
CONTINUANCE OF ANARCHY + MAYHEM, ...@ETC. POST-ZAWAHIRI-PLANNED, ORDERED SHENANIGANS NOT INCLUDED.
* WORLD NEWS > [Larry Niksch = CSIS] TOP STRATEGIST SAYS NORTH KOREA WILL BE ABLE TO NUKE THE US BY 2012. Not perfectly, but prob enuff to intimidate or frighten the Congresscritters + other.
* ION NOT-NORTH-KOREA TOPIX > IRAN MAKES FIRST BATCH OF 20% ENRICHED URANIUM.
ARTIC = Iran will only need six months to covert a good stockpile of same into NucWeaps.
* TOPIX > USFK COMMANDER SAYS MORE NORTH KOREA ATTACKS LIKELY | ... SAYS ALLIANCE READY FOR ANY NEW NORTH KOREAN ATTACK.
Kimmie likely to rely on increasingly VIOLENT/BELLICOSE, DPRK-specific unilateral mil agression(s) to get thingys done as per His + DPRK agendum.
* WORLD NEWS > NORTH KOREA SAYS NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS IN "UNCONTROLLABLE PHASE".
Anything can go iffy boomey sinky.
* SAME > [Russia FM Report] DOOMSDAY ICE AGE FEARS [by US] FUEL US-CHINA [arable = farm, massive]LAND GRABS IN SOUTH AMERICA, AFRICA, wid potential for "open" US-China conflict???
#7
Now now, Bambi pro'ly believes that 'strategic missile defense' doesn't work. After all, that's what the Democrats have been saying these last three decades, it will never work.
So doubtless he figures he's trading away something that will never work in return for the Soviets Russians giving us ... nothing.
Shrewd, Champ, shrewd...
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/20/2011 9:15 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Obumble is not fit to be the commander in chief.
He must be removed asap.
#11
"For some reason the word 'treason' comes to mind - but I suppose I'm just being racist again."
Take a number and get in (the very long) line, CF.
Posted by: Barbara ||
06/20/2011 17:29 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Generals wouldn't let him do this. I honestly believe they'd remove him through some leak or scandal before letting this happen. If they had to a coup, though that boggles my mind to consider it happening here in the US.
Posted by: Charles ||
06/20/2011 20:32 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Practically speaking, while there may be a coup, it may not be for the reasons they think.
When senior officers mutiny against general officers, it is usually because they are convinced the general officers are incompetent, mentally unfit, or treasonous, and are endangering the mission or the unit.
And senior officers are far less likely to be fanatics, because they usually learn to smell b.s. at a great distance.
#2
I would think... one could make an argument... that a Colonels' coup... in a nuke armed shithole... would be an excellent excuse for some parking lot construction...
and it is summer so drink up!
Posted by: Water Modem ||
06/20/2011 23:53 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Buckle up: An agent testifies that surveillance stopped at the border, meaning the operation didn't actually trace guns to cartels to make arrests. The only conclusion? Law enforcement wasn't the point, orchestrated violence was, and that's a history-making scandal. 
