lilhornie
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: AFGHANISTAN: Not Worth Fighting, Or DYING, For! But Even O |
 |
|
WHY?
Why are our less-than-stalwart "leaders" in Washington already
transferring U.S. wealth to a country that has ZERO history or
experience with countrywide non-tribal governance?
NO GOOD has already come of "America's" ill-advised presence there.
Okay, we drove the Taliban out in late 2001. Actually, we should have
destroyed the Taliban and its habitats with a month-long, deep-
penetration bombing campaign.
Then, we should have staked out agreements with whatever Afghan
leaders seemed the most able to hold the country together, including
emplacing trainers and funding to build and maintain an army, help
fund enterprises and facilities for attracting investment, then leave
the country to its own devices.
Of course, with Mortimer Snerd and Dick Goering in charge, we know
what happened next ... to Iraq.
And today in Iraq, despite what the U.S-contracted "media" are telling
the world, 150,000 U.S. troops are in a state of stalemate. Can't
leave, can't stay. Meanwhile your astute government is paying 100,000
Sunni tribal militiamen $300 to $500 a month each to fight the
insurgents, including al-Qaeda.
And Gen. Petraeus is planning for a similar scenario for Afghanistan.
At the same time, it's becoming more apparent by the day that the
U.S.'s welcome in Pakistan is worn quite thin.
Unless U.S. taxpayers don't mind occupying, propping up and supporting
the Muslim Middle East for decades -- or more -- we need to cut our
losses and get out of there as fast as our logisticians and rear-guard
miitary units can manage it.
--------------------------
"3,300 More U.S. Troops Sought to Train Afghans"
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 13, 2008; A18
U.S. commanders in Afghanistan are requesting 3,300 more troops to
accelerate the training of new Afghan army and police forces, a job
seen as critical to defeating Afghanistan's growing insurgency.
Maj. Gen. Robert Cone, who heads the U.S. command in Kabul that trains
Afghan forces, said yesterday he has asked for 60 additional training
teams -- a total of about 1,000 troops -- to help speed the expansion
of the Afghan army.
Cone said the latest request, currently in NATO and U.S. military
channels, is in addition to his prior request to fill a shortfall of
2,300 trainers. Still, with NATO struggling to meet even the lower
goal for trainers, it is not clear where the new teams will come from.
Beefing up the Afghan army has emerged as a main theme of an ongoing
Bush administration review of strategy in Afghanistan. This goal has
the backing of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has voiced
misgivings about U.S. and other foreign troops establishing too large
a presence in Afghanistan given its traditional hostility to
occupiers.
Under current plans, it will take until the end of 2013 to nearly
double the size of the Afghan army from its current strength of 68,000
soldiers. Cone said that with the additional trainers, that goal could
be reached two years earlier.
"We're working on a plan that essentially would . . . deliver the
134,000 by 2011," Cone said in a videoconference with Pentagon
reporters.
Top U.S. military officials including Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have warned that time is running out for
the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, as the insurgency intensifies and
political support for supplying troops for the conflict wanes in some
allied countries.
Those trends, as well as the strain of the effort in Iraq on U.S.,
British and other allied forces, has added urgency to the effort to
build Afghan military and police forces. The goal for the total
strength of the Afghan army expanded from 70,000 to 80,000 last year,
and then to 134,000 this fall. The larger force will cost $2 billion
to $2.5 billion a year -- three times the size of Afghanistan's annual
budget of $700 million -- therefore requiring substantial investments
from the United States and other nations.
While some analysts have argued that such an expensive army is not
sustainable in an impoverished country such as Afghanistan, senior
military officials have made the dire prediction that without a more
robust Afghan army, the country will have no future.
Other hurdles to building up the Afghan army include a shortage of
skilled individuals from which to draw noncommissioned officers
following decades of warfare, Cone said. Another problem is
corruption, as well as the logistical difficulties of equipping and
training the force, he said.
"You have to scratch something literally out of the desert to build a
training center for the Afghans," Cone said.
Both the Bush administration and the team of President-elect Barack
Obama have called for significant increases in the number of U.S.
troops in Afghanistan next year. U.S. commanders want three more
combat brigades and thousands of support troops, for a total of about
20,000 additional troops, as well as helicopters and unmanned drones,
but such increases depend on continuing troop reductions in Iraq.
Other NATO countries such as Britain are also considering shifting
resources from Iraq to Afghanistan as conditions permit, and are
likely to follow the U.S. lead, officials said.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new leader of U.S. Central Command,
discussed the possibility of more British contributions in an
unplanned meeting Sunday in London with British Secretary of Defense
John Hutton and Chief of Defense Staff Jock Stirrup. Petraeus, who
previously set up the command in Iraq that trains the country's
forces, has also supported expanding the size of the Afghan army.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202681.html |
|
Jisseigh
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: Re: AFGHANISTAN: Not Worth Fighting, Or DYING, For! But Even |
|
|
"Taliban Says No to Karzai On Offer of Peace Talks"
Associated Press
Tuesday, November 18, 2008; A23
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Nov. 17 -- Taliban insurgents rejected an offer
of peace talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, reiterating Monday
their position that there would be no negotiations until foreign
troops leave Afghanistan.
Karzai offered Sunday to provide security for reclusive Taliban leader
Mohammad Omar if he enters negotiations, But Zabiullah Mujahid, a
Taliban spokesman, said there could be no talks while foreign troops
are in the country.
Karzai has dismissed the demand for foreign troops to leave, saying
they are needed to keep Afghanistan safe.
The Afghan president has long supported drawing the Taliban into the
political mainstream if the group accepts the country's constitution
and repudiates al-Qaeda.
U.S. political and military leaders are also considering negotiating
with some elements of the Taliban as the insurgency gains sway in
large areas of Afghanistan, especially its south and east. Afghanistan
is going through its worst violence since the U.S.-led invasion in
2001 ousted the Taliban government.
But no senior Taliban leader has yet publicly indicated that the hard-
line Islamist movement is willing to enter serious talks with what
they call Karzai's "puppet government."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111703096.html |
|
