How can Afghanistan and Iraq maintain their own security?

[Sheilbh]

A shortcoming you are addressing, I see.

No :p

[Sheilbh]

Thinking about it rogue elements is a bad phrase.  What I'm trying to describe is that I've read that there are numerous, equally powerful bases of power within Iran (as in Soviet Russia there was the KGB, the Party, the military and bureaucracy).  Each of those bases of power have slightly differently calibrated sort-of awareness of what's going on and have different, sometimes contradictory, interests.  Short of a direct order from the Supreme Leader these different centres of power often carry out their policies, try and damage others' and fight internal battles that are like what you get in Washington but because of the secrecy required, but also provided by dictatorship they're more below the surface but also have more agenc to act more-or-less independently.

[grumbler]

In 2002 there was no Taliban, no insurgency, no nothing.  Kabulis flocked to barbers and to movie theaters to watch The Terminator.  There was a window. 

A window to do what?  Take over?  That hasn't worked well in the past (see:  USSR, Britain, etc).

Besides which, your assertion that the Taliban didn't exist in 2002 is manifestly false.

Edit:  didn't realize this was in response to such an old post.

[Valmy]

Besides which, your assertion that the Taliban didn't exist in 2002 is manifestly false.

Poor Spellus.

[garbon]

Poor Spellus.

Sometimes it is best to delete posts like that to prevent future pile on.

[derspiess]

Concerns white phosphorus used in Afghan battle

Willie Pete!!!!

[grumbler]

Sometimes it is best to delete posts like that to prevent future pile on.

Or edit them to note that they are mere hyperbole and not to be taken seriously.

[grumbler]

That doesn't really refute what Square Head said.

People don't need to "refute" Hans's delusions about what "the West" invented or what the "MSM" has decided.  His statements are absurd on the face of them. 

However, one can respond to these absurdities in a way that makes it clear that there is a truth, even if it is more complicated than the delusions.

[DontSayBanana]

No it's not.  Iran's government is as riven with internal splits and differing actions as the Kremlin ever was.  We've just got less Teheranologists.

I don't see why you can't both be right. I remember a briefing on the Iranian nuclear threat that was published and got linked here a while back- the org chart did mention how one of the problems is that the relationship between Khameini and Ahmadinejad is somewhat unclear, while Khameini is more likely to engage in those kinds of shadow ops and more or less has the Quds Forces at his disposal.

[Queequeg]

Sometimes it is best to delete posts like that to prevent future pile on.

Or edit them to note that they are mere hyperbole and not to be taken seriously.

Better?

[grumbler]

I don't see why you can't both be right. I remember a briefing on the Iranian nuclear threat that was published and got linked here a while back- the org chart did mention how one of the problems is that the relationship between Khameini and Ahmadinejad is somewhat unclear, while Khameini is more likely to engage in those kinds of shadow ops and more or less has the Quds Forces at his disposal.

Iran has a government, and then a supragovernment.  The supragovernment, led by the Supreme Leader (Khameini) is highly subject to rogue actions that even he may know little or nothing about, as the supragovernment has a military wing that, like many supragovernmental military and intelligence wings we have seen in the past, exploits its independence while also exploiting the fact that nobody wants to ask the Supreme Leader/Fuhrer/Whatever if he has okayed this, given the dire consequences of doubting when the answer is "yes."

So, yeah, arguing that there is an Iranian "rogue element" is entirely understandable, even if one could quibble that the supragovernment is also part of what outsiders would call "the government."

[HisMajestyBOB]

General McKiernan thrown under a bus:

Gates Recommends Replacement for Top Command in Afghanistan

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 11, 2009 4:08 PM

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today asked for the resignation of the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, saying the U.S. military "must do better" in executing the administration's new strategy there.

Gates recommended that President Obama nominate veteran Special Operations commander Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to replace McKiernan, who would depart as soon as a successor is confirmed. Gates also recommended that Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, the former head of U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan who is currently serving as Gates's military assistant, be nominated to serve in a new position as McChrystal's deputy.

The leadership shift comes as the Obama administration has voiced increasingly urgent concern about the surge in violence in Afghanistan as well as unrest in neighboring Pakistan.

"We have a new strategy, a new mission and a new ambassador. I believe that new military leadership is also needed," Gates said at a hastily convened Pentagon news conference.

"I think these two officers will bring . . . a focus which we really need in 2009. And I just didn't think we could wait until 2010," Gates said.

Gates praised McChrystal and Rodriguez for their "a unique skill set in counterinsurgency" as well as "fresh thinking."

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen also lauded McChrystal and Rodriguez for ranking "at the top of the list" of U.S. military officers for a range of leadership positions.

McChrystal is currently the director of the joint staff. From 2006 to August 2008 he was the forward commander of the U.S. military's secretive Joint Special Operations Command, responsible for tracking down high-level leaders of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, including its then-leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was responsible for a brutal campaign of bombings and beheadings until he was killed by U.S. Special Operations Forces in April 2006.

Gates thanked McKiernan for decades of "distinguished" service leading troops, but when asked whether this decision would effectively end McKiernan's military career, Gates replied: "Probably." He said he spoke with McKiernan about the decision during a trip to Afghanistan last week.

In a statement, McKiernan said: "It has been my distinct honor over the past year to serve with the brave men and women from 42 ISAF contributing nations and the Afghan National Security Forces. I have never been prouder to be an American Soldier."

McKiernan took command of the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan less than a year ago in June 2008, and was scheduled to serve in the post for two years, according to a U.S. military official. Like other top U.S. commanders before him, McKiernan pressed the Pentagon to provide additional forces to combat rising violence and an escalating Taliban insurgency.

He oversaw initial troop increases under the Bush administration as well as the ongoing increase of 21,000 troops this year ordered by President Obama. McKiernan also worked to reduce Afghan civilian deaths from coalition military operations, although such incidents continued to occur, drawing criticism from Afghan officials.

He's pretty blunt about it, too. Ouch.  :pinchL

[Siege]

Or are they just batshit insane?

Of course they are. They are MUSLIMS!

They believe all kind of stupid conspiracy theories and global domination schemes.

[Phillip V]

He's pretty blunt about it, too. Ouch.  :pinchL

And that is why I love Defense Secretary Gates. And he majored in History!

[Sheilbh]

I don't see why you can't both be right. I remember a briefing on the Iranian nuclear threat that was published and got linked here a while back- the org chart did mention how one of the problems is that the relationship between Khameini and Ahmadinejad is somewhat unclear, while Khameini is more likely to engage in those kinds of shadow ops and more or less has the Quds Forces at his disposal.

Iran has a government, and then a supragovernment.  The supragovernment, led by the Supreme Leader (Khameini) is highly subject to rogue actions that even he may know little or nothing about, as the supragovernment has a military wing that, like many supragovernmental military and intelligence wings we have seen in the past, exploits its independence while also exploiting the fact that nobody wants to ask the Supreme Leader/Fuhrer/Whatever if he has okayed this, given the dire consequences of doubting when the answer is "yes."

So, yeah, arguing that there is an Iranian "rogue element" is entirely understandable, even if one could quibble that the supragovernment is also part of what outsiders would call "the government."

This is a better explanation than mine.  It's not even that you've got a Presidential government and then a Khameini government because all of the actors seem to often do their own thing and, as you say, there's a fear of contradicting them by asking Khameini 'did you okay this?' and each centre of power (some hawkish, some doveish) have a fear of being left out so they present further fait accompli which the regime as a whole then has to back up or lose face.

This is one of the reasons I think saying the US'll talk to Iran is a good idea.  The Iranians have engaged very productively before with the US, especially in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the early 90s, but I don't think they've ever mustered the support, within the regime, to okay Secretary of State level talks about all issues.  It puts the onus on them.