Tag Archives: The War in afghanistan

Trump National Security Council reportedly want’s to send up to 50,000 troops BACK to Afghanistan…

The General ‘s(Led by National Security Advisor McMaster)  running the Defense side for Donald Trump have seen the work they did in uniform slip back to the Taliban because the Afghan’s simply cannot hold ground….

Others have followed the Russian and  Obama actions of packing up and leaving the place….Fighting in Afghanistan is an unforgiving endeavor ….

The word is Trump isn’t happy with the idea….

Image result for the war in Afghanistan

U.S. intelligence and national security officials familiar with the assessment tell me that it was drafted in April, and that it provided estimates of necessary troop strengths for various strategic options. But it found that if an ambitious war plan approved by the National Security Council’s principals committee got a green light from the president — a big if — more than 50,000 U.S. troops would be needed.

That proposed strategy would place the U.S. on a new war footing and in a deeper partnership with the Afghan government in its current campaign against the Taliban. It would also remove arbitrary timelines for withdrawal set by President Barack Obama.

One reason the new war strategy would require more troops is that it envisions using U.S. forces in a support role that until now has relied on outside contractors. Using contractors for functions like vehicle maintenance and other logistical aid have meant that U.S. forces deployed to Syria and Iraq have largely focused on war fighting and training locals. This has kept the total number of U.S. troops artificially low, while increasing the overall cost of the U.S. presence….

Trump has signaled he is in no mood to escalate America’s longest war. Indeed, he has complained to close aides in the last month about how great powers throughout history — from Alexander’s Macedonians to the British Empire — have failed to pacify the country.

More….

The NATO angle……

NATO’s military leaders are laying the groundwork to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to train local forces locked in fierce battles with militants. The move comes as alliance leaders shape and debate a multi-year plan to protect combat gains in those countries and eliminate safe havens where extremist groups might plan attacks against the West.

“I think what we’ll see is that NATO will continue with a fairly modest contribution in the near term and that political leadership in the coming months will discuss the potential for NATOassuming a greater responsibility in Iraq,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford told reporters Wednesday after a day of meetings at the alliance’s headquarters.

Dunford said specific troop levels were not discussed during the meetings, which took place one week before NATO heads of state meet here.

“What I just want to do is try to find a way for each country to optimize the contribution they could make,” he said.

NATO leaders hope to know how many additional U.S. troops will be sent to Afghanistan by month’s end, allowing the alliance to deploy troops to meet the uptick in fighting that comes with warmer weather. U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to make a decision after next week’s overseas trip to NATO and the Middle East, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said last week.

At the same time, NATO generals appears to have a consensus that the alliance should take on more responsibility in Iraq…..

More….

Share on Facebook

American and British Combat Mission’s end in Afghanistan….

The last of the hand off’s of major military bases and the departure of combat troops from both nations is being done….

The Afghan military will taking over the prime combat role in that country…..

There will still be troop left in the country though….

The US has just got an agreement to have 5,000 to 10.000 military ‘advisers ‘ in country, so that means that several other Allied countries will be rotating advisors thru there also ….

After seeing what’s going on in Iraq and Syria …One would think NO ONE wants a COMPLETE withdrawal of American and other military assets…..

In a ceremony Sunday morning in dusty desert sunlight, U.S. Marines and British combat troops officially marked the end of their operations in Afghanistan, transferring Camps Leatherneck and Bastion to Afghan control. As national anthems from the three countries played, service members from all three countries stood at attention. The Marine flags were ceremoniously furled and cased, in recognition of the end of mission.

“This transfer is a sign of progress,” said Brigadier Gen. Daniel D. Yoo, Commander of Regional Command South West. “It’s not about the coalition, it’s really about the Afghans and what they’ve achieved over the last 13 years. What they have done here is truly significant.”

Every single combat Marine and British troop will soon board planes to head home – the exact date has been withheld for security reasons. It’s a milestone in Helmand, the deadliest province for coalition forces throughout the war, with more than 940 troops killed, including 360 Marines. Five have died this year.

“When you think about the cost (of this war) it’s been expensive, and I’m not talking about the monetary costs,” said Yoo. A hallway in the command post here had been lined with photos of the Marines who died here. Those pictures have since been packed up.

“Every one of those faces on the wall were not victims,” said Yoo. “They were volunteers and they would come back again and again because they believed in the mission.”

Helmand is the world’s largest supplier of poppy, the key ingredient in heroin, and many villages are still fiercely contested by the Taliban for control of that trade.

The American drawdown here has been ongoing since 2011. The Marines used to run 143 forward operating bases in the province– in the last three years they’ve transferred control of 91 to Afghan troops and shuttered the other 52. And they’ve been tackling the gargantuan task of shutting down Camp Leatherneck for the last three deployments…..

More….

Share on Facebook

The Wrong Enemy: America In Afghanistan , 2001-2014…Book Review

The author is the longest serving reporter in Afghanistan .Having traveled and lived among the Afghans for the past thirteen years ,she is eminently qualified to pen the story of our involvement there. Personal interviews, stories of her travels and a keen awareness of what has happened there in that time comprise the bulk of the volume.

Her conclusion is blunt and concise :Contrary to the official United States line,the REAL enemy in Afghanistan is our so called ally, Pakistan. Gall explains Pakistani involvement here since that country’s founding in 1947 and its continued paranoia over its bitter enemy,India. The Pakistanis believe that a docile,friendly Afghanistan is a necessity for its internal security and, while feigning support, has never favored American involvement there. She portrays the Taliban as largely a creation of the Pakistani intelligence bureaucracy and makes a compelling case that they were at least aware of Bin Ladens hideout in Pakistan,if not actually involved in setting it up.

Gall illustrates how the Pakistanis would sometimes with one hand support the United States actions in Afghanistan ,while simultaneously encouraging the continuing Taliban incursions.Its all designed to keep Afghanistan in upheaval,a state Pakistan regards as desirable for her own security.

Gall shows open contempt for outgoing President Hamid Karzai and believes that his small minded tribalism has contributed to the present situation.She still supports American involvement ,but surprisingly presents no endgame,except presumably to eliminate Pakistani meddling .Since we still believe that they play a constructive role here,such is highly unlikely.Other than that ,Gall implicitly concedes that a PERMANENT American involvement will be necessary and even that will only save the status quo.

The real enemy will remain Pakistan and that the USA will refuse to acknowledge.They are the enablers.In short,without Pakistan, there would be no Taliban….

My Name is Jack…..

image….amazon.com

Share on Facebook

There Still is a war going on in Afghanistan….

Least no one forget…..

Last week a massive bomb was launched against another combat outpost with loss of life….

ivn.us

Under the cover of darkness and armed with heavy weapons, a group of Taliban fighters, including suicide bombers, launched an assault on a NATO camp in Afghanistan’s southern Kandahar on Tuesday.

The attack in the outskirts of Kandahar city was carried out before dawn by seven assailants who were killed by coalition forces after a gunbattle lasting 15 minutes, according to Afghan and coalition officials.

There was no immediate report of any deaths among the NATO soldiers, but some working at the camp, including a foreign contractor, were wounded in the attack, an Afghan official said. The strike caused some damages to the facilities inside the camp, he added.

Hours later, another group of Taliban fighters, dressed in police uniforms, fired on a joint NATO-Afghan police post in an area of Kandahar city. Four attackers and three police lost their lives in the exchange of fire, according Ahmad Javid Faisal, a spokesman for Kandahar’s governor.

Police foiled a separate Taliban attack on another police post, resulting in the deaths of two assailants, he said by phone. A Taliban spokesman only confirmed the attack on the NATO camp and the joint post, putting the losses of foreign and Afghan forces to more than 20.

Kandahar used to be the main seat of power for the Taliban which ruled Afghanistan in the 1990s before its ouster in late 2001. Since then, the province has been the scene of some of the worst violence.

The latest strikes came hours after three men in Afghan police uniforms killed an alliance soldier in another part of Kandahar on Monday, latest in a spate of attacks by “rogue” Afghan forces. A senior Afghan police officer said the victim was an American serviceman.

Share on Facebook

The President as Commander-in-Chief…..Making the call on Afghanistan….A Process Piece

My friend Jack here has hammered me on and off for almost two years on this basic question….

‘What is the goal in Afghanistan?’

My answer started off being …..

‘We’re just there, the US wants to win there’….

About a year ago I began to change my answer…..

I changed it to…..

‘The US can’t WIN there…..

The Country is unable to deal with the US and NATO expect from it’

I would go on to describe what HAS happened over the last two  years….

That is….

That President Obama brought into the military goal of TRYING to win a war in that country by using a surge…..

But to anyone who looks at the situation….

Jack’s basic question is answered with this….

The Generals’ DO want to win…..

But then there is the growing realization 

You CAN’T WIN there….

The country simply is incapable of being anything OTHER than what it is…..

Indifferent to the goal of winning anything….

So Jack’s question was ALWAYS a good one…..

The problem in all of this was the fact that Hamid Karzai and his government were seen to be corrupt….

And Pakistan was the bigger problem…..

In the piece linked below….

The President of the United States came to understand that Jack’s question had an unreasonable answer from the General’s…

We couldn’t WIN anything….

Not unless we planned to co-op the country altogether….

and stay for maybe 10 to 20 years , something completely OUT OF THE QUESTION…..

And so as the piece touches on….

(There  will probably be MUCH more on this….)

The President took the initiative and went to an old CIA hand , Bruce O. Riedel, to help him get a good look at the problem, and draft orders for the General’s to follow to 

cut the campaign in Afghanistan down to a babysitting one (that leaves something in place to work the Pakistani problems)….

The President in his move to get HIS goal….

Did NOT ask for input from the General’s it seems….

(I’m willing to bet that somebody in the chain of military command was in fact in on the President’s plan )

The General’s had gotten TOO involved in the day by day plan to win….

The President in HIS job had decided that  the cost and time was NOT worth it….

That has become HIS goal for HIS General’s to follow….

cbsnews.com

In interviews over the past 18 months, Mr. Obama’s top national security aides described the evolution of the president’s views on Afghanistan as a result of three rude discoveries.

Mr. Obama began to question why Americans were dying to prop up a leader, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who was volatile, unreliable and willing to manipulate the ballot box. Faced with an economic crisis at home and a fiscal crisis that Mr. Obama knew would eventually require deep limits on Pentagon spending, he was also shocked, they said, by what the war’s cost would be if the generals’ counterinsurgency plan were left on autopilot — $1 trillion over 10 years. And the more he delved into what it would take to truly change Afghan society, the more he concluded that the task was so overwhelming that it would make little difference whether a large American and NATO force remained for 2 more years, 5 more years or 10 more years.

The remaking of American strategy in Afghanistan began, though no one knew it at the time, in a cramped conference room in Mr. Obama’s transition headquarters in late 2008. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who had spent the last two years of the Bush administration trying to manage the many trade-offs necessary as the Iraq war consumed troop and intelligence resources needed in Afghanistan, arrived with a PowerPoint presentation.

The first slide that General Lute threw onto the screen caught the eye of Thomas E. Donilon, later President Obama’s national security adviser. “It said we do not have a strategy in Afghanistan that you can articulate or achieve,” Mr. Donilon recalled three years later. “We had been at war for eight years, and no one could explain the strategy.”

More….

Share on Facebook

The Dog and the Afghan War….

Jack got me thinking today….

We went back and forth about my feeling about the Afghan War….

My answer was I don’t really have an answer about the War right now….

Well….

I went back and looked at the last two years of posts (There are over 10,000 of them…I can’t remember every damn one of them)

Here’s some playbacks….

http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=14875

http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=1296

http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=1360

http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=2109

http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=2460

http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=2915

http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=15071

http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=15264

http://www.politicaldog101.com/?p=16564

 

If you can please check 15264 and 16564…..

While I AM ambivalent about the War in Afghanistan….
I have CLEARLY continued to state what I think the outcome will be there… 

The Dog…

Share on Facebook

Is the Obama doctrine to Not have another Middle East donnybrook?

If it is….

I’m with him….

Last night at work a nice old lady asked me ….’Why are we in Aftghanistan?’….

Now I’m the Dog here and I’m preaching all the time…

But I stopped when she poised the question….

I had a blank….

Yep….

Nothing…..

Here’s the Wiki reason….

The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001, as the US Armed Forces launched Operation Enduring Freedom along with the British Armed Forces and Afghan United Front (Northern Alliance) in response to the September 11 attacks with the stated goal of dismantling Al-Qaeda and ending its use of Afghanistan as a base for terrorist operations. The United States also promised to remove the Taliban regime from power and create a viable democratic state…..

While I wasn’t able to come up with a answer why the United States is doing there…

I was able to relate back to the Wiki reason….

I explained ….

The US would not be able to win there….

As a mtter or fact nobody has been able to win there for centuries….

 

I believe President Obama has begun to seriously understand the same thing this Dog has….

I believe the US military has not ….

Their boss Secretary Gates has….

 

President Obama furthermore has begun to try to put distance between him and the Wars….

He is runnning for re-election in less than 2 years…

While he has had a pass from the media to some extent…

But it has been 10 years in Aftghansan….

It HAS been 10 years since the Iraq incursion….

 

While Obama now owns Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, a little of Libya ….

He needs to extract himself….

He never thought of himself as a ‘War President ‘even though he is ….

 

Libya has been a complete turnaround…

First….. People couldn’t wait for the President to get involved…

After a few weeks of with the US in the lead…

People have done a 180…….

How much does this cost in the same breath as why doesn’t the US target Gadaffi himself?

 

President Obama is wise to keep this at arms length…

His Defense Sectraty seems tired of all the balls in the air….

Added to running a help operation in  Japan….

 

Al Queda isn’t going to be beaten completely….

Obama understands that….

thewashingtonnote.com

Put simply, Obama’s Libya strategy is designed to avoid the most undesirable outcomes rather than optimize the chances of a desired outcome, to do something without “owning” the conflict, to maintain maximum flexibility as the situation evolves, and to do all of this in the face of powerful constraints. The question is whether this strategy can actually work.

President Obama appears determined to avoid two particularly bad things: an outright Qaddafi victory—which might chill reform underway in the Arab world and unleash a new spate of support for terrorism—and Al Qaeda influence within the rebel movement. NATO airpower has helped prevent a Qaddafi victory, but ensuring a rebel victory might require arming, training, and advising the anti-regime forces. President Obama has not committed to this, telling NBC’s Brian Williams that he was “not ruling it out but I’m also not ruling it in.” This ambivalence reflects the fact that the U.S. objective at this point is not a rebel victory but denying victory to Qaddafi. If this objective holds, the Obama administration might be willing to tolerate a protracted conflict or even some sort of partition…..

More…


Share on Facebook