Afghanistan mission close to failing - US

[cal04]

Source: The Guardian

Injection of troops and aid has not brought stability says intelligence chief

After six years of US-led military support and billions of pounds in aid, security in Afghanistan is "deteriorating" and President Hamid Karzai's government controls less than a third of the country, America's top intelligence official has admitted.

Mike McConnell testified in Washington that Karzai controls about 30% of Afghanistan and the Taliban 10%, and the remainder is under tribal control.

The Afghan government angrily denied the US director of national intelligence's assessment yesterday, insisting it controlled "over 360" of the country's 365 districts. "This is far from the facts and we completely deny it," said the defence ministry.

But the gloomy comments echoed even more strongly worded recent reports by thinktanks, including one headed by the former Nato commander General James Jones, which concluded that "urgent changes" were required now to "prevent Afghanistan becoming a failed state".



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/afghanistan.terrorism

[Jacobin]

1. If the USSR with 500,000 troops couldn't resist being repulsed

by the indigenous population, there is no chance in hell that we can either. We grew bin laden, gave him missiles and CREATED the fucking monster that came back and bit us on the ass.

[dysfunctional press]

13. and the ussr didn't have to send it's troops halfway round the world either...

it was right next door, and they couldn't manage it.

our...leaders...have no clue.

[TheLastMohican]

14. Actually it was 140 000

40th Soviet Guards Army reinforced by 6 Spetsnaz battalions were present in Afghanistan.

[LynnTheDem]

20. I would add; "created the monster *& then stabbed him in the back*..."

It's what America does.

Saddam Hussein knew all about it.

The PKK know about it. The MEK know about it.

[cloudbase]

2. Well, if they control 360 of 365,

then I'd say our job is done, and we can bring the troops home.

[saigon68]

3. Yes the "Mayor of Kabul" needs 200 plus lackwater Mercenaries

To keep his sorry ass from getting Blown Up

LOL
Time to get out boys

[Demeter]

4. Another Fine Nation By BushCo--Leaders in Nation-Building Worldwide!

[lovuian]

5. Its Failed and Iraq has failed

if there is a lesson this will take the American Empire down

[laconicsax]

6. The problem is the lesson from the viewpoint of the "bad guys."

There's a lesson to take from Richard Clarke's book--if we leave, no matter the circumstances, whoever's still around in the form of people who don't like the US in general will see it as a victory for their side.

Either we stay in places that we're not exactly welcome (and places where we are) and incite further hostility, or we leave and those harboring hostility think that they alone brought down the US. We're fucked either way.

[daleo]

7. That's just how it was with Viet Nam

Before we knew it, Viet Namese battleships and long range bombers were pummelling the west coast, from Seattle to San Diego.

[laconicsax]

8. What?

[daleo]

10. A little irony

In other words, the same arguments were used about leaving Viet Nam in the late 60's/early 70's - all of southeast Asia would fall to the angry communists, then before you knew it they would be threatening the U.S. itself. Obviously, it never happened.

Same thing would apply to leaving Iraq and/or Afghanistan, I believe.

[laconicsax]

15. The difference is

the point I was trying to make wasn't some hyped up gloom and doom scenerio. It has already happened.

The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was viewed by the Mujahedeen as a case of a small group of freedom fighters taking down a superpower. The US withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 was viewed by the same people as a case of a small group taking down a superpower. When we closed up shop and left Saudi Arabia after, but not as a direct result of bin Laden threatening, and carrying out attacks, it was again likely seen as a small group intimidating the US into doing what they wanted.

When we leave Afghanistan and Iraq (and the sooner the better), what do you think the odds are that those we're actively fighting won't see it as them taking down a superpower?

I see this as raising the potential for more violence directed at this country and its citizens abroad unless we stop sticking our collective noses where they don't belong.

[daleo]

17. Yes, these military ventures create intense ill will and hatred in the occupied country

The point I was making was that the occupations can't continue for fear that the victims will strike back in anger if they get a chance, or the occupations could never end.

Historically, the less powerful occupied country generally is happy to see the occupier go, and leaves it at that. Viet Nam didn't attack the U.S. and Afghanistan didn't attack Russia.

I agree that invasion and occupation ought to be avoided for precisely this reason - it embitters peoples for generations.

[laconicsax]

18. There you go.

I was worried that my original comment would read as, "we shouldn't leave," but there's no good way to talk about the potential dangers that exist simply because we're already there without sounding vaguely like a *bot.

I should also mention that I'm not talking about Afghanistan or Iraq retaliating, I'm talking about whatever's left of Al Qaida adding a US withdrawal from either place to their list of supposed (imagined) accomplishments.

[daleo]

19. I agree that the Al-Qaida remnants are a concern

But they are an extra-national entity (i.e. not a nation-state), and therefore I think they have to be dealt with on that basis.

I don't think invading nation-states hurts entities like Al-Qaida, for the most part. In fact, I tend think it actually strengthens such groups by lending them legitimacy and creating lawless areas from which they can operate.

I do think these are subjects about which reasonable people can debate, and sharpen each other's critical thinking in the process, and I always appreciate the opportunity to do so.

[LynnTheDem]

21. Exactly!

We must stay and die or those Iraqi woodchippers and drones will be chasing us through the streets of America!

It's sad how so many Americans can be duped & tricked & conned by the government over & over & over again, isn't it.

[tanyev]

9. What? Didn't the Afghanis see this?

[panzerfaust]

11. No failure here: This mission already succeeded!

As long as one realizes, as I believe, that the reason to invade was based on the desire of BushCo to reestablish the heroin trade based in Afghanistan which had been shut down by the Taliban.

Certainly it was not based on the need to capture the bearded-bad-guy whatshisname, who was most likely hiding in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, at the time.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are, judged by the intent of the two invasions, total and complete successes for BushCo.

[librechik]

12. Oh, My! Who could possibly foreseen that?

Except the Greeks, the Romans, the British, and the Russians...

[Supersedeas]

16. but the war is Iraq was so essential to the Freedom and Liberty--Afghans had to be abandoned