 by Lt.Col. Ralph Peters The Taliban scored a powerful psychological victory yesterday, as fewer than two dozen suicide attackers brought Afghanistan's government and capital city to a standstill. In a dramatic wave of attacks (possibly planned with help from Pakistani intelligence operatives), the Taliban struck Kabul's presidential palace, several government ministries and a multistory shopping complex. And they did it just as President Hamid Karzai was swearing in his new Cabinet (despite a battle with parliament over the legitimacy of his picks).
Think that gave Afghans renewed confidence in their government? We've been told, repeatedly, that Afghanistan's army and police are improving, yet US forces had to rush to their aid in responding to 20 or fewer attackers right in Kabul. Still worse: The attack's planning was meticulous and media savvy. In smooth coordination with simultaneous suicide bombings and small-arms attacks, Taliban public-relations agents popped up online and in the media to thump their chests over their win. When it comes to media relations, these thugs aren't backward barbarians. Indeed, the Taliban does it far better than our military, which slowly issues defensive statements that nobody takes seriously. (And where our bureaucracy's paralytic, NATO's is comatose.) Inevitably, our guys in Kabul will play down the attacks, claiming that "Saigon's back to normal, people are going about their business." But weigh the psychological impact yesterday's strikes had on Afghans unsure of which horse to back in this deadly race. Yesterday's wave of bombings was a mini-Tet Offensive -- a small-scale repeat of the attacks that triggered US public opinion's turn against the Vietnam War. They were designed to explode Western claims of progress and embarrass our leaders -- and it worked. Our self-delusion stinks of the early years in Vietnam, when Gen. Paul Harkins, our man in Saigon, claimed (in 1963) that the Vietnamese army was doing a great job, the war was being won and our troops would be home by 1965. Recently, I read a report by an official US visitor to Afghanistan calling Karzai "brave" and describing him as the leader Afghanistan needs.
Good God -- he's hiding in his presidential palace, afraid to visit the front lines and see what kind of shape his country's really in. Yesterday, the war came to him. Our insistence on propping up Karzai is so uncanny a replay of our support for South Vietnam's incompetent Diem regime five decades ago that the similarity's unnerving. We saw what we wanted to see then. And we see what we want to see now. The problem is not our troops: They're doing everything we ask and more. But they're pit bulls led by miniature poodles. Senior military leaders refuse to see our enemies for what they are -- religious fanatics with a durable tribal base -- and insist on treating them as 20th-century ideological insurgents. Earth to Gen. Stan McChrystal: Those suicide bombers yesterday weren't Sandinistas. Special Forces and other personnel down-range (far from the gee-whiz briefing rooms) understand that there is no Afghan nation, that we've stuck ourselves in the midst of complex tribal wars super-charged by religious fanaticism among our enemies. And, in tribal wars, you have to pick your tribes. It's not that the war in Afghanistan's unwinnable. It's just not winnable on the ludicrous terms we've imposed upon ourselves. We want to build what can't be built and refuse to do what must be done -- and sacrifice our troops for foreign scoundrels. Poll the Afghans on the streets of Kabul today. Ask them if we're winning. Ralph Peters' latest book is "The War After Armageddon." NYPost
 AMONG the army huts clustered on the bleak, windswept outskirts of Kabul is the Counterinsurgency Training Centre, Afghanistan. It is where 50-year-old US special forces colonel John F. Agoglia devises strategy and tactics to deal with a worsening Taliban crisis that by some estimates has put about half of the country at risk of insurgent attack. "We've done some stupid shit. We focused on terrorism, not governance, and probably realised that about three years ago," the blunt Brooklyn-born officer says. In 2007, the buzz phrase was "ink spots". It was used by NATO to describe the strategy of deploying combat troops into lawless Taliban-held regions of Afghanistan as a way of winning hearts and minds. The theory goes like this. Surge enough troops into the badlands, the insurgents disperse and the coalition spots eventually join to form a uniform shade. Four years later, the hope is still there although the language has changed. Ink spots have given way to constructivist theory. Depending on who you speak to, the conflict in Afghanistan is an equilateral triangle where war fighting is just one facet of counter-insurgency that is equally dependent on economic development and governance to achieve desired outcomes. The final shape emerging last week around the International Security Assistance Force headquarters was a hexagon following general agreement on the use of a new buzzword, partnering. That is the term for joint Afghan-coalition combat operations as US combat troops begin to leave by July 2011. The December 2 announcement of US President Barack Obama's Pakistan-Afghan review was welcomed by US commander of NATO forces Stanley McChrystal. "The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President's address are critical steps towards bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security," McChrystal says. "The NATO-ISAF objective is equally clear. We will work towards improved security for Afghanistan and the transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces as rapidly as conditions allow," he tells ISAF commanders. Two days after the unveiling of the new doctrine to send an extra 30,000 US combat troops into Afghanistan, nowhere were the challenges of achieving Obama's goals more keenly discussed than inside the US-run Counterinsurgency Training Centre, known as COIN. During the next 18 months, thousands of US combat troops will be deployed in the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan, notably the northeast frontier region and former no-go zones in southern Helmand. The first 1500 are due to arrive this week. Their mission will be to prise away from the Taliban districts under their control, re-establish security and buy time to fast-track training of Afghan security forces while aid and governance experts restore some desperately needed credibility to Hamid Karzai's graft-tainted government. Nobody, least all of the shadowy figures who inhabit the COIN centre, doubt the immense challenges of the assignment. More at the Australian
 WASHINGTON: The top US military commander in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley McChrystal, praised Barack Obama’s new war strategy yesterday, telling legislators that the additional 30,000 troops will help him reverse the Taliban’s momentum and turn the tide of the war. In much-anticipated testimony before the House armed services committee, the first of several scheduled appearances on Capitol Hill this week, Gen McChrystal described the new strategy as a “realistic and effective approach” and said he believed success in the central Asian war zone is “achievable”.
“The president’s decision rapidly resources our strategy, recognises that the next 18 months will likely be decisive, and ultimately enables success,” said Gen McChrystal, who also commands Nato troops and is considered by US officials to be the foremost expert on counterinsurgency. “I fully support the president’s decision.” Gen McChrystal broadly outlined his vision of success as a “stable Afghanistan, a defunct al Qa’eda and a secure future in that vital region of the world”. He also said disrupting the Taliban’s “capacity” and “denying their access to the Afghan population” is a “prerequisite to the ultimate defeat of al Qa’eda”.
Gen McChrystal appeared alongside Karl Eickenberry, the US ambassador to Afghanistan, who also served there as lieutenant general in the army there before taking up his diplomatic post.
Their joint appearance fulfils a long-standing request by legislators for the two key players in the US war effort to appear for questioning before Congress. More at the National
 Of course not. We're way beyond "victory" now. Everyone knows that enemies are defeated by building schools, roads, and hospitals. In any case, now we know that Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan is not intended to subdue (much less "kill every member of," as an Obama aide describes defeating them) the Taliban. What it is for is not so clear. "Obama pressed for faster surge," by Anne E. Kornblut, Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung for the Washington Post, December 6 (thanks to Weasel Zippers): His chance came at an Oct. 8 meeting of Obama's principal advisers, presided over by Jones -- the "dress rehearsal" for a full-scale National Security Council gathering the president would hold the next day.
Speaking by video link from Kabul, McChrystal began with the policy underlying his approach, established by the White House review, hastily compiled in February, that led to Obama's March 27 strategy announcement and the deployment of nearly 22,000 new troops through the spring and summer. In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a slide: "Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population." "Is that really what you think your mission is?" one of those in the Situation Room asked. On the face of it, it was impossible -- the Taliban were part of the fabric of the Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan, culturally if not ideologically supported by a significant part of the population. "We don't need to do that," Gates said, according to a participant. "That's an open-ended, forever commitment." But that was precisely his mission, McChrystal responded, and it was enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan -- the execution orders for the March strategy, written by the NSC staff. "I wouldn't say there was quite a 'whoa' moment," a senior defense official said of the reaction around the table. "It was just sort of a recognition that, 'Duh, that's what, in effect, the commander understands he's been told to do.' Everybody said, 'He's right.' " "It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent" of the NSC document, said Jones, who had signed the orders himself. "I'm not sure that in his position I wouldn't have done the same thing, as a military commander." But what McChrystal created in his assessment "was obviously something much bigger and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended." Whatever the administration might have said in March, officials explained to McChrystal, it now wanted something less absolute: to reverse the Taliban's momentum, deter it and try to persuade a significant number of its members to switch sides. "We certainly want them not to be able to overthrow the government," Jones said. On Oct. 9, after awaking to the news that he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama listened to McChrystal's presentation. The "mission" slide included the same words: "Defeat the Taliban." But a red box had been added beside it saying that the mission was being redefined, Jones said. Another participant recalled that the word "degrade" had been proposed to replace "defeat." Already briefed on the previous day's discussion, the president "looked at it and said: 'To be fair, this is what we told the commander to do. Now, the question is, have we directed him to do more than what is realistic? Should there be a sharpening . . . a refinement?' " one participant recalled. Said a senior White House adviser who took extensive notes of the meeting: "The big moment when the mission became a narrower one was when we realized we're not going to kill every last member of the Taliban." "Defeat" = "kill every last member"? With thanks to JihadWatch
 According to the Wall Street Journal, President Obama is not particularly keen on the prospect of increasing Afghan security forces. While this has been an overarching goal of American policy during the last eight years, the President has taken a different tack: In the bleak war assessment that he delivered to Mr. Obama earlier this year, Gen. McChrystal called for expanding the Afghan army to 240,000 and the Afghan police to 160,000, roughly twice the size of their current growth plans.
The proposal initially found support within the administration, where senior officials have talked openly about wanting to quickly transfer security responsibility to Afghan forces. It appears that the President has taken this new approach due to influence from Vice President Biden and the left wing of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, without a reservoir of local forces, the United States cannot pacify Afghanistan.
In Iraq, there are over 600,000 troops and police, as well as local militias.
This pressure helped destroy al Qaeda and its allies. World Threats
 KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Commanders in Afghanistan say they will devote the majority of the fresh troops expected from the White House to securing the country's troubled south and will especially target this volatile city, the Taliban's main power base. President Barack Obama will announce his revamped war strategy in an address early next week, likely Tuesday.
He is widely expected to adopt a plan that sends between 20,000 and 40,000 more troops to bolster a flagging military campaign and the 68,000 U.S. troops now fighting it. But even before Mr. Obama takes his case to the public, military commanders on the battlefield are ready to implement a plan that makes a defensive ring around Kandahar a linchpin of the fight to come.
No matter how many troops the president decides to authorize, the Kandahar campaign will be an early, large-scale test of U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal's plan of refocusing allied military, political and economic efforts on population centers and away from sparsely peopled rural areas. The new commander of coalition forces in southern Afghanistan, British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, and his staff detailed how they will put the McChrystal approach into action, in interviews with The Wall Street Journal: They plan to mass thousands of troops now scattered around the south and pack them into a tight cordon around the outskirts of Kandahar city. At the same time, the coalition plans to pour economic, police and political assistance into the urban core to try to persuade residents that the Afghan government serves them better than the Taliban alternative. "We have to regain the initiative, and we have to get some momentum going," said Gen. Carter. As Gen. McChrystal's team scrambles to reverse Taliban gains in Kandahar, they will also dispatch thousands of American soldiers to secure the major highways that pass through the city to Pakistan and southern Afghanistan. More at WSJ
 Barack Obama is expected to announce his long-delayed plans for a troop surge in Afghanistan next week with a promise of between 3,000 and 7,000 extra troops from Nato allies — including Britain, so as to stop this looking like America’s war. An announcement by the US president is anticipated before the meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels on December 3.
American officials suggest a combination of US and European troops, amounting to a total reinforcement of some 35,000, is the likely move. That is fewer than the 40,000 troops General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, requested in the summer to curb the Taliban insurgency. Republicans have accused Obama of dithering. Senator John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate, argues that the delay in reaching a decision on Afghan strategy is creating uncertainty within the military, as the insurgency in Afghanistan continues to worsen. At the Halifax International Security Forum, which ends today, McCain said that “many of our young soldiers were wondering why there’s this delay”. Brown agreed to the reinforcement, which will take British numbers to 9,500, on the condition that each ally bears its “fair share”. The Georgians have agreed to send 1,000 extra troops, the Turks 500-600 and Slovakia is doubling its contribution to 250. Tomorrow Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato secretary-general, will travel to Poland in the hope of raising more there. “This is not just America’s war — the Europeans have doubled their contribution in the past 20 months from 18,000 to 36,000 and the secretary-general is confident there is more to come,” his spokesman said. Germany, Italy, Turkey, France and Romania — all of which have forces in Afghanistan — are under pressure to send at least a battalion of between 500 and 1,000 troops each, although Germany has insisted on waiting for the outcome of a conference on Afghanistan in January. Times Online
 By PETER SPIEGEL and YOCHI J. DREAZEN WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have turned the focus of Afghan war planning toward an exit strategy, publicly declaring that the U.S. and its allies can't send additional troops without a plan for getting them out. The shift has unnerved some U.S. and foreign officials, who say that planning a pullout now -- with or without a specific timetable -- encourages the Taliban to wait out foreign forces and exacerbates fears in the region that the U.S. isn't fully committed to their security. "It's not a good idea," said Rep. Ike Skelton (D., Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "When the area has been stabilized...then it's time to go home. But to set up a timetable for people in that neck of the woods, they'll just wait us out," said Rep. Skelton, a prominent supporter of proposals by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Kabul, to send more troops for a counterinsurgency campaign. Mr. Obama isn't asking for the firm, publicly declared handover dates in Afghanistan that were the feature of early Iraq war plans, according to senior administration and military officials. Instead, the officials said, the administration wants the Pentagon to identify key milestones for Afghanistan to meet, in its governance and the capability of its security forces, and then give a rough sense of when each objective is likely to be achieved. Reaching these goals would allow the U.S. role to shift away from direct combat, allowing troop levels to decline. Mr. Obama said Wednesday in a CNN interview that he believed his new Afghan policy needed to include an "endgame" because "unless you impose that kind of discipline, [U.S. policy] could end up leading to a multiyear occupation that won't serve the interests of the United States." Keeping the public eye on an exit strategy -- rather than on how many new troops would be deployed, the subject of much of the U.S. public debate so far -- could also help Mr. Obama sell his strategy at home. "What the White House wants is a strategic glide path that gives a sense of the path ahead and the time it will take to meet each specific target," the defense official said. "It's not a hard-and-fast timetable for withdrawal. More at WSJ
 Former Sen. Fred Thompson today intensified his party's criticism of President Obama's long deliberation over policy in Afghanistan, announcing that Obama's delay signals that "the war has been lost" and that nothing the president now does will "make any difference." "It really doesn't matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost," Thompson said on his radio show today.
"I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what's necessary to win it. His heart's not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it. "Our enemies are now emboldened and our friends are discouraged. We cannot prevail if the American people are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for an extended effort. The case has not been made to them to justify this effort. The case can only be made by the president. This president is unable or unwilling to make that case," Thompson said. Thompson's words seem to lay the groundwork for Republican opposition to further American engagement in Afghanistan, cast here as halfhearted. "Take your time, Mr. President," Thompson said. Unless you have a total change of heart and mind, it really doesn't make any difference." Politico
 FRAUDULENT elections, attacks on UN officials in Kabul, and a US administration seemingly reluctant to fulfil its chosen general's requests for yet more troops; observers may be forgiven for thinking that Afghanistan is on track to become another Vietnam.
That, however, would be misreading the situation. Under General Stanley McCrystal, the International Security Assistance Force is finally developing a strategy that promises to bring success. While the Taliban is far from defeated, important aspects of the Afghan situation work in the favour of the West. Afghanistan is not yet a functioning state, but it is also easy to overstate the security problems there. In a country with roughly the same population as Iraq, daily attacks are still only a fraction of those in Iraq in 2006-07. Despite the odd high-profile attack, main economic and population centres such as Kabul, Jalalabad, Mazar-i-Sharif or Herat are essentially safe for foreigners and the local population. Anti-government forces have significantly increased their reach in recent years, but the Taliban is much less unified than that label suggests. Their influence remains localised and dependent on ethnic, historical and political conditions, which can differ from province to province and village to village. The hostile forces in the valleys of Nuristan and Kunar provinces are only temporary coalitions between local villagers, timber barons, the Haqqani network and al-Qa'ida foreign fighters. ISAF is now withdrawing its permanent presence from these marginal areas, where it is clearly not wanted. In contrast, insurgents in the Greater Paktia area in the southeast are dominated by the Haqqani network, which works in loose coalition with al-Qa'ida. Traditional tribal structures remain strong, which presents opportunities and constraints to both insurgents and coalition forces. While violence is persistent, it is at a much lower level than in Helmand or Kandahar. Insurgents in the south, and in Pashtun pockets in the north, are more centrally directed by the Mullah Omar's Quetta Shura. It continues to have national ambitions, and operates a shadow government in areas under its control. The heaviest resistance in this region was encountered in Helmand, but the centre of gravity is Kandahar city. ISAF forces are only thinly deployed to areas outside the city proper, which is controlled by the militias of the governor, brother of President Hamid Karzai, and Afghan National Security Forces. The Taliban strength in the city is unknown, but they are outnumbered by forces loyal to the government. Read more,,,, Source: The Australian Dr Stephan Fruehling is a lecturer at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University
 A key adviser to Nato forces warned today that Barack Obama risks a Suez-style debacle in Afghanistan if he fails to deploy enough extra troops and opts instead for a messy compromise. David Kilcullen, one of the world's leading authorities on counter-insurgency and an adviser to the British government as well as the US state department, said Obama's delay in reaching a decision over extra troops had been "messy".
He said it not only worried US allies but created uncertainty the Taliban could exploit. Speaking in an interview with the Guardian, he compared the president to someone "pontificating" over whether to send enough firefighters into a burning building to put a fire out. He was speaking as Obama left Washington for a nine-day trip to Asia without announcing a decision on troop numbers.
The options being considered by the US have been narrowed down to four: sending 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000, the latter the figure requested by the Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. These would be on top of 68,000 US troops already deployed. The deep divisions with the Obama administration were exposed yesterday by leaked diplomatic cables from the US ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, who urged Obama to ignore McChrystal's request unless the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, cleaned up his corrupt government. Kilcullen expressed concern that Obama might deny McChrystal the 40,000 extra troops and split the difference between the four options, the kind of fudge common in domestic politics. "Time is running out for us to make a decision. We can either put in enough troops to control the environment or we can credibly communicate our intention to leave. Either could work. Splitting the difference is not the way to go," Kilcullen said. "It feels to me that all these options are dangerously close to the middle ground and we have to consider whether the middle ground is a good place to be.
The middle ground is a good place on domestic issues, but not on strategy. You either commit to D-Day and invade the continent or you get Suez. Half-measures end up with Suez. Do it or not do it." Read more,,,, The Guardian
 THE US envoy to Afghanistan has written memos to Washington expressing deep concern over possible deployment of thousands of new troops to the country. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry's classified cables reportedly detail his strong reservations against sending reinforcements until Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government shows it can tackle insipid corruption that has spurred the Taliban's resurgence, The Washington Post and New York Times report. Mr Eikenberry's cables also expressed worries over Mr Karzai's erratic behaviour, according to US officials familiar with the memos, the Post said. The correspondence was sent ahead of US President Barack Obama's critical war cabinet meeting at the White House today on what course to pursue against the bloody insurgency in the country. Mr Eikenberry joined the policy meeting by video link from Kabul, said the Times, adding that Mr Obama discussed his concerns with him, according to officials who requested anonymity. Mr Eikenberry's views are in stark contrast to top US and NATO commander General Stanley McChrystal, who warned that without tens of thousands more US troops in the next 12 months, the Afghan mission “will likely result in failure”. Four options were on the table at high-stakes talks in the White House situation room, which also involved General McChrystal and Defence Secretary Robert Gates, after which officials reported the president had not yet made a decision. Source: The Australian
 Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term.
The president still has more meetings scheduled on Afghanistan, but informed sources tell CBS News he intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for.
McChrystal wanted 40,000 and the president has tentatively decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops. A senior officer says "that's close to what [McChrystal] asked for." All the president's military advisers have recommended sending more troops.
But they also have warned that troops alone will not win the war unless Afghan President Hamid Karzai cleans up his government.
"He's got to take concrete steps to eliminate corruption," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said last week. "That means you have to rid yourself of those who are corrupt. You have to actually arrest and prosecute them."
The first combat troops would not arrive until early next year and it would be the end of 2010 before they were all there. That makes this Afghanistan surge very different from the Iraq surge, in which 30,000 troops descended on Baghdad and the surrounding area in just five months.
Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute says a slow motion surge will produce slow motion results.
"If they're going to be sort of trickled in very slowly over the course of a year than it's unlikely to have a very decisive impact in the course of 2010," he said.
The buildup would be expected to last about four years, until McChrystal completes his plan for doubling the size of the Afghan army and police force.
With 68,000 Americans already there, the Afghan surge would mean there would be 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of the president's first term.
The president is not expected to announce his decision until after he returns from China the week before Thanksgiving.
 There are already more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a 12-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels, but it hasn't led to anything close to victory. Now, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan is asking for tens of thousands more troops to stem the escalating insurgency, raising the question of how many more troops it would take to succeed. The commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the extra forces are needed to implement a new strategy that focuses on protecting civilians and depriving the militants of popular support in a country where tribal militias may be Taliban today and farmers tomorrow. The White House said Tuesday that President Barack Obama has nearly finished gathering information and advice on how to proceed in Afghanistan, where bombings killed eight more American troops.
With October now the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the war, many experts question the need for more troops. "The U.S. and its allies already have ample numbers and firepower to annihilate the Taliban, if only the Taliban would cooperate by standing still and allowing us to bomb them to smithereens," said Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University, and one-time platoon leader in Vietnam. "But the insurgents are conducting the war in ways that do not play to (allied) strengths." The Taliban rebels are estimated to number no more than 25,000.
Ljubomir Stojadinovic, a military analyst and guerrilla warfare expert from Serbia, said that although McChrystal's reinforcements would lift the ratio to 20-1 or more, they would prove counterproductive. Read more,,, Source: FoxNews
 The US president has said that he will not rush a decision on whether to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan, during an address to military servicemen and women in Florida. "I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests, I also promise you this - and this is very important as we consider our next steps in Afghanistan," Barack Obama said at a naval air station in Jacksonville on Monday. "I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way ... I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary, and if it is necessary, we will back you up. Obama's address came hours after he led a sixth meeting of a bipartisan war council, which focused on future military strategy in Afghanistan. The US president is considering whether to agree to a reported request by the senior commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan to have 40,000 more US troops sent to the country to crack down on resurgent fighters linked to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Obama is set to announce his decision on strategy "in the coming weeks", Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said after the war council meeting on Monday. Critics of the president have accused him of taking too long to consider which direction he wants to take in the US battle in Afghanistan. Dick Cheney, a former US vice-president, said last week that Obama was "dithering" and "waffling" over strategy, claims dismissed by the White House. But John Kerry, a US senator who played a key role in brokering the run-off presidential election in Afghanistan between Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, said that McChrystal's request contained risks. "[McChrystal] understands the necessity of conducting a smart counterinsurgency in a limited geographic area. But I believe his current plan reaches too far, too fast," Kerry said. "We do not yet have the critical guarantees of governance and of development capacity, the other two legs of counter-insurgency," Kerry told the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Spencer Ackerman, a senior reporter with the Washington Independent, said that Kerry now has "a tremendous amount of prestige after brokering Hamid Karzai's agreement to run in the runoff election". "He has quite a great amount of sway - his call today was basically to do a version of McChrystal's strategy, focusing on counter-insurgency in southern and eastern Afghanistan. He says he would only go for more American troops only if there are enough Afghan and US civilian capacity to build on the gains that the troops make." During his address at Jacksonville, Obama paid tribute to 14 American service personnel killed in two helicopter crashes in Afghanistan on Monday. "Our prayers are with these service members, their civilian colleagues and the families who loved them," Obama said. "While no words can ease the ache in their hearts today, may they find some comfort in knowing this: like all those who give their lives in service to America, they were doing their duty and they were doing this nation proud." Ten Americans were killed and 26 others were hurt when one helicopter crashed in western Afghanistan on Monday, security officials said. A spokesperson for the Nato military alliance said the reason for the crash was "unconfirmed", ruling out hostile fire. Another four US service members were killed and two others were wounded in an apparent mid-air collision between two helicopters in southern Afghanistan, Nato said in an earlier statement. Colonel Wayne Shanks, from the US Army, said that investigations into both incidents were being hampered by "combat conditions". "This is where we see the nexus between the insurgency and the narcotics trade," he said, adding that a dozen Taliban fighters were killed in the operation carried out by the helicopter brigade in the west of the country. Nato and US troops are suffering the highest fatality rates since the deployment of foreign troops to Afghanistan in 2001. So far in October, more than 30 US soldiers have died. Source: Al Jazeera (English)
 The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, plans to address NATO defense ministers Friday about the next steps for the military strategy. The NATO meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia, comes as the United States wraps up a review of its own military strategy in Afghanistan. "As has been said in Washington, I think the analytical phase is coming to an end and probably over the next two or three weeks we're going to be considering specific options and teeing them up for decision by the president," U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday after the morning NATO session. McChrystal is pushing Washington to send 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan amid skepticism from some of President Barack Obama's top advisers. The general planned to address the NATO defense ministers at a Friday afternoon "working lunch" that will focus on the Afghanistan war strategy, Gates said. Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak will also be present, he noted. A main focus of the meeting is how to transition power of security to Afghan forces. But that is still a long way off, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Friday. "We need to start thinking about and planning towards progressively handing over lead responsibility to the Afghan army and the Afghan police," Rasmussen said. "Now let me be clear: We have not agreed to start handing over the lead. The conditions are not yet right. The Afghan security forces are not yet strong enough." He stressed that when the transition happens, it "doesn't mean NATO forces leave. It means they go into a supporting role." NATO's International Security Assistance Force is made up of more than 71,000 forces from 43 contributing nations, including more than 34,000 from the United States. Source: CNN
 The Obama administration is considering outbidding the Taliban to persuade Afghan villagers to lay down arms as it struggles to find a new approach to a war that is fast losing public and congressional support. Despite five war councils in two weeks, President Barack Obama has so far failed to come up with a strategy for the conflict that may define his presidency. Fierce infighting continues between his own generals and advisers. Obama has been handed three options by General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the US forces in Afghanistan.
These range from 20,000 to 60,000 more troops, which would almost double the US military presence. McChrystal is said to favour an increase of 40,000 men, without which he warns the mission will fail. The White House is uneasy about sending so many on top of an extra 21,000 already dispatched this year, fearing this could escalate the war which has already claimed the lives of 241 American soldiers this year.
 Sen. John McCain said any added military deployment in Afghanistan smaller than the 40,000 troops reportedly requested by the top U.S. commander there "would be an error of historic proportions." Asked whether he thought the war in Afghanistan could be won with fewer troops than Gen. Stanley McChrystal has reportedly requested, McCain said, "I do not." The Arizona Republican, who was defeated by President Obama in the 2008 presidential election, spoke in a wide-ranging interview that aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "I think the great danger now is a half-measure, sort of a -- you know, try to please all ends of the political spectrum," McCain told CNN chief national correspondent John King. "And, again, I have great sympathy for the president, making the toughest decisions that presidents have to make, but I think he needs to use deliberate speed." Disregarding requirements that have been "laid out and agreed to" by Central Command head Gen. David Petraeus and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen "would be an error of historic proportions," McCain said when asked whether 10,000 or 20,000 additional troops in Afghanistan would suffice. Also Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said U.S. troops would be put in "jeopardy" if Obama does not listen to McChrystal. Read more here,,,, Source: CNN
 Nontraditional Afghan War Requires Nontraditional TacticsBy: Tawfik Hamid The lack of success in the war in Afghanistan is acknowledged widely, and the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal recently launched a new counterinsurgency strategy. That strategy includes a request for 40,000 more troops, a recommendation that has ignited much debate but no action. The decision on how to proceed in Afghanistan is crucial, as there will be grave consequences if the United States and its allies lose the war. This is partially because many see the war as one between our civilization and barbarism, a point that both President Obama and former President Bush have emphasized. It is important to realize the difference between traditional war, where two traditional army forces face each other and war against radical groups and suicide bombers, who target civilians. The difficulties that the United States and its allies face when dealing with Taliban fighters can be summarized in the following points: 1) The enemy is using insurgency as a tool to launch regular warfare. 2) The enemy's fighters are scattered as many small groups rather limited frontlines. This makes it more difficult to win with traditional military approaches used in conventional wars. 3) The enemy predominantly targets civilians in markets, funerals, and hospitals. This factor aggravates the problem as it is virtually impossible and extremely costly to protect all civilian areas in the country. Read more: http://www.newsmax.com/tawfik_hamid/Afghan_war_troops_tactics/2009/10/08/269985.html
 President Obama is prepared to accept some Taleban involvement in Afghanistan’s political future and is unlikely to favour a large influx of new US troops being demanded by his ground commander, a senior official said tonight. Mr Obama appears to have been swayed in recent days by arguments from some advisers, led by Vice-President Joe Biden, that the Taleban do not pose a direct threat to the US and that there should be greater focus on tackling al-Qaeda inside Pakistan. The official, speaking anonymously to the press about Mr Obama’s internal discussions – a tactic that is causing dismay among some senior military officials – said the president’s final decision on his war strategy and troop levels is still at least two weeks away. Yet if Mr Obama fails to dispatch at least a significant number of the 40,000 troops requested by General Stanley McChystal, he will have ignored the wishes of his own ground commander and will face fierce attacks from Republicans back home. After two days of discussions on the critical role Pakistan must play if the US is to succeed in Afghanistan and the region, Mr Obama has been presented with conflicting arguments over whether Afghanistan would again become a safe haven for al-Qaeda if it fell to the Taleban. Read more here,,,, Source: Times Online
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
by Lt.Col. Ralph Peters
Posts
