"Nearly
two-thirds of the U.S. fatalities in the war in Afghanistan have
occurred during the Obama administration, which has managed the war for a
mere quarter of its duration."
And with two months left to go, 2011 is already the second-deadliest year of the Afghanistan war following 2010, the deadliest year of the war with 497 total deaths. The top three deadliest years of the war -- 2010 (497 deaths), 2011 (362), 2009 (303) -- have occurred under President Obama's tenure. August 2011 was the deadliest month of the war, so far, with 71 total fatalities.
Just as importantly, "the change in Taliban tactics has kept up the number of civilian casualties," said a senior defense official describing the report. Even though there are fewer Taliban attacks overall, he said, the Taliban "are killing more Afghan civilians."
Predictably, resisting Afghans have avoided the areas where U.S. troops have masses and have scattered their violence around the capital and elsewhere -- even killing former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani.
For these figures alone, this Afghan mission should be scrubbed as soon as possible. I believe that's what commanders must be thinking (and our Commander-in-Chief is thinking as well).
President Obama has already decided that, for better or worse (he says better) that his surge is all but over. His Pentagon and his intelligence agencies took out the original terror suspect who claimed responsibility for the 9-11 plane crashes and more than a few others. For an economically crippled superpower pushing up against the admitted limitations of our military, that's enough for the President to declare 'success' and 'progress' and leave when he says he will -- if not ahead of time.
Already, this week, in fact, our installed autocrat, Karzai has gone fishing for countries willing to fill the void when we eliminate combat troops from Afghanistan as planned in 2014. That's not going to be an easy sell, although you can be certain the U.S. will step up and sweeten the pot for anyone willing to take on the heady burden in our absence.
At a regional conference today on Afghanistan held in Turkey the Afghan and Pakistani presidents met with their neighbors to try and work out some sort of security agreement to keep a lid on things when they anticipate the US leaves in 2014.
Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Zahir Azimi announced at the summit that his country understood that NATO will change their combat role to supporting role after 2014.
Although he emphasized that that the date was a transition period and not a dead-stop end point, he also insisted that Afghan security forces are near ready to take over their security responsibilities.
Now, no one believes that even he believes Afghans will be 'ready' for the U.S. to bug-out in 2014, but almost no one believes the U.S. has the political or operational will to remain long past that date. That's understandable given the virtual stalemate between resistors and the NATO forces (despite the thousands of 'insurgents' they claim to have killed).
More importantly, there's really nothing left for this administration to point to as justification to remain. It's always amazing to hear the President and the administration talk of 'progress' and 'successes' in Afghanistan. The stated aim of the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan has been described by military leaders and the White House as an attempt to 'breaking the momentum' of the Taliban insurgency and 'turning' the terrorist-associated organization, instead of the more direct talk at the inception of the escalation of force in December 2009 about 'defeating' al-Qaeda.
What's missing from the assessments of 'progress' and 'success' from occupation supporters is the acknowledgment that our nation's military posture in Afghanistan and the region has actually widened the initial conflict between the U.S. and the original band of 9-11 perpetrators into a proxy war in which Afghans and Pakistanis are bearing the brunt of resentment and resistance to our imposed alliance with the dubious regimes clinging to power. Every move that the U.S. makes to enable or defend those country's regimes deepens the initial, blundering acquiescence to bin Laden's plot to draw the U.S. into a conflict where Muslims and others in the region became targets and casualties of our nations military forces.
Seemingly unaware or indifferent to that initial acquiescence of the U.S. to the aim of the 9-11 perpetrators, this Democratic president doubled-down on Bush's fateful appeasement and has decided to try and temper the fires that our military forces have sparked with their dubious defense against the ghosts, remnants, and outgrowth of our own misguided military activity in the region since 9-11.
The administration's attitude is that past mistakes don't obviate the need and efficacy (in their view) of pressing forward with their military campaign. They're optimistic that our military forces can achieve enough of a push-back against resisting Afghans, and a crippling of anyone operating behind the moniker of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, to allow and encourage Afghans to assume a fight against that insurgence which would compliment our own national security interests in defending against 'al-Qaeda' and against further attacks on our nation.
The obvious problem with that equation is in the self-perpetuated, counterproductive effect the U.S. military presence and activity has on achieving those unifying goals. The present escalation of force unfolded too slowly to achieve any decisive military intimidation of the vast and organic number of individuals compelled to violence.
And with two months left to go, 2011 is already the second-deadliest year of the Afghanistan war following 2010, the deadliest year of the war with 497 total deaths. The top three deadliest years of the war -- 2010 (497 deaths), 2011 (362), 2009 (303) -- have occurred under President Obama's tenure. August 2011 was the deadliest month of the war, so far, with 71 total fatalities.
Just as importantly, "the change in Taliban tactics has kept up the number of civilian casualties," said a senior defense official describing the report. Even though there are fewer Taliban attacks overall, he said, the Taliban "are killing more Afghan civilians."
Predictably, resisting Afghans have avoided the areas where U.S. troops have masses and have scattered their violence around the capital and elsewhere -- even killing former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani.
For these figures alone, this Afghan mission should be scrubbed as soon as possible. I believe that's what commanders must be thinking (and our Commander-in-Chief is thinking as well).
President Obama has already decided that, for better or worse (he says better) that his surge is all but over. His Pentagon and his intelligence agencies took out the original terror suspect who claimed responsibility for the 9-11 plane crashes and more than a few others. For an economically crippled superpower pushing up against the admitted limitations of our military, that's enough for the President to declare 'success' and 'progress' and leave when he says he will -- if not ahead of time.
Already, this week, in fact, our installed autocrat, Karzai has gone fishing for countries willing to fill the void when we eliminate combat troops from Afghanistan as planned in 2014. That's not going to be an easy sell, although you can be certain the U.S. will step up and sweeten the pot for anyone willing to take on the heady burden in our absence.
At a regional conference today on Afghanistan held in Turkey the Afghan and Pakistani presidents met with their neighbors to try and work out some sort of security agreement to keep a lid on things when they anticipate the US leaves in 2014.
Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Zahir Azimi announced at the summit that his country understood that NATO will change their combat role to supporting role after 2014.
Although he emphasized that that the date was a transition period and not a dead-stop end point, he also insisted that Afghan security forces are near ready to take over their security responsibilities.
Now, no one believes that even he believes Afghans will be 'ready' for the U.S. to bug-out in 2014, but almost no one believes the U.S. has the political or operational will to remain long past that date. That's understandable given the virtual stalemate between resistors and the NATO forces (despite the thousands of 'insurgents' they claim to have killed).
More importantly, there's really nothing left for this administration to point to as justification to remain. It's always amazing to hear the President and the administration talk of 'progress' and 'successes' in Afghanistan. The stated aim of the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan has been described by military leaders and the White House as an attempt to 'breaking the momentum' of the Taliban insurgency and 'turning' the terrorist-associated organization, instead of the more direct talk at the inception of the escalation of force in December 2009 about 'defeating' al-Qaeda.
What's missing from the assessments of 'progress' and 'success' from occupation supporters is the acknowledgment that our nation's military posture in Afghanistan and the region has actually widened the initial conflict between the U.S. and the original band of 9-11 perpetrators into a proxy war in which Afghans and Pakistanis are bearing the brunt of resentment and resistance to our imposed alliance with the dubious regimes clinging to power. Every move that the U.S. makes to enable or defend those country's regimes deepens the initial, blundering acquiescence to bin Laden's plot to draw the U.S. into a conflict where Muslims and others in the region became targets and casualties of our nations military forces.
Seemingly unaware or indifferent to that initial acquiescence of the U.S. to the aim of the 9-11 perpetrators, this Democratic president doubled-down on Bush's fateful appeasement and has decided to try and temper the fires that our military forces have sparked with their dubious defense against the ghosts, remnants, and outgrowth of our own misguided military activity in the region since 9-11.
The administration's attitude is that past mistakes don't obviate the need and efficacy (in their view) of pressing forward with their military campaign. They're optimistic that our military forces can achieve enough of a push-back against resisting Afghans, and a crippling of anyone operating behind the moniker of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, to allow and encourage Afghans to assume a fight against that insurgence which would compliment our own national security interests in defending against 'al-Qaeda' and against further attacks on our nation.
The obvious problem with that equation is in the self-perpetuated, counterproductive effect the U.S. military presence and activity has on achieving those unifying goals. The present escalation of force unfolded too slowly to achieve any decisive military intimidation of the vast and organic number of individuals compelled to violence.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
