Afghan Surrender - 10-22-2012, 08:46 PM
By Dr. Michael Scheuer, formerly leader of Alec Station in the CIA
The mujahedin’s tactical victory over the United States in Benghazi is significant, but its importance pales in comparison to the strategic victory Obama and his predecessors have handed to the mujahedin in Afghanistan.
As justifiable furor continues over the Obama administration’s blatant negligence in Benghazi, the Washington Post, on 19 October 2012, helpfully published an OpEd entitled “The U.S. isn’t losing in Afghanistan,”* a disingenuous piece that tries to assist Obama by portraying as success the president’s abject willingness to accept — and even assist — America’s strategic defeat in Afghanistan.
The author is a man named John Nagl, a former Army officer, a self-proclaimed “expert” on insurgency, and now a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy. The core of his argument comes in the first sentence. “Americans,” Nagl asserts, “haven’t lost a war in so long we’ve forgotten what it looks like — and what it costs.” Nagl argues the only war we lost since 1945 is Vietnam. Really?
The truth plainly contradicts Nagl: U.S. military forces have not won a war since the day the Japanese surrendered in 1945. They may have scored a draw in Korea, but the remaining list of conflicts are all loses for the United States. I should add that the U.S. military has lost because its political leaders from both parties have been embarrassed by or ashamed of U.S. military power, and have not allowed U.S. forces to use their power to whatever extent necessary to destroy the enemy or convince him to retire from the field and henceforth steer clear of America. This pattern of cowardly political restraint must anger and frustrate U.S. general officers — who send their men to die knowing their presidents do not intend to win — but they seem to be getting use to it. Recall how utterly incapable General Petraeus and General McChrystal were in even suggesting that America sought “victory” in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
Mr. Nagl’s analysis-by-assertion will not hold water, and it reinforces the view of the brilliant Israeli historian Martin van Creveld that most doctrine and assessments for counterinsurgencies are written my individuals who were on the losing side and whose ideas contributed to the loss. Van Creveld’s description fits Nagl precisely.
Without question, America has lost in Afghanistan. Our political leaders invaded Afghanistan with only one achievable mission. That was the military mission of applying as much force as was needed to destroy the Taleban, al-Qaeda, their civilian supporters and abettors, and Afghanistan’s infrastructure — and then get out lock, stock, and barrel with the full knowledge the exercise might need repeating. This was a mission that should have taken at most 15 months. Instead, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld sent too few forces, used too little lethality, and arrogantly believed al-Qaeda and the Afghan mujahedin would give up when challenged by a superpower — apparently their clever advisers did not tell them about the USSR’s 1979-1992 Afghan debacle.
So the Bush administration slackened its already feeble military effort, claimed victory, and undertook the secularization and democratization of Afghanistan, using U.S. soldiers and Marines as well-diggers, political organizers, and social workers. The soldiers and Marines did their job and gave Afghans more schools, medical clinics, electricity, and paved roads than they have had in the last 35 years. But guess what? As these armed social-workers succeeded, the al-Qaeda-backed Taleban returned from its hiatus in the Afghan mountains and Pakistan, and its insurgency began a gradual process of gaining strength, nationwide reach, and popular support that continues today and will lead to a new Islamist regime in Kabul. The lesson here is that Afghans hate all foreign occupiers and will ultimately defeat any foreigners historically ignorant enough to move into the country and try to change their religious, political, social, and tribal traditions.
President Obama’s administration took over from Mr. Bush and made things much worse. He and Mrs. Clinton — who cares not how many Marines die as long as Afghan women are feminized to her liking — increased the pace and expense of certain-to-fail secularization and democratization programs. Generals Patreaus and McChrystal, Mr. Nagl, and an Australian lad called David Kilcullen cooked up a “counterinsurgency doctrine” to abet the delusions of Obama, Clinton, et al, a doctrine which has ensured America’s defeat in Afghanistan. This doctrine, of course, included the train-the-Afghan-military-to-take-over-from-NATO-forces plank, which has now yielded several years of NATO-trained Afghans killing U.S. Canadian, and British military and intelligence personnel — attackers who Mr. Nagl in his essay truthfully says oppose the U.S.-led occupation — and an Afghan military wholly unable to operate on its own and certain to melt away after NATO leaves. Again, none of President Obama’s crack counterinsurgency advisers — like Mr. Nagl — seems to have told him that the Red Army tried the same tack in the 1980s and failed utterly.
In a perverse way, Mr. Nagl is right in saying we are not losing in Afghanistan — but only because we lost when we remained in that country longer than 15 months and decided to pursue anything more than a military mission.
He is wrong, however, about Americans not being able to recognize a lost war. Because Americans have seen a lot of them since 1945, they are easy to identify. In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq all the boxes of defeat are checked off: (1) a complete failure to accomplish any U.S. war aims, except for two scalps — Saddam’s and Bin Laden’s; (2) the surrender of each country to America’s enemies, the Iraqi Shia and their Iranian pals and the Afghan Islamists, al-Qaeda, their allies, and our so-called Gulf Arab friends; (3) about 8,000 dead U.S. soldiers and Marines — and many thousands more maimed, hobbled, and mutilated — in wars their presidents and kow-towing general officers never intended to win, and which are now seen by the coming generation of Muslim males as Allah having allowed the mujahedin to defeat the second superpower; (4) the Islamization of Pakistan thanks to the inexcusably prolonged and un-won Bush-Obama Afghan war, which in turn sets the stage for an India-Pakistan confrontation over Afghanistan after NATO leaves; and (5) the construction of something akin to an east-to-west highway for mujahedin traveling from Pakistan to the Levant, Turkey, and Africa, giving them easy access to the powerful Islamist forces and immeasurable mountains of arms made available by the Arab Spring.
The foregoing amounts to utter defeat, and Mr,. Nagl‘s assertion that America can control the now-growing threat in Afghanistan with air power and Special Forces after the U.S.-led coalition departs is quite simply a self-serving, American-killing piece of nonsense. The commonsense bottom line is that U.S. counterterrorism doctrine failed in Afghanistan. We have lost the war there, and, soon after next January’s inauguration, our new president will find that the Islamist threat to America is greater and geographically broader than it was at 9/11; that the U.S. military and its equipment are worn out, while the mujahedin are thriving with upgraded weaponry; and that American parents are becoming decidedly less eager to contribute their sons and daughters to die in wars our presidents and generals never mean to win and apparently do not mind losing.
|The Following User Says Thank You to BarakzaiAbdali For This Useful Post:|
10-22-2012, 11:46 PM
A good indicator of any state in decline is their level of denial with regards to their failures. Who would have thought that the US would actually begin to decline after it became the sole surviving superpower in 1989?
In any case, the US' failure in Afghanistan is a failure for the Afghan people, practically speaking. One of the post-invasion missions of the NATO forces was to build up Afghan infrastructure and institutions. They've failed at that not because of the insurgency but due to their own distractions. In some cases, major projects have not even begun and in others, corrupt Afghan officials have pocketed all the money that was meant for the uplift of their provinces.
As it is, ordinary Afghan laborers and workers fear losing their jobs as foreign troops begin withdrawing. It's very likely that civil war will ensue. In fact, what's even worse is that there is a good possibility that once again, the Pakistani Rupee will become Afghanistan's currency, there will be no recognized government in Kabul and the salary for Afghan governors and civil servants will come from the Pakistan budget, as it did during the mid and late 90s.
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives".
10-23-2012, 09:40 PM
The truth is Afghanistan failed itself. we allowed ourselves to get this way we allowed ourselves to decline
the Taliban would never have rose if we were doing what we should have been doing
Pakistan would never have had a chance to gain inroads in Afghanistan affairs
we went after our own personal wealth and safety and now this is what our people are reduced to ....maybe it is time we just face the inevitable.
|The Following User Says Thank You to RevolutionThroughReason For This Useful Post:|
10-29-2012, 10:45 AM
Well written article, but ridiculous comments by a bunch of unintelligent ( 5th Column citizens) who feel it is their right to sit to condescendingly judge others while they ( they live off stolen OIL from the Middle East which is used to keep their homes heated, and their laptop batteries charged!!! LMAO LMAO) and judge the Pashtuns as failures. (from "Afghanistan failed itself) No its the expats and the fact that their are surrounding countries as well as many Muslim countries who joined this false WOT...and demonized Pashtuns in the process....what a shameless bunch of people
where I can state for a fact now that Jordan (led by house slave king ) has sent Jordan Army to join NATO. Egypt did too, Pakistan Obviously gave Supply lines...and that false Shaitan piece of Shiiiit Erdogan sent his Turkish pimp Army to Afghanistan to
BUT GUESS WHAT.....Israel DID NOT and NOR DID CHINA
WHo should Pashtuns have alliances with? I mean this is something to think about in the future is it not?
Where we have Punjabis and Tajik fascists (not all of them...but enough that it is harmful to Pashtun interests) trying to play games with Pashtuns by telling that the other is the bad one when both these filthy pimps and prostitutes are the worst to have stabbed Pashtuns in the back,,,,,and then have the nerve to say that Pashtuns want Pashtun supremacy when innocent Pashtun children are getting killed by drone attacks and the war in general.....
Oh wow, someone give me a history lesson, I never knew defeating empires was considered failure.
I also didnt know that some of you know more than Michael Schuer...I mean seriously...
Get the idea of non-intervention which is FOR PEACE AGAINST WAR!!!.
Stay out of Afghanistan and stay out of Syria and everywhere else...instead of being a hypocrite and calling Pashtuns terrorists, and in the same breath calling Syrian rebels freedom fighters....
You guys are a joke. All people want freedom and to be left alone...
All people want peace....this is not failure.
Peace is good and war is wrong
Non-interventionist like Michael Schuer knows WHAT HE is talking about, and you do not.
10-29-2012, 12:28 PM
Afghanistan's problems began far before the war on terror; Afghanistan's problem's stems from its mentality, its mindset, its short sightedness, its lack of awareness, it's inflated and sadly unmerited ego.
all the LMAO LMAO''s and false caricatures of "living with heating oil" does very little to dissuade that. Afghans internally are very disorganized, caniving and back stabbing. Look at Pashtun history, riddled with example after example. the Taliban while being rooted essentially a disastrous ideology nurtured and cultivated by the CIA (and this is backed up with actual evidence, not conspiracy theories as Taliban apologists rely upon), it was Afghans in their delusions of piety that allowed it to penetrate their culture rather than questioning and repelling it. It was Afghans who shunned women being educated, it was Afghans who preferred squabbling rather than developing and fortifying their countries.
besides this caricature of "living in western luxury" is more correctly applicable for Apologists of Taliban and their disingenuous posturing as supporting resistance. Most critics WANT Afghans to have the benefits they currently possess, whether it is regular access to fuel, food, clothes, shelter. It's the Taliban apologists who have in their pompous hypocrisy who take and enjoy the fruits of a modern society yet diligently act as a Promotional Campaign for backwards minded tyrants who want to deprive people of having access to resources and amenities and posture in the name of foreign resistance all the while ignoring their agency is foreign manufactured and guided. Becoming a mutant frankenstein of some nefarious imperial power is everything but defeating empires; this is just a self deluded romanticized narrative they use to keep idiots and the gullible pacified. In reality we're just a tool of Pakistan and America, hardly a defeat of empires
We've had enough of these fraudulent emotional black mail strategies and false dichotomies; the evidence is clear. Unless we change we're ****ed.
10-31-2012, 12:14 AM
The brave and historical speech of Malalai Joya in the LJ - YouTube
11-16-2012, 01:53 PM
Afghan Haqqani faction would consider talks under Taliban
Jibran Ahmad Reuters 2:21 a.m. CST, November 13, 2012
PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - The Haqqani network, seen as the most lethal insurgent faction in Afghanistan, would take part in peace talks with the United States but only under the direction of their Afghan Taliban leaders, a top faction commander said on Tuesday.
The rare flexibility exhibited by an Afghan militant commander was accompanied by a warning that the Haqqanis would keep up pressure on Western forces with high-profile attacks and would pursue their goal of establishing an Islamic state.
The Haqqanis, who operate out of the unruly border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan, say they are part of the Afghan Taliban and must act in unison in any peace process.
The commander, who declined to be identified, accused the United States of being insincere in peace efforts and trying to divide the two organizations.
"However, if the central shura, headed by Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, decided to hold talks with the United States, we would welcome it," he told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed, referring to the militants' leadership council.
The Taliban said in March they were suspending nascent peace talks with the United States.
A senior Afghan official closely involved with reconciliation efforts said last week the government had failed to secure direct talks with the Taliban and no significant progress was expected before 2014.
The United States designated the Haqqani network a terrorist organization in September, a move its commanders said proved Washington was not sincere about peace efforts in Afghanistan.
Last week, the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on the Haqqanis.
Isolating the group, who were blamed for the 18-hour attack on embassies and parliament in Kabul in April, could complicate efforts to secure peace at a time when Afghans fear another civil war could erupt after Western forces withdraw.
"CLOSE TO VICTORY"
The Haqqani network may prove to be President Barack Obama's biggest security challenge as he tries to stabilize Afghanistan before most NATO combat troops withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014.
The group's experience in guerrilla fighting dating back to the anti-Soviet war in the 1980s and its substantial financial network, could make it the ultimate spoiler of peace efforts.
A report in July by the Center for Combating Terrorism said the Haqqanis ran a sophisticated financial network, raising money through kidnapping, extortion and drug trafficking but also have a legitimate business portfolio that includes import/export, transport, real estate and construction interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Gulf.
The commander said the Haqqani network was pleased about Obama's re-election, predicting he would be demoralized by battlefield losses and pull out U.S. forces earlier than expected.
"From what we see on the ground, Obama would not wait for 2014 to call back his forces," said the commander.
"They suffered heavy human and financial losses and are not in a position to suffer more."
The commander said he and his men were looking ahead to victory.
"We will install a purely a Islamic government, which would be acceptable to all the people," he said.
"We are present everywhere in Afghanistan now and can carry out attacks when and wherever we want. We are very close to our victory."
(Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by Robert Birsel)
11-16-2012, 06:34 PM
11-16-2012, 06:59 PM
11-16-2012, 07:10 PM
well in that case