A "debate" on Afghanistan?

Would it really have been so bad to have at least one genuine skeptic of the war included among the respondents?

The idea that newspapers are in the journalism business is quaint but untrue. Like any corporation, they are in business to maximize profits and promote a healthy economy. The US in its current form requires endless war to have any chance for a healthy economy.

In "War Is The Health Of The State" Randolph Bourne writes: ". . .All the activities of society are linked together as fast as possible to this central purpose of making a military offensive or a military defense, and the State becomes what in peacetimes it has vainly struggled to become — the inexorable arbiter and determinant of men’s business and attitudes and opinions. The slack is taken up, the cross-currents fade out, and the nation moves lumberingly and slowly, but with ever accelerated speed and integration, toward the great end, toward the 'peacefulness of being at war,' of which L.P. Jacks has so unforgettably spoken. . ."

It would appear to be a safe presumption at this point that both Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Andrew Rosenthal are hardcore neoconservatives -- substantially on the same page as the PNAC, PNAC2 (FPI), AEI, JINSA, AIPAC, etc.. The slant and bias keep shining through consistently despite the presence of Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich on the paper. There can be little doubt that the Israeli interest, as they perceive it, is the core issue at stake for them. (FPI and other neocon outfits are leading the charge to expand the Afghanistan War, which they see as part of the larger global struggle between Greater Israel and Islam -- Norman Podhoretz's World War IV.)

What do you think about these items?

1. The processes of reconciliation and counterinsurgency are the same. Within the context of politics dominated by factional networks that serve the immediate opportunities of strongmen, national leaders can target one ally after another and negotiate a recruitment arrangement with one after another.

2. To gain stability, national leaders need to establish sustainable participation by peasant communities so that they will not simply shift from one factional patron to another. To do this, peasants need a stronger asset base that is linked to national leaders. Assets give them the ability to establish a more mutually beneficial relationship with others; thus creating more stability.

3. Refugees can become rootless and seek an identity or source of pride and security. Thus, they are susceptible to Taliban structure, power and return to religious roots. After attending madrasas school s, they can become true-believer hardcore Taliban. The Taliban become a replacement for their lost families and communities.

4. Afghan international politics can become an extension of national factional politics. For example, individual Chinese military officers own large businesses and industries and they probably make business arrangements with individual Pakistani military officers. Since Pakistani military officers own approximately 22 billion dollars of businesses, relations between China and Pakistan do not necessarily follow national interests and can fuel factional competition. Chinese businesses are starting to do the same thing in Afghanistan.

5. The poppy trade dominates the Afghan economy and is responsible for forging many factional alliances in Afghanistan including elites in the government and in the Taliban. Those alliances extend beyond the Afghan borders and eventually link to diverse sectors that include the import/export businesses in Karachi and the Russian mafia and elements in Turkey. Russian organized crime may control as much as 80% of Russian businesses and control as much as 40% of Russia’s wealth, and those elements may eventually penetrate and greatly influence Central Asian and Afghan factional alliances.

These issues are very different from the western ideals of building institutions and democracy and waging military campaigns.

Bob Spencer

It's nice to know that the Washington Post is on board the war train, too.

As Gen. McChrystal's report makes very clear, keeping faith with that goal will require more troops, more resources and years of patience.

--editorial, Sep 22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092103086.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Hmm...just reading that the French military is mad as hell that US troops keep directing lasers at their convoys and aiming weapons for the fun of it: "Ce sont des c... Des fois, ils visent nos convois avec leurs lasers. Nous, on ne se comporte pas comme ça". McChrytal's representatives were at a French base in Mailly-le-Camp telling the French they had to conduct nocturnal raids on Afghan residences, at which the French balked: "Il faut cesser de faire peur à la population en croyant dissuader les insurgés."

Wow....I never in my life would not have thought that I would actually hear any person in their right mind say that the New York Times has bias that evolved from neoconservative origin; nor did I expect to see an article published by the Times which did not include an overwhelming panel opposed to conflict. The role of media in our country is to inform the public and report "real" news from an objective perspective; sadly, that is no longer the goal of our "mainstream" media outlets who have replaced informing the public objectively with real news with disgusting political agendas and political motives. With that being said, I am not just admonishing leftist publication organizations as I also take issue with conservative publications like the Wall Street Journal. Would you also be so quick to accuse the media outlet of bias if the panel was solely composed of opinions that conveyed anti-war sentiments or projected blatant allegiance towards groups such as Hamas? Would you?? Remember Jason Blair at the "Times", fabricating stories? The NYT is not a pro-Israel as they have openly support the United Nations who along with the majority of European countries still after all these years shows disdain for the Jewish community. How can this be?? Well, the intellectual elitist across the pond gave the no longer distinguished Nobel Peace Prize to both Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter. The recent report from the U.N. regarding Israeli/Palestinian relations has come under extreme scrutiny due to the overwhelming anti-Israel opinions documented in the transcripts. Hey, while we are at it, why don't we talk about what a stellar job the U.N. envoys did in Darfur? French and German envoys sat around and talked while everyone died. I am not even going to entertain the notion about how the U.N. has become an organization that is actively participating in infringement upon our nation's sovereignty through imposition of mandates that do not take into account our constitution.
As for the folks who have written about how the neocons are using their platform to promote the larger global struggle between Israel and Islam; no such ideology exist as reality dictates that the real struggle is between Islam and the civilized world. Please note that I do not adhere to Christian/Zionist teachings as I am an anti-theist and as an individual who strives to be objective; I am able to comprehend that the Israeli's and Palestinians both have committed abhorrent atrocities, although I would note that Hamas's tactics that involve strapping bombs to mentally challenged children has to be the most creative and humane method designed to conduct suicidal warfare. Historically, Christians who have lived under Islamic theocracies have been subject to "demi" status. Aside from the fundamental movements supported by the conservative right wing; Christianity as a belief has evolved to a certain degree where Islamic clerics who have attained "prominent global status" have yet to decry events such as the Taliban machine gunning children on their way to school, the kidnapping of 21 south Korean missionaries who dedicated their lives towards helping the Afghani people, or a twelve year old boy in Pakistan who sawed off a man's head who was believed to be an "infidel" spy. Bin Laden has called for the detachment of Kashmir, denounced the detachment of East Timor, and also for portions of the Philippines to be returned to Islamic theocratic rule. The main threat being that Abdullah azzam's mentee, Osama Bin Laden has called for the restoration of the Caliphate; Azzam's book "Al-Jihad" outlines the goal of this movement which is to establish the strictest form of Islamic rule on a global scale involving segments of Sharia Law (Want to talk about human rights for women and children who reside in these types of societies? How about the events that followed Jimmy Carter's decision to relinquish support for the Shah of Iran (not a saint but the region was stable prior to induction of the Ayatollah) in the name of human rights which led to 100 Islamic uprisings, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iran/Iraq war, Abdullah Azzam's initial motivations which are the cause of many terrorist incursions into democratic societies (All in the name of human rights....how many died in the name of human rights?)Or would that be beyond your ideology which involves utilizing your elitist intellectual dishonesty that designates all cultures, including totalitarian Islamic theocracies which disregard human rights while admonishing western societies which in your view, are responsible for the ills of the world. The bastion of conservatism (the NYT) provides a forum for neocons like Noam Chomsky who absolutely love America, but have yet to admit that the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. This line of thought including the deranged notion where the U.S. is a nation reliant solely on the continuation of hostilities in order retain sustainability is not only ignorant, but these rants of America being a nation which is sustained by the military industrial complex is about as beat up as Mike Tyson. Has the U.S. been involved in conducting combat operations across the globe which deserves extreme scrutiny and admonishment? Of course, and there are numerous examples to support logical discourse regarding this matter, however it should be also acknowledged that the U.S. has conducted warfare that has resulted in relinquishing the world of oppressive tyrannical regimes (not just WWII-that seems to be the only justifiable war according to pundits aligned with leftist propaganda organizations). Man has been engaged in hostile acts since the beginning of time as it seems to be an unfortunate part of human nature that illustrates our gruesome animalistic side. I do not aspire for global utopianism, nor am I an avid fan of Star Trek, therefore I choose to accept and perceive the world we live in from a realist perspective and that is why I value this publication so much. Foreign Policy, in my finite view, provides an objective outlet for individuals interested in hearing news, feedback, and topics involving extensive debate which are typically not laced with a subversive conservative right wing or leftist agenda designed for purposes only to indoctrinate and not educate. It is so refreshing to have this educational publication that calls things the way they are with no BS involved in most instances. There are certain instances when political agendas are quite evident in the submissions provided by the authors, however, I thoroughly enjoy the magazine/website and ever since my last international affairs professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder told me that "Foreign Policy" was not a reliable source; I began to source the publication more frequently to his dismay. Thanks to the contributors who provide us with this wonderful publication; keep up the good work and your efforts are much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Debose Winchester-The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla

The war in Afghanistan is un-winnable by us.

We simply don't have enough troops. The Russians, who just squashed an insurgency -- at least for a time -- in Chechnya -- couldn't do it with massive forces.

The only practical way out is with the help of the only power demonstrably able to tame and weed out the Taliban -- Pakistan. They're mopping up successful operations in their own nation, where they have the support of their people.

Which we will never get in Afghanistan.

Pakistan wants something simple in Afghanistan -- a state not especially friendly to India. They can present us with Pakistan-friendly Taliban with who we can negotiate a withdrawal, and who Pakistan can help assure will not attack us.

Their ISI knows what they are doing in the region, unlike our military and "intelligence" experts, who seem to be much better at producing PowerPoint presentations than results.

Relieved of Indian pressure at their backs, Pakistan may feel more secure and this could aid in a Kashmir settlement, which would benefit everyone, except maybe China.

We need to start learning something from our failed foreign adventures.

We lost 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam and killed maybe two million Asians to keep those commie dominoes from falling in Asia. Vietnam went communist anyway, communism failed, and now they have a stock market. We kept hearing from our military and "intelligence" experts how that was win-able.

We invaded Iraq under premises as false but certainly more spectacularly dishonest than the Tonkin "incident." We lost a few thousand troops, killed and displaced maybe several hundred thousand Iraqis and achieved -- an Iranian client state.

In Afghanistan, we flubbed the killing or capture of Osama years ago. We're installed a government of dope-dealers as valid as the Iranian mullahocracy and our leading military mind is telling us we have to send more troops to "protect" the Afghans from the Taliban, who are so hated that they are able to get into central Kabul every so often and blow something major up.

Incidentally, Hillary's latest rant about how we have to hold Afghanistan to prevent terrorist attacks originating there ignores the fact that the latest crowd arrested here for that purpose were apparently trained in -- Pakistan.

I wonder if their army has already neutralized the folks who trained them? In any case, that would be our only chance.

Let's review the bidding.
1. The US overthrew a government it didn't like in a faraway country.
2. This government was replaced with another, selected by the US.
3. The people of the replaced government, naturally resisting the change, were called "insurgents."
4. The new government had to be defended from the "insurgents" (people of the previous government) by the US military who are called "counterinsurgents."
[Are you still with me?]
5. The new government, being weak, ineffective, corrupt and unpopular, as might be expected of an externally-imposed government, according to the US military commander required more US troops ("counterinsurgents").
6. US citizens asked: Why are the people of a government the US replaced called insurgents? Weren't the US forces insurgents? And why should US taxpayers pay for more insurgents to defend an ineffective US puppet government against the former government's counterinsurgents in a faraway land?
[still with me?]

I have lived almost my entire retirement in Germany where my friends have been mostly the verbalists in medicine or in the humanities.

There would be three reactions here to this piece:
a) No reaction--most German students or faculty are in fact pro-Palestinian, but they do not want to voice their objections to the War Party in the USA.

b) A smaller group finds the War Party repugnant and says so, but are mystified how such a small minority has managed to control the propaganda war and paralyze the national interests. These people tend to think I exaggerate greatly.

c) a very tiny group who have read Walt et al. are more or less like me. We understand the facts of the dominance, but never get over a sense of mystification that a tiny minority of interconnected ghouls, jackels to the core, preach daily the catechism that whatever is good for the Jews and Israel is good for the world. And if you do not accept the doctrine...WATCH OUT!....... and get away with it, day after day, year after year...just like Madoff did!

The ANA is the future force the US must depend on, according to the recent McChrystal Report, but where is the ANA now? What are they doing? Why aren't they ever mentioned in dispatches?

Here are some nuggets from the most recent Brookings AFGHANISTAN INDEX:

As of July 2009, there are 91,900 Ministry of Defense Forces and 81,020 Ministry of Interior Forces, for a total of 172,920 Total Afghan Security Forces.

The Capability Milestone (CM) Assessment of Afghan National Army (ANA) Units indicates that approximately 30 ANA units are fully capable of operating independently, with another 20 units capable of operating with international support.

However the report also indicates that as of May 2009 only 44% of required U.S. Embedded Training Team (ETT) Personnel were assigned to Afghan National Army (ANA) units, and only 51% of NATO Operating Mentoring and Liaison Teams (OMLT’s) were assigned.

TOTAL AID (FY 2002-2009): ANA $14,228,000,000; ANP (Interior Police): $7,024,000,000

That's over twenty one billion dollars -- for what?
http://www.brookings.edu/foreign-policy/~/media/Files/Programs/FP/afghanistan%20index/index.pdf

I wonder what Professor Walt has to say about David Brooks' Afghanistan column today? Even Andrew Sullivan had nice things to say about it.