Bush administration reviews its Afghanistan policy, exposing points of contention

[Dover]

Source: IHT

WASHINGTON: Four months before President George W. Bush leaves office, his top civilian and military aides are conducting four major new reviews of the war strategy and overall mission in Afghanistan, which have exposed internal fissures over American troop levels, how billions of aid dollars are spent, and how to cope with a deteriorating security situation in neighboring Pakistan.

The most ambitious of the assessments, run by the White House, begins in earnest this week with a series of high-level meetings, administration officials said. Officials have been directed to produce detailed recommendations within two weeks for Bush and senior advisers on a broad range of security, counterterrorism, political and development issues . Many of the dozen aides interviewed for this article spoke on condition of anonymity because the reviews are continuing.

Some of the issues being studied, including proposed increases in American troop levels in Afghanistan, have sparked internal debate and could have far-reaching consequences for the next administration.
Last week, General David McKiernan, the top American commander in Afghanistan, said he needed as many as 15,000 combat and support troops beyond the 8,000 additional troops that Bush had recently approved for deployment early next year. The general's announcement came after he sent his request to the Pentagon; it has not yet been acted on.

It was only last December that the administration concluded its last major reassessment of Afghanistan policy. The administration recently announced a series of changes, including plans to double the size of the Afghan Army, restructure the American military command there and put more intelligence analysts on the ground to help hunt down militants from the Taliban and Al Qaeda....cont'd



Read more: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/23/america/23policy.php

---

I think our 'Silk Road' Foreign Energy Policy of pipelines has worms.
And it's getting more costly to life and pocketbooks all the time.



Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline


Trio sign up for Turkmen gas
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article153168.ece

[stillcool]

1. gosh it's been a long time..

since I've heard of any pipeline news.

[Dover]

2. What did you think we were in Afghanistan for? The nice weather?

Just kidding. That's a good map, but I think this one outlines the proposed pipeline through Afghanistan better:



Consider the detailed work that was done to justify the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, and to gain World Bank funding. Now here was a project to behold. Set aside the fact that we couldn’t get the pipeline project moved forward and funded with the Taliban in charge. Set aside the current maneuverings of the United States puppet in Kabul, former UNOCAL consultant Hamid Karzai, to do what the Taliban couldn’t. Hold the cynicism for a second, and try to understand how American politicians and their closest friends know just what energy is needed, why, when and how, anywhere in the world.

While holding that cynicism, also try to forget real world market factors. Lack of security remains a primary barrier to global funding for the trans-Afghanistan pipeline, but it is not the only one. Oil and gas prices, and the existence of other functional outlets for Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan gas are also factors. The current deal in the works includes Pakistan, with an option to go to India. Because Washington experts and insiders from the AEI to the White House so enjoy pronouncing who needs what energy, why, when and how, it is enlightening to look at the original pipeline project, which from the beginning included India.

The original project called for an extension of the pipeline across Pakistan into India, to the city of Dabhol. Dabhol is significant, because it is the site of the idle Dabhol Power Project, brought to you by the equally idle and definitely uglier Enron Corporation.

A major "selling point" of the original project was to provide cheap gas to run Enron’s $3 billion power plant.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski56.html

[stillcool]

3. It reminds me of Michael Ruppert...

and some other sites I used to frequent. I knew that the pipelines couldn't get built because they kept getting blown up, and that was why the Taliban were installed in the first place. But since the war, the only news I've read about pipelines, I think.. were deals between China and Iran, Afghanistan and Iran, and Pakistan and Afghanistan. I've seen quite a few maps with different proposed pipelines. It all seems like 'pipe dreams'.

[Dover]

4. Well if you read the OP and listened to Biden's speech at the DNC

there seems to be a bipartisan decision to beef up our Afghanistan efforts (many more soldiers, more money, more weapons, etc.). It seems to be a given. How they will sell it is another matter. Perhaps another 'event' or two like the hotel bombing in Pakistan? That's the 'chatter' recently picked up from that convenient phantom 'bin Laden'.

The U.S. , Europe, Israel, and some of the 'stans' are gungho to build, maintain and protect the
Caspian corridor. It sounds to me like a bottomless hell pit and will require amazing amounts of
money and military protection to secure it. We will all be hostages to these endeavors...a global
police state of endless wars and "terrorism".

That Trans-Afgh pipeline commentary (above) mentions the low price of oil (at the time it was written) as one of the deterrents to the project and makes me wonder if the high price of oil wasn't manipulted as part of the plan to make the pipeline more lucrative and attractive to investors.

[stillcool]

5. I read the OP..

I did not listen to Biden's speech. I don't see any difference between now and the days of Jimmy Carter. The means have intensified but so has the necessity. I guess I'm missing something.