Afghan Strategy

[Queequeg]

Heavy drug use will do that to a man.

I gave up everything but ganja over a year ago, and have not had any of that in maybe 3 months, and before that in about 8 months.  Guess again. 

[Razgovory]

That said, I mostly agree with Hansmeister here, which is making me question my own position.

I think you're required to hang yourself in your shower after agreeing with me.  It's a languish rule enforced by CdM.

To be fair, I never advocated getting out of Iraq, was for both wars initially, and in all honesty agreed with you and OVB far more often than with Jacob or Joan back in the day.  My politics have changed on most things, though.

Because you abandoned the One True Faith, you apostate.

Mormonism?

[citizen k]

Taliban strength in Afghanistan nears military proportion
By Jonathan S. Landay and Hal Bernton, McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- A recent U.S. intelligence assessment has raised the estimated number of full-time Taliban -led insurgents fighting in Afghanistan to at least 25,000, underscoring how the crisis has worsened even as the U.S. and its allies have beefed up their military forces, a U.S. official said Thursday.

The U.S. official, who requested anonymity because the assessment is classified, said the estimate represented an increase of at least 5,000 fighters, or 25 percent, over what an estimate found last year.

On Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry assured Afghans that America would continue to fight until "extremists and insurgents" were defeated in the war-torn nation.

The new intelligence estimate suggests that such a fight would be difficult. Not included in the 25,000 tally are the part-time fighters -- those Afghans who plant bombs or support the insurgents in other ways in return for money -- and also the criminal gangs who sometimes make common cause with the Taliban or other Pakistan -based groups.

The assessment attributed the growth in the Taliban and their major allies, such as the Haqqani Network and Hezb-e-Islami, to a number of factors, including a growing sense among many Afghans that the insurgents are gaining ground over U.S.-led NATO troops and Afghan security forces.

"The rise can be attributed to, among other things, a sense that the central government in Kabul isn't delivering (on services), increased local support for insurgent groups, and the perception that the Taliban and others are gaining a firmer foothold and expanding their capabilities," the U.S. official said.

"They (the insurgents) don't need to win a popularity contest," said Michael O'Hanlon , a military analyst at the center-left Brookings Institution in Washington . "They are actually doing a good job in creating a complex psychological brew. The first part is building on frustration with the government. The second part is increasing their own appeal or at least taking the edge off of the hatred that people had felt for them before. But on top of that they are selectively using intimidation to stoke a climate of fear. And on top of that they have momentum."

James Dobbins , a retired ambassador who served as the first U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan , said the new estimate shows how the war, which entered its ninth year this month, has been intensifying.

"It tells you that things are getting worse, and that would suggest that the current (U.S.-led troop) levels are inadequate," Dobbins said. "But it doesn't lead you to a formula that tells you what the adequate troop levels should be."

The estimated increase in the insurgents' ranks occurred as the numbers of U.S., British and other Western troops also increased, possibly suggesting that the growth in international forces is bolstering an impression among many Afghans that they're under foreign occupation.

The new estimate comes as the Obama administration debates its new strategy for Afghanistan amid public divisions between senior officials and military commanders.

Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal , the U.S. commander in Afghanistan , is seeking as many as 45,000 additional U.S. troops, which would bring the number of U.S. soldiers to more than 100,000. There are 39,000 forces from other countries and an effort is under way to double the size of the Afghan army to 134,000 by 2011.

Administration critics of McChrystal's assessment -- led by Vice President Joe Biden -- are promoting a more limited strategy that would require far fewer U.S. troops.

Eikenberry's remarks came at a ceremony honoring the more than 5,500 Afghan police and soldiers who've died since the war began.

"We will continue to stand side-by-side, shoulder-to-shoulder with you and the brave members of your security forces," said Eikenberry at a wreath-laying ceremony in a courtyard of Afghanistan's National Assembly . "We will fight with you, grieve with you, and build a future with you."

Eikenberry is a former U.S. military commander who as ambassador has taken a key role in the Obama administration's efforts to partner with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to try to beat back the Taliban insurgency and stabilize the country.

However, the administration's relationship with Karzai has frayed amid allegations of widespread corruption in the Afghan government. In recent weeks, Karzai's relationship with the U.S. has been further strained by mounting evidence of large-scale fraud on his behalf during the Aug. 20 presidential election.

Karzai didn't attend Wednesday's ceremony, and some of his recent public statements have reflected increased tensions with Western diplomats.

At a Sunday news conference, Karzai accused some foreign diplomats of trying to interfere in Afghan affairs. He also said that his government was investigating reports that unidentified foreign helicopters were flying in insurgent-controlled areas in northern provinces.

Karzai never said what nation might be providing those helicopters, but his remarks helped stir speculation that somehow the U.S. was involved.

Eikenberry said Wednesday he'd heard rumors and read articles that the U.S. was secretly helping Afghanistan's enemy with weapons and helicopters. He denounced those reports "as outrageous and baseless. We would never aid the terrorists that attacked us on September 11 , that are killing our soldiers, your soldiers, and innocent Afghan civilians every day."

A Karzai campaign team member said Karzai never meant to imply that the helicopters were American.

"We believe what the American ambassador has said, and that the helicopters don't belong to America," said Moen Marastyal, an Afghan parliament member who's worked on the Karzai re-election campaign.

The election has yet to yield a final tally as an electoral complaints commission, which includes three United Nations appointees, reviews about 10 percent of the polling sites for fraudulent ballots. A final tally had been expected this week but it now appears that those results won't come until later this month.

In a preliminary tally, Karzai had more than 54 percent of the vote, and under Afghan electoral law, he'd win the election outright if his final tally remains above 50 percent. If it falls to 50 percent or less, Karzai would face a run-off with the second-place finisher, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah .

As the vote review drags on, some Western diplomats have proposed that Karzai and his main rival form a coalition government.

Marastyal said that Karzai has been told he has two options: Either agree to form a coalition government or be forced into a runoff election as the final tally tosses out fraudulent votes.

In contrast, Marastyal said that Karzai is under pressure from his own supporters not to forge a coalition government.

"We would have divisions in the government, and there would not be a good result," Marastyal said.

Sarwar Jawadi , an Abdullah spokesman, said his candidate has not agreed to join in a coalition government.

On Wednesday, Eikenberry's public remarks didn't mention any proposals for a coalition government. He said that the U.S. seeks a "reliable Afghan partner," and that the "long, but important election process" should yield a government elected upon the genuine votes of the people."

[Kleves]

If we're willing to do what it takes to utterly destroy the Taliban, then we should stay. If we're not willing to do that, we should leave. Continued half-measures is the worst possible option.

[Razgovory]

I didn't even know we had an afghan strategy.

[DGuller]

If we're willing to do what it takes to utterly destroy the Taliban, then we should stay. If we're not willing to do that, we should leave. Continued half-measures is the worst possible option.

Agreed.

[The Minsky Moment]

I didn't even know we had an afghan strategy.

We have since the stimulus bill included supplemental appropriations for enhancing our national knitting capabilities.

[Grallon]

If we're willing to do what it takes to utterly destroy the Taliban, then we should stay. If we're not willing to do that, we should leave. Continued half-measures is the worst possible option.

These two wars are jokes, side-shows, entertainment.  Should they begin to be treated seriously that would entail sacrifices on the part of the consumer-voters - which isn't profitable politically, especially not after years of blundering and half-hearted efforts.  Another reason to pull out.




G.

[viper37]

I like Sarkozy's stance.

"Should we stay in Afghanistan?  Yes we should stay, and we should fight the Talebans until we win.  But we're not sending one more soldier in Afghanistan".

Great thinking there.

[Admiral Yi]

Being in Afghanistan is like doing a reverse-Cambodia, were in a country which is a sideshow to the real combat zone - Pakistan.

I could have sworn you said the exact same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan not too long ago.

[Valmy]

I like Sarkozy's stance.

"Should we stay in Afghanistan?  Yes we should stay, and we should fight the Talebans until we win.  But we're not sending one more soldier in Afghanistan".

Great thinking there.

Hey just staying there with the troops they have committed is helpful.

[viper37]

Hey just staying there with the troops they have committed is helpful.

They have already withdrawn most of their troops for Afghanistan.

Imagine if the US decided to withdraw all but 2000 troops and then says "we should all remain in Afghanistan".  That would be a comparable situation to France dragging its feet over its NATO commitments.

[citizen k]

Pentagon ramps up direct military aid to Pakistan
By Adam Entous Adam Entous Fri Oct 16, 2:27 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Pentagon is ramping up delivery of military equipment long sought by the Pakistani army to fight militants, U.S. officials said on Friday.

Some $200 million worth of equipment and services already in the pipeline for Pakistan has started to arrive but officials declined to provide full details, saying many of the more sophisticated items were classified.

Some programs have run into resistance from Islamabad, which is wary of appearing too close to Washington, they said.

The U.S. military aid is meant to help Pakistan mount a long-awaited ground offensive against Taliban fighters in their South Waziristan stronghold along the border with Afghanistan, where U.S. and NATO forces are fighting a growing insurgency.

Hit by string of brazen militant attacks in the past 11 days that have killed about 150 people, Islamabad says a ground offensive by its troops is imminent.

"Each one of these attacks is troublesome," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. "But the Pakistan government remains committed to addressing the threat there."

Direct military aid from the Pentagon, officials said, would come on top of the equipment that Pakistan receives through normal foreign military sales overseen by the State Department. Officials say those sales vary year to year but generally total around $300 million annually.

U.S. government aid is a highly contentious issue in Pakistan, where anti-American sentiment runs high, and Islamabad has thrown up obstacles to some of the Pentagon's proposals, including one to expand counter-insurgency training for the Frontier Corps paramilitary force, officials said.

SENSITIVITIES

Underscoring those sensitivities, when President Barack Obama signed legislation this week giving $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over five years, he did so behind closed doors after Pakistani critics said provisions in the law violated the country's sovereignty.

While pointing to growing military-to-military cooperation to counter the threat militants pose to the nuclear-armed state, U.S. officials say many of Pakistan's top commanders remain focused on expanding conventional capabilities to counter long-time foe India.

"It is frustrating," one official said. "We want to do more."

A special counterinsurgency fund approved by Congress earlier this year gave the Pentagon the authorization to speed delivery of military equipment to the Pakistani army.

Pentagon officials say equipment provided under the program can be delivered quickly because it bypasses normal "peacetime" rules governing foreign military sales that can take three to five years to process.

Congressional aides say the $200 million worth of equipment and services in the pipeline can arrive more quickly, in as little as 60-90 days, because much of it is not sophisticated and comes from readily available supplies.

In contrast, the delivery of F-16 fighter jets has been held up for years because it depends on production line schedules.

Another $200 million worth of equipment for fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30, remains available for Pakistan, and the Pentagon plans to nearly double the amount of direct military aid for fiscal 2010 to $700 million, officials said.

Shipments in recent months have included hundreds of night vision goggles, day and night scopes for rifles and radios to improve communications, as well as thousands of bullet-proof vests. Officials said armor-plated all-terrain vehicles were a priority item.

DRONE REQUEST

Pakistan has requested precision-guided weapons as well as pilotless "drone" aircraft, whose increasing use by the CIA to attack Taliban and al Qaeda targets in Pakistani tribal areas has fanned anti-American sentiment.

Pentagon officials refused to release the list of the items authorized for Pakistan or to comment on the drone request. But many U.S. lawmakers are skeptical of Pakistan's intentions and transferring drone technology would face Indian resistance.

Officials said a portion of the $200 million currently in the pipeline was already being used to overhaul Pakistan's fleet of Mi-17 helicopters, critical for the planned operation in the mountainous Waziristan region.

Officials acknowledge getting the Mi-17s to Pakistan has been a difficult and time-consuming process. They are in short supply and the ones Pakistan has now have been heavily used in other operations and poorly maintained, the officials said.
To free up just 10 of the helicopters requested by Pakistan in June and July, the Pentagon had to "borrow" two from a training program for the Afghan military, sources said.

"We are doing everything within our power to assist Pakistan in improving its counter-insurgency capabilities," Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Mark Wright said.

He said the counterinsurgency fund "put military assistance to Pakistan on a wartime footing," much like the way the United States supplies the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan.

(Additional reporting by Sue Pleming; Editing by John O'Callaghan)

Why can't the Russians help with the Mi-17s?

[Tonitrus]

Why can't the Russians help with the Mi-17s?

[/b]

Why should they?