The war in Afghanistan is over: we lost. (1 Viewer)

Todd Andrews, who normally spends his time in this forum calling other people names, has actually provided some pretty thoughtful commentary in this thread.

Jackstraw said:

McGarnicle said:

Bomb the living #### out of them until even the mountains are flat imo. All these countries that hate us, why do we bother? We've got a metric ####-ton of nukes. Clean 'em out, take whatever natural resources they have. The rest of the countries will learn to shut up real quick.

Click to expand...

You do know that's completely insane right?

Click to expand...

Not to mention illegal and a good way to start WWIII

cstu said:

Chadstroma said:

Joe Summer said:

I agree that it's been a failure, although I can't help but wonder if things would be spun a little differently if we had a Republican in the White House. We've had half as many military deaths under Obama than we did under Bush.

Click to expand...

Of course each side has a horrible habit of making excuses for their guy and pointing the blame at the other. Some people are trapped in that thinking.

Click to expand...

I am going to support drone attacks regardless who is in the White House. Unfortunately, Republicans tend to love putting boots on the ground.

Click to expand...

partisanship aside, you need troops on the ground in advisory roles if that's the mission - which at least IMO, it should be.

FUBAR said:

partisanship aside, you need troops on the ground in advisory roles if that's the mission - which at least IMO, it should be.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm talking 10's of thousands of combat troops.

cstu said:

FUBAR said:

partisanship aside, you need troops on the ground in advisory roles if that's the mission - which at least IMO, it should be.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm talking 10's of thousands of combat troops.

Click to expand...

5,500 seems a bit light to me. A force that stablizes the major cities/bases and allows for advisory/training, QRF and Special Operation strikes as needed. That for a protracted time is the best I think we can hope for.

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I don't think it's Obama's failure, I think the only mistake was announcing a set timetable for withdrawal. He's fixed that which is better than not fixing it at all.

Click to expand...

Obama has been the President for 7 years. I think he's been a very good foreign policy President. But this war has not gotten better under his watch. If anything it's gotten worse. 7 years is long enough to make him, the man in charge, responsible. We won World War II in about half that time.

Click to expand...

How can you say he's been a very good foreign policy President but also say he's failed at something as important as this?

Todd Andrews said:

Chadstroma said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I don't think it's Obama's failure, I think the only mistake was announcing a set timetable for withdrawal. He's fixed that which is better than not fixing it at all.

Click to expand...

Obama has been the President for 7 years. I think he's been a very good foreign policy President. But this war has not gotten better under his watch. If anything it's gotten worse. 7 years is long enough to make him, the man in charge, responsible. We won World War II in about half that time.

Click to expand...

The WW2 comparison is terrible IMO.

How do you view how his policies have been a failure? Like I said his decision to announce the timetable was a mistake, and the Taliban have been driving forward recently with an eye towards closing out as the US leaves.

Anything else Obama has done wrong?

Click to expand...

WWII is an absolute horrible comparison. In WWII there were nations at war with clear overall strategic objectives and national standing armies. Not a comparison at all.The truth is that Afghanistan has always been broken. Back when the Soviets pulled out- there was an opportunity to stabilize and build a real nation. We ignored that opportunity. To fill in the void, people that are not the greatest of guys and lacking any decent amount of goodwill towards other men- stepped in. If we ignore it again there will be a time that we really have no choice but to go in again. And then we start all over again.

Saint is right- the set timetable for withdrawal was the real mistake. We leave now or near future- Afghanistan falls. A fallen Afghanistan means bad things for us. Not a 'good' thing for us to be there but it is better than the alternative.

Click to expand...

The problem with Afghanistan is that unlike Iraq or most countries, it had almost no infrastructure or foundation to rebuild on. The literacy rate is far less than 50% and you cant have a democracy or even a stable government when the people cant participate on practically any level. As one very astute war reporter put it back in 2009 or so, it will take generations to get Afghanistan to a point where it can be stable on any level acceptable to Western or first world standards, and that would include a massive education project just to get the population to a literacy level close to two thirds literate. We can either decide to to that, with all it entails, or we can come up some alternate approach, which is what I think we are doing. There just arent any really good alternate approaches that dont end up with the country back in teh hands of the Taliban.

Click to expand...

The alternate approaches are not going to work and the country will never support the US going in and building a Afghanistan's educational system in hopes that it will change the culture. Did Obama not realize this? We're talking multiple generations of radicals running the country. I don't think there's anything the US can do to change that, nor do many of their citizens even want us to try. It's just not possible. The US delaying the inevitable, which I'm not even sure is a bad thing. You can't win, but the results of pulling out may be even worse. I really don't know.

Chadstroma said:

cstu said:

FUBAR said:

partisanship aside, you need troops on the ground in advisory roles if that's the mission - which at least IMO, it should be.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm talking 10's of thousands of combat troops.

Click to expand...

5,500 seems a bit light to me. A force that stablizes the major cities/bases and allows for advisory/training, QRF and Special Operation strikes as needed.

That for a protracted time is the best I think we can hope for.

Click to expand...

Armed robot cheetahs.

flapgreen said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I don't think it's Obama's failure, I think the only mistake was announcing a set timetable for withdrawal. He's fixed that which is better than not fixing it at all.

Click to expand...

Obama has been the President for 7 years. I think he's been a very good foreign policy President. But this war has not gotten better under his watch. If anything it's gotten worse. 7 years is long enough to make him, the man in charge, responsible. We won World War II in about half that time.

Click to expand...

How can you say he's been a very good foreign policy President but also say he's failed at something as important as this?

Click to expand...

Mainly because I'm not sure what he could have done differently.

timschochet said:

flapgreen said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I don't think it's Obama's failure, I think the only mistake was announcing a set timetable for withdrawal. He's fixed that which is better than not fixing it at all.

Click to expand...

Obama has been the President for 7 years. I think he's been a very good foreign policy President. But this war has not gotten better under his watch. If anything it's gotten worse. 7 years is long enough to make him, the man in charge, responsible. We won World War II in about half that time.

Click to expand...

How can you say he's been a very good foreign policy President but also say he's failed at something as important as this?

Click to expand...

Mainly because I'm not sure what he could have done differently.

Click to expand...

Then it's not a failure of his if it was outside his control.

cstu said:

Chadstroma said:

cstu said:

FUBAR said:

partisanship aside, you need troops on the ground in advisory roles if that's the mission - which at least IMO, it should be.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm talking 10's of thousands of combat troops.

Click to expand...

5,500 seems a bit light to me. A force that stablizes the major cities/bases and allows for advisory/training, QRF and Special Operation strikes as needed.

That for a protracted time is the best I think we can hope for.

Click to expand...

Armed robot cheetahs.

Click to expand...

Now here's a man thinking outside the box.

You have upper level management written all over you, son.

timschochet said:

FlapJacks said:

It's a quagmire. Deposing the Taliban had near universal support in congress and across the country. I'm not sure anybody has a plan that will leave the place in better shape than where we found it.

Click to expand...

You're right about this. The Iraq war had some dissenters, mostly progressives. THIS war had almost no dissenters. Everybody in both parties was behind it. And despite promising to end it, both Obama and Hillary campaigned in 2008 that it was a necessary war. There has never been any partisan disagreement about this.

Click to expand...

I was one who admittedly was for going to Afghanistan and against going into Iraq. Given that the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden I don't think we had a choice. However, we should have tried to capture him with our guys and not the tribal leaders and militia leaders who promised to help. Had we still failed then we leave and pursue him until we kill him.

Afghanistan was a mess before the Soviets got there, they couldn't fix it and went broke trying. Then for whatever reason we think it's going to go better for us. Had we merely gone in and tried to get Bin Laden and killed the Taliban if they got in the way, then left, I think that would have been the way to go and what I'd have supported. Yes I know there would be a vacuum had the Taliban fell, but we need to realize that the countries in that region don't have the same culture and belief system that we do. We can't impose our way of life on them. Unfortunately in situations like Afghanistan that may require putting out fires from time to time in a chaotic situation. Granted that's not desirable, but it would cost us much less in money and lives than this strategy did. And frankly the situation had we just gone in for Bin Laden and left wouldn't have left Afghanistan in any worse shape than it already was.

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

flapgreen said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I don't think it's Obama's failure, I think the only mistake was announcing a set timetable for withdrawal. He's fixed that which is better than not fixing it at all.

Click to expand...

Obama has been the President for 7 years. I think he's been a very good foreign policy President. But this war has not gotten better under his watch. If anything it's gotten worse. 7 years is long enough to make him, the man in charge, responsible. We won World War II in about half that time.

Click to expand...

How can you say he's been a very good foreign policy President but also say he's failed at something as important as this?

Click to expand...

Mainly because I'm not sure what he could have done differently.

Click to expand...

Then it's not a failure of his if it was outside his control.

Click to expand...

Just because I don't have any solutions doesn't mean that he shouldn't. He's the President. He's got the smartest people in the country working for him. In the end, the responsibility lies with him.

timschochet said:

Just because I don't have any solutions doesn't mean that he shouldn't. He's the President. He's got the smartest people in the country working for him. In the end, the responsibility lies with him.

Click to expand...

What if there is literally no good solution?

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

flapgreen said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I don't think it's Obama's failure, I think the only mistake was announcing a set timetable for withdrawal. He's fixed that which is better than not fixing it at all.

Click to expand...

Obama has been the President for 7 years. I think he's been a very good foreign policy President. But this war has not gotten better under his watch. If anything it's gotten worse. 7 years is long enough to make him, the man in charge, responsible. We won World War II in about half that time.

Click to expand...

How can you say he's been a very good foreign policy President but also say he's failed at something as important as this?

Click to expand...

Mainly because I'm not sure what he could have done differently.

Click to expand...

Then it's not a failure of his if it was outside his control.

Click to expand...

Just because I don't have any solutions doesn't mean that he shouldn't. He's the President. He's got the smartest people in the country working for him. In the end, the responsibility lies with him.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's crazy. Not everything that goes wrong is the president's fault.

I guess have my thoughts on this but Obama ran in 2008 as continuing Afghanistan as a "good war" and one he would continue to prosecute. If there was a mistake it was unlike Bush he promised he could "win" it in a certain period of time and then even announced that time. But that was a tactical error and like all tactics they can be changed. It was aspirational and maybe in that way admirable, but it was highly unlikely to happen.

You should define your terms also - what exactly did he "fail" at? You think he should have won the war by now?

We are still at war in Afghanistan, drone killings have increased, Guantanamo is still open, NSA is as devious as ever, the Patriot Act is still in effect (I think), and the war in Iraq ended on the Bush timeline (I think).

Pretty much all of these could be considered failures for Obama if we were to compare these results to what he campaigned on in 2008. I am not trying to criticize him, but I am curious what is the reason for this?

Is it because the President, no matter who is in office, has little control over our national security/military decisions? Or is it because once a person becomes President and has full Intel access they realize certain things are necessary even if they aren't popular? Maybe something else?

It seems like not much has really changed from Bush to Obama (just in regards to national security and foreign affairs), other than Obama is a much better/smarter salesman.

It's because the President will say whatever he has to to get elected when he knows all along that half of it will probably never happen. Then he can just blame it on Congress or Republicans for obstructing what he wanted to do. Easy

Is it because the President, no matter who is in office, has little control over our national security/military decisions? Or is it because once a person becomes President and has full Intel access they realize certain things are necessary even if they aren't popular? Maybe something else?

Click to expand...

I believe Obama had the best of intentions when he was campaigning the first time, but either did not understand the realities he would be facing or chose to downplay it (probably a combination of both).

He doesn't seem like a guy who thrives on killing so I imagine he believes his decisions are the least worst choices.

Best intentions? That's a big assumption.

cstu said:

Is it because the President, no matter who is in office, has little control over our national security/military decisions? Or is it because once a person becomes President and has full Intel access they realize certain things are necessary even if they aren't popular? Maybe something else?

Click to expand...

I believe Obama had the best of intentions when he was campaigning the first time, but either did not understand the realities he would be facing or chose to downplay it (probably a combination of both).

He doesn't seem like a guy who thrives on killing so I imagine he believes his decisions are the least worst choices.

Click to expand...

I think it is a mix of both- naive amatuerish thinking of "why can't we all just get along" that is divorced from reality and then getting in office he is hit over the heard with reality as well as at the time it was an appealling political statement to say how we need to leave. The voting public is often not very deep thinking. It is more of a question of what impacts my wallet and what feels good that sways votes. I don't think Obama had the understanding to really know that his promises were not realistic and of course he will push that agenda when it made voters feel good to hear it.

flapgreen said:

Best intentions? That's a big assumption.

Click to expand...

Don't think while he was running that he was secretly excited about blowing up weddings.

I will give Tim credit for establishing at least one thing, the question of what is the long term goal, what does success vs failure mean in Afghanistan? Basically to me the goal was short term to get OBL and obliterate AQ in Afghanistan. I don't want to discuss that really because that's its own huge issue. But the long term goal was to keep it free of AQ and terrorist camps and basically from becoming a HQ for terrorism against the US in the US again. I think Obama has done that. I do believe we just obliterated a huge terrorist camp there, like 30 square miles in size.

And then there is this:

MFA RussiaVerified accounthttps://twitter.com/help/verified @mfa_russiahttps://twitter.com/mfa_russiaOfficial twitter-account of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Click to expand...

MFA Russia Verified account ‏@mfa_russia

#Russia ready to help friendly Afghan people in building a peaceful, stable democratic state free of terrorists http://bit.ly/1LziZKD

Click to expand...

cstu said:

timschochet said:

Just because I don't have any solutions doesn't mean that he shouldn't. He's the President. He's got the smartest people in the country working for him. In the end, the responsibility lies with him.

Click to expand...

What if there is literally no good solution?

Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't go to, or continue a war.

FUBAR said:

cstu said:

timschochet said:

Just because I don't have any solutions doesn't mean that he shouldn't. He's the President. He's got the smartest people in the country working for him. In the end, the responsibility lies with him.

Click to expand...

What if there is literally no good solution?

Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't go to, or continue a war.

Click to expand...

Ending the war isn't a good solution either.

So what did Obama's troop surge accomplish exactly?

cstu said:

FUBAR said:

cstu said:

timschochet said:

Just because I don't have any solutions doesn't mean that he shouldn't. He's the President. He's got the smartest people in the country working for him. In the end, the responsibility lies with him.

Click to expand...

What if there is literally no good solution?

Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't go to, or continue a war.

Click to expand...

Ending the war isn't a good solution either.

Click to expand...

If you consider all the waste, it's the least worst solution. The current plan seems resonable but it's been too long in coming with no clear direction.

Hang 10 said:

So what did Obama's troop surge accomplish exactly?

Click to expand...

Strategically, long term? Nadadamthing.

Hang 10 said:

So what did Obama's troop surge accomplish exactly?

Click to expand...

Not much but IIRC he gave about half of what the commanders were asking for in terms of troop levels.

FUBAR said:

Hang 10 said:

So what did Obama's troop surge accomplish exactly?

Click to expand...

Strategically, long term? Nadadamthing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was afraid that was the case.

Chadstroma said:

cstu said:

Is it because the President, no matter who is in office, has little control over our national security/military decisions? Or is it because once a person becomes President and has full Intel access they realize certain things are necessary even if they aren't popular? Maybe something else?

Click to expand...

I believe Obama had the best of intentions when he was campaigning the first time, but either did not understand the realities he would be facing or chose to downplay it (probably a combination of both).

He doesn't seem like a guy who thrives on killing so I imagine he believes his decisions are the least worst choices.

Click to expand...

I think it is a mix of both- naive amatuerish thinking of "why can't we all just get along" that is divorced from reality and then getting in office he is hit over the heard with reality as well as at the time it was an appealling political statement to say how we need to leave. The voting public is often not very deep thinking. It is more of a question of what impacts my wallet and what feels good that sways votes. I don't think Obama had the understanding to really know that his promises were not realistic and of course he will push that agenda when it made voters feel good to hear it.

Click to expand...

Exactly

flapgreen said:

Todd Andrews said:

Chadstroma said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I don't think it's Obama's failure, I think the only mistake was announcing a set timetable for withdrawal. He's fixed that which is better than not fixing it at all.

Click to expand...

Obama has been the President for 7 years. I think he's been a very good foreign policy President. But this war has not gotten better under his watch. If anything it's gotten worse. 7 years is long enough to make him, the man in charge, responsible. We won World War II in about half that time.

Click to expand...

The WW2 comparison is terrible IMO.

How do you view how his policies have been a failure? Like I said his decision to announce the timetable was a mistake, and the Taliban have been driving forward recently with an eye towards closing out as the US leaves.

Anything else Obama has done wrong?

Click to expand...

WWII is an absolute horrible comparison. In WWII there were nations at war with clear overall strategic objectives and national standing armies. Not a comparison at all.The truth is that Afghanistan has always been broken. Back when the Soviets pulled out- there was an opportunity to stabilize and build a real nation. We ignored that opportunity. To fill in the void, people that are not the greatest of guys and lacking any decent amount of goodwill towards other men- stepped in. If we ignore it again there will be a time that we really have no choice but to go in again. And then we start all over again.

Saint is right- the set timetable for withdrawal was the real mistake. We leave now or near future- Afghanistan falls. A fallen Afghanistan means bad things for us. Not a 'good' thing for us to be there but it is better than the alternative.

Click to expand...

The problem with Afghanistan is that unlike Iraq or most countries, it had almost no infrastructure or foundation to rebuild on. The literacy rate is far less than 50% and you cant have a democracy or even a stable government when the people cant participate on practically any level. As one very astute war reporter put it back in 2009 or so, it will take generations to get Afghanistan to a point where it can be stable on any level acceptable to Western or first world standards, and that would include a massive education project just to get the population to a literacy level close to two thirds literate. We can either decide to to that, with all it entails, or we can come up some alternate approach, which is what I think we are doing. There just arent any really good alternate approaches that dont end up with the country back in teh hands of the Taliban.

Click to expand...

The alternate approaches are not going to work and the country will never support the US going in and building a Afghanistan's educational system in hopes that it will change the culture. Did Obama not realize this? We're talking multiple generations of radicals running the country. I don't think there's anything the US can do to change that, nor do many of their citizens even want us to try. It's just not possible. The US delaying the inevitable, which I'm not even sure is a bad thing. You can't win, but the results of pulling out may be even worse. I really don't know.

Click to expand...

We knew all of this when we pulled our translators and special forces out and sent them to Iraq in 2003, essentially giving up the real fight in Afghanistan for about 5 years. So Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Gates and much later Obama all realized this.

Votel chimes in: 


U.S. Gen. Votel: Russia providing weapons, support to Taliban in Afghanistan


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/29/us-gen-votel-russia-providing-weapons-support-tali/

U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Joseph Votel accused Russia of providing support to the Taliban in Afghanistan during testimony to House lawmakers Wednesday.

His comments come as the Trump administration continues to work a long-term blueprint for continued U.S. military involvement in the Afghan war, which is now in it’s 16th year.

While no decision has been made, one factor U.S. military leaders and administration officials have been wrestling with is Russia’s apparent efforts to forge alliances with the Taliban, Gen. Votel told members of the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday.

“We are in the process of going through a review of [U.S.] posture in Afghanistan, and how we ought to look at that going forward,” he said, noting that former Central Command chief and current Defense Secretary James Mattis “has been very engaged” in those discussions.

California Democrat Rep. Susan Davis pressed the four-star general during Wednesday’s House hearing for his take on Russia’s involvement and eventual endgame is in Afghanistan.

“I believe what Russia is attempting to do is they are attempting to be an influential party in this part of the world,” the four-star general said. “I think it is fair to assume they may be providing some sort of support to [the Taliban], in terms of weapons or other things that may be there,” he added.

President Trump, who thus far as focused his efforts toward the ongoing campaign to defeat Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is weighing the allegations of Russian involvement seriously.

“There are several entities looking into this, and …  I will say that [Gen. Votel‘s] response speaks for itself,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said regarding Moscow’s alleged ties to the Taliban. “We understand the intelligence on this [and]  president’s been briefed on it,” he told reporters Wednesday.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson and Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, head of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander, both testified to increased Russian involvement in Afghanistan before Congress in recent weeks.

“I’ve seen the influence of Russia, of late, an increased influence in terms of association and perhaps even supply to the Taliban,” Gen. Scaparrotti told members of the Senate Armed Services panel last week.

But Gen. Votel was quick to note that while U.S. intelligence indicates attempts by Moscow to ally themselves with the Taliban, “I think there is a lot we [still] do not know about what Russia is doing” in country.

Situation in the country remains a stalemate between Kabul and extremist groups, with a slight advantage for the President Asraf Ghani’s regime, the Central Command chief said. “Stalemates have the tendency to decline over time, so I do think we have to continue to support this [mission],” Gen. Votel told panel members. 

Click to expand...

Past threads- archived:

2010

2011

2010

2009

2010

2009

2006

2009

Righetti's 2017

Massive blast in the heart of Kabul’s diplomatic quarter kills at least 80

KABUL — A massive blast tore through the diplomatic quarter of the Afghan capital Wednesday, killing at least 80 people and wounding more than 460, officials said. The devastation left Kabul in shock and underlined the country’s security struggles as it confronts a sustained wave of insurgent and terrorist attacks.

Interior Ministry officials said a huge quantity of explosives, hidden in a tanker truck, detonated at 8:30 a.m. during rush hour on a busy boulevard in the Wazir Akbar Khan district, which houses embassies, banks, supermarkets and government ministries. An entire city block was ravaged, with office buildings left in rubble and charred vehicles strewn across the road in one of the deadliest single attacks in Kabul.

The scenes of human horror were appalling, even for a country accustomed to war and violence.

At Wazir Akbar Khan Hospital, a steady stream of ambulances and police trucks delivered burned and mangled bodies, many streaming blood. Medical aides struggled to zip them quickly into body bags as distraught people crowded around, looking for missing relatives.

“I felt like it was an earthquake, and after that I do not know what happened,” said Mohammed Hassan, 21, who was attending a training program at the Azizi Bank, a half-block from the blast, and suffered cuts on his head and arms. “All the staff around me, everyone, was injured.” He said he was brought to the hospital by an Afghan army ranger truck. 

The dead and wounded were almost all Afghan civilians and security forces: police officers, bank clerks, cart pullers, telephone company workers. The dead included at least five women, an Afghan driver for the BBC and at least nine Afghan guards stationed at points outside the U.S. Embassy.

Although many foreign offices are nearby — many surrounded by high blast walls — there were no reports of foreigners among the fatalities. But some workers in diplomatic compounds, including those of Japan and Germany, were among the injured.

At least 11 U.S. citizens working as contractors also were injured, a State Department spokesman said.

The Afghan Taliban denied any role in the bombing, which was followed by a second, smaller blast in another part of the city. The Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, did not speculate on which group could have carried out the attacks but said it should “become clear at a later stage.”

Security agencies had warned that Taliban insurgents and regional affiliates of the Islamic State were planning to attack high-profile targets in the city in the early part of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month that began last week.

Many injured survivors were cut by shards of glass from storefronts, offices and foreign compounds — as far away as several miles from the main blast site. By midmorning, many were limping or being wheeled out of local hospitals, with their clothes covered in blood and their heads, arms or feet wrapped in bandages.

Nearby, distraught families squatted around bloody body bags, guarding them in patches of shade.

There were muffled, choking sounds of men weeping. Most of the dead had been seared by the blast; some were wrapped in cloth but others were half-naked and dripping blood. The Afghan Ministry of Public Health placed the death toll at 80 and the injury count at 463.

“What will I tell his children?” a sobbing man said into a cellphone as he knelt beside a bag containing the remains of his brother, a guard in a building near the explosion. 

“Look, that one is a woman. Shame, shame,” said an elderly man, pointing to a stretcher with a slender body wrapped in cloth and a hank of long hair dangling outside.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s government issued a statement condemning the blasts as “heinous acts that go against the values of humanity as well [as] values of peaceful Afghans.” It also said the attacks “demonstrate the extreme level of atrocity by terrorists against innocent civilians.”

A statement from NATO forces in Afghanistan praised “the courage of Afghan Security Forces, especially the police and first responders.”

“Attacks such as these only serve to strengthen our commitment to our Afghan partners as they seek a peaceful, stable future for their country,” the NATO statement added.

There are 8,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan supporting the government, but earlier this year, Gen. John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander there, said he needed several thousand more to break the stalemate. The U.S. Embassy is about a half-mile from the blast site, but at least nine Afghan guards died in the blast, the State Department said.

Public anger at the Afghan government built during the traumatic hours after the blast. People with grim, dazed faces­ strode along the sidewalks, avoiding piles of glass, or sat glumly in modern offices with all their windows gone, watching the news on TV.

“This is an inept government that cannot protect the people and must be dissolved. It is time for an interim government to be formed,” said Mirwais Yasini, a member of parliament.

The Ghani government, weakened by internal tensions, has faced an uphill battle to fend off an aggressive push by Taliban insurgents in recent months, as well as a number of assaults claimed by the Islamic State.

Others expressed disgust for the attackers, especially since they chose Ramadan, a period that Muslims devote to prayer and fasting.

“How can the people who did this call themselves Muslims?” demanded Ahmed Mohibzada, 24, an office worker who had walked to the Wazir Akbar Khan Hospital to donate blood after hearing of the massive number of injured survivors.

He was lying on a gurney in the hospital porch with his sleeve rolled up. “I just felt I had to do something,” he said.

Others wept in frustration when they scanned lists of injured patients on the hospital wall and could not find the name they were looking for. One man pounded angrily on the hospital’s front door, arguing with the guard.

A woman ran through the crowd, shouting hysterically. “My son is a good Muslim. I have to find him,” she shrieked over and over, long past caring who was listening.

The diplomatic zone in Kabul is among the city’s most highly protected. Yet attackers have managed to breach its security in the past.

In 2015, suspected Taliban gunmen rampaged through the area, engaging in an overnight gun battle with security forces. The four attackers were killed, but there were no civilian casualties.

Click to expand...

- 5/31/17, WAPO

- This appears to be video of the blast.

HellToupee said:

Ren Ho3k said:

This is tragic.  As always.  

The other day Kabul was hit with a vehicle bomb that killed 90+ and injured over 400.  Righetti posted the thread a few days ago.  10 posts.  

Meanwhile this "attack on the West" thread is steamrolling along with tons of attention, sympathy, memoriam and deference to the fallen.  As it should be.  But does it ever bother anyone else that civilian killings in Western countries are humanized and treated with grave dignity, while the others are treated like a stat on a newsfeed scroll?  I don't know.  I hate the lopsided politicization of it all.

Click to expand...

Easier to throw shots at Trump here than that thread

Click to expand...

Probably best to post in an official thread on the subject, right Toup?

eta:

@Ren Ho3k

@HellToupee

- Weird, in the London thread I could have sworn you guys said you guys were super concerned about the Aghan war and that no one wanted to discuss it but you.

Trump Has to Decide: 50,000 Troops to Afghanistan?

A new classified intelligence brief says the Ghani government can survive if the U.S. recommits.

A new Afghanistan war strategy approved last month by President Donald Trump's top military and national security advisers would require at least 50,000 U.S. forces to stop the advance of the Taliban and save the government in Kabul, according to a classified U.S. intelligence community assessment.

U.S. intelligence and national security officials familiar with the assessment tell me that it was drafted in April, and that it provided estimates of necessary troop strengths for various strategic options. But it found that if an ambitious war plan approved by the National Security Council's principals committee got a green light from the president -- a big if -- more than 50,000 U.S. troops would be needed.

That proposed strategy, which I wrote about earlier this month, would place the U.S. on a new war footing and in a deeper partnership with the Afghan government in its current campaign against the Taliban. It would also remove arbitrary timelines for withdrawal set by President Barack Obama.

The new estimate from the intelligence community envisions significantly more U.S. forces in Afghanistan than the current levels of around 8,400 U.S. troops currently fighting there. It is also more than the modest troop increase for Afghanistan of around 5,000 that was reported last week.  

One reason the new war strategy would require more troops is that it envisions using U.S. forces in a support role that until now has relied on outside contractors. Using contractors for functions like vehicle maintenance and other logistical aid have meant that U.S. forces deployed to Syria and Iraq have largely focused on war fighting and training locals. This has kept the total number of U.S. troops artificially low, while increasing the overall cost of the U.S. presence. ...

Click to expand...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-17/trump-has-to-decide-50-000-troops-to-afghanistan

NATO Laying Groundwork to Send More Troops To Iraq, Afghanistan

The bump could come with more alliance responsibility for fighting ISIS in Iraq.

BRUSSELS — NATO’s military leaders are laying the groundwork to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to train local forces locked in fierce battles with militants. The move comes as alliance leaders shape and debate a multi-year plan to protect combat gains in those countries and eliminate safe havens where extremist groups might plan attacks against the West.

“I think what we’ll see is that NATO will continue with a fairly modest contribution in the near term and that political leadership in the coming months will discuss the potential for NATO assuming a greater responsibility in Iraq,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford told reporters Wednesday after a day of meetings at the alliance’s headquarters.

Dunford said specific troop levels were not discussed during the meetings, which took place one week before NATO heads of state meet here.

“What I just want to do is try to find a way for each country to optimize the contribution they could make,” he said.

NATO leaders hope to know how many additional U.S. troops will be sent to Afghanistan by month’s end, allowing the alliance to deploy troops to meet the uptick in fighting that comes with warmer weather. U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to make a decision after next week’s overseas trip to NATO and the Middle East, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said last week.

At the same time, NATO generals appears to have a consensus that the alliance should take on more responsibility in Iraq.

“NATO has the organizational construct, the processes and so forth to be able to take on a mission like that and do it on an enduring basis,” Dunford said.

Many NATO nations have sent forces to battle Islamic State militants, contributing in one way or another to airstrikes, the training of local forces, or both. In February, NATO launched a counter-IED training program in Iraq. But while the fight in Afghanistan remains an alliance-led mission dubbed Operation Resolute Support, the anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq is coordinated by the U.S. military.

“[T]here is general agreement that NATO can, and should do more [in Iraq], especially by stepping up efforts in training, capacity building, institution building, exercises to increasing home capabilities, that means the kinds of activities where NATO has not only a good reputation but also a lot of expertise and experience,” Czech Gen. Petr Pavel, chairman of NATO’s Military Committee, said at a press conference after the meetings.

The alliance is waiting for Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to set a long-term requirement for training security forces. That decision is expected in the coming months.

“When the level of violence is driven down to the point where law enforcement and local Iraqi security forces can deal with it, presumably there will still be a mission to continue to build the capacity of Iraqi security forces,” Dunford said.

Dunford said NATO members might contribute to Operation Inherent Resolve — the formal name for the anti-ISIS campaign in Iraq — in the areas of logistics, acquisition, institutional capacity building, leadership schools and academies. But he said he does not expect the alliance to take control of the mission as in Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, U.S. Army Gen. John Nicholson, the top NATO commander there, is about 3,000 troops short of the number he says he need. As of March, there were about 13,500 NATO troops in Afghanistan, including about 9,000 Americans.

NATO forces first deployed to Afghanistan shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Sixteen years later, their goal remains the same: to prevent terrorist organizations from using the country to launch attacks on the U.S. and Europe.

The military leaders could not say how long forces would be needed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Dunford did note that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has set a goal to have 80 percent of the population secure by local forces within four years.

“[W]e know this is a long fight here. This is going to take time,” Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said at the conclusion of Wednesday’s meetings.

“It’s going to take time to build a military in Afghanistan who now has the fight but the capacity to sustain that and bring the stability that is needed to bring the Taliban to negotiation…I have confidence we can do that.”

Military leaders argue the additional troops are necessary to combat extremist groups intent on plotting attacks on the U.S., Europe, and Western interests..

“There are still … about 18 or 19 organizations [in South Asia] that have indicated a willingness, if not a capability to attack the West,” Dunford said.

Click to expand...

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/05/nato-laying-groundwork-send-more-troops-iraq-afghanistan/137997/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

- Just a reminder @HellToupee this is NATO which Trump may still have no clue is actually in Afghanistan (and Iraq and Syria, etc.) fighting with us.

Ren Ho3k said:

But does it ever bother anyone else that civilian killings in Western countries are humanized and treated with grave dignity, while the others are treated like a stat on a newsfeed scroll?  I don't know.  I hate the lopsided politicization of it all.

Click to expand...

Recent mass attacks on civilians in Afghanistan.

7 dead, dozens hurt after blasts rock Kabul protester's funeral

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN)

Seven people died Saturday in Kabul when suicide bombers struck the funeral of a man killed during anti-government protests, Afghan official said.

"Three big bangs" went off at the funeral of Salem Izadyar, the son of Mohammad Alam Izadyar, first deputy chairman of the Afghan Senate, a witness told CNN.

The Taliban denied involvement in the funeral attack, which injured 119 people.

The blasts were from three suicide bombings, said the government's chief executive, Abdullah Abdullah, who attended the funeral and tweeted he was not harmed. Abdullah described the attack on TV, Sune Engel Rasmussen of The Guardian said on CNN.

Lawmakers and high-profile government officials attended the funeral, including those from the senator's Jamiat-e Islami party, Rasmussen said. Jamiat is a largely Tajik political movement and an adversary of the Taliban.

'Bring terrorists to justice'

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said he and Abdullah "share a commitment" to "bring terrorists to justice." The men are the leaders of Afghanistan's national unity government.

"The country is under attack. We must be strong and united," Ghani said on Twitter.

"There have been too many martyrs, and too much blood spilt," Ghani said in another tweet. "I grieve with the widows and orphans, and pray for those lost."

But a former Afghan intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, lashed out at the government for its failure to protect the funeral.

Salem Izadyar died at a hospital after he was injured Friday in anti-government protests in Kabul, Afghan media reported.

Incensed over the Wednesday suicide attack that left 90 dead in Kabul's diplomatic zone, Afghans took to the streets Friday to demand government officials step down. There has been no claim of responsibility.

At least four people died in the protests as demonstrators hurled stones and Afghan police fired bullets into the air to try to disperse crowds.

In recent months, the security situation in Kabul and throughout the country has worsened, heightening Afghans' anxiety and despair.

The uptick in violence this week coincides with the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, a time of fasting and contemplation. The Taliban claimed responsibility at the start of the holy period for a car bombing that killed at least 18 people May 27 in eastern Afghanistan.

'Too much civilian suffering'

Tadamichi Yamamoto, UN envoy to Afghanistan, expressed his condolences to the victims of the funeral bombing and condemned the attack as "morally reprehensible."

Yamamoto urged all members of the international community to help put an end to the cycle of violence.

"As I have repeatedly said, the ultimate objective in Afghanistan must be a negotiated peace," he said in a statement. "Meaningful steps must take place now to obtain an immediate, nationwide halt to violence."

The unrest comes as a regional summit is scheduled for Tuesday to promote peace, security and reconciliation. The effort is dubbed the Kabul Process, and representatives from 21 nations have been invited, according to local news reports.

The conference will be a "visible reminder to all those who seek to harm Afghanistan that the Afghan people are never alone," said Special Charge d'Affaires Hugo Llorens, the top US diplomat to Kabul.

"As always, the United States, along with all of Afghanistan's partners, remains shoulder-to-shoulder with our Afghan brothers and sisters in pursuit of a brighter tomorrow for all Afghans," Llorens said in a statement.

Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/03/asia/afghanistan-unrest/index.html

- 126 dead and injured from 3 suicide bombings at a funeral to memorialize the deaths of 4 people protesting the deaths/injuries of almost 550 in a bombing.

- This appears to be the horrific scene.

The MacArthur Model for Afghanistan

By Erik D. Prince,

Afghanistan is an expensive disaster for America. The Pentagon has already consumed $828 billion on the war, and taxpayers will be liable for trillions more in veterans’ health-care costs for decades to come. More than 2,000 American soldiers have died there, with more than 20,000 wounded in action. For all that effort, Afghanistan is failing. The terrorist cohort consistently gains control of more territory, including key economic arteries. It’s time for President Trump to fix our approach to Afghanistan in five ways.

First, he should consolidate authority in Afghanistan with one person: an American viceroy who would lead all U.S. government and coalition efforts—including command, budget, policy, promotion and contracting—and report directly to the president. As it is, there are too many cooks in the kitchen—and the cooks change shift annually. The coalition has had 17 different military commanders in the past 15 years, which means none of them had time to develop or be held responsible for a coherent strategy.

A better approach would resemble Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s leadership of postwar Japan. Given clear multiyear authority, MacArthur made bold moves like repealing restrictive speech laws and granting property rights. Those directives moved Japan ahead by centuries. In Afghanistan, the viceroy approach would reduce rampant fraud by focusing spending on initiatives that further the central strategy, rather than handing cash to every outstretched hand from a U.S. system bereft of institutional memory.

Second, Mr. Trump should authorize his viceroy to set rules of engagement in collaboration with the elected Afghan government to make better decisions, faster. Troops fighting for their lives should not have to ask a lawyer sitting in air conditioning 500 miles away for permission to drop a bomb. Our plodding, hand wringing and overcaution have prolonged the war—and the suffering it bears upon the Afghan population. Give the leadership on the ground the authority and responsibility to finish the job.

Third, we must build the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces the effective and proven way, instead of spending billions more pursuing the “ideal” way. The 330,000-strong Afghan army and police were set up under the guidance of U.S. military “advisers” in the mirror image of the U.S. Army. That was the wrong approach.

It has led to fatal and intractable flaws, including weak leadership, endemic corruption and frequent defections, which currently deliver the equivalent of two trained infantry divisions per year to the enemy. Further, barely 40% of Afghanistan’s U.S.-provided fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft are functional, leaving security forces without close air support, unable to resupply, medevac casualties, or move troops in a timely manner.

These deficits can be remedied by a different, centuries-old approach. For 250 years, the East India Company prevailed in the region through the use of private military units known as “presidency armies.” They were locally recruited and trained, supported and led by contracted European professional soldiers. The professionals lived, patrolled, and—when necessary—fought shoulder-to-shoulder with their local counterparts for multiyear deployments. That long-term dwelling ensured the training, discipline, loyalty and material readiness of the men they fought alongside for years, not for a one-time eight-month deployment.

An East India Company approach would use cheaper private solutions to fill the gaps that plague the Afghan security forces, including reliable logistics and aviation support. The U.S. military should maintain a small special-operations command presence in the country to enable it to carry out targeted strikes, with the crucial difference that the viceroy would have complete decision-making authority in the country so no time is wasted waiting for Washington to send instructions. A nimbler special-ops and contracted force like this would cost less than $10 billion per year, as opposed to the $45 billion we expect to spend in Afghanistan in 2017.

Fourth, Mr. Trump needs to abandon the flawed population-centric theory of warfare in Afghanistan. The military default in a conventional war is to control terrain, neglecting the long-term financial arteries that fund the fight, and handicaps long-term economic potential.

The Taliban understand this concept well. They control most of Afghanistan’s economic resources—including lapis, marble, gold, pistachios, hashish and opium—and use profits to spread their influence and perpetuate the insurgency. Our strategy needs to target those resources by placing combat power to cover Afghanistan’s economic arteries.

We need to encourage the growth of legitimate industries to raise tax revenue while choking off the Taliban’s sources of income. It’s absurd that Afghanistan—which holds an estimated $1 trillion worth of mineral resources—still doesn’t have a mining law, after 15 years of American presence and “advice.” Our failed population-centric approach to Afghanistan has only led to missed opportunities, which is why Afghanistan depends on donors for 90% of government revenues. A smarter, trade-centric approach will boost Afghanistan’s long-run viability by weaning it off donor welfare dependency.

Finally, Mr. Trump must not lose sight of the reason we became involved in Afghanistan: to deny sanctuary to those who want to destroy our way of life. The largest attack in U.S. history originated in Afghanistan. The terrorists killed 3,000 that day because they lacked the means to kill three million. The U.S. should adjust course from the past 15-plus years of nation building and focus on pounding the Taliban and other terrorists so hard that they plead for negotiation. Until they feel real pressure and know the U.S. has staying power, they will win.

Click to expand...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-macarthur-model-for-afghanistan-1496269058

^^^ The insane proposal by Trump's advisor & donor, Erik Prince, who is also the brother of the Secretary of Education. Prince was also Trump's backchannel emissary to the Saudis during the transition.

SaintsInDome2006 said:

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/05/nato-laying-groundwork-send-more-troops-iraq-afghanistan/137997/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

- Just a reminder @HellToupee this is NATO which Trump may still have no clue is actually in Afghanistan (and Iraq and Syria, etc.) fighting with us.

Click to expand...

Oh he knows it Saints, don't you worry , he knows it . He know a lot. A whole hell of a lot 

HellToupee said:

Oh he knows it Saints, don't you worry , he knows it . He know a lot. A whole hell of a lot 

Click to expand...

His words seem to be the complete opposite of what he knows then.

SaintsInDome2006 said:

The MacArthur Model for Afghanistan

By Erik D. Prince,

Afghanistan is an expensive disaster for America. The Pentagon has already consumed $828 billion on the war, and taxpayers will be liable for trillions more in veterans’ health-care costs for decades to come. More than 2,000 American soldiers have died there, with more than 20,000 wounded in action. For all that effort, Afghanistan is failing. The terrorist cohort consistently gains control of more territory, including key economic arteries. It’s time for President Trump to fix our approach to Afghanistan in five ways.

First, he should consolidate authority in Afghanistan with one person: an American viceroy who would lead all U.S. government and coalition efforts—including command, budget, policy, promotion and contracting—and report directly to the president. As it is, there are too many cooks in the kitchen—and the cooks change shift annually. The coalition has had 17 different military commanders in the past 15 years, which means none of them had time to develop or be held responsible for a coherent strategy.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I posted this elsewhere and I'm glad you posted it here. Sure, let's go back to colonialism, but instead of countries having colonies we'll let private companies have colonies.

Idiocracy couldn't even see this coming.

In tense Kabul, hundreds of anti-government protesters demonstrate near blast crater

KABUL, Afghanistan — Hundreds continued to protest for the third day Sunday near the site of a deadly bomb blast in Kabul, demanding greater security and the ousting of the U.S.-backed government of President Ashraf Ghani.

Protesters staged a sit-in under tents in the blazing heat -- while fasting for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan -- clapping and chanting "God is great" a few hundred yards from the crater where a massive truck bomb killed nearly 100 Wednesday. Around 500 anti-government protesters also rallied for change in the western city of Herat.

The peaceful protest went off in a capital that remains tense after anti-government protests Friday and a gruesome triple suicide bombing that killed 20 Saturday at a funeral for a protester according to the public health ministry. Protesters said they were angry the government could not keep the country safe, and demanded arrests of security forces who allegedly fired into the crowd Friday, killing six.

"The duty of the government is maintaining of security. No one can prevent protests. Why were they not able to prevent the attacks with all the money and resources they have accumulated from the world? This shows their failure," said Jawed Kohistani, a retired general and military analyst who spoke at the demonstration.

Click to expand...

- We don't hear much about this use of of Allahu al'Aqbar.

Loosened ROE, B-52 Presence Leads to Huge Spike in Afghanistan Airstrikes

KABUL—Loosened rules of engagement, giving the US military broader authorities to strike both the Taliban and ISIS, along with a bigger bomber presence has translated to a much higher tally of American airstrikes in Afghanistan.

In April, US aircraft conducted 460 total airstrikes in Afghanistan, the highest tally since August 2012. The number was more than double the previous month, and came as the White House gave the military the ability to more quickly respond to support Afghan National Army troops in contact with the Taliban or ISIS, said Maj. Gen. James Hecker, the commander of NATO Air Command-Afghanistan and the 9th Air and Space Expeditionary Task Force-Afghanistan, during a recent interview with Air Force Magazine in Kabul.

The rules of engagement change meant that “if the Afghan National Army or Special Forces are basically under attack, we could act in their defense. … We could basically engage on their behalf,” Hecker said. “That expansion of our authorities led us to be a little more lethal, be able to use more strikes.”

The White House and US Forces-Afghanistan Commander Army Gen. John Nicholson also have called for the “annihilation” of ISIS-Khorasan in 2017. In this vein, Nicholson approved the April 13 strike on an ISIS tunnel complex using the Air Force’s GBU-43/B “Mother of All Bombs.”

There has been a “pretty good movement” against ISIS-K in Afghanistan, using aircraft and special forces. There’s been a “large emphasis on that these past couple months, and that’s led to a fair amount of airstrikes as well.”

However, the recent use of a massive truck bomb to kill scores of civilians in downtown Kabul shows that much work is to be done in the anti-terrorism fight in Afghanistan.

To further carry the load in the increased air war against ISIS and the Taliban, US Forces–Afghanistan has been able to take advantage of a formidable asset—the B-52.

A Stratofortress, deployed to another base in Southwest Asia, typically flies to Afghanistan “on average once a week,” sometimes carrying more than 30 bombs. Because of the long “over the horizon” mission, the B-52 loiters for about four to six hours with tanker support.

“In essence, if we had 30 targets, we could hit 30 targets,” Hecker said. “It gives us a fairly large capability.”

The B-52 flights complement a high operations tempo for remotely piloted aircraft over Afghanistan, and fighters based at Bagram Air Field. Currently, F-16s from the 555th Expeditionary Squadron, deployed from Aviano AB, Italy, are the main unit flying manned combat missions in Afghanistan. The requirement for air support is likely to grow as fighting season continues in the country, and hundreds of marines are deploying to Helmand Province.

...

Click to expand...

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/June 2017/Loosened-ROE,-B-52-Presence-Leads-to-Huge-Spike-in-Afghanistan-Airstrikes.aspx

The US will be sending additional troops to Afghanistan.

Isis has taken Tora Bora.

*****************************************************

Trump Isn’t Being a CEO. He’s Just AWOL.

The president’s delegation of determining troop levels in Afghanistan to the Pentagon is unprecedented and dangerous.

Presidents often say that the hardest thing they have to do, and their most sacred responsibility, is to decide to send troops into harm’s way. Presidential candidate Donald Trump declared two months before the 2016 U.S. election that this is “the most difficult decision you can possibly ever make” and that “there is no greater burden that anybody could have.” Apparently, the decision is so difficult and burdensome that President Trump has now opted to avoid it altogether.

On Tuesday it was widely reported that Trump had given Secretary of Defense James Mattis the power to determine U.S. force levels in Afghanistan. This revelation comes after reports in April that the Defense Department had been similarly authorized to determine force levels in Iraq and Syria. During that time — and to further hide the reality of war from Americans — the Trump administration inexplicably stopped disclosing major conventional troop deployments to Iraq and Syria, a practice generally upheld by the past three presidents. Today, the U.S. military each quarter reveals the number of Pentagon contractors (including those who are U.S. citizens) in Iraq but, absurdly, not the number of actual service members.

This latest transfer of commander-in-chief-like powers from the White House to the Pentagon is unprecedented for such a consequential decision, and it establishes a dismal model for the remainder of the Trump presidency and for future presidents as well. Trump is not simply further delegating authority in line with his boasts of giving military commanders “total authorization.” Rather, the president is dispersing his own responsibility to an extremely popular and colorful retired Marine general. The buck for war and peace no longer stops in the White House Oval Office but in the Pentagon E-Ring.

It cannot be overstated how abnormal this new White House-Pentagon dynamic is. This is not merely a change in the rules of engagement, as in 1986, when Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger altered the rules of engagement for the 5th Fleet to allow it to use force against any Iranian ships laying naval mines in the Persian Gulf. In that case, the updated rules of engagement adhered to broad strategic guidance that had been promulgated by the White House, so President Ronald Reagan’s lower-level input was unneeded.

Nor is this a tactical decision that defense secretaries are routinely empowered to authorize, like the early 2005 special operations “snatch and grab” raid into Pakistan against al Qaeda senior officer Ayman al-Zawahiri that Donald Rumsfeld personally decided to call off at the last moment. Here, it was impractical for President George W. Bush to be intimately involved overseeing such a small and time-sensitive decision.

A change in the strategy and campaign plan for America’s longest war, however, is a far more geopolitically significant situation, which until now has been understood to require a formal presidential decision. Trump’s decision to dodge accountability is especially wrong given Mattis’s own publicly stated discomfort with America’s basic strategy in Afghanistan in ways that are beyond his capacity to alter. On Monday night, during a House Armed Services Committee hearing, he declared, “I think we’ve got to do things differently, sir. And it has got to be looked at as across-the-board whole of government, not just military efforts,” adding, “We have got to come up with a more regional strategy.” The State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development could theoretically help round out such a strategy, but they are intentionally understaffed at present and not under the Pentagon’s authority in the first place. With Trump washing his hands of the expanded military mission, who will be helping Mattis achieve his strategic vision? What’s clear is that, on his own, he won’t be able to establish new interagency points of contact within the U.S. government or task U.S. diplomats with establishing greater regional cooperation where there has been little for the previous decade and a half.

In that period, nearly 2,350 U.S. troops have been killed while serving in the Afghanistan war; the grim yearly total of civilian casualties (most of whom were killed by the Taliban) has increased from 7,120 (in 2010) to 11,418 (in 2016); and the number of jihadi groups has grown exponentially, all while the Taliban have expanded their control and influence over more territory than at any other point since 9/11.

President Trump alone, and not his secretary of defense whom he calls “general,” should make a public speech that addresses both why all previous military efforts have failed to achieve their intended objectives and why the subsequent courses of action will be any different. If a few more thousand troops — joining the 9,000 already in country (plus some 25,000 military contractors, 9,522 of whom are U.S. citizens) — are going to make a meaningful and enduring difference, Americans deserve to hear how this will plausibly happen.

On Tuesday, Secretary Mattis acknowledged before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Congress could expect to hear in detail about a new Afghanistan strategy by mid-July. He also declared, “We are not winning in Afghanistan, right now, and we will correct this as soon as possible,” a step beyond the February pronouncement of Gen. John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, that the war was at a “stalemate.” When Sen. Roger Wicker asked Mattis to define what winning looks like, the Pentagon chief offered a meandering reply: “The Afghan government with international help will be able to handle the violence” and “drive it down” to some acceptable threshold. He also promised “an era of frequent skirmishing, and it’s going to require a change in our approach from the last several years.”

Those are not clear objectives but amorphous aspirations. Like previous senior civilian and military officials, Mattis did not offer metrics that could be measured, evaluated, and falsified — the only basis on which to evaluate policy. Yet he has vowed to somehow do things differently, without offering any indication precisely what that would consist of, besides an indefinite presence of U.S. forces. To quote retired Marine Corps Commandant P.X. Kelly, “The mission of presence — that’s not a military mission. You will never find it in a military dictionary.”

As a presidential candidate, Trump declared: “I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary, and I mean absolutely necessary, and will only do so if we have a plan for victory with a capital V.” Now, as president, he will allow his stand-in commander in chief to likely send a few thousand more of our finest into Afghanistan without a clear strategy or defined objectives. Given that Mattis is such a careful and thoughtful scholar of civil-military relations, it is puzzling why he would endorse and participate in such an extraordinary relationship with President Trump. There has been nothing like this in the 70 years since the defense secretary position was established. The best we can hope for is that James Mattis addresses this honestly in a memoir someday.

***************************************************************************************

I Was U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan. The Military Can't Fix This Mess Alone.

U.S. State Department to Eliminate Special Envoy to Afghanistan, Pakistan