All,
When it comes to WAR and its
endless nearly always thoroughly fabricated "justifications" NEVER TRUST
A POLITICIAN (and yeah, brothers and sisters, that caveat definitely
includes the President of the United States!)...As usual, stay tuned and
DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE...
Kofi
The New York Times
BREAKING NEWS ALERT
NYTimes.com
BREAKING NEWS
Friday, November 21, 2014
In Secret, Obama Extended U.S. Military Role in Afghanistan Combat
President Obama signed a secret order in recent weeks authorizing a
more expansive mission for the military in Afghanistan in 2015 than
originally planned, a move that ensures American troops will have a
direct role in fighting in the war-ravaged country for at least another
year.
In an announcement in the White House Rose Garden in May,
Mr. Obama said that the American military would have no combat role in
Afghanistan next year, and that the missions for the 9,800 troops
remaining in the country would be limited to training Afghan forces and
to hunting the “remnants of Al Qaeda.”
But Mr. Obama’s secret order
allows American forces to carry out missions against the Taliban and
other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan
government, a broader mission than the president described to the public
earlier this year, according to several administration, military and
congressional officials with knowledge of the decision. The new
authorization also allows American jets, bombers and drones to support
Afghan troops on combat missions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/us/politics/in-secret-obama-extends-us-role-in-afghan-combat.html?_r=0
POLITICS
In a Shift, Obama Extends U.S. Role in Afghan Combat
By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT
November 21, 2014
New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Obama decided in recent weeks to authorize a
more expansive mission for the military in Afghanistan in 2015 than
originally planned, a move that ensures American troops will have a
direct role in fighting in the war-ravaged country for at least another
year.
Mr. Obama’s order allows American forces to carry out
missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening
American troops or the Afghan government, a broader mission than the
president described to the public earlier this year, according to
several administration, military and congressional officials with
knowledge of the decision. The new authorization also allows American
jets, bombers and drones to support Afghan troops on combat missions.
In an announcement in the White House Rose Garden in May, Mr. Obama
said that the American military would have no combat role in Afghanistan
next year, and that the missions for the 9,800 troops remaining in the
country would be limited to training Afghan forces and to hunting the
“remnants of Al Qaeda.”
The decision to change that mission was
the result of a lengthy and heated debate that laid bare the tension
inside the Obama administration between two often-competing imperatives:
the promise Mr. Obama made to end the war in Afghanistan, versus the
demands of the Pentagon that American troops be able to successfully
fulfill their remaining missions in the country.
The internal
discussion took place against the backdrop of this year’s collapse of
Iraqi security forces in the face of the advance of the Islamic State as
well as the mistrust between the Pentagon and the White House that
still lingers since Mr. Obama’s 2009 decision to “surge” 30,000 American
troops to Afghanistan. Some of the president’s civilian advisers say
that decision was made only because of excessive Pentagon pressure, and
some military officials say it was half-baked and made with an eye to
domestic politics.
Mr. Obama’s decision, made during a White
House meeting in recent weeks with his senior national security
advisers, came over the objection of some of his top civilian aides, who
argued that American lives should not be put at risk next year in any
operations against the Taliban — and that they should have only a narrow
counterterrorism mission against Al Qaeda.
But the military
pushed back, and generals both at the Pentagon and in Afghanistan urged
Mr. Obama to define the mission more broadly to allow American troops to
attack the Taliban, the Haqqani network and other militants if
intelligence revealed that the extremists were threatening American
forces in the country.
The president’s order under certain
circumstances would also authorize American airstrikes to support Afghan
military operations in the country and ground troops to occasionally
accompany Afghan troops on operations against the Taliban.
“There was a school of thought that wanted the mission to be very
limited, focused solely on Al Qaeda,” one American official said.
Continue reading the main story
But, the official said, “the military pretty much got what it wanted.”
On Friday evening, a senior administration official insisted that
American forces would not carry out regular patrols or conduct offensive
missions against the Taliban next year.
“We will no longer
target belligerents solely because they are members of the Taliban,” the
official said. “To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten
the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide direct
support to Al Qaeda, however, we will take appropriate measures to keep
Americans safe.”
In effect, Mr. Obama’s decision largely
extends much of the current American military role for another year. Mr.
Obama and his aides were forced to make a decision because the 13-year
old mission, Operation Enduring Freedom, is set to end on Dec. 31.
The matter of the military’s role in Afghanistan in 2015 has “been a
really, really contentious issue for a long time, even more contentious
than troop numbers,” said Vikram Singh, who worked on Afghanistan policy
both at the State Department and the Pentagon during the Obama
administration and is now at the Center for American Progress in
Washington.
American officials said that while the debate over
the nature of the American military’s role beginning in 2015 has lasted
for years, two issues in particular have shifted the debate in recent
months.
The first is the advance of Islamic State forces across
northern Iraq and the collapse of the Iraqi Army, which has led to
criticism of Mr. Obama for a military pullout of Iraq that left Iraqi
troops ill-prepared to protect their soil.
This has intensified
criticism of Mr. Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, which Republican and
even some Democratic lawmakers have said adheres to an overly compressed
timeline that would hamper efforts to train and advise Afghan security
forces — potentially leaving them vulnerable to attack from Taliban
fighters and other extremists in the meantime.
This new
arrangement could blunt some of that criticism, although it is also
likely to be criticized by some Democratic lawmakers who will say that
Mr. Obama allowed the military to dictate the terms of the endgame in
Afghanistan.
The second factor is the transfer of power in
Afghanistan to President Ashraf Ghani, who has been far more accepting
of an expansive American military mission in his country than his
predecessor, Hamid Karzai.
According to a senior Afghan
official and a former Afghan official who maintains close ties to his
former colleagues, in recent weeks both Mr. Ghani and his new national
security adviser, Hanif Atmar, have requested that the United States
continue to fight Taliban forces in 2015 — as opposed to being strictly
limited to operations against Al Qaeda. Mr. Ghani also recently lifted
the limits on American airstrikes and joint raids that Mr. Karzai had
put in place, the Afghan officials said.
The new Afghan
president has already developed a close working relationship with Gen.
John F. Campbell, the allied commander in Afghanistan.
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
“The difference is night and day,” General Campbell said in an email
about the distinction between dealing with Mr. Ghani and Mr. Karzai.
“President Ghani has reached out and embraced the international
community. We have a strategic opportunity we haven’t had previously
with President Karzai.”
American military officials saw the
easing of the limits on airstrikes imposed by Mr. Karzai as especially
significant, even if the restrictions were not always honored. During
the summer, Afghan generals occasionally ignored Mr. Karzai’s directive
and requested American air support when their forces encountered
trouble.
Now it appears such requests will no longer have to be kept secret.
One senior American military officer said that in light of Mr. Obama’s
decision, the Air Force expects to use F-16 fighters, B-1B bombers and
Predator and Reaper drones to go after the Taliban in 2015.
“Our plans are to maintain an offensive capability in Afghanistan,” he said.
The officer said he expected the Pentagon to issue an order in the next
several weeks detailing the military’s role in Afghanistan in 2015
under Operation Resolute Support, which will become the new name for the
Afghanistan war.
The Pentagon plans to take the lead role in
advising and training Afghan forces in southern and eastern Afghanistan,
with Italy also operating in the east, Germany in the north and Turkey
in Kabul.
But by the end of next year, half of the 9,800
American troops would leave Afghanistan. The rest would be consolidated
in Kabul and Bagram, and then leave by the end of 2016, allowing Mr.
Obama to say he ended the Afghan war before leaving office.
America’s NATO allies are expected to keep about 4,000 troops of their
own in Afghanistan in 2015. The allies are expected to follow the
American lead in consolidating and withdrawing their troops.
The United States could still have military advisers in Kabul after 2016
who would work out of an office of security cooperation at the United
States Embassy. But the administration has not said how large that
contingent might be and what its exact mission would be.
And it
remains unclear how the continuing chaos in Iraq — and Mr. Obama’s
decision to send troops back there — will affect the administration’s
plans for an Afghanistan exit.
As the president said in the
Rose Garden in May, “I think Americans have learned that it’s harder to
end wars than it is to begin them.”
Matthew Rosenberg contributed reporting.
TARIQ ALI
(b. 1943)
http://www.lrb.co.uk/2010/04/19/tariq-ali/obamas-war
All,
Please click on the videolink (Parts 1-4) above to view and listen to Tariq Ali's very important lecture from April 2010 on the Afghanistan war and the highly dubious military role of the Obama administration in an obviously "unwinnable" war that even Vice President Joe Biden -- of all people!-- privately defines as a "Vietnam like disaster". After nine years of occupation (which makes it the longest declared war in American history-- [NOTE: The Vietnam war lasted over 10 years in duration but was never formally and officially declared or approved by Congress beforehand as an American war]-- the U.S. still finds itself deeply mired in a massive quagmire of a region that historically has roundly defeated every delusional and stupidly ambitious imperialist invader from Alexander the Great to the Soviet Union...Check it out...
Kofi
Tariq Ali’s new book, The Obama Syndrome, will be published by Verso in October.
Obama’s War
by Tariq Ali
London Review of Books
During his presidential campaign, President Obama pledged more troops, ground intrusions and drone attacks to end the war in Afghanistan. This is a promise he has kept, but it won’t work. In this lecture Tariq Ali talks about why the war is unwinnable and can only lead to a bloody stalemate.
The eruption of Eyjafjallajökull prevented Tariq Ali from delivering this lecture at the School of Visual Arts in New York on 19 April as planned; it was instead broadcast from a studio in London.
The other events in this series are also available to watch online. J’accuse: Dreyfus in Our Time: a lecture by Jacqueline Rose; The Author in the Age of the Internet: a panel discussion featuring John Lanchester, Nicholas Spice, Colm Tóibín, Mary-Kay Wilmers and James Wood.
Posted by Kofi Natambu at 2:48 AM
Labels: Afghanistan, American Foreign Policy, President Obama, War on Terrorism
LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS
All,
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this catastrophic decision on the President's part to cave in to the manipulative self serving demands of the Pentagon and his own military advisors and staff can only lead to absolute DISASTER. Afghanistan is nothing but a horrific quagmire that will be a cesspool of failure and defeat for Obama and his administration. More importantly it will be an even greater burden and mindless "sacrifice" for the rest of us. By allowing the venal likes of Dick Cheney and bumbling irresponsible U.S. generals like McChrystal (the main culprit behind the ugly and heinous attempt by the U.S. Army and the Bushwhacker administration to publically cover-up the tragic "friendly fire" death of Pvt. Pat Tillman) to essentially "direct" the country's ongoing wars despite their own overwhelming failures and thoroughly corrupt and immoral actions, Obama has foolishly allowed himself to be caught in a Vietnam-like trap that-- if he doesn't wake up from the emptyheaded macho posturing at some point --very soon is going to destroy his Presidency. Like in Vietnam NO GOOD CAN POSSIBLY RESULT FROM THIS ACTION. Yeah folks this decision is just that bad. WORSE THAN BAD...
Kofi
Obama Issues Order for More Troops in Afghanistan
By ERIC SCHMITTDecember 1, 2009
New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Obama issued orders to send about 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan as he prepared to address the nation Tuesday night to explain what may be one of the most defining decisions of his presidency.
Mr. Obama conveyed his decision to military leaders late Sunday afternoon during a meeting in the Oval Office and then spent Monday phoning foreign counterparts, including the leaders of Britain, France and Russia.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, declined to say how many additional troops would be deployed, but senior administration officials previously have said that about 30,000 will go in coming months, bringing the total American force to about 100,000.
On top of previous reinforcements already sent this year, the troop buildup will nearly triple the American military presence in Afghanistan that Mr. Obama inherited when he took office and represents a high-stakes gamble by a new commander in chief that he can turn around an eight-year-old war that his own generals fear is getting away from the United States.
The speech he plans to deliver at the United States Military Academy at West Point at 8 p.m. will be the first test of his ability to rally an American public that according to polls has grown sour on the war, as well as his fellow Democrats in Congress who have expressed deep skepticism about a deeper involvement in Afghanistan.
Mr. Gibbs told reporters at the White House that Mr. Obama would discuss in the speech how he intended to pay for the plan — a major concern of his Democratic base — and would make clear that he had a time frame for winding down the American involvement in the war.
“This is not an open-ended commitment,” Mr. Gibbs said.
The administration was sending its special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, to Brussels on Tuesday to begin briefing NATO and European allies about the policy.
He will be joined at NATO headquarters there on Friday by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who will brief NATO foreign ministers in his capacity as the senior allied commander.
Before leaving for West Point on Tuesday, Mr. Obama will meet with more than two dozen Congressional leaders at the White House to discuss his plan. Mr. Obama spent much of Monday calling allied leaders.
He spoke for 40 minutes with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who signaled that France was not in a position to commit more troops. There are currently 3,750 French soldiers and 150 police officers in Afghanistan.
“He said France would stay at current troop levels for as long as it takes to stabilize Afghanistan,” said an official briefed on the exchange, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private diplomatic exchange.
Instead of troops, Mr. Sarkozy told Mr. Obama that France was putting its focus on a conference in London sponsored by Germany and Britain to rally support for Afghanistan, officials in Washington and France said.
The French defense minister, Hervé Morin, publicly confirmed the French position on Monday, saying, “There is no question for now of raising numbers.”
Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain said Monday that Britain would send 500 additional troops to Afghanistan in early December, raising the number of British troops there to 10,000.
The announcement was closely coordinated between the governments in London and Washington, the two largest troop providers in the 43-nation coalition fighting in Afghanistan. Mr. Brown spoke to Mr. Obama by video link after his announcement in the House of Commons.
Mr. Obama also called President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, and he met at the White House with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia.
Administration officials said that Mr. Obama in his speech would lower American ambitions for the rate of training Afghan soldiers and the national police, a position that could put him at odds with some senior lawmakers.
They have been pressing to expand and accelerate the training, to speed the day when Afghan forces could assume more security duties and American troops could begin to withdraw.
In his strategic assessment, General McChrystal called for increasing the Afghan Army and the national police force by a combined 400,000 people.
But after originally embracing this approach, administration officials had second thoughts, fearing that pursuing this goal would just churn out thousands of substandard recruits. An administration official said the focus now would be on producing somewhat fewer but better trained troops, as quickly as possible. The shift was reported Monday by The Wall Street Journal.
Under the new plan, newly trained Afghan security forces will work with American or other allied forces at every level. General McChrystal recommended this requirement in his assessment to increase the quality of the Afghan force and “accelerate their ownership of Afghanistan’s security.”
A senior Defense Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe a plan that had not been formally announced, said Monday that the first additional troops would be thousands of Marines sent to opium-rich Helmand Province, a Taliban stronghold in the south of Afghanistan. The Marines will begin to arrive in the region in January, the official said, and will be followed by a steady flow of tens of thousands..
Most of the additional forces in the south will go to Kandahar Province, the Taliban heartland, where the United States is stretched thin and has very few troops in the province’s largest city, also called Kandahar. The Taliban are currently in control of large parts of the province and are contesting control of the city.
The Defense Department official said that the additional United States troops would be used to try to secure the city and then the region.
“With more forces we should be able to lock down the security in Kandahar and the surrounding areas of Kandahar,” the official said.
The official said that after the president’s speech, which will begin at 5:30 a.m. Wednesday in Afghanistan, General McChrystal would brief his commanders and then embark on a daylong fly-around to visit NATO military installations in the country — Kandahar in the south, Mazar-i-Sharif in the north, Bagram Air Base in the east and Herat in the west.
Reporting was contributed by Peter Baker, David E. Sanger, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Elisabeth Bumiller and Mark Landler from Washington, Steven Erlanger from Paris, and John F. Burns from London.
Posted by Kofi Natambu at 4:42 AM
Labels: Afghanistan, American military, President Obama, The Pentagon, U.S. Foreign Policy, Vietnam
http://panopticonreview.blogspot.com/2009/12/tragedy-and-stupidity-of-obamas-war.html
FROM THE PANOPTICON REVIEW ARCHIVES
(Originally posted on December 2, 2009):
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Tragedy, Stupidity, and Futility of Obama's Escalation of War in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opinion/01herbert.html?em
All,
Herbert is 100% right of course. Too bad this President is not listening as he futilely, vainly, and foolishly tries to placate his many reactionary political enemies. WHAT A COLOSSAL WASTE!
Meanwhile: THE WORSE IS YET TO COME...
Kofi
Photo: http://panopticonreview.blogspot.com/2009/12/tragedy-and-stupidity-of-obamas-war.html
FROM THE PANOPTICON REVIEW ARCHIVES
(Originally posted on December 2, 2009):
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Tragedy, Stupidity, and Futility of Obama's Escalation of War in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opinion/01herbert.html?em
All,
Herbert is 100% right of course. Too bad this President is not listening as he futilely, vainly, and foolishly tries to placate his many reactionary political enemies. WHAT A COLOSSAL WASTE!
Meanwhile: THE WORSE IS YET TO COME...
Kofi
OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Tragic Mistake
By BOB HERBERT
November 30, 2009
New York Times
“I hate war,” said Dwight Eisenhower, “as only a soldier who has lived it can, as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.
He also said, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.”
I suppose we’ll never learn. President Obama will go on TV Tuesday night to announce that he plans to send tens of thousands of additional American troops to Afghanistan to fight in a war that has lasted most of the decade and has long since failed.
After going through an extended period of highly ritualized consultations and deliberations, the president has arrived at a decision that never was much in doubt, and that will prove to be a tragic mistake. It was also, for the president, the easier option.
It would have been much more difficult for Mr. Obama to look this troubled nation in the eye and explain why it is in our best interest to begin winding down the permanent state of warfare left to us by the Bush and Cheney regime. It would have taken real courage for the commander in chief to stop feeding our young troops into the relentless meat grinder of Afghanistan, to face up to the terrible toll the war is taking — on the troops themselves and in very insidious ways on the nation as a whole.
More soldiers committed suicide this year than in any year for which we have complete records. But the military is now able to meet its recruitment goals because the young men and women who are signing up can’t find jobs in civilian life. The United States is broken — school systems are deteriorating, the economy is in shambles, homelessness and poverty rates are expanding — yet we’re nation-building in Afghanistan, sending economically distressed young people over there by the tens of thousands at an annual cost of a million dollars each.
I keep hearing that Americans are concerned about gargantuan budget deficits. Well, the idea that you can control mounting deficits while engaged in two wars that you refuse to raise taxes to pay for is a patent absurdity. Small children might believe something along those lines. Rational adults should not.
Politicians are seldom honest when they talk publicly about warfare. Lyndon Johnson knew in the spring of 1965, as he made plans for the first big expansion of U.S. forces in Vietnam, that there was no upside to the war.
A recent Bill Moyers program on PBS played audio tapes of Johnson on which he could be heard telling Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, “Not a damn human thinks that 50,000 or 100,000 or 150,000 [American troops] are going to end that war.”
McNamara replies, “That’s right.”
Nothing like those sentiments were conveyed to the public as Johnson and McNamara jacked up the draft and started feeding young American boys and men into the Vietnam meat grinder.
Afghanistan is not Vietnam. There was every reason for American forces to invade Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. But that war was botched and lost by the Bush crowd, and Barack Obama does not have a magic wand now to make it all better.
The word is that Mr. Obama will tell the public Tuesday that he is sending another 30,000 or so troops to Afghanistan. And while it is reported that he has some strategy in mind for eventually turning the fight over to the ragtag and less-than-energetic Afghan military, it’s clear that U.S. forces will be engaged for years to come, perhaps many years.
The tougher choice for the president would have been to tell the public that the U.S. is a nation faced with terrible troubles here at home and that it is time to begin winding down a war that veered wildly off track years ago. But that would have taken great political courage. It would have left Mr. Obama vulnerable to the charge of being weak, of cutting and running, of betraying the troops who have already served. The Republicans would have a field day with that scenario.
Lyndon Johnson is heard on the tapes telling Senator Richard Russell, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, about a comment made by a Texas rancher in the days leading up to the buildup in Vietnam. The rancher had told Johnson that the public would forgive the president “for everything except being weak.”
Russell said: “Well, there’s a lot in that. There’s a whole lot in that.”
We still haven’t learned to recognize real strength, which is why it so often seems that the easier choice for a president is to keep the troops marching off to war.
Posted by Kofi Natambu at 5:47 AM
Labels: Afghanistan, Bob Herbert, Diplomacy vs. Warfare, Hubris, Imperialism, President Obama, U.S. Foreign Policy
