Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whatever happened to all the daily news stories about the Afghan surge in Marjah? In case you have forgotten, as the Obama administration would probably like you to, we had a large offensive in Helmand province around Marjah were increased US and NATO forces were going to take back a Taliban strong hold in the province and then move to Kandahar and finish mopping up southern Afghanistan of the Taliban once and for all.
The biggest military offensive in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taleban in 2001 is making good progress, Nato has said.
"We’ve caught the insurgents on the hoof, and they’re completely dislocated," he said in a briefing at the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah.
It almost seemed as if one could envision a “Mission Accomplished” hanging from an aircraft carrier. Finally, the good war was being fought, progress was being made, and Obama’s July 2011 pull out date sounded plausible. All of this within just a few hours of launching the offensive.
So why aren’t we hearing about our stunning success in Marjah, why hasn’t the press issued its usual daily feel good about the good war bovine excrement? Perhaps it is because things haven’t exactly turned out as hoped, in fact things turned out so bad that the Kandahar offensive has been delayed and isn’t expected to be executed until as early as this autumn. Starting to sound like De javu all over again?
The top US general in Afghanistan also acknowledged that the much-touted US offensive earlier this year against Marjah, an insurgent stronghold in rural Helmand province, had failed to uproot the Taliban, who retain control of much of the region.
One recent study found that the majority of the population in Marjah had become more antagonistic to NATO forces than before the operation. Late last, month McChrystal referred to the region as “a bleeding ulcer.”
Bleeding ulcer, more antagonism towards US and NATO forces than before, that sure doesn’t sound like the same surge we heard described just a few short months ago.
Another interesting side note is that familiar character Harmid Karzi, who the Obama administration wanted to bring into the mix and have take charge of greater responsibility for actions in Afghanistan.
By giving Mr. Karzai responsibility over key elements of the campaign, Western officials are hoping he will seize the battlefield advantage given to him by the arrival of thousands of fresh American troops and turn it into a chance to re-establish his government's—and his own—credibility.
Problem with Karzi, other than his dubious reputation, is that Karzi has been trying to strike deals with the Taliban on his own. Karzi recently expressed doubts that the US will be able to remove the Taliban and once the US leaves, Karzi will have to deal with the Taliban.
Richard Reeves: Afghanistan conspiracy Theories loom large | Denton Record Chronicle | News for Denton County, Texas | Opinion: Columns (http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/opinion/columns/stories/DRC_Reeves_Column_0616.aafeace0.html - broken link)
Quote:
“IF YOU READ ONLY ONE STORY — N.Y. Times 2-col. lead, ‘Karzai Is Said to Doubt West Can Defeat Taliban,’ by Dexter Filkins, in Kabul: President Hamid Karzai ‘has been pressing to strike his own deal with the Taliban and the country’s archrival, Pakistan ... Mr. Karzai’s maneuverings involve secret negotiations with the Taliban outside the purview of American and NATO officials. ... People close to the president say he began to lose confidence in the Americans last summer. ...’”
Even more disturbing is that just recently, British Prime Minister David Cameron, on his first trip to Afghanistan, was prevented from making a scheduled appearance at a military base in the province after British officers intercepted calls indicating that insurgents were planning to shoot down his helicopter. Now just how do insurgents in an extremely rural and remote region of Afghanistan gain the intelligence that the British Prime Minister is on a specific helicopter? One name comes to mind, Harmid Karzi.
Another name comes to mind, Ngo Dinh Diem, and in case you are not old enough to remember Diem, he was our guy in south Vietnam and when he went his own way, he was assassinated while President Kennedy gave assurances to General Dương Văn Minh that the US wouldn’t interfere with the coup. Will the same happen with Harmid Karzi?
As the global research goes on to point out:
Quote:
The US intelligence web site Stratfor on Thursday posted a grim assessment of the US position in Afghanistan—one that doubtless reflects the thinking in sections of the American military and intelligence establishment. It stated: “In short, the US-led effort in the Afghan south is encountering serious problems….
Quote:
“The problem for Washington and Kabul is twofold, however. First, the entire concept of operations is not working as expected. It is becoming increasingly clear that there were some key misjudgments about the nature and strength of the Taliban in the country’s south. Secondly, and intertwined with the first, the lack of a decisive success and the delay of the Kandahar security offensive means perceptions of the surge are shifting in the Taliban’s favor, dimming the prospects for the United States and its allies…
Perceptions the surge isn't working as hoped, or just because it actually isn't working out as hoped?
So here we are, 10 years in Afghanistan fighting Obama’s “good war”, and the current Afghan government is making deals with those we are fighting against, the military and intelligence communities are expressing serious doubts over tangible gains, Republicans push for more escalation and perpetually, the Democrats quietly express skepticism but remain silent, the anti-war movement sits quietly by and too afraid to be critical of the Obama administration, and the American news media and press have stowed their pompoms in the closet. If that doesn't sound like the proverbial train wreck then you are living in denial, its as simple as that.
Already the reasoning for staying forever is being laid with the alleged sudden discovery of trillion plus dollar mineral resources being discovered. Or were they “just” discovered? As we now learn, these mineral deposits were well known by the US geological survey as far back as 2006, what most places are not reporting is that what led to the USGS to do a more in depth study was from data collected by the Soviets almost 30 years ago.
Back during the initial invasion of Afghanistan, a number of people pointed to the UNICAL pipeline deal and cited this as the reason we are really invading Afghanistan and not just going after Bin Laden. This of course was dismissed as mere conspiracy theory, as after all the Taliban did harbor the people who were behind 9-11. I tend to dismiss the pipeline deal as reasoning to invade myself, but in light of what a recent Pentagon memo stated.
U.S. Finds Vast Untapped Wealth in Afghanistan « SpeakEasy (http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/14/u-s-finds-vast-untapped-wealth-in-afghanistan/ - broken link)
Quote:
An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys
It likely didn’t have any reason for our invasion of Afghanistan but it is becoming clear that it will one of the reasons we may never leave.
The phrase, “Obama’s Vietnam” was dismissed by Obama who said there were no parallels between these two wars, but with John McCain urging we remain for "as long as it takes", it is clear that at some point the general consensus among American's will be, "Obama's Vietnam". Will this be in 2 years, 5 years, 10, or as McCain suggested, 100?
However, if all other reasons for remaining are dismissed there is the old fall back of "We broke it now we should fix it", however since this tends to only favor our nation building efforts in Iraq, I suppose we could fall back to an even earlier canard where if just one soldier were to die then, "Lets us remain so his death will not be in vain". And so the war goes on.
All I've heard is that it's NOT working and we are falling behind.
You won't hear the drumbeat from the MSM like we did when Bush was in office - there is a democrat managing the war now and the MSM will do what it takes to shield him from the fallout.
Ok, so perhaps you just wanted to get a jab in at the "liberal" media, I understand. Since you were a proponent of this surge, why do you think it failed, McChrystal, Petraeus, bad intelligence, not enough troops, etc....? What would you propose we do now, nothing and just remain silent hoping it will totally fail you can post a thread saying how bad Obama is?
IF your goal is to defeat the Taliban, then DO IT, using overwhelming force. None of this pussyfooting around. Of course, when the Taliban are integrated into every city and town, trying to weed them out from the "normal" civilians is difficult.
We KNOW that Iran is aiding and abetting the Taliban, KILLING our soldiers with the new and improved weaponry they supply the Taliban. We KNOW this, yet we do nothing and allow them to get away with it.
A well placed missile or bomb, targeted at the Republican Guard might make them think twice of killing our soldiers by proxy.
And what would Iran's reaction be? A lot of bluster and blowhard rhetoric, but not much more. Of course, we deny any involvement in the operation.
IF your goal is to defeat the Taliban, then DO IT, using overwhelming force. None of this pussyfooting around. Of course, when the Taliban are integrated into every city and town, trying to weed them out from the "normal" civilians is difficult.
We KNOW that Iran is aiding and abetting the Taliban, KILLING our soldiers with the new and improved weaponry they supply the Taliban. We KNOW this, yet we do nothing and allow them to get away with it.
A well placed missile or bomb, targeted at the Republican Guard might make them think twice of killing our soldiers by proxy.
And what would Iran's reaction be? A lot of bluster and blowhard rhetoric, but not much more. Of course, we deny any involvement in the operation.
I thought the original goal was to defeat Al Qaeda, but I suspect the goal post of what constitutes victory might as well change day by day here in Afghanistan as it did in Iraq. I mean after all, G W Bush was willing to consider opening negotiations with the Taliban, and so too is Obama, but if it is the Taliban were after now, then ok.
So the Taliban is being supplied and funded, etc... by Iran, ok, lob a few missiles like Clinton did in Afghanistan, back in ... when was that again? Did lobbing a few missiles then work?
Ok, so we lobbed a few missiles at Iran and you believe they will just sit and take it on the chin? I suppose that is a risk anyone sitting in suburbia might be willing to take, then again you may have to run it by the families of all those American soldiers, as their assessment of that risk may be a little different.
Ok, lets just forget for a moment that Iran and Iraq share a long and rather porous border now that the Brits pulled out of southern Iraq and we only have 50,000 or so troops there, lets just bypass that. If Iran is as belligerent as you suggest do you not think Iran will try to sink a few oil tankers in the straights of Hormuz? What do you predict the price of oil to be if just one single tanker is sunk and the US and Iran enter into open conflict? You are making a HUGE bet that Iran will just say... oooo were sorry, we'll leave you all alone now.
Ok, so perhaps you just wanted to get a jab in at the "liberal" media, I understand. Since you were a proponent of this surge, why do you think it failed, McChrystal, Petraeus, bad intelligence, not enough troops, etc....? What would you propose we do now, nothing and just remain silent hoping it will totally fail you can post a thread saying how bad Obama is?
Tn, we can see and feel the effects of the way Obama is handling the countries business and in many cases it is easy to see how doing things differently would be better like, acting a lot faster on the oil spill and getting ahead of the oil before it hit land, for one example. There are many more but there is no need for this thread.
You are asking us to make judgments about a war that we see or read very little about and the vast majority of us have no experience in so it is hard to say what needs to be done. When I think back to the beginning of the most recent Iraq war it was on the tube 24/7 for a long time and showed us that we were in command of the war. What at that time was there to debate except weather or not we should have been there and that is another matter not for this thread.
For me, if our best Generals do not know what to do then who am I to tell the military how to fight a war. I think we should do whatever the Generals ask for. If you want my opinion on weather we should get out, then I say not until they can stand on their own two feet and defend themselves from the wolves.
Tn, we can see and feel the effects of the way Obama is handling the countries business and in many cases it is easy to see how doing things differently would be better like, acting a lot faster on the oil spill and getting ahead of the oil before it hit land, for one example. There are many more but there is no need for this thread.
You are asking us to make judgments about a war that we see or read very little about and the vast majority of us have no experience in so it is hard to say what needs to be done. When I think back to the beginning of the most recent Iraq war it was on the tube 24/7 for a long time and showed us that we were in command of the war. What at that time was there to debate except weather or not we should have been there and that is another matter not for this thread.
For me, if our best Generals do not know what to do then who am I to tell the military how to fight a war. I think we should do whatever the Generals ask for. If you want my opinion on weather we should get out, then I say not until they can stand on their own two feet and defend themselves from the wolves.
That is part of the problem, the silence, the lack of coverage, the lack of honest discussion in the sunlight. This is where our media and press should be and it should be a vigorous dialog on what is taking place, but there is little more than silence. One would expect that if the media were this giant liberal entity which has traditionally taken a more anti-war stance, then we would at least expect to see it on MSNBC or ABC, or CBS or CNN, but its not. Now if Fox were truly conservative, they might point this fact out and if they were traditionally conservative, they would also demand the discussion beyond a McCain statement.
Now you suggest we stay until they are able to defend themselves, but what if they never are? What if they see the situation as defending themselves now against US and NATO forces? How many American lives and how much money is it worth to catch the last 100 Al Qaeda who many in our military and intelligence circles believe are near the border with or in Pakistan?
These are not easy questions and all the more reason to be looking at this situation with a far more open and critical eye.
That is part of the problem, the silence, the lack of coverage, the lack of honest discussion in the sunlight. This is where our media and press should be and it should be a vigorous dialog on what is taking place, but there is little more than silence. One would expect that if the media were this giant liberal entity which has traditionally taken a more anti-war stance, then we would at least expect to see it on MSNBC or ABC, or CBS or CNN, but its not. Now if Fox were truly conservative, they might point this fact out and if they were traditionally conservative, they would also demand the discussion beyond a McCain statement.
Now you suggest we stay until they are able to defend themselves, but what if they never are? What if they see the situation as defending themselves now against US and NATO forces? How many American lives and how much money is it worth to catch the last 100 Al Qaeda who many in our military and intelligence circles believe are near the border with or in Pakistan?
These are not easy questions and all the more reason to be looking at this situation with a far more open and critical eye.
I have to admit that with all that is happening state side I have not given much thought to Afghanistan. I agree that there is virtually no coverage by the MSM and there really should be. I also think that if it looks like they will never be able to defend themselves then we should ask the UN to step in and take over which should be no problem given the recent discovery of riches while we maintain a presents.
If they ever decide they do not want us there then we have to come home.
I have to admit that with all that is happening state side I have not given much thought to Afghanistan. I agree that there is virtually no coverage by the MSM and there really should be. I also think that if it looks like they will never be able to defend themselves then we should ask the UN to step in and take over which should be no problem given the recent discovery of riches while we maintain a presents.
If they ever decide they do not want us there then we have to come home.
There are things even we can agree on.
Perhaps you may notice my frustration having an anti-war position on this issue. The vast majority of the right are still in full support of Obama's position in Afghanistan, but they won't openly admit it. On the other hand, the vast majority of the anti-war left packed up their signs and went home after Obama was elected and are reluctant to be critical of the man they voted for and for obvious reasons. (note the sound of crickets from the left) Add in the media's reluctance to cover this as they did when Bush was in office and it is as if we thrown Afghanistan down the memory hole into the deepest of oubliettes.
Perhaps you may notice my frustration having an anti-war position on this issue. The vast majority of the right are still in full support of Obama's position in Afghanistan, but they won't openly admit it. On the other hand, the vast majority of the anti-war left packed up their signs and went home after Obama was elected and are reluctant to be critical of the man they voted for and for obvious reasons. (note the sound of crickets from the left) Add in the media's reluctance to cover this as they did when Bush was in office and it is as if we thrown Afghanistan down the memory hole into the deepest of oubliettes.
I also think that a lot of the reason no one is shouting out against the war in Afghanistan is that is where a vast majority of folks thought the war should have been fought in the first place and see it as unfinished business from 9/11.
I am always fighting a war as a last resort but, if we do go to war, fight it to win it whatever it takes. Unfortunately, I have no idea what it is going to take. The real problem is that the Al Qaeda are like roaches and the only way to kill them is to kill them all but that would mean killing everyone, including the innocent, and we can't do that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
