Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cable Contents Newly Revealed: " U.S. Troop Buildup in Afghanistan Will Hurt the War Effort"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 03:22 PM
Original message
Cable Contents Newly Revealed: " U.S. Troop Buildup in Afghanistan Will Hurt the War Effort"




.....President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan “is not an adequate strategic partner” and “continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden,” according to a classified cable that offers a much bleaker accounting of the risks of sending additional American troops to Afghanistan than was previously known.

The broad outlines of two cables from the ambassador, Karl W. Eikenberry, became public within days after he sent them.......

snip

But the full cables, obtained by The New York Times, show for the first time just how strongly the current ambassador felt about the leadership of the Afghan government, the state of its military and the chances that a troop buildup would actually hurt the war effort by making the Karzai government too dependent on the United States.

The cables — one four pages, the other three — also represent a detailed rebuttal to the counterinsurgency strategy offered by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, who had argued that a rapid infusion of fresh troops was essential to avoid failure in the country.

They show that Mr. Eikenberry............repeatedly cautioned that deploying sizable American reinforcements would result in “astronomical costs” — tens of billions of dollars — and would only deepen the dependence of the Afghan government on the United States.

“Sending additional forces will delay the day when Afghans will take over, and make it difficult, if not impossible, to bring our people home on a reasonable timetable,” he wrote Nov. 6. “An increased U.S. and foreign role in security and governance will increase Afghan dependence, at least in the short-term.”


snip

....... “Beyond Karzai himself, there is no political ruling class that provides an overarching national identity that transcends local affiliations and provides reliable partnership.”

snip

.............he had serious doubts about the ability of the Afghan police and military forces to take over security duties in the country by 2013. “The Army’s high attrition and low recruitment rates for Pashtuns in the south are crippling,” he wrote. “Simply keeping the force at current levels requires tens of thousands of new recruits every year to replace attrition losses and battlefield casualties.”


snip

“Pakistan will remain the single greatest source of Afghan instability so long as the border sanctuaries remain,” he wrote. “Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, the gains from sending additional forces may be fleeting.”

snip

“we will become more deeply engaged here (Afghanistan) with no way to extricate ourselves.....”


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/asia/26strategy.html?hpw

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Gooood Morningggg Vietnam!! part DEUX
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. cleared for take-off

from just before the invasion of Iraq. Only #10 seems to have changed.

www.counterpunch.org/vietnam203102003.html

CounterPunch
March 10, 2003
Cleared to Taxi
Vietnam 2 Pre-Flight Check

By CounterPunch Wire

1. Cabal of oldsters who won't listen to outside advice? Check.
2. No understanding of ethnicities of the many locals? Check.
3. Imposing country boundaries drawn in Europe, not by the locals? Check.
4. Unshakable faith in our superior technology? Check.
5. France secretly hoping we fall on our asses? Check.
6. Russia secretly hoping we fall on our asses? Check.
7. China secretly hoping we fall on our asses? Check.
8. SecDef pushing a conflict the JCS never wanted? Check.
9. Fear we'll look bad if we back down now? Check.
10. Corrupt Texan in the WH? Check.
11. Land war in Asia? Check.
12. Right unhappy with outcome of previous war? Check.
13. Enemy easily moves in/out of neighboring countries? Check.
14. Soldiers about to be dosed with our own chemicals? Check.
15. Friendly fire problem ignored instead of solved? Check.
16. Anti-Americanism up sharply in Europe? Check.
17. B-52 bombers? Check.
18. Helicopters that clog up on the local dust? Check.
19. Infighting among the branches of the military? Check.
20. Locals that cheer us by day, hate us by night? Check.
21. Local experts ignored? Check.
22. Local politicians ignored? Check.
23. Locals used to conflicts lasting longer than the USA has been a country? Check.
24. Against advice, Prez won't raise taxes to pay for war? Check.
25. Blue water navy ships operating in brown water? Check.
26. Use of nukes hinted at if things don't go our way? Check.
27. Unpopular war? Check.

Vietnam 2, you are cleared to taxi.


And then see post #73 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x727714#728388

I wonder whatever happened to. . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. well said!!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. great post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. sure looks that way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. "War effort?"
We are still stuck with "standing down" once the Afghans "can stand up".

If the Afghans could "stand up" in the first place, the taliban would never taken over.

So we will stand down when an unified, democratic, secular, pro-west Afghanistan stands up.

Or, to put it another way, we will quagmire until we admit defeat or change "victory".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. Amazing that McChrystal, Gates, and Clinton were able to pressure Obama past Biden, Kerry and
Eikenberry's position, especially given the reality on the ground.

Obama should NEVER have tapped committed hawks to be in such powerful cabinet positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. agree; nor
should Obama have tapped....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. I see the chickenhawks are unrec-ing. bwak bwak bwak
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. yep;
the DlC shills hard at work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Well, Hopefully My Rec will make a difference
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC