SkyReporter NEWS
welcome to sky reporter
4 Comments
Oct
17
2007IRAQ “NIGHTMARE” HAUNTS BUSH'S AFGHAN QUAGMIRE
ARTICLE
Admission Of Incompetence Comes Too Late For Afghans
Story Tools:
Email This Story
Email This Story
“Catastrophically flawed”: US military led by politicians who are “derelict in their duties”
At last. At long last. One of the Bush administration’s top commanders in Iraq has finally admitted what was plainly evident to any of us who witnessed the early stages of the war – that a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” has resulted in a “nightmare with no end in sight.”
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded US troops from June, 2003 until his departure in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, made the remarks last week at the annual conference of the Military Reporters and Editors of America.
“There has been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leaderships,” he told journalists. He went on to accuse those leaders of displaying a “lust for power.”
What Sanchez didn’t say is that the Bush administration’s incompetence has caused an equally nightmarish quagmire in Afghanistan. And don’t just take this correspondent’s word for it.
Bush’s current Defense Secretary admitted as much to a group of Democratic Congressmen at a Sept. 27th breakfast meeting. Gates told the lawmakers that the mulitinational mission in Afghanistan suffers from a lack of resources – chiefly due to the demands on troops, arms and money inflicted by the war in Iraq, and aggravated by the reluctance of America’s NATO allies to contribute more to the Afghan campaign.
Here, of course, Gates misses the point: it is the Bush administration’s glaring incompetence that has made the Afghan initiative so prohibitive, so foolhardy an undertaking for most NATO member states. A few of the more obvious blunders:
Failing to get to grips with the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan.
Chronically under-manning and misdirecting US military forces in Afghanistan.
An over-reliance on high-altitude bombing of Taliban guerrilla forces.
Failing to properly investigate and quantify collateral killings of Afghan civilians.
Forcing Afghan parliamentary elections too soon, then effectively disenfranchising elected MPs by stacking President Karzai’s cabinet with anti-democratic figures, some of them outright criminals – all in the supposed cause of creating a regime malleable to US policy.
Sanchez, if anything, lets off the Cheney/Rumsfeld “brain trust” too easily, and far too late.
This correspondent participated in the founding convention, in Nov. 2002, of the group Sanchez addressed last week, the Military Reporters and Editors of America. A number of us were asked to speak about the possibility of war in Iraq.
You didn’t have to be a crystal ball reader to foresee disaster. All you needed was some first-hand experience of the Bush administration’s bungling of the Afghan campaign. My talk concluded with the sentence:
“The point is this: if the administration is failing in Afghanistan, why should anyone accept that there's a clear, winning strategy in place for war in the Gulf?”
Today, the point is: how can NATO nations like Britain, Canada and The Netherlands continue to abuse their militaries by shackling them to the nightmare spinners from Washington DC?
The rising death toll, especially among Afghan civilians, provides the tragic answer: the incompetents in the White House have plenty of bad company in London, Ottawa and The Hague.
It's time for Sanchez's NATO counterparts to come clean about that - or start formulating their own excuses for defeat.
I wouldn't be calling any of them incompetent unless I were trying to hide my conviction they're doing exactly what's important to them and letting the rest slide. externalities.
Arthur it seems the fix is already set for Harper to deflect questions about Afghanistan.Not that he has been forthcoming already as you have pointed out many times.He has done this by appointing John Manley and 4 others to report back on the Afghanistan situation.
Just seems to me such a waste of time,energy and money when we have credible sources like you to tell it like it really is.
Funny,Harper accuses other politicians of playing politics with this Afghan mission,when in fact he is the chief player.
Ted, as fascinating and enlighting as Mr. Kent's reports are, it is not appropriate for political leadership to use news media as a primary source for information.
John Manley's panel will be better resourced and better positioned to provide a complete picture of what is going on in Afghanistan and what our future prospects are. A public report from a qualified non-partisan panel is exactly what we need to inform public debate right now.
While I appreciate what Mr. Kent is doing, and I am a regular visitor to this site, we have to recognize that -- like all journalism -- it is anecdotal in nature and therefore is inherently limited in its ability to formulate good public policy.
I would disagree with Mango, at least a bit. It is true that you can't simply listen to one person, of course it depends on how many people that one person is listening to. Is it better to listen to one well informed person, or four ill informed ones with a political agenda?
We've already seen canadian visiting officials come away with claims that are the exact opposite from what virtually every critical observer of the situation has come away with.
While I doubt that Kent would be volunteering to be a parliamentary panel, the truth is that I'd trust what comes out of his mouth before I'd trust what comes out of some bureaucrats mouth-whether there are four of them or 24. We've already seen that the 'panel' is well stacked with pals of Harper, which means what they say is a given.
Keep in mind though that I don't see Harpers 'aim' being incompatible with what one can interpret to be recommendations by Kent. Harper wants to keep troops in Afghanistan, and troops will certainly be needed to accomplish what SHOULD be the goal. However, when you read all the problems and strategies it almost becomes clear that those in power do NOT have the same goals as most of the international community. They seem to be going out of their way to incite violence and anger against 'our' troops.
There is no such thing as a 'qualified non-partisan panel,'as was suggested by Mango and refuted by Mikel in his response to the former.
While Mikel draws a direct link between lack of similar goals among certain powerful members of the elite 'international community' and the source of violence and anger against 'our' troops, he misses a very basic and fundamental point, which is, that the very presence of occupying troops on its own as a factor is sufficient, anywhere in the world, to prompt an upsurge of violence and anger by the locals against them.
Imagine the presence of a similar contingent of foreign forces - racist, violent and with self-serving interests - in your own countries...
The argument of the necessity of the presence of troops in Afghanistan "to accomplish what SHOULD be the goal" is refuted beyond doubt by empirical evidence on the ground, which confirms that while the political, social and economic situation has taken on a different configuration in the present context, it has in no way addressed the problems.
Aziz, you are correct. No one would like to see their country occupied by foreign troops. I'm interested in knowing what you think should have been done right from the beginning. And what period of time do you see as being the best for Afghanistan?
Arthur can you comment on the recent poll by the CBC that was conducted in Afghanistan. In particular these stats: "Forty-three per cent of all Afghans surveyed say that foreign troops should stay as long as it takes to get the job done. Only about 15 per cent of all Afghans surveyed want foreign troops to leave their country immediately, and the rest want time limits." and "More than 70 per cent of Afghans surveyed said they think Karzai is doing a good job. In his home province of Kandahar, the positive reviews jump to 77 per cent." Here is the article: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/18/afghan-poll.html
Dan, full details of how and where and under what supervision the poll was conducted are as yet unclear, and we'll be looking into that in the coming days. However past polling, along with personal experience, certainly indicates that an overwhelming majority of the Afghan people want and need all constructive help in preventing the Taliban and al Qaeda from regaining control of any part of the country.
One thing we do know about the timing of the poll: it was conducted prior to the Ramadan bombings. In Kabul, especially, that has dented support for Karzai and his regime. Certainly that part of the poll data has to be held up to further scrutiny.
We are watching and following each steps of current installed government and of ISAF, NATO and USA actions.
Let me to start with following:
This installed government did not reflect any positive signal to the nation till now, the government member and high position people are busy with their own corruption and nepotism, huge money came to the country, but nobody could see the fruit of it, except the selected people, they have hotels, huge houses, huge markets and private companies, they have thick accounts in foreign countries. From time to time announce Mr. Karzai to ISAF, NATO and USA, please be careful by bombing. He is announcing too to talk to Mullah Omar and Mullah Gulbuddinhe and share with them power too. The foreigner troops, especially USA troops are acting like occupier, they killing innocent people and they persecute the people during their checking of their houses. All people with beards, national cloths and turbans will be seen as enemies. Mr. Karzai is known as a man of USA, not only him, Mr. Arsala, Mr. Ahadi, Mr. Zalmay Rasul, Mr. Farhang and Mr. Spanta, the other are known as Pakistan , Iran and Russian influenced guys.
Mr. Khalilzad Excellency is proud on it, that he brought such people together, yes, he rewarded for Taliban and those people by Mr. G. W. Bush!