U.S. retreat from Afghan valley marks recognition of blunder

Source: Washington Post





Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041401012_pf.html

Another excerpt displaying the attitude on display from the retreating occupation commanders; cannot possibly imagine why they have failed:




What is unmentioned in the WaPO piece, I believe I read it mentioned in the NYTimes earlier and elsewhere, is that the Korengal (located just above the major border city of Jalalabad) was also one of the initial strongholds of the resistance to the Soviet occupation; "the more things change, blah blah blah..."

And then reminds him they're good at killing.

No surprise that Nasurallah told Moretti no deal.

why they can never win this war. Are they so completely arrogant, or is it stupid, I don't know what it is, that they really think they can invade a country, kill the people, and not even acknowledge them as human beings but refer to their murder as 'collateral damage' or whatever, and then really believe they can ask them for help, to kill more of their people. Then to boast about how great they are at killing!

And they will learn nothing from the lessons they are being taught if they were willing to learn. The people of Afghanistan have told them what they want. They do not want bombs they want education and food and work, they want their country rebuilt, and if America cannot help with that work, they want them to leave.

Eventually they will have to leave the whole country, just like Vietnam. And all those deaths will have been for nothing.

Sending troops to die on an unnecessary fool's errand would be considered a war crime in a normal country. Too bad we don't live in a normal country - we live in America instead.

over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity? I guess it only made for a great campaign sound bite, because I don't think Obama has said it since he was elected and, in far too many areas, he keeps on doing the same thing over and over. These wars are his Vietnam. Yes, he inherited them, but he's taken way too long to get us out of there, unless his purpose is to make more enemies, squander America's money, and waste more American lives. If that's the case, he's doing a heckofa job.

Right around the time he announced he was running for president, he said that the lives of the brave Americans lost in Iraq were wasted. That's how he really felt. But a day, or maybe two days later, he apologized, saying it was a "slip of the tongue". That, in my opinion, was what started him down the road to, at best, being just another president, following instead of leading and not standing up for what he believed, even when it is what the majority of Americans believe.

No matter how those on the right misinterpreted his words to make him look unpatriotic and weak on terrorism and national defense, this was after the 2006 election and Americans knew what he meant and agreed that the war was a mistake and we should get out. But his handlers got spooked and told him to apologize. Now they are his wars, and he is the one responsible for the wasting of lives.

Blow the horn, President Obama. Just like in your beloved basketball, it's time to substitute the same guys back to the war zone while you give the others a breather. Not too long of a breather, though. You're short handed, you know, with all those injuries (and deaths), so it'll be time to send them back in before they know it.

I am as disappointed as anyone, but I believe Obama can still be a great president, if only he will listen to his voice instead of all those DINOs. The wars would be the best and the easiest place to start to make things right by ending them immediately. But, unfortunately, we're just gonna keep on keeping on being insane.

If the Great Man is being misled by underlings, he ain't great.
If the Great Man has caved to pressure at every junction, he ain't great.
If the Great Man declares policies that he ridiculed during the campaign, as historic achievements, he ain't great.
If We vote for such a Great Man again, we ain't great.

We've been conned. Again. We must accept it, and disassociate ourselves from the con man as soon as possible. We Need a Great Man, we have a great bullshitter, delivering the same policies, with only minor tweaks, as his damnable predecessor. He has not restored the constitution, but has further ignored his sworn duty to uphold the laws and treaties as specified in the Constitution.

We Democrats have picked some of the wrong candidates. We must replace them with candidates willing to enact the Party platform, or at least try real hard at it.

But everything you say I have to admit is true.

Well said. I know now why I kept hearing "The Who" (Don't get fooled again) in my head as I voted for the Great Con-man.

Isn't it time to bring the boys 'n girls back home (alive) yet? :grr:

Today I introduced bipartisan legislation, along with Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC), requiring a timetable to draw down U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The legislation is one component of a comprehensive national security strategy to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world. Below are several key elements of the strategy, which include improving our intelligence capacity, pursuing al Qaeda's global network, improving the reach of our diplomats and addressing the conditions that enable al Qaeda to thrive.

Pursuing al Qaeda's Global Network

The U.S. cannot continue to jump from one perceived "central front in the war on terror" to the next, nor should we invest our resources this way. Al Qaeda, its affiliates and sympathizers will continue to look for new safe havens in places like Yemen, Somalia, North Africa and elsewhere around the globe. Rather than investing a disproportionate amount of our resources into Afghanistan, where al Qaeda now has a limited presence, we should transition to a more sustainable counter-terrorism approach for the region and shift resources to more aggressively pursue al Qaeda's global network. Ending al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan remains a top priority, but a massive military presence in Afghanistan won't accomplish this, and could actually contribute to further destabilization of Pakistan.

Rather than spending $100 billion in Afghanistan in one year, primarily on military operations, we should provide assistance to the people of Afghanistan to fight corruption and support the emergence of more responsive and capable government institutions that can address socioeconomic and political issues feeding instability. And we must retain a capability for targeted counterterrorism efforts, consistent with a strategy to fight al Qaeda around the world.

Improving Our Intelligence Capacity

We need better intelligence about al Qaeda and its affiliates. Conditions around the world that allow al Qaeda to operate are often apparent to State Department and other officials who gather information openly, and do not necessarily require clandestine collection of intelligence. But the information that these officials collect is not being fully integrated with the work done by the intelligence community. Unless we reform how our government collects, reports and analyzes information from around the world, we will remain a step behind al Qaeda's global network.

Improving the Reach of our Diplomats

Where U.S. diplomats have limited presence, we will we never truly understand what is going on in a country or region, and we won't be able to build relationships with the local population. We need to increase our diplomatic access to important countries and regions by, for example, establishing new embassy posts, such as in northern Nigeria.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-russ-feingold/a-timetable-for-afghanist_b_537452.html

The stupid Bush meat grinder tactics of using troops as "bullet magnets" has got to stop. The best solution for the war is to exit the region as quickly as possible and take care of business in our own country

Before the soviets and we messed with it, Afghanistan had a weak central government and a large collection of petty warlords running things. The taliban became a strong and violent central government that provided largely free run of the country and material support to al-queda. The natural balance established through conflicting interests of the near feudal city states kept the country agricultural and prevented more global ambitions. Yes, there were always smugglers and drug producers, but they did business more or less lawlessly and independently without an organized political agenda. This is actually what victory looks like, no other definition will work.

Bush was looking for a more American model of democracy. Obama has figured out that Afghanistan will be Afghanistan, all you need to do is remove the corrupt centralizing force, and let the folks take over. The narco-funded militias are the focus.

The Post is wrong, this does not show the limits of "American Power", it shows the bottom line limits of using military force to achieve political outcomes. There is nothing special about the "American" nature of the power being used in this case as no army has succeeded there over the long haul.

He arrived there in July of 2008 shortly after 5 soldiers were killed there when their position was almost overrun. It was a tough, tough place.

Or do they avoid the topic?

He had been at a forward outpost and had to occasionally go on patrols, but his job was to keep the computers and communication gear working. I don't think he would have a problem going back and it is likely that he will since he is now stationed in Germany and re-upped for another 6 years last August.