How to get out of Afghanistan -- lessons for Iraq:

http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2009/12/17/is-it-time-to-get-out-of-afghanistan/

Is it time to get out of Afghanistan?

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

afghanHour 1

President Obama announced in a speech at West Point that that he is sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. He also set a date to begin troop withdrawal – July, 2001. According to polls, about half of Americans say they support the escalation in Afghanistan. But others believe we are fighting an unwinnable war and it is time to get out. This hour, a conversation with two critics of Obama’s Afghanistan policy. ANDREW BACEVICH is a retired colonel and a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. HILLARY MANN LEVERETT is the CEO of STRATEGA , a political risk consultancy.
Listen to the mp3

The fish rots from the head. The men in the Apache had been programed by their superiors, it seems to me, all to way up the chain of command to the White House. I think these soldiers thought that somehow they were over there on an avenging mission for 9/11. Wasn't that the implied or even the explicit premise we were fed by the neoconized White House? The average soldier takes this all in, and must follow orders anyway. It is we, all of us, who are guilty for putting our men and boys into the awful situation where they end up doing unspeakable things. The invasion of Iraq--"Wolfowitz's War" was unwarranted and unnecessary. No WMD and no link to 9/11. Another distraction, like Iran. All part of a private agenda. You figure it out.

Germanicus
=========

Agree with - "When we intervene in other countries, this is what we should expect. ." I'd change that to, "When we fight a war with other countries..."

Disagree: "various things that are being done in the name of our national security..." Would you have had Cold War (or Iranian) defections exposed for public scrutiny?

C - None of the Above: Enter into debates about counterinsurgency, and whether population-centric counterinsurgency (you *weren't* at that conference where FM 3-24 was hashed out, correct) is more humanitarian, or whether it remains that all war is hell, and FM 3-24 is lipstick on a pig.

I don't know, does it need have a big red cross (or crescent) for it to be a war crime?!

There was absolutely nothing suspicious about the van. The people were obviously just passers-by who were doing their civic duty, helping a wounded person. There was not only no indication at all they were insurgents; on the contrary, who in his right mind could think that insurgents would act that way with the Apaches still hovering in the vicinity. The dialogue reveals that the soldiers were killing out of a desire to shoot, to score - they even misled their superiors to get the permission to shoot. They are plainly murderers, nothing less, and no rules of engagement can excuse them. And if the rules of engagement allow such behaviour, these rules are criminal, too.

Are here (PDF)

http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement_appendix1.pdf

Not sure what video you people were watching but the video I watched clearly identified several men carrying weapons. But you people are blind to what is not convenient to see. So keep telling your selfs that these people were innocents. They were not. Look at the very "edited" video at 3:41 and you will clearly see the weapons being carried. And before you ask "what is wrong with that?" Think about the back story. What happened before the video. Who is the person on the ground talking to the Pilots? Who is the guy talking about getting on the same "time"? Maybe it is the foot soldier who just got shot at by these insurgents and has air on station to help him. Maybe he is directing the pilot to the point were the insurgents fled and the pilot has observed them. Your indignation speaks of ignorance of the facts on the ground.

What my question in regard to the back story relates to is who was the pilot talking to on the ground? The soldiers on t he ground just got into a fire fight with some insurgents and directed the pilots on station to the locations that the soldier suspected the insurgent went to.
People walking around in Iraq with AK-47's are not just like people in DC with brief cases. Not an accurate analogy since anyone with a weapon in walking around in Iraq qould be scrutinized by any sercutity forces in the area. Hence the people don't walk around brandishing weapons.

Very wise assessment.

The Apache wasn't fired on, the men requested permission to fire on the ground individuals ,were given permission by someone , we don't know who....yet.

Piss poor training , piss poor discipline, piss poor judgement.,...PARTICULARY...given the military's experience in Iraq and pass fuck ups in Afghan....SUPPOSEDLY.....the troops have cautioned about just this type of incident numerous times since entering Afghan........obviously it didn't take.

This is what happens when you have poorly trained kids playing solider and a piss poor command..

“It is therefore vital for American citizens to know about the various things that are being done in the name of our national security.” If that is what they are really about, no price is too high to pay and there is nothing gained in publishing film such as this; in fact it could be argued to be damaging to national security and therefore a sort of treason to publish it.

The shifting position of the US in the cycle of rise and fall as an empire is one of the more fascinating processes we are privileged to follow and, in that context, this bit of mosaic becomes an interesting small fragment of the whole.

It's sad to see how naive everyone at this site is regarding human nature. The calm tones and business as usual attitude is not strange. Any person, put in the same situation, with the same training and exposure, would sound the same way. They are taking lives, but this is their job; No matter what job you have, it eventually becomes business as usual.
It's easy for you to watch this video from thousands of miles away and judge. Most of you will never know what it feels like to be in this situation, nor would you care to.

"During the course of three tours", Corporal/US Marines Jason Washburn said " the higher the threat the more viciously we were permitted and expected to respond. Something else we were encouraged to do, almost with a wink and a nudge, was to carry 'drop weapons', or by my third tour 'drop shovels'. we would carry these weapons or shovels with us because if we accidentally shot a civilian, we could just toss the weapon on the body, and make them look like insurgent".
khairi janbek.paris/france

Please tell WikliLeaks that many US citizens use credit cards to donate money to organizations. They should provide access to these cards instead of PayPal or the other one I had never heard of.
I realize this is an international organization, but I can use my MasterCard anywhere in the world (almost) and so do many others.
I could not get through to WikiLeaks or Grunwald, but my senior citizen status may be an opeerational problem there.
It is important to make it easy to contribute.
And thank you for pointing them out as I had never heard of them before.

RE: "the most remarkable thing about the video is the business-as-usual dialogue between the pilots and crew of the Apache and the ground controllers that are guiding their actions." - Walt
MY COMMENT: I just love the idea of a “white guy” using the moniker “Crazy Horse 18" flying around Iraq in an “Apache” helicopter “gun ship” and using a machine gun and Hellfire™ missiles to “light up” Iraqi civilians (including children). It just doesn’t get any better than that! Why couldn’t I have been in the ‘Twin Towers’ on 9/11 and thereby been spared being subjected to this ‘freak show’?

Todd Browning's "Freaks" (1932) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022913/

'The tone is calm, with occasional moments of frustration at not having a clear shot and elation after the targets are hit.'

I guess I just don't get this: Should they be hysterical, and would that make you feel better? But feelings are not facts. We have professionals called in to kill armed enemies acting like professionals. They are targeting people holding AKs and RPGs, which is what they are tasked to do. And under any rules of engagement the van is a valid target, as it bears no markings, and is trying to provide support for the gun-wielding enemy. The fact that the streets are empty is evidence that there was a battle already in place.

The video shows troops working to identify targets and confirm they were armed before engaging. You can argue for the folly of the war (and I agree), but this video does not show what you are reading into it.

This is an atrocious bit of commentary - you want to promote this video as if it communicates something profound about the nature of war, or maybe just current wars, you're not clear about that - but what is clear is that you apparently know nothing at all about the practice or history of war. You blanch at the demeanor of the crew? Are you ignorant? There's nothing they do or say that is out of keeping with a soldiers experience of combat - you find that disturbing, fine - but had you rode along with a bomber crew aboard a Lancaster or B-17 over Dresden etc you would have heard the same, if not much worse - in fact you put a camera on the front lines of any war in history and you'll see things much, much more disturbing - and that goes for wars naive sentimentalists like yourself like to think of as 'the good wars'. You don't have the stomach for such ugliness fine, but you then need to pursue that emotion to its logical conclusion and become a pacifist, reject war and violence entirely - certainly don't be giving your precious Obama a pass when a UCAV attack he's sanctioned wipes out a few shepherds in the Hindu Kush mountains.

The Apache crew and their overseers should not be casually absolved for what was obviously a serious mistake - but what is also obvious is that the crew was flying reconnaissance and force protection for a ground insertion in a combat zone, that they believed the men on the ground were armed and most important of all that the situation dramatically escalated after the crew saw what they believed to be an insurgent with an RPG - what I find shocking is how many left leaning commentators conveniently neglect to mention that RPG, which suggests to me Mr Walt that you like them are not engaged in some serious discussion of the nature of war here but rather peddling propaganda.

I wonder if this crew was 'hopped up' on the "go pills" (amphetamines) that are distributed to our "troopers" whilst they are fighting "over there" to keep us from having to fight "over here". It is now thought that Der Führer's use of amphetamine injections might possibly have contributed to his making imprudent, disastrous decisions over the course of WW2.
FROM WIKIPEDIA: Adolf Hitler's health - "...Hitler began using amphetamine occasionally after 1937 and became addicted to amphetamine after the late summer of 1942.[citation needed] Albert Speer stated he thought this was the most likely cause of the later rigidity of Hitler’s decision making (never allowing retreats). [14]"
FROM WIKIPEDIA: Dextroamphetamine - ....The U.S. Air Force uses dextroamphetamine as one of its "go pills", given to pilots on long missions to help them remain focused and alert. Conversely, the Air Force also issues "no-go pills"; prescription sedatives used after the mission to calm down.[42][43][44] [1] The Tarnak Farm incident was linked by media reports to the use of this drug on long term fatigued pilots. A military tribunal did not accept this explanation, citing the lack of similar incidents. Newer stimulant medications or awakeness promoting agents with fewer side effects, such as modafinil are being investigated and sometimes issued for this reason.[42]
During the Vietnam War, Special Units of the US Military, such as MACV-SOG, were issued dextroamphetamine tablets. Due to the threat of misuse, these tablets were given to the Commanding Officer of the unit, and given out when needed.[citation needed]
Psychological effects
Psychological effects can include euphoria, anxiety, increased libido, alertness, concentration, energy, self-esteem, self-confidence, sociability, irritability, aggression, psychosomatic disorders, psychomotor agitation, hubris, excessive feelings of power and invincibility, repetitive and obsessive behaviors, paranoia, and with chronic and/or high doses, amphetamine psychosis can occur. The long term effects of amphetamine use on the neural development of children have not been established.[9][16][17][18][19]

P.S. The maker of the 1932 film "Freaks" was Tod Browning rather than "Todd" Browning.

Here is the link to his comments:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/235995

Christopher Dickey
What Combat Looks Like
The video of two Reuters newsmen being shot by Americans in 2007, however grim, shows business as usual in a war zone.

RE: But there is no RPG!

The RPG is spotted in an alley removed from the main group - because of shadows in the video it's not possible to judge whether or not there actually was an RPG - what's important and not in doubt is that the crew believed there was an RPG, you can hear it in the flash of panic in their communications.

The photographer is kneeling to take a picture of a US HMMWV one block away -- part of a patrol that was in contact at the time -- hence the AH-64s providing support. The picture taken of the vehicle was recovered from the camera recovered from the scene.

The weapons were clearly present, and were photographed and also subsequently recovered at the scene.

These FACTs, as well as the "leaked" tape, were ALL disclosed to Reuters at the time by a general officer level briefing -- which is why it was not a major deal in 2007.

The only mistake here was Reuters using Iraqi stringers to take combat photographs while embedded with Jaish Al Mahdi in the middle of a war zone.

Would you still be weeping for "the humanity" if the Apaches weren't there, and if that militia team had hit one of the HMMWVs with their RPGs -- providing nice color shots of a burning vehicles and dead Americans?

"Ma'am, I regret to inform you your son was killed in action today. But the good news is that Reuters has some nice digital prints, if you would like a memento of the occasion...."

It is a war. People die. And people who fight in it every day appear callous.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-e-fuller/global-viewpoint-obamas-p_b_201355.html

Graham E. Fuller

Former CIA station chief in Kabul and author of The Future of Political Islam
Posted: May 10, 2009 03:41 PM

For all the talk of "smart power," President Obama is pressing down the same path of failure in Pakistan marked out by George Bush. The realities suggest need for drastic revision of U.S. strategic thinking.

-- Military force will not win the day in either Afghanistan or Pakistan; crises have only grown worse under the U.S. military footprint.

-- The Taliban represent zealous and largely ignorant mountain Islamists. They are also all ethnic Pashtuns. Most Pashtuns see the Taliban -- like them or not -- as the primary vehicle for restoration of Pashtun power in Afghanistan, lost in 2001. Pashtuns are also among the most fiercely nationalist, tribalized and xenophobic peoples of the world, united only against the foreign invader. In the end, the Taliban are probably more Pashtun than they are Islamist.

-- It is a fantasy to think of ever sealing the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The "Durand Line" is an arbitrary imperial line drawn through Pashtun tribes on both sides of the border. And there are twice as many Pashtuns in Pakistan as there are in Afghanistan. The struggle of 13 million Afghan Pashtuns has already inflamed Pakistan's 28 million Pashtuns.

-- India is the primary geopolitical threat to Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Pakistan must therefore always maintain Afghanistan as a friendly state. India furthermore is intent upon gaining a serious foothold in Afghanistan -- in the intelligence, economic and political arenas -- that chills Islamabad.

-- Pakistan will therefore never rupture ties or abandon the Pashtuns, in either country, whether radical Islamist or not. Pakistan can never afford to have Pashtuns hostile to Islamabad in control of Kabul, or at home.

-- Occupation everywhere creates hatred, as the U.S. is learning. Yet Pashtuns remarkably have not been part of the jihadi movement at the international level, although many are indeed quick to ally themselves at home with al-Qaida against the U.S. military.

-- The U.S. had every reason to strike back at the al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan after the outrage of 9/11. The Taliban were furthermore poster children for an incompetent and harsh regime. But the Taliban retreated from, rather than lost, the war in 2001, in order to fight another day. Indeed, one can debate whether it might have been possible -- with sustained pressure from Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and almost all other Muslim countries that viewed the Taliban as primitives -- to force the Taliban to yield up al-Qaida over time without war. That debate is in any case now moot. But the consequences of that war are baleful, debilitating and still spreading.

-- The situation in Pakistan has gone from bad to worse as a direct consequence of the U.S. war raging on the Afghan border. U.S. policy has now carried the Afghan war over the border into Pakistan with its incursions, drone bombings and assassinations -- the classic response to a failure to deal with insurgency in one country. Remember the invasion of Cambodia to save Vietnam?

-- The deeply entrenched Islamic and tribal character of Pashtun rule in the Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan will not be transformed by invasion or war. The task requires probably several generations to start to change the deeply embedded social and psychological character of the area. War induces visceral and atavistic response.

-- Pakistan is indeed now beginning to crack under the relentless pressure directly exerted by the U.S. Anti-American impulses in Pakistan are at high pitch, strengthening Islamic radicalism and forcing reluctant acquiescence to it even by non-Islamists.

Only the withdrawal of American and NATO boots on the ground will begin to allow the process of near-frantic emotions to subside within Pakistan, and for the region to start to cool down. Pakistan is experienced in governance and is well able to deal with its own Islamists and tribalists under normal circumstances; until recently, Pakistani Islamists had one of the lowest rates of electoral success in the Muslim world.

But U.S. policies have now driven local nationalism, xenophobia and Islamism to combined fever pitch. As Washington demands that Pakistan redeem failed American policies in Afghanistan, Islamabad can no longer manage its domestic crisis.

The Pakistani army is more than capable of maintaining state power against tribal militias and to defend its own nukes. Only a convulsive nationalist revolutionary spirit could change that -- something most Pakistanis do not want. But Washington can still succeed in destabilizing Pakistan if it perpetuates its present hard-line strategies. A new chapter of military rule -- not what Pakistan needs -- will be the likely result, and even then Islamabad's basic policies will not change, except at the cosmetic level.

In the end, only moderate Islamists themselves can prevail over the radicals whose main source of legitimacy comes from inciting popular resistance against the external invader. Sadly, U.S. forces and Islamist radicals are now approaching a state of co-dependency.

It would be heartening to see a solid working democracy established in Afghanistan. Or widespread female rights and education -- areas where Soviet occupation ironically did rather well. But these changes are not going to happen even within one generation, given the history of social and economic devastation of the country over 30 years.

Al-Qaida's threat no longer emanates from the caves of the borderlands, but from its symbolism that has long since metastasized to other activists of the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the Pashtuns will fight on for a major national voice in Afghanistan. But few Pashtuns on either side of the border will long maintain a radical and international jihadi perspective once the incitement of the U.S. presence is gone. Nobody on either side of the border really wants it.

What can be done must be consonant with the political culture. Let non-military and neutral international organizations, free of geopolitical taint, take over the binding of Afghan wounds and the building of state structures.

If the past eight years had shown ongoing success, perhaps an alternative case for U.S. policies could be made. But the evidence on the ground demonstrates only continued deterioration and darkening of the prognosis. Will we have more of the same? Or will there be a U.S. recognition that the American presence has now become more the problem than the solution? We do not hear that debate.

Graham E. Fuller is a former CIA station chief in Kabul and a former vice-chair of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. He is author of numerous books on the Middle East, including The Future of Political Islam.

There is no cover up here. There is nothing but sensationalism by a media outlet to boost their bottom line.

Baghdad in 07 was certainly nothing like DC -- you analogy is just an appeal to emotions. "How would YOU feel if someone shot up your van on the way to daycare...:"

I agree with your premise that the "average civilian" doesn't understand what it means to spend significant time in an area where folks are actively, earnestly trying to kill each other.

And Wikileaks exploited this lack of awareness by selectively editing and publishing a tape in a manner sure to be inflammatory -- with the broader context purposely hidden. And folks like you are now blaming the pilots for being so cavalier that it offends public sensibilities.

But you finally get to your real point in the last few paragraphs -- which is it is Bush & Cheney's fault for hoodwinking "the public" into thinking that war was going to be clean and easy. Fine. But don't endorse the idea that those stuck fighting the war are routinely committing "murder" and are somehow inhuman because you expect them to be omniscient automatons in combat.

To Mooj Killer (so you identify with being called Killer?) et al who so enthusiastically hide behind "rules of engagement", may I remind you that the defendants at Nurenberg also hid behind the "rules of engagement", that they were just following orders? What these "rules of engagement" defenders here demonstrate is that if their interpretation is correct, the US military is training a bunch of automatons incapable of clear thinking.

It is no wonder that the US leads the Western world in murder statistics. It is no wonder that there is a clear spike in military communities in spousal and child abuse when these people return from deployment. It is no wonder, as a recent Dept. of Defense report stated, that women soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan were even afraid to use the latrines at night because of attacks from their fellow soldiers.

There is something deeply flawed in the way these "rules of engagement" are instilled into and interpreted by the average US soldier.

how come you boys jump into it at a moments notice. Why the fuck don't you stay home, watch your crappy sports and TV, and leave everyone the fuck alone.

Can we say that a America has become a nation of war criminals by attempting to justify and defed the war crimes of its politicians, generals, soldiers and mercenaries?

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/04/16/collateral-murder-veterans-apologize-to-iraqi-families/

"We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region."