Obama And Gates Debate Withdrawal Spin

'Gimmicks aside, the administration’s drawdown is prepared to sustain the war in Afghanistan. Negotiations with the Taliban cannot fully progress so long as U.S. forces show no intention of leaving. The White House’s time-line could further expand if a reduction in U.S. and NATO troops allows the Taliban to regain lost territory. Although al-Qaeda may have given up Afghanistan for greener pastures around the world, the Taliban remain a potent fighting force despite a relentless blitzkrieg from U.S. Special Forces. Judging by Iraq’s security forces, the Afghan national army and police force won’t be able to operate independently for at least a decade. Afghan President Hamid Karzai remains powerless to purify his corrupt regime and Pakistan’s invasion of North Waziristanis already sliding off-track'. Clip Here at the Trench

Gates And Petraeus Tie Themselves In Knots

Hey, guys - it's been 11 years of failure, not 6 months. But, you know,  one more farce push.......

The Afghan War Is Lost - Who's Taking The Rap?

There is no single villain. Gordon Brown and David Cameron (suggests Cowper-Coles) meant well; so, even more, did David Miliband. A fortune in money, effort, intelligence and goodwill was squandered in an absurdist circus. He paints Kabul as a city in which foreigners engaged almost exclusively with one another, launching ever-more elaborate holistic strategies to save a nation whose citizens they feared to meet. Spies, diplomats and "tree-hugging" aid workers whirled around with splendid intentions, promising that this time their plans really were joined up and would work. And it never happened.

Full account here.

No Afghan Army Or Police Unit Fit To Take Over

By Jonathan Owen
Sunday, 12 June 2011

Not a single Afghan police or army unit is capable of maintaining law and order in the war-torn country without the support of coalition forces, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. Almost a decade after international troops were sent in to overthrow the Taliban and help to establish a functioning democracy in Afghanistan, a combination of poor training, lack of numbers, corruption and illiteracy has left the country unable to protect its own people.

The grim official assessment of the capabilities of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) is a major blow to the hopes of a troop withdrawal by 2014, a timescale that assumes the ANSF will be able to start taking the lead in fighting the Taliban from next month. The commander of Nato's mission to train the ANSF has admitted the task will not be complete until at least 2016.

This comes after a decade in which tens of billions of dollars have been spent building up the Afghan army and police. Yet they remain too dependent on coalition forces, according to the latest progress report on Afghanistan from the US Department of Defense. It cites assessments made in February that show how, of more than 400 Afghan units, none is rated as independent – defined as capable "without assistance from coalition forces".

The International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) will release another assessment this week, but experts are not expecting any major change. There are some signs of progress, with army units deemed effective "with advisers" up 45 per cent (from 42 to 61) and those effective "with assistance" rising by 73 per cent (from 49 to 85) between September 2010 and February 2011. But more than half of all police and army units need coalition soldiers to fight alongside them. Only a third are effective with just military advisers in support.

The report, looking at the period between October 2010 and March 2011, warns: "ANA [Afghan National Army] units are still too dependent on coalition forces for operations and, specifically, logistical support."

A "significant shortfall" of 740 trainers and mentors "poses a strategic risk to ANSF growth and an increased risk to transition". Citing the "slow development of governance", it warns that "despite the gains in security and in ANSF growth and development, the Afghan government faces significant political challenges which could potentially threaten the progress made in the last six months" while "extensive bureaucracy and areas of corruption continue to present serious challenges".

The US has spent more than $25bn (£15.4bn) to train and equip Afghan forces since 2001. The Afghan army has almost doubled in size in three years to more than 164,000, and the Afghan national police stands at 126,000. But the effort has been marred by focusing on quantity over quality, exacerbated by corruption, a continued shortage of trainers and infiltration by the Taliban.

Literacy remains a problem. Although more than 63,000 ANSF have completed literacy training since November 2009, none is above the reading age of a nine-year-old. Lieutenant General William B Caldwell, commander of the Nato's training mission in Afghanistan, admitted, "Nine out of 10 [new recruits] are totally illiterate and innumerate... Attrition in the army, if left unchecked, could undo much of the progress made."

Speaking in Washington last week, he hinted that politically driven timescales do not match reality. "Building quality into the ANSF requires strategic patience and enduring commitment... As far as the training mission goes, we won't complete what we need to do till about 2016/17."

This admission comes as coalition forces prepare for another bloody summer. Nato-led troops suffered record losses in April and May with 110 dead, the highest death toll for those two months since the war began. The Taliban spring/summer offensive is under way, marked by a string of high-profile assassinations of Afghan officials in recent weeks.

Bomb attacks across Afghanistan killed at least 21 people yesterday, as a UN report said May was the deadliest month for Afghan civilians since it began compiling statistics four years ago, with 961 killed or injured.

Yet President Barack Obama is due to start drawing down US troops this summer. And if he uses the death of Osama bin Laden to justify a faster exit than expected, this could trigger a larger withdrawal of British troops. However, the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, insisted last week there would be no "rush to the exits". Initially, Bamiyan and Panjshir, anti-Taliban strongholds, are the only provinces that will be handed over. Afghan forces will also take responsibility for the western city of Herat, the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif and Lashkar Gah in Helmand.

Ahmad Majidyar, senior research associate at the American Enterprise Institute, said: "Lack of equipment remains ANA officers' primary concern, who say the army was better prepared under the Soviets than now."

What the experts say... 'The real issue is corruption'

"They face serious challenges developing capacity, and growing problems in maintaining loyalty, morale and troop cohesion as the insurgency gains ground andtalk of deals with the Taliban divides Afghan people alongethnic lines."

Candace Rondeaux; Senior analyst, International Crisis Group

"How many Afghan generals, lieutenants, and officers have you seen falling in battles over the past 10 years? We lose soldiers but not officers. What would motivate those soldiers to defend a territory against the Taliban?"

Yama Torabi; Director, Integrity Watch Afghanistan

"The ANSF can still lead while receiving logistics support. They are the pointy end of the spear. We'll still make up some of the shaft of the spear for a while yet."

Dr Paul Miller; Former director for Afghanistan on the US National Security Council

"The real issue is corruption – to what extent is the ANSF insulated from that? If not, we could spend money on training and equipment for a million years and it wouldn't produce real improvement."

Dr Stephen Biddle; Senior fellow for defence policy, Council on Foreign Relations

"Most of their British trainers say that the quality of ANA units is 'OK', and that they are competent to do the basic job."

Professor Michael Clarke; Director, Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies

"The Western-led ANSF build-up is rather quantitative than qualitative, with no guarantee of sustainability. Who will pay for all these soldiers, police and militiamen when Western financial inputs decrease after 2014?"

Thomas Ruttig; Co-director, Afghan Analysts Network

"We did not seriously invest in this force until 2008; the money did not really show up, along with the equipment and the facilities, until the spring of last year."

Anthony Cordesman; Chair in strategy, Center for Strategic and International Studies

"While the ANSF may be able to take increasing responsibility alone in some of the lower-risk areas, they're nowhere near ready to do so in the most troubled provinces, such as Kandahar and Helmand."

Colonel Richard Kemp; Former commander of British forces in Afghanistan

"Ethnic and tribal factionalism and weak civilian oversight risk ANA's disintegration if Nato forces leave prematurely, as happened after the Soviet 1979 withdrawal."

Ahmad Majidyar; Senior research associate at the American Enterprise Institute

"They are entering into a critical period of development, and it's a real time of uncertainty. We realise they're going to be tested very heavily by the enemy."

Lieutenant-General William B Caldwell; Commander of Nato's training mission in Afghanistan

Afghanistan War Worth It? View From Canada

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama juxtaposed the war in Afghanistan as one of necessity in comparison to the war in Iraq. In the succeeding months the war in Iraq was effectively ended but, to maintain his political credentials, Obama dramatically increased American troop levels in Afghanistan. These increased levels partly offset the withdrawals by NATO countries and today there are few signs that there is any measurable success.

The death of bin Laden a few weeks ago provided Washington with an opportunity to reassess the war in Afghanistan, and there are now signs the United States will increase the pace of its troop withdrawals. With the 2012 presidential election campaign already underway and the need for enormous cuts in expenditures, it could be that the western war in Afghanistan will begin its fade into oblivion.Full article here.

Is A 'Good Enough' Outcome Good Enough In Afghanistan?

You have to read between the lines in this fascinating editorial from the Economist. It is a rightist publication and they are cheerleaders for America and the occupation. But it's interesting that Petraeus and Gates are talking about an outcome that may be 'good enough'. Different from the rose-tinted dross they feed Obama for his periodic speeches. This is new terminology to me, and I have been following it for a long time.

Home run?  The pressure mounts on the president from war-weary voters

Jun 9th 2011 | from the print edition

WITHIN a few weeks Barack Obama must make a decision that could determine the outcome of the decade-long war in Afghanistan, the one that in his election campaign he described as the “right war” but of which most Americans are now weary. Having authorised sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in late 2009, after prolonged agonising, Mr Obama always intended that a limited drawdown would begin after this year’s fighting season, with more coming home in good time for his bid to be re-elected in 2012. Left unsaid was the pace at which America would begin to reduce its force of 100,000 troops. It would, apparently, all depend on conditions on the ground.

That now looks open to question. Those close to the president, such as Joe Biden, the vice-president, and Tom Donilon, the national security adviser—both of whom opposed the 2009 “surge”—have taken up their cudgels again. According to reports, they are not only seeking a much bigger cut in troop numbers this year—up to 8,000—than the armed forces hoped to get away with; Mr Obama’s men also want a firm schedule for reversing the rest of the surge, preferably well before election day.

Their case is strengthened by the growing discontent over the war. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests that, after the killing of Osama bin Laden, public backing for the war had risen to 43%. But that is probably just a temporary bounce. The trend since the end of 2009 has been steadily downward, falling last month to 31%. Inevitably, some Americans see bin Laden’s death as a good excuse to head for the exit—three out of four want a “substantial reduction” in troops this summer. On May 26th an amendment in the House to speed up the withdrawal and start talks with the Taliban was defeated by only 215 to 204, with 178 Democrats defying the president’s policy. Even some Republicans are turning against the war, albeit mainly because it costs some $2 billion a week.

Related topics

• Robert Gates
• Military and defence policy
• Political policy
• Politics
• Afghanistan

The Pentagon is fighting a spirited rearguard action to limit the damage. General David Petraeus, the commander in Afghanistan, and Robert Gates, the defence secretary, who was in Afghanistan this week, insist that the campaign has turned a corner thanks to the surge. They say that the Taliban are now on the back foot and that a “good enough” outcome is within sight. But they also warn that the progress is not yet irreversible and could be jeopardised by too precipitate a drawdown. In particular, they want the time to complete the recruitment and training of Afghan security forces, which is the key to holding the country together after 2014 when NATO combat troops are due to leave.

Although the surge has fully justified itself, their voices may carry less weight than they did. The respected Mr Gates is retiring at the end of the month and General Petraeus has been drafted by Mr Obama to take on the running of the CIA later this year after its current director, Leon Panetta, succeeds Mr Gates at the Pentagon. Another advocate for the surge, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, is also leaving office soon.

Mr Obama will carefully weigh the arguments and sift all options. Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution thinks the president’s caution means that he will not want to risk undermining what the surge has achieved. He says: “The best predictor of what the president will do is what he has done in the past.”

Palin Emails - Clip

pp

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com

Ghaddafi's Cluster Bombs - Made In Spain

Based on the markings on the submunition found in Misrata, Libya used MAT-120 cluster munitions. These contain 21 dual-purpose submunitions equipped with a self-destruct feature. The submunition is considered dual-purpose because it has both anti-personnel and anti-material effects.

Upon exploding on impact with an object, the steel body of the MAT-120 submunition disintegrates into numerous high-velocity fragments to attack personnel and releases a metal slug, which is formed from an inverted copper cone inside the submunition, intended to penetrate the walls of an armored vehicle.

The MAT-120 cluster munitions used in Misrata were produced by Instalaza SA in Spain. The markings on the submunition remnant inspected by Human Rights Watch indicate it was produced in 2007. Details Here

By the way Spain is a member of NATO. 

The US Have Never Left A Country They Have Invaded

The claptrap about drawdowns and handover dates in Iraq and Afghanistan is so much propaganda and is being swallowed whole by the MSM. The US have never left a country once they have invaded it. They are hanging around in Iraq in case Iraq dares try to sell it's Oil to China or move deals to the Euro instead of the dollar.
THAT was one main reason for the invasion of Iraq. They reversed the decision to deal in Euros within weeks of Saddam's murder.
Liyba ? They had the audacity to sign a deal guaranteeing Russia and China most of their future resources. As is their right. America simply won't have that and have sent in their Nato poodles to do their dirty work for them to undo it. We can be sure that those deals with China and Russia will be cancelled in favour of the US at the first grubby and opportunist juncture.
As America's wealth is slowly bled for foreign wars, foreign aid, and other follies, then its world influence will wane even further. America's neocolonialist power is in its twilight already. 

Palin Emails To Be Released - Guardian

Given the size of the cache, we reckon the collective eyes of thousands of you will find the juicy bits more quickly, so we'll be publishing the raw mails on our website as quickly as we can and asking you to tell us which ones are interesting and why.

They'll be pretty rough and ready – no headlines or details of what they're about – but we hope you'll help us by using our simple system to tag them according to what subjects they cover, and how interesting they are.

We'd love it if you'd alert our editors, via a button on each email, or Tweet us at @gdnpalin, about any emails that you think our reporters should be examining. Remember that each numbered document represents a single page, so you have to click to previous and subsequent pages to see a full email. Now, as Ms Palin once exhorted: "Drill, baby, drill!"

Check back to this page later to find more details of the emails.

Why Civilians Die At The Hands of NATO

Another Drone Victim

'Apologists for the NATO killings of civilians are as abundant as their explanations are lacking in substance. Pentagon spokespeople speak of “accidents”, “errors of war”, “collateral damage”; media pundits blame the guerrilla fighters for engaging in warfare in areas populated by civilians; neo-conservative academics and their “think tank” colleagues blame Islamic fundamentalism for converting villagers to their cause and “forcing” NATO to kill civilians in order to create martyrs and to use their deaths as a recruiting device.These patently superficial explanations raise more questions than answers, or in some cases, inadvertently refute the justification for the entire war. The “error of war” argument begs a more basic question: what kind of war is NATO-US engaged in that constantly finds the guerrillas ‘melting’ into the population, while the occupation breaks down doors and perceives each and every household as a possible sanctuary, or outpost of the resistance?' FROM 'DISSIDENT' VOICE' HERE.

More NATO Tankers Torched

A Pakistani security official stands near oil tankers which were set ablaze by a bomb blast near the main border crossing of Torkham, on the outskirts of Landikotal on June 7, 2011.