Positive News from Afghanistan

[RanchHQ]

September 12, 2009
Categories:Miscellaneous
Pentagon debuts new process for Bagram prisoners


The Obama Administration is reportedly planning to enhance the ability of prisoners at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan to challenge their detention, assigning the detainees a U.S. military officer to argue for their release and granting prisoners the right to call witnesses on their own behalf.

Administration officials passed word of the changes to the New York Times and Washington Post in advance of a court deadline the U.S. government faces Monday in an appeal of a judge’s ruling which held that some prisoners at the Bagram Air Base have the right to pursue habeas corpus cases in American courts.

The changes, set to go into effect in the coming week, got a skeptical reaction from some human rights advocates, who said the new procedures echoed ones the Bush Administration set up at Guantanamo.

ENTIRE ARTICLE: Pentagon debuts new process for Bagram prisoners - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

[RanchHQ]

Looks like President Obama is gonna have to put on his 'Big Boy Pants" and make some tough decisions:

"The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked." - President Barack Obama, March 26, 2009

McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive

LINK: McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'


Obama 'skeptical' about more troops

LINK: Obama 'skeptical' about more troops - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Changes Have Obama Rethinking War Strategy

LINK: Changes in Afghanistan, Washington May Require Shift in U.S. War Strategy

Barack Obama announced a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan on 27 March 2009. This recognises that a military victory is unattainable. It adopts a regional approach, focusing more intensively on Pakistan, and opens the way to negotiate with some sectors of the insurgency. More emphasis is laid on development and creating jobs in agriculture. The United States president also acknowledges the need for a strategy towards the eventual withdrawal of military forces.

SOURCE: Barack Obama and Afghanistan: a closer look | open Democracy News Analysis

[RanchHQ]

"Afghans are willing to fight. They're just not willing to fight for us."

Afghan agony: More troops won't help

Last Updated: 1:30 AM, September 22, 2009
Posted: 12:36 AM, September 22, 2009

GEN. Stan McChrystal, an honorable soldier, has reported from Afghani stan: He wants more troops for a "classic" counterinsurgency strategy to secure the population, then win hearts and minds.

President Obama needs to make a decision: Either give the general the resources he believes he needs, or change the mission.

I'm for changing the mission. Concentrate on the continued destruction of al Qaeda and its allies. Nothing else matters in this mess.

Last spring, the president handed McChrystal an impossible mission: Turn Afghanistan into a prosperous, rule-of-law democracy cherished by its citizens. The general's doing his best. But we have zero chance -- zero -- of making that happen.

Meanwhile, we've forgotten why we went to Afghanistan in the first place. (Hint: It wasn't to make nice with toothless tribesmen.) Here's a simple way to conceptualize our problem: A pack of murderous gangsters holes up in a fleabag motel. The feds raid the joint, killing or busting most of them. But some of the deadly ringleaders get away.

Should the G-men pursue the kingpins, or hang around to renovate the motel? Common sense says: Go after the gangsters. They're the problem, not the run-down bunkhouse.

Yet, in Afghanistan, we've put the bulk of our efforts into turning a vast flophouse into the Four Seasons -- instead of focusing ruthlessly on our terrorist enemies. It's politically correct madness.

What we really need is just a compact, lethal force of special operators, intelligence resources and air assets, along with sufficient conventional forces for protection and punitive raids. More troops just mean more blood and frustration.

Those who suggest pulling out completely and striking from offshore don't understand the fundamentals, either: We still need some boots on the ground, within grabbing distance of Pakistan's wild northwest, to strike fast to kill or capture elusive targets. And cruise missiles can't bring back prisoners, DNA samples or captured documents.

Our hunter-killer task forces should be deployed on a limited number of strategically positioned bases supported by air. Don't worry about the Afghan government -- Afghans don't.

The other alternative -- sending still more troops to die for Washington's fantasy of a Disney-World Afghanistan -- is disgraceful. Stop building sewage systems. Take scalps.

What of the notion that a surge could turn Afghanistan around since a surge worked in Iraq? Iraqis switched loyalties (temporarily) because al Qaeda turned out to be a far less pleasant occupier than we were. We were lucky in our enemies.

But the Taliban's the home team in much of Afghanistan. The dominant ethnic group, the Pashtuns, won't turn against the Taliban because they are the Taliban.

Then there's the subfantasy of "training up" the Afghan military and police (who, after eight years of our efforts, remain operationally ineffective and abysmally corrupt).

A great old soldier recently reminded me that it took us eight years to build a capable South Vietnamese army (which was then betrayed by Democrats in Congress). The difference is that, except for the Montagnards and other back-country folk, Vietnam didn't have tribes.

The Vietnamese had a unified ethnic identity. In Afghanistan, we're asking Hutus to fight for Tutsis and Hatfields to guard McCoys.

During the Soviet occupation, there was a serious Afghan military of over 300,000 men equipped with tanks and helicopters. At their peak strength, the Soviets themselves had almost 140,000 troops and tens of thousands of civilian advisers on the ground. Moscow still lost -- and not just because of the Stinger anti-aircraft missiles we gave the mujaheddin (a core group of whom became the Taliban).

The Soviets and their Afghan cronies lost because their enemies were willing to sacrifice more -- to give their lives for their heritage, however backward and cruel.

Afghans are willing to fight. They're just not willing to fight for us.
Ralph Peters' new novel is "The War After Armageddon."

[dreamliner]

Originally Posted by RanchHQ

"Afghans are willing to fight. They're just not willing to fight for us."

Afghan agony: More troops won't help

Last Updated: 1:30 AM, September 22, 2009
Posted: 12:36 AM, September 22, 2009

President Obama needs to make a decision: Either give the general the resources he believes he needs, or change the mission.
I'm for changing the mission. Concentrate on the continued destruction of al Qaeda and its allies. Nothing else matters in this mess.
What we really need is just a compact, lethal force of special operators, intelligence resources and air assets, along with sufficient conventional forces for protection and punitive raids. Take scalps.
"

Add to that prescription: I'm for "drill, drill, drill", as in drilling for "water location" intelligence, using more waterboards to "win the hearts and minds" of those who know Bin Laden's whereabouts. Nothing else matters in this mess.

[RanchHQ]

Have you ever noticed that when The President's Poll Numbers start to slip all of a sudden there is a new "Video" from Osama Bin Laden?

Gotta be one of Carl Rove's tricks.

Gotta be.



Bin Laden demands Europe withdraw Afghanistan troops

1 hr 58 mins ago
DUBAI (Reuters) – Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden demanded that European nations withdraw their troops from Afghanistan in a new audio tape aired on Friday, saying they were sacrificing men and money in an unjust U.S.-led war.

"We are not demanding anything unjust. It is just for you to end injustice and withdraw your soldiers (from Afghanistan)," he said in the tape, released on the Internet with a background picture of bin Laden and with German and English subtitles.

MORE AT: Bin Laden demands Europe withdraw Afghanistan troops - Yahoo! News

[RanchHQ]

"The Pentagon says they will hold his request, officially, until Obama officially makes an official decision about the officially official policy he wants to officially pursue in the war:"

McChrystal report officially backburnered now

posted at 12:37 pm on September 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey


After everyone else had heard what General Stanley McChrystal needs for his mission to succeed in Afghanistan, the Obama administration took official custody today of the report that requests a significant troop increase for the Af-Pak theater. However, Barack Obama will not officially get to see it for a while. The Pentagon says they will hold his request, officially, until Obama officially makes an official decision about the officially official policy he wants to officially pursue in the war:

The commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has submitted a request for more troops, a spokesman said Saturday, but the Pentagon will hold it while President Barack Obama decides what strategy to pursue.

General Stanley McChrystal hand delivered his long-awaited request to U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral James Stavridis, said spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Tadd Sholtis.

“At the end of that meeting General McChrystal did provide a copy of the force requirements to Admiral Mullen on the U.S. side and Admiral Stavridis on the NATO side,” Sholtis said after McChrystal returned from the meeting at an air base in Germany. …

The White House says it wants to review the entire strategy for the region before considering McChrystal’s request.

“Right now the focus is on the strategic assessment itself. It (the troop request) will be shelved until such time that the White House is ready,” a defense official said in Washington.

Er … what? Doesn’t the strategic assessment include required troop strengths? McChrystal’s report should be a key part of those considerations, since the strategic considerations rely on having the force strength required to support the strategy.

Shelving the request makes it clear that Obama and the White House want to conduct a political review of the mission. That’s not illegitimate; after all, part of the consideration has to be whether our allies have the political will to support us in the Af-Pak theater, as well as whether Americans have the political will to continue the fight. If neither exists, then the entire question of strategy is moot, and the focus will shift to retreat from the theater.

The problem with this is that the Obama administration has already had plenty of time for political calculation. They have been in office since January, and Obama campaigned for two years on the pledge to fight in Afghanistan with more resources and focus than the previous administration. The politics of the war have not changed much, at least in terms other than polling.

Obama wanted to be Commander in Chief, and he has had that role for eight months. The question of politics should have already been well settled by this time. So far he has done a good job of fighting the war in Afghanistan, but this very public vacillation undermines the projection of American strength in the region and encourages a defeatist attitude. It’s time to fish or cut bait on the politics and start seriously addressing the strategy, if we’re going to fight and win this war.

LINK: Hot Air Blog Archive McChrystal report officially backburnered now

[dreamliner]

Originally Posted by RanchHQ

General Stanley McChrystal hand delivered his long-awaited request to U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral James Stavridis, said spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Tadd Sholtis.

The White House says it wants to review the entire strategy for the region before considering McChrystal’s request.

“Right now the focus is on the strategic assessment itself. It (the troop request) will be shelved until such time that the White House is ready,” a defense official said in Washington.

General McChrystal tossed this unexpected hot turd into the middle of the Oval Office bunch August 31, and its been festering there now for almost four weeks while U.S casualties rise, and the situation there becomes more unstable. That inept White House crew and appeaser just doesn't know how to handle the "embarrassment" of the foul smell. So what's their strategy? Send lackey Mullen to "powwow" with McChrystal in Germany for a suggested "recant", and buy time for further consult with Pelosi and Reid, as well as Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez and maybe even il Jong, to ask "what do you think"? Fortunately McChrystal, the good General he is, did not waiver, and stood on honor and duty to his troops. Meanwhile it appears sycophants DoD Gates and Security Advisor Gen. Jones, are silent in saying "we don't know what the strategy of the day is". This is kinda' like BlackHawk Down, where the on-scene Commander in Somalia appealed for air/ground support for his troops in great peril, and the Commander-in-Chief Clinton responded with...nothing. This CinC Obama now sacrifices further casualties for political expediency. That really is foul!

[RanchHQ]

"What’s the rush?

It’s not a pressing issue like pushing through Obama-care or a carbon tax.

It certainly doesn’t rank with the need to pass a stimulus bill that nobody had even read.

So what if our forces are undermanned."

FROM: Sweetness & Light

[RanchHQ]

Flashback: Obama Lectures Bush & McCain On Finishing the Fight in Afghanistan (Video)


"We need to finish the fight in Afghanistan... George Bush and John McCain have been weak on terrorism. It's time to finish the fight in Afghanistan."

Barack Obama
2008 Presidential Campaigning

Here's a flash from the not so distant past.

Barack Obama attacks George W. Bush and John McCain on not finishing the War in Afghanistan against America's real enemies.

Remember this in the days ahead as President Obama considers surrendering Afghanistan just like he did Iraq as a senator.

Click Photo for Video--


LINK: Gateway Pundit

[RanchHQ]