Certain Doubt

Afghanistan: the Myth of Truth

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

I find the recent release of classified documents about Afghanistan by the independent web site “wiki leaks” fascinating, not for what the documents reveal, but instead for the White House and Pentagon response to their appearance on the world stage.

As reported by the fawning corporate media, the Obama Administration’s comments on the leaked information continue to focus on the legality of the leaks, the possible negative effect on America’s security, and the potential harm they could cause to our soldiers currently fighting in Afghanistan.

However, nowhere in the government’s response is there any mention of the questions the wiki leaks material raises about the wisdom of a foreign policy that costs billions, puts our soldiers in harms way, and which continues to result in the deaths of countless innocent civilians. The government avers they are sticking by their guns in Afghanistan but no one seems willing to ask the question why.

Recent revelations that US monetary aid to Afghanistan has been winding up in the pockets of the Taliban were embarrassing enough. But add to this wiki leak’s reporting that our own military has concluded the Pakistan security services (the ISI) has been secretly giving aid to the Taliban and a picture emerges of a foreign policy that is dysfunctional if not outright criminal.

Why are we are giving billions in military aid to Pakistan – in large measure to encourage them to fight the Taliban – if we feel the Pakistan secret service is turning around and giving aid the very enemy we are ostensibly trying to defeat? Am I the only one who sees this strategy – of giving aid to our “friends” who turn around and give aid to our “enemies” – as slightly, um, counterproductive?

While we are on this tack, does anyone still believe the Obama Administration’s stated reason why we have 94,000 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan? You know the argument I’m talking about, right? – That our national security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That the only way for us to be safe is to “…disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.” source

According to the party line, we have to stabilize Afghanistan in order to prevent the Taliban from regaining power, from which point they could move on to destabilize and overthrow Pakistan thus gaining access to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons – which they will, of course, immediately hand over to al Qaeda. (Who will then presumably fashion them into shoe or underwear bombs that can be used by their legions of martyrs to wage radioactive Jihad on American cities.)

The writers of “Ocean’s Eleven,” “Twelve,” and “Thirteen” couldn’t come up with a danger scenario more convoluted, far-fetched, and just plain absurd as this. The administration’s rationale for why we are shelling out 4 billion dollars every month in military hardware and weaponry to “stabilize” a country whose total yearly per capita GDP is only 800 dollars is so laughable that one almost can’t believe the President can say the words with a straight face.

The wiki leaks documents only add to the farce. Are we really to believe that the Obama administration is sending soldiers overseas to fight an enemy who is funded by our own tax dollars?

The significance of the wiki leaks documents is not that the war is going badly; it is not that releasing the material is illegal or that it could endanger our troops. The important thing about the wiki leaks revelations is that they widen the already gargantuan hole in the official cover story as to why the United States continues to wage war in Afghanistan.

It’s patently absurd to claim that we need to exert our military might in places like Afghanistan solely to protect ourselves from terrorism. Obama knows this. General McChrystal and General Petraeus know it. General James “mad dog” Mattis, Obama’s choice as the new CENTCOM commander, definitely knows it.

Everybody knows.

However, if everybody knows that the official reason for continued US military action in Afghanistan is a joke, then like his predecessor, Barrack Obama has taken the country to war based upon a lie.

This is the true danger of the wiki leaks documents. They reaffirm unequivocally the bare naked truth which everybody knows but is afraid to state: the Emperor – indeed the empire itself – is not wearing any clothes.

Seeing an empire parade around butt naked… it’s not a pretty sight.

Tags: afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Empire, foreign policy, government, Obama, pakistan, Policy, wiki leaks, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Rant, Ethics, Politics, warfare | 2 Comments »

Counterinsurgency

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

Dr. David Kilcullen is a very intelligent man. The well known consultant to the US military has a firm grasp and control of his field (counterinsurgency): i.e. the history, techniques, and yes , the science of dealing with groups of people who are trying to destabilize and overthrow existing governments. There is every reason why Kilcullen has become a go to guy for advice on counterinsurgency by the U.S. Government – first in Iraq and now in Afghanistan.

Every reason except for one:

Every pundit who interviews him, every president, General, and government agency who asks for his advice, all accept as a given that counterinsurgency efforts by the United States are both valuable and necessary. On radio and in print the conversation always starts with the assumption that it is the United States job to try and stabilize the world. Discussions with Kilcullen invariably focus on political, strategic, and operational decisions. No one ever challenges him on whether our counterinsurgency efforts are truly necessary or even wanted by the populations of the countries we occupy with our armed forces.

When asked why we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan, Kilcullen’s standard answer is to repeat Obama’s mantra that we have to stabilize Afghanistan so that it doesn’t fall to groups like the Taliban who might allow safe havens for al Qaeda.

The other pat phrase Kilcullen falls back on is the phantom menace of loose nukes in the hands of al Qaeda. The argument runs something like this:

*Pakistan has nukes.

*Pakistan is unstable.

*One of the reasons Pakistan is unstable is because of the Taliban.

*Afghanistan is unstable too.

*It also has a Taliban problem.

*Therefore, we have to win against the Taliban in Afghanistan so the Taliban in Pakistan don’t overthrow the government there, gain control over their nuclear weapons and give them to al Qaeda terrorists – (who will of course instantly turn around and use them against the United States.)

This kind of reasoning is so convoluted it starts to sound like the famous South Park episode where Johnny Cochran defends O.J. Simpson by unleashing the “Chewbacca Defense.” “This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie…”

As Kilcullen himself admits, military occupation and counterinsurgency efforts by foreign powers are very difficult and the success rate of such endeavors is historically low. For a variety of reasons the chances of our armed forces being successful at nation building in Afghanistan aren’t very good. Add in the fact that our stated rationale for attempting to stabilize the country, borders on the ludicrous and you have a recipe containing all the savory promise of a cow pie.

Trying to bring peace and stability to a place like Afghanistan by pouring billions of dollars worth of soldiers and weapons and ordnance into the country is like trying to make lousy cake batter taste sweeter by adding cilantro, motor oil, and gorgonzola cheese.

David Kilcullen is a very intelligent man. However, consulting him on counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan is a waste of his talents. Asking a great chef to spend his time trying to improve the taste of a lousy soup that someone else has made, is foolish.

Asking him to defend the reason why you have asked him to do such a foolish thing?…

Well, that’s down right criminal.

Tags: afghanistan, Al Qaeda, COIN, counterinsurgency, government, insurgent, Kilcullen, pakistan, Policy, Taliban, Thomas Vincent, Vincent, war
Posted in Daily Rant, Politics, humor, warfare | No Comments »

Recipe for Disaster

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

In a recent town hall meeting in Racine, Wisconsin, President Barrack Obama called for sending a “civilian expeditionary force” to Afghanistan and Iraq to help overburdened military troops build infrastructure.

I think this is an exceedingly bad idea. My reasoning is as follows:

Cost A new layer of bureaucracy to build up infrastructures in foreign countries will be extremely costly. At a time when we have to borrow massively from countries like China and Japan just to pay for our current military expeditions, where is the money going to come from to pay for it? Will the government saddle our children’s children with more debt so we can build roads, bridges and schools in Afghanistan?

Unnecessary There is absolute certainty in my mind (a rare occurrence to be sure) that our military exercises in Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with defending our country and making us safer and everything to do with maintaining an imperialistic status quo for the benefit of large corporations. I realize this is an extremely cynical viewpoint. However, the fact remains, we invaded, and are still occupying militarily, two sovereign nations who never attacked us, had no intention of attacking us and who even today lack any of the resources necessary to attack us. The group who did attack us, al Qaeda, is today, not in Afghanistan or Iraq and even if they were, the threat they pose to our way of life is not one that can be met with either a unilateral military show of force or a unilateral “civilian expeditionary force.”

Why Americans? Even if one buys into the notion that building up infrastructure in countries like Afghanistan is the only way to win hearts and minds, why should it be Americans who do the building? Unemployment in America is currently hovering below 10%. According to the World Factbook, as of 2008, unemployment in Afghanistan was a whopping 35%, the highest in the world. If you really want to win hearts and minds of the people, doesn’t it make more sense to hire them to build roads instead of importing yet more Americans?

Redundant Even if you buy into the logic of building up infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq and you are committed to using Americans, why do you need what is in essence a whole new army? What ever happened to the US Army corps of engineers or the Seabees? I mean we are currently spending 130 billion dollars in the Middle East with probably 33 or so billion more to come when the Senate returns from Fourth of July break. Where is all this money going? 160 billion and the Army is so “overburdened” that they can’t figure out how to build a couple of bridges or a hospital?

Mission Creep The Department of Defense Directive 1404.10, dated January 23, 2009, is so broad in scope that its ambit goes far beyond simply relieving overburdened troops. The directive as written sets up a “Civilian Expeditionary Workforce” that would “be organized, trained, cleared, equipped, and ready to deploy in support of combat operations by the military; contingencies; emergency operations; humanitarian missions; disaster relief; restoration of order; drug interdiction; and stability operations.”

In short, the Pentagon under Barrack Obama wants to set up a brand new international civilian police force. Restoration of order? Drug interdiction? Stability operations? What happened to the part about rebuilding infrastructure?

Conclusion The people of Afghanistan are not stupid. They know that unemployment, poverty, and corruption are the main causes of distress in their country. Similarly, Iraqis are well aware of the sectarian violence that plagues their nation. Both countries are painfully aware that the presence of US soldiers exacerbates the problems they face. By large margins the people of Iraq and Afghanistan simply want US soldiers to go home. The last thing they want – or need – is more Americans swaggering around telling them what to do.

And the last thing we need is a new civilian police force that we can’t afford that will be sent to countries where they are not wanted.

A Civilian expeditionary Force is a recipe for disaster.

Tags: afghanistan, army, civilian, Iraq, Obama, Pentagon, Politics, war
Posted in Daily Rant, Politics, warfare | No Comments »

Doubling Down

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

In his December 2, speech before cadets at West Point, President Obama crossed a Rubicon of sorts when he outlined his plans for Afghanistan.

As Commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

Up to this point, Obama could and did rightfully claim that, like Iraq, Afghanistan was a mess he inherited from his predecessor. However, by escalating the scope of the conflict, by increasing the size of our occupying force in that country, Obama has truly taken ownership of that very same mess. And by sending in an additional 30K troops (on top of the 60,000 or so already there) he is admitting that his strategy for cleaning up the mess amounts to making an even bigger mess.

Furthermore, by calling the scandal ridden government of Hamid Karzai “our partner,” the president is putting a U.S. stamp of approval on a regime that has neither legal nor moral authority – nor for that matter even popular support. In short, Obama is resting his entire Middle East strategy on a table with very wobbly legs.

The media has not been slow to pick up on the risky nature of the President’s gambit. Headlines like: “Obama Bets Big on Brief Surge” and, “President’s Afghan Drawdown Plan called Risky, ‘Unrealistic.’” Even NPR got into the act referring to Obama’s plan as “doubling down.” This gambling meme is more appropriate with regard to Afghanistan than his other actions. In the field of economics, retaining Ben Bernanke, hiring Lawrence Summers and appointing Tim Geithner were all low risk moves designed to placate the wealthy by maintaining the status quo. Even retaining Robert Gates as Defense secretary could be viewed as a prudent move to maintain the continuity and effectiveness of our defense department.

Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan (and neighboring Pakistan ) is a different matter. Not only is escalating the Afghan conflict risky, but the stakes are enormous. It’s not a “safe” play. It’s more like pushing all your poker chips to the center of the table and declaring yourself “all in.”

America has immense wealth and military might. (translated, our stack of chips is high) But in this case, our hand is lousy. If the Karzai government were stronger or more united, with less corruption and more popular support, if Afghanistan’s economy weren’t a shambles, perhaps his bet would make more sense. But in Afghanistan and in Pakistan we’re playing with a low pair while the Taliban is working on a flush in spades. Moreover, every time we up the ante, each time we incur civilian casualties we strengthen the Taliban’s hand further by creating more insurgents.

I think Obama recognizes the essentially dead hand he’s been dealt. He must. Why else would he put an 18 month deadline for starting to withdraw troops? But taken by itself, the eighteen month deadline is absurd. In our poker analogy it’s like announcing to the whole table that you are going to go all in on every hand… until 2011 whereupon you’re quitting and going to bed. If I were a Taliban Commander I’d be shrugging my shoulders and saying, fine, we’ll just fold every hand that’s not a sure winner and hang on till the Americans go home. Then we’ll take over again.

The Obama plan is even shakier than it appears on the surface because in his speech, the president didn’t even pay lip service to the 900 lb gorilla in the room: namely that most of Karzai’s government is made up of con men, thieves and murderers. In her book “A Woman Among Warlords,” Malalai Joya lays out the real issue stating that the Taliban and al Qaeda are only a small portion of the problem in Afghanistan.

Today, warlords and druglords control huge swaths of Afghanistan, and there won’t be any meaningful solution to our problems while that continues.

The warlords and the Islamic fundamentalism they wield is like a cancer in the body of the Afghanistan nation, injected by neighboring countries and foreign powers… as long as these warlords and thugs remain part of the government – while retaining the ability to terrorize with their private militias – there will be no solution to Afghanistan’s crisis.

Obama ran on a campaign promising to be honest with the American people. If he were truly honest, he would stop setting up straw-men comparisons with the Viet-Nam war and start admitting the truth: that many of the groups fueling the conflict in Afghanistan were trained and funded (and are still being funded) by our own government. From direct bribes to war lords, to stolen humanitarian aide that winds up in the hands of the Taliban, we are our own worst enemy in Afghanistan.

What to do?

Again, Joya has the answer. End the war and withdraw support for the criminals that we are currently supporting. “Instead of backing and shielding these warlords, and leaving them armed to the teeth, the international community should support their prosecution for war crimes.”

Obama could do that. He could still wake up tomorrow and say, “you know what? The policy we’re following in Afghanistan is just throwing good money down a rat hole, money that could better be spent fixing infrastructure and creating jobs here at home. He could say that.

But I doubt that he will.

Tags: afghanistan, economy, escalation, Ethics, Military, Poker, risk, surge, war
Posted in Daily Doubt, Ethics, Politics, Uncategorized, economics, warfare | No Comments »