Monday, September 21, 2009
Afghanistan: The Choice
So now we have the leaked classified assessment from General Stanley McChrystal that was completed regarding Afghanistan...
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf
I think after reading it the sentiment that went through my mind was 'gloom and doom'...graveyard of empires also resounds clearly in this report.
Now in case you don't want to read it what McChrystal is saying is that without an Afghanistan surge of US troops 'victory' (if there is such a thing) will not be possible. But that is not all. It gets deeper. For us to have a chance of getting a win out Afghanistan we would not only need close to a 100,000 troops on the ground there (we have a little over 50,000 now and 60,000 + contractors).
We would also need cooperation from the Afghan government which has been determined to be blatantly corrupt. In the last election reports have emerged that Karzai's allies set up fake polling stations and then just disregarded the votes it didn't like and kept those it did. This is what led to Ambassador Holbrooke having a screaming match with Karzai in Karzai's palace in Kabul.
Karzai's actions (in how he is corrupt) would lead to and require a civilian surge or workers to partner with the Afghan government to rebuild. Karzai's own brother is a well known drug lord who US troops were going to arrest at one time but were forced to let him go over government protests. What were they going to arrest him for? The US Army found 6 TONS...not pounds...TONS of opium in his basement stacked on pallets waiting to be shipped to market for sale. The street value of which if sold at street prices would have paid in full a one year commitment of our current troop levels.
McChrystal is pegging this commitment at a minimum of 10 years (30 years at the max) and probably at least a trillion dollars in investment minimum to make the country function properly.
On top of this in his report he has had extensive intelligence report back that not only are senior officials in Pakistan protecting Al Qaeda leaders but they are also giving them new safe havens and resupply for arms. Given the fact we gave the Pakistan government billions of dollars without strings attached during the Bush administration you can probably guess what cash they are using to buy their weapons with.
Pakistan through the ISI and elements of the ISI who are friendly to the Taliban have been sharing data on US troop positions and possible movements.
Like I said, gloom and doom...
So after all this the question is how many more years should we be in Afghanistan? Now we have already been there 8 years...longer then WW I and WW II combined while George Bush dithered and went charging to Iraq. I know people heading to Afghanistan now heading for their 6th deployments. That is 6 full years in the combat theater. Their kids hardly recognize them, but they do get to email their kids from time to time. How many more years should we stay in Afghanistan?
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf
I think after reading it the sentiment that went through my mind was 'gloom and doom'...graveyard of empires also resounds clearly in this report.
Now in case you don't want to read it what McChrystal is saying is that without an Afghanistan surge of US troops 'victory' (if there is such a thing) will not be possible. But that is not all. It gets deeper. For us to have a chance of getting a win out Afghanistan we would not only need close to a 100,000 troops on the ground there (we have a little over 50,000 now and 60,000 + contractors).
We would also need cooperation from the Afghan government which has been determined to be blatantly corrupt. In the last election reports have emerged that Karzai's allies set up fake polling stations and then just disregarded the votes it didn't like and kept those it did. This is what led to Ambassador Holbrooke having a screaming match with Karzai in Karzai's palace in Kabul.
Karzai's actions (in how he is corrupt) would lead to and require a civilian surge or workers to partner with the Afghan government to rebuild. Karzai's own brother is a well known drug lord who US troops were going to arrest at one time but were forced to let him go over government protests. What were they going to arrest him for? The US Army found 6 TONS...not pounds...TONS of opium in his basement stacked on pallets waiting to be shipped to market for sale. The street value of which if sold at street prices would have paid in full a one year commitment of our current troop levels.
McChrystal is pegging this commitment at a minimum of 10 years (30 years at the max) and probably at least a trillion dollars in investment minimum to make the country function properly.
On top of this in his report he has had extensive intelligence report back that not only are senior officials in Pakistan protecting Al Qaeda leaders but they are also giving them new safe havens and resupply for arms. Given the fact we gave the Pakistan government billions of dollars without strings attached during the Bush administration you can probably guess what cash they are using to buy their weapons with.
Pakistan through the ISI and elements of the ISI who are friendly to the Taliban have been sharing data on US troop positions and possible movements.
Like I said, gloom and doom...
So after all this the question is how many more years should we be in Afghanistan? Now we have already been there 8 years...longer then WW I and WW II combined while George Bush dithered and went charging to Iraq. I know people heading to Afghanistan now heading for their 6th deployments. That is 6 full years in the combat theater. Their kids hardly recognize them, but they do get to email their kids from time to time. How many more years should we stay in Afghanistan?
