Afghanistan: Obama's Forgotten War

With world attention focused on the purported coming of "democracy" to the Muslim Middle East, American involvement in Afghanistan has largely gone ignored by the media. Nevertheless, this inordinate waste of lives and resources continues unabated, and the news coming from the front lines is not good. As reported on February 24 in a New York Times article entitled "U.S. Pulling Back in Afghan Valley It Called Vital to War" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/world/asia/25afghanistan.html?pagewanted=print), the U.S. game plan has gone awry:

"After years of fighting for control of a prominent valley in the rugged mountains of eastern Afghanistan, the United States military has begun to pull back most of its forces from ground it once insisted was central to the campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The withdrawal from the Pech Valley, a remote region in Kunar Province, formally began on Feb. 15. The military projects that it will last about two months, part of a shift of Western forces to the province’s more populated areas. Afghan units will remain in the valley, a test of their military readiness.

While American officials say the withdrawal matches the latest counterinsurgency doctrine’s emphasis on protecting Afghan civilians, Afghan officials worry that the shift of troops amounts to an abandonment of territory where multiple insurgent groups are well established, an area that Afghans fear they may not be ready to defend on their own.

And it is an emotional issue for American troops, who fear that their service and sacrifices could be squandered. At least 103 American soldiers have died in or near the valley’s maze of steep gullies and soaring peaks, according to a count by The New York Times, and many times more have been wounded, often severely.

. . . .

President Obama’s Afghan troop buildup is now fully in place, and the United States military has its largest-ever contingent in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama’s reinforced campaign has switched focus to operations in Afghanistan’s south, and to building up Afghan security forces.

The previous strategy emphasized denying sanctuaries to insurgents, blocking infiltration routes from Pakistan and trying to fight away from populated areas, where NATO’s superior firepower could be massed, in theory, with less risk to civilians. The Pech Valley effort was once a cornerstone of this thinking."

"Less risk to civilians"? Consider the following Yahoo News article dated February 20 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110220/wl_afp/afghanistanunrestnatocivilians), according to which Afghan President Karzai is accusing NATO forces of massacring more than 50 civilians in Kunar Province:

"President Hamid Karzai on Sunday accused NATO troops of killing more than 50 civilians in a troubled province of eastern Afghanistan, as international troops pledged to probe the allegations.

Karzai's statement followed comments by Fazilullah Wahidi, provincial governor of Kunar province, alleging US-led NATO forces had killed up to 63 people, including women and children in airstrikes on suspected rebels.

. . . .

Wahidi earlier told AFP that most of the dead were civilians including 20 women, three elderly men and a number of children.

They were killed mostly in air raids by the ISAF against suspected rebels in Kunar province's Ghaziabad district, a remote mountainous region at the feet of the Hindu Kush ranges, he added.

. . . .

A human rights watchdog said earlier this month that 2010 was the deadliest year for ordinary Afghans since the US-led invasion of 2001, with more than 2,400 civilians killed.

Taliban and other insurgents were responsible for more than 60 percent of the dead, the report by the Afghanistan Rights Monitor said, blaming the US-led force for 21 percent of the casualties."

Time to put an immediate end to this tragic folly; however, as I have noted in prior blog entries, Obama "likes to watch".

Obama Sues for Peace in Afghanistan

I have always opposed U.S. ground involvement in Afghanistan, and now, almost two years into his presidency, Obama is acknowledging his mistake and seeking a graceful exit from the war. Obama's solution, which will allow him to honor his pledge to withdraw troops in 2011, essentially involves surrender to the Taliban. In a Washington Post article entitled "Taliban in high-level talks with Karzai government, sources say" written by Karen DeYoung, Peter Finn and Craig Whitlock (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/05/AR2010100506249.html), we are told of "secret" talks between Karzai and the Taliban:

"Taliban representatives and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai have begun secret, high-level talks over a negotiated end to the war, according to Afghan and Arab sources."

Secret talks? I suppose that's why they are being disclosed by The Washington Post to millions of people around the globe. Moreover, as reported by Reuters today (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/10/06/world/international-us-afghanistan-usa.html?hp), Karzai "has formed a 70-member peace council in recent weeks to work toward negotiations." This is of course in keeping with the rule of thumb that anytime you want to keep peace negotiations secret, you never appoint more than 70 persons to hammer out the terms of such an agreement.

Of course, according to The Washington Post article, there are those saying that the Taliban is suing for peace:

"'They are very, very serious about finding a way out,' one source close to the talks said of the Taliban.

. . . .

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, told reporters last week that high-level Taliban leaders had 'sought to reach out' to the top level of the Karzai government. 'This is how you end these kinds of insurgencies,' he said."

Taliban leaders are "reaching out"? Perhaps Petraeus is referring to Taliban attacks this week on tankers carrying fuel from Pakistan to NATO forces (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/world/asia/07pstan.html?hp).

Actually, as observed in The Washington Post article, it is the Obama administration that is sending out different signals:

"Reports of the talks come amid what Afghan, Arab and European sources said they see as a distinct change of heart by the Obama administration toward full backing of negotiations. Although President Obama and his national security team have long said the war would not be won by military means alone, sources said the administration only recently appeared open to talks rather than resisting them.

. . . .

The Europeans said the American shift began in the summer, as combat intensified with smaller-than-expected NATO gains despite the arrival of the full complement of new U.S. troops, amid rising U.S. public opposition to the war.

. . . .

Last month, Obama pressed his national security team to be more specific about what it meant by a political solution, and 'reinforced' the need to be working simultaneously on the military and political sides of the equation, the official said.

The administration is under pressure to show progress in resolving the war before the deadline Obama has set of beginning a troop withdrawal next summer."

Yes, by hook or crook, Obama will withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan in 2011, and thus seek to obviate any presidential primary challenge by Hillary. The only question remaining is, in the words of Bruce Springsteen:

Whose blood will spill, whose heart will break,
Who'll be the last to die for a mistake?

Send Goldman Sachs to Afghanistan?

In an editorial entitled "Mr. Karzai Might Even Agree" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/opinion/23fri1.html), The New York Times today observes that President Karzai is visiting Obama in May and calls upon the Obama administration, which "has revamped its military strategy" in Afghanistan, to open a second front in the war on corruption there.

The Obama administration has "revamped it military strategy" in Afghanistan? Yeah, right. Obama decided to waste billions of dollars more on this sinkhole and to expend the precious lives of countless American soldiers, only to withdraw in 2011 and watch the collapse of this corrupt regime.

My online comment, if the Times deigns to post it:

"[Obama] should urge Mr. Karzai to ask the United Nations (which Mr. Karzai now implausibly blames for last year’s presidential election fraud) to hand responsibility for overseeing Afghanistan’s economic development to others more proficient in handling money."

Great idea. Let's send Goldman Sachs to Kabul to manage their money and kill two birds with one stone.

Obama Bows to Karzai

In an article in today's NYT entitled "U.S. Now Trying Softer Approach Toward Karzai", written by Helene Cooper and Mark Landler, we are informed:

"After more than a year of watching America’s ability to influence President Hamid Karzai ebb, Obama administration officials now admit privately that the tough-love approach Mr. Obama adopted when he came to power may have been a big mistake.

. . . .

The turnabout reflects a growing recognition that the more the administration has taken Mr. Karzai to task publicly, the more resistant he has been to American demands. It also shows that no matter how much administration officials try to work around him, they have no choice but to deal with him.

. . . .

The clearest signal of the new approach came during Friday’s Air Force One flight. 'We believe that we are on an encouraging glide path in Afghanistan,' General Jones said, adding that during Mr. Obama’s visit to Afghanistan, the American delegation was 'generally impressed with the quality of the ministers and the seriousness with which they’re approaching their job.'

Mr. Obama, General Jones said, was 'fortified by the conversations he had, reassured by the conversations' with Mr. Karzai.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/asia/10prexy.html?pagewanted=1&hp

How inspiring! After Karzai publicly labels U.S. and NATO troops "invaders", hosts Ahmadinejad and threatens to join the Taliban, Obama dines in Kabul with the tin-pot dictator, sends him a thank-you letter and has Jones tell reporters of his satisfaction with their relationship.

Jones? I am sickened that the U.S. national security adviser is being used to foist lies. Having recently described U.S.-Israeli relations as "ongoing and fine and continuous” as he discusses with Brzezinski the possibility of imposing an Obama-mentored peace solution upon Netanyahu (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/04/obama-declares-war-on-israel.html), Jones would now have us believe that the U.S. relationship with Karzai is hunky-dory.

Sorry, General Jones, but when I served in the military and government, veracity was demanded at all times. Could it be that you are considering a career in politics?

Afghanistan: The Arrogance of The New York Times Editorial Board

In an editorial today entitled "President Karzai Lashes Out", The New York Times lashes out at Afghanistan's President Karzai for "delusional criticism of the United Nations and governments whose troops are risking their lives by fighting the Taliban." The editorial concludes:

The pressure on Mr. Karzai has, at times, been applied inartfully, but Mr. Obama is right to hold him to account in ways President George W. Bush did not. He should make clear that Washington will work around him if needed, funneling aid through competent cabinet ministries and helping beef up local governments.

Mr. Karzai is encouraging those who want the United States out of Afghanistan. He risks boiling down a more complicated policy debate to the notion that American lives are being sacrificed simply to keep him in power. It’s hard to think of a better way to doom Afghanistan’s future, as well as his own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/opinion/03sat1.html?hp

This is the lofty conviction of The New York Times brain trust? Let's give it some thought.

The Times would have us believe that Obama "held Karzai to account" by running over to Kabul and dining with this petty tyrant in the presidential palace following Karzai's threat to diss Obama (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/03/dissed-by-karzai-obama-seeks-to-kiss.html), days after pointedly refusing to have dinner with Netanyahu at the White House. Yeah, sure, Obama's a real tough guy, and Bush was a stooge. Sorry, but Obama decided upon escalation after months spent studying the matter, this is now Obama's war, and there can be no shifting the blame - not upon Israel (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/04/obama-adminstration-blaming-israel-for.html) and not upon Bush.

The Times editorial board says that Obama "should make clear that Washington will work around [Karzai] if needed, funneling aid through competent cabinet ministries and helping beef up local governments." Is the editorial board suggesting that the U.S. take responsibility for local government in Afghanistan or orchestrate a coup d'état? How else do you bypass the Afghan president and funnel aid directly to "competent" ministries, i.e. ministries willing to play ball with Obama?

The editorial board writes, "It’s hard to think of a better way to doom Afghanistan’s future, as well as his own." From their offices in Manhattan, The Times editorial board cannot possibly know the Afghan landscape better than Karzai. Karzai is a fox, and his carefully reasoned double-dealing is intended to promote, as always, his own best interests. Afghanistan's future? Hi-tech? Democracy and religious tolerance? Boys and girls studying biology and chemistry together in gilded classrooms? Sorry, but it is not destined to occur in our lifetimes.

Surely The Times is pulling our collective leg. Or perhaps, what they really want to say of Karzai's treachery:

"It’s hard to think of a better way to doom the Obama administration’s future, as well as the credibility of The Times , which has paid servile lip service to Obama's Afghan folly."

The Obama Adminstration: Blaming Israel for the U.S. Fiasco in Afghanistan

How many times have we been told by both the extreme left and the extreme right that the United States waged both Gulf Wars against Iraq on Israel's behalf? Those who disseminate this perverse view would have us forget Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and Iraqi threats against Saudi Arabia, which, had they gone unchallenged, would have brought American industry to a standstill.

In 2010 this canard has been "enhanced": Israel's refusal to make peace with the Palestinians is jeopardizing American troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

Let's leave that thought for a moment and examine another eye-opening, up close account from Afghanistan, written by Dexter Filkins and published on March 30 by The New York Times, entitled "Despite Doubt, Karzai Brother Retains Power":

"Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful man in southern Afghanistan, may maintain links with drug dealers and insurgents, as some American officials and Afghans believe. And he might have played a central role in last summer’s fraudulent presidential election, as Western diplomats charged.

But Mr. Karzai is also the brother of the Afghan president, Hamid. And after debating Ahmed Wali’s future for months — and with a huge military operation in the area looming — Afghan and American officials have decided that the president’s brother will be allowed to stay in place.

. . . .

Any decision about Ahmed Wali Karzai is complicated by his relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, which maintains a large presence in Kandahar. Current and former American officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, say the agency has paid Ahmed Wali Karzai regularly for many years for performing a variety of services.

. . . .

But Western and Afghan officials say the president’s brother is engaged in many activities that buoy the insurgency and undermine the Afghan state. These military and political officials say the evidence, though largely circumstantial, strongly suggests that he enriches himself by helping the illegal trade in poppy and opium.

. . . .

The official said that Ahmed Wali Karzai also laundered ill-gotten money for a host of figures in southern Afghanistan. “For a lot of people, including drug runners,” the Western official said.

Perhaps the most vivid example of Ahmed Wali Karzai’s reach came last August, when his brother sought re-election. According to Western diplomats in Kabul, he cut deals with insurgent groups to refrain from attacking polling stations, and then helped orchestrate a large-scale campaign of forging ballots on his brother’s behalf."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/world/asia/31karzai.html?hp

In a nutshell, Karzai's brother, who is allegedly involved in the narcotics trade, money laundering, election fraud and deals with the Taliban, is also allegedly in bed with the CIA. Excuse me, but why is the United States involved with this man? What is America possibly attempting to achieve on the ground in Afghanistan? Moreover, what does any of this primitive tribal confrontation have to do with distant Israel?

Fighting in Iraq subsequent to the Second Gulf War? We have seen a host of warring sects (Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds) and "third parties" (al-Qaeda, Iran, Syria) attempt to exert their influence and direct the outcome of this chaos, but again, what does Israel have to do with it?

The past and current wars involving the various Arab countries and Iran have exacted an exponentially larger number of casualties than all of the combined Arab-Israeli conflicts. The enmity between Sunnis and Shiites (deemed heretics by the Sunnis) is a far greater threat to regional stability than the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Why then are we now being told that Israel is the primary source of Middle East instability? Answer: Because this is indeed what the Obama administration believes.

Although the U.S. vice president's staff denies he made the comment, it has been reported that Biden alleged that Israel is jeopardizing U.S. troops:

“People who heard what Biden said [to Israeli officials behind closed doors] were stunned,” the centrist Israeli daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported. “‘This is starting to get dangerous for us,’ Biden castigated his interlocutors. ‘What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us, and it endangers regional peace.’”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34300_Page2.html

Several days after the Biden imbroglio, the magazine Foreign Policy ran a story on its website saying that General Petraeus had sent a briefing team to the Pentagon at the beginning of the year “with a stark warning: America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers.”

Next, ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper asked David Axelrod twice whether “Israel’s intransigence on the housing issue put the lives of US troops at risk.” Axelrod said he wouldn’t put it in those terms, but given the opportunity, he refused to deny it.

General Petraeus, however, put the canard to rest. Speaking at St. Anselm College, he stated that the lack of progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations makes the situation for moderate Arab states "more challenging", but denied ever saying that the U.S.-Israel relationship places American soldiers at risk (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/03/can-israel-survive-obamas-reelection.html).

In short, although Obama and Hillary claim the U.S.-Israel relationship is "rock solid", it's not the case. Axelrod's evasive answer to Jake Tapper would lead anyone to believe that Israel is undermining the American effort in Afghanistan and jeopardizing the lives of U.S. soldiers.

But then what do you expect? Someone will ultimately need to be blamed for Obama's Afghan fiasco. Why not Israel?

Dissed by Karzai, Obama Seeks to Kiss and Make Up

On Monday there was an eye-opening article in The New York Times, written by Dexter Filkins and Mark Landler and entitled "Afghan Leader Is Seen to Flout Influence of U.S.", which discloses Afghan President Karzai's utter contempt for Obama:

"This month, with President Hamid Karzai looking ahead to a visit to the White House, he received a terse note from aides to President Obama: Your invitation has been revoked. The reason, according to American officials, was Mr. Karzai’s announcement that he was emasculating an independent panel that had discovered widespread fraud in Mr. Karzai’s re-election last year.

Incensed, Mr. Karzai extended an invitation of his own — to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who flew to Kabul and delivered a fiery anti-American speech inside Afghanistan’s presidential palace. 'Karzai was enraged,' said an Afghan with knowledge of the events, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the issue. 'He invited Ahmadinejad to spite the Americans.'

The dispute was smoothed over only this week, when Mr. Obama flew to Kabul for a surprise dinner with Mr. Karzai. White House officials emphasized that the most important purpose of Mr. Obama’s trip to Afghanistan was to visit American troops there.

. . . .

Mr. Karzai recently told lunch guests at the presidential palace that he believes the Americans are in Afghanistan because they want to dominate his country and the region, and that they pose an obstacle to striking a peace deal with the Taliban. During the recent American-dominated military offensive in the town of Marja — the largest of the war — Mr. Karzai stood mostly in the shadows."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/world/asia/30karzai.html

White House officials emphasized that the most important purpose of Mr. Obama’s trip to Afghanistan was to visit American troops there? Tell me more sweet lies.

Obama knows that Afghanistan has become his war after foolishly deciding to escalate the conflict, and he has no choice other than to bend to Karzai's will.

Karzai, albeit a tin-pot dictator, sees Obama for what he is: a one-term president, incapable of confronting Ahmadinejad, who is a dangerous neighbor destined to be around longer than Obama.

Obama wouldn't dine with Netanyahu, a loyal ally, following an Obama administration manufactured crisis, yet here we have the panic stricken U.S. president begging Karzai to come back to the fold over a banquet at the presidential palace in Kabul. This is more humiliating than Obama bowing to King Abullah of Saudi Arabia.

Yesterday, in his NYT op-ed, "Lo, the Mideast Moves", Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen would have us believe that Obama is a latter-day John F. Kennedy. A John F. Kennedy? Obama is a clueless featherweight, who is bankrupting the U.S. ethically and financially while wasting precious American lives in an ill-fated escapade.

Karzai Has Zero Faith in Obama's "Surge"

Speaking at the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies on Friday, Afghan Ambassador to the U.S. Said Tayab Jawad provided a "true" picture of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's perception of the Obama "surge". When I say "true", one must of course translate the doublespeak.

As reported by Pakistan's The News:

"'In five years, according to our plans, we should be able to take care of security throughout the country,' said Ambassador Said Tayab Jawad, speaking days after President Barack Obama announced US troops would begin to pull out by July 2011.

Jawad said plans were already underway for Afghans to take control of areas in the relatively stable north and center of the country within three years, and nationwide within five years -- the end of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's second term.

. . . .

He added that there were 'many regional factors that will impact... the drawdown of the US forces,' but that Obama's plan was 'realistic.'"

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=92776

Obama's "plan is realistic"? Obama is saying that U.S. forces will be withdrawn in July 2011, i.e. in another year and a half, whereas Karzai is saying that Afghan forces might be ready in another five years.

What happens in the intervening three and a half years? Please feel free to correct my math.