19 true things US generals can't say in public about the Afghan war

[VCheng]

...................

What 'national interests are being pursued' in Afghanistan? One has to at least define goals in order to attempt to achieve them.......................

There is a clear strategy to US involvement in Afghanistan. Two of the secondary outcomes that are important for Pakistan to realize are that A) the "strategic depth" concept will be impossible to pursue, and B) the arena of low-grade proxy war with India will shift from Kashmir into Afghanistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

First of all, despite the PTV (and other) propaganda that many may have been raised on, and that they may have believed as the Gospel truth, there is no official policy to persecute our own people.

Any excesses would be considered a crime by IA and action taken.

Your trying to defend the acts of cross border hardcore terrorists with this excuse is really pathetic.

I am not trying to 'defend' anything - I merely pointed out to you that the Indian Army cowards have also engaged in the rape and murder of men, women and children, and asked you whether you condemned such actions by Indian Army cowards with the same gusto as your condemnation of the 'Cowardly Afghan mujahideen'. You could have simply answered yes, but you chose to run around in circles.

There is no response to propaganda.

The question is simple enough, your refusal to answer it makes clear your support for the 'rape and murder of innocent men, women and children by Indian Army cowards'.

I repeat:

"Please point where I have suggested any such thing - if you can't, proceed with condemning the 'Indian Army cowards raping and murdering innocent men, women and children in Kashmir' with the same gusto you had in condemning the 'Afghan Mujahideen' for the same crimes."

The results in Kashmir prove this. IA handled them better.

Apparently you can claim that even PA handled the TTP better. May be it is because we were fighting them in our own country, not thousands of miles away.

You are running around in circles again - your response above needs to be directed to the original poster, and the response above should have been your original response, instead of the rant about 'Afghan Mujahideen raping and murdering ..'.

I have made no comment about the effectiveness of the IA in combating insurgents on this thread. Try and clear your head out a little bit and control your knee jerk impulse to denigrate Pakistan and Muslims - you might actually understand the posts you read and respond on topic then.

Only hardcore naive would fall for Taliban doing any such thing. They were terrorists who had perpetrated genocide within Afghanistan and exporting terror outside and giving shelter to the worst terrorists in the world.

You seem to have forgotten their acts or you don't care. Regardless, no one believes in the Taliban doing the right thing except some of you.

There is no naivete in making this claim - even Western media reports accept that high level Taliban officials were willing to consider options outside of simply 'handing over OBL to the US', whom they did not trust to conduct a fair trial, distrust that was justified given the events in Guantanamo and extraordinary renditions and torture practiced by the US.

The proposals by the Taliban were never properly explored by the US in the rush to wage war - had they been explored, we would have likely avoided the blood shed and destruction of the last decade in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And Pakistan was the one that propped up both these sides when they were formed.

As was the US and some other nations - Pakistan in fact, as many historians point out, was never very enamored with the NA, and chose to support the Pakhtun groups over Ahmad S Massoud and others.

So the fact remains, that the US put into power warlords and criminals who had committed horrible atrocities and engaged in criminal activities much like the Taliban had.

---------- Post added at 11:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 AM ----------

There is a clear strategy to US involvement in Afghanistan. Two of the secondary outcomes that are important for Pakistan to realize are that A) the "strategic depth" concept will be impossible to pursue, and B) the arena of low-grade proxy war with India will shift from Kashmir into Afghanistan.

Again, what are the stated US objectives in Afghanistan that the US needs to achieve before leaving?

The 'strategic depth concept' as explored on the strategic depth sticky, as defined by the West and India and delusional Pakistani liberals, does not exist. Within the context of Strategic depth, as defined on that thread, what exactly does the US wish to prevent?

 

[Jango]

The only "stated goal" that is true about USA is "the relentless pursuit of national interests". Period. Everything else needs careful and critical analysis.

Their national interest could be conflicting to yours!

 

[VCheng]

......................
Again, what are the stated US objectives in Afghanistan that the US needs to achieve before leaving?

.................. Within the context of Strategic depth, as defined on that thread, what exactly does the US wish to prevent?

From the US point of view, it is important to prevent Pakistan from becoming a future Afghanistan which can be a potential risk for national security, and a multi-pronged approach along several lines of reasoning is being followed.

Stabilizing Afghanistan to a certain extent with regional help is one. Ensuring timely periodic elections is another. Keeping the Pakistani economy from collapsing totally is important.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Apparently, no one else believes what you are saying here.

Not even the hard core Pakistani supporters in your own (new) country.

Pakistan's role has been dubious: "Running with the hare and hunting with the hounds" as your own president acknowledged. This is agreed to by the vast majority of professionals and others who keep a tab on such things.

Closing the eyes wide shut doesn't change things. It only shows that "filter".

I have no idea what you are talking about in the first part of your post .. did you conduct a comprehensive survey (or did another reputed organization) that makes you think Pakistanis disagree with my argument?

Secondly, the facts regarding Pakistan's contribution towards the decimation of AQ have been pointed out by even the US State Department - Pakistan has neutralized more AQ members than any other country, and that includes top level operational leaders such as KSM. In addition, Pakistan has assisted the US/NATO in neutralizing even more AQ members.

Those are the facts, the rest 'hunting with the hares, running with the hounds' is speculative rhetoric, and is typically used when referencing Pakistan's relations with the Afghan Taliban, not AQ.

So if WOT had not been brought to Afghanistan, how would they be killed by Pakistan?

Through the same engagement with Pakistan that the US had post-Afghan invasion and occupation. Musharraf was a moderate, he would have helped in the hunt for AQ without any qualms, as he did in any case.

You may want to believe that but it is not true.

What I am saying is based on much documented facts.

Facts that even you know but don't let reach the conscious brain.

I see no evidence supporting your claims about 'produced when necessary', and you know there is nothing to support that claim of yours except for speculative rubbish in the media by so called 'analysts'.

---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------

From the US point of view, it is important to prevent Pakistan from becoming a future Afghanistan which can be a potential risk for national security, and a multi-pronged approach along several lines of reasoning are being followed.

Pakistan has no wish to become an 'Afghanistan' either, but US policy so far towards Pakistan appears to be attempting to do the opposite of what you claim, since US policy so far has only undermined Pakistan's economy, security and its institutions, and inflicted a huge cost on Pakistan in terms of lives and resources.

Stabilizing Afghanistan to a certain extent with regional help is one..... Keeping the Pakistani economy from collapsing totally is important.

The above two are stated Pakistani goals as well... so how does pursuing them negate Pakistan's 'strategic depth'?

 

[VCheng]

...................

The above two are stated Pakistani goals as well... ......................

............. and that is why I am sure that Pakistan will continue to align these two goal with US policy, since they clearly are in Pakistan's national interests too. The only differences are in implementation, not the purpose, and the burden of getting Pakistan to co-ordinate its actions falls squarely on USA.

 

[fd24]

From the US point of view, it is important to prevent Pakistan from becoming a future Afghanistan which can be a potential risk for national security, and a multi-pronged approach along several lines of reasoning is being followed.

Stabilizing Afghanistan to a certain extent with regional help is one. Ensuring timely periodic elections is another. Keeping the Pakistani economy from collapsing totally is important.

Yes Cheng - my word i think they really have stabilized Afghanistan (not). BTW Pakistan will never and could never be another Afghanistan. I believe the USA are most certainly not interested in keeping Pakistani economy from collapsing. They want them reliant on aid. The USA have taken a dangerous road and its so far cost them so so dearly

 

[Vinod2070]

It is really touching. Your being a player and the judge at the same time. And using the "power" so liberally.

Well done!

I am not trying to 'defend' anything - I merely pointed out to you that the Indian Army cowards have also engaged in the rape and murder of men, women and children, and asked you whether you condemned such actions by Indian Army cowards with the same gusto as your condemnation of the 'Cowardly Afghan mujahideen'. You could have simply answered yes, but you chose to run around in circles.

The question is simple enough, your refusal to answer it makes clear your support for the 'rape and murder of innocent men, women and children by Indian Army cowards'.

I have replied to this pathetic canard already.

It would be like comparing the PA to the TTP.

I can detail this out if you need.

I repeat:

"Please point where I have suggested any such thing - if you can't, proceed with condemning the 'Indian Army cowards raping and murdering innocent men, women and children in Kashmir' with the same gusto you had in condemning the 'Afghan Mujahideen' for the same crimes."

This is the propaganda that was fed to the thousands in the terror camps who were sent to Kashmir to kill the Kashmiris.

Apparently they were not the only ones who were brainwashed thus.

You are running around in circles again - your response above needs to be directed to the original poster, and the response above should have been your original response, instead of the rant about 'Afghan Mujahideen raping and murdering ..'.

It is apparent you have a soft corner for those "Mujahideen".

May be you hope they will get you Kashmir. I can't take away even that from you.

That will be cruel.

I have made no comment about the effectiveness of the IA in combating insurgents on this thread. Try and clear your head out a little bit and control your knee jerk impulse to denigrate Pakistan and Muslims - you might actually understand the posts you read and respond on topic then.

Your comment.

He was responding to a claim of the 'Indian military being better than the superpowers' and referring to the Afghans fighting the IA in Afghanistan, if Indian forces were ever deployed there.

There is no naivete in making this claim - even Western media reports accept that high level Taliban officials were willing to consider options outside of simply 'handing over OBL to the US', whom they did not trust to conduct a fair trial, distrust that was justified given the events in Guantanamo and extraordinary renditions and torture practiced by the US.

Who were these "Taliban officials" that you put so much trust on?

What did they ever do to earn your trust?

Obviously they didn't manage the trust of anyone else in the world. I have seen no serious opinion maker ever claim that Taliban was trustworthy.

You would know from their Swat record. No?

The proposals by the Taliban were never properly explored by the US in the rush to wage war - had they been explored, we would have likely avoided the blood shed and destruction of the last decade in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It was Taliban's foolishness to not take the required steps quickly.

They should have seen it coming after 9/11.

Some claim that getting USA into Afghanistan was the well thought out strategy of AQ. May be they succeeded in that.

All credit to them if it is true.

As was the US and some other nations - Pakistan in fact, as many historians point out, was never very enamored with the NA, and chose to support the Pakhtun groups over Ahmad S Massoud and others.

So you share the blame with some other countries? Is that what you wanted to say?

You think Hikmatyar and company were any better as they were Pukhtuns?

So the fact remains, that the US put into power warlords and criminals who had committed horrible atrocities and engaged in criminal activities much like the Taliban had.

May be you as an American can explain this.

 

[VCheng]

Yes Cheng - my word i think they really have stabilized Afghanistan (not).

As long as non-state actors cannot mount any further attacks on the US mainland, Afghanistan is stable from the US PoV.

BTW Pakistan will never and could never be another Afghanistan.

Please do not be too sure of that dogmatic belief. The trends are worrying indeed.

I believe the USA are most certainly not interested in keeping Pakistani economy from collapsing. They want them reliant on aid.

Yes, that is the subtle, but important, difference with "collapsing" and "collapsing totally".

The USA have taken a dangerous road and its so far cost them so so dearly

Yes, that is only one of the many costs of being a superpower. One does not get to be a leader by shying away from risks and costs.

 

[foxbat]

Do you have any 'evidence' that the Afghan Mujahideen groups that Vinod referred to, had a 'planned strategy' to 'murder, and rape men, women and children in Kashmir'? Why would the incidents of 'murder and rape' by these 'Afghan Mujahideen' also not be the result of 'bad apples'?

The act of entering a foreign country without authorization kind of puts them already in a suspect mode.. Just like TTP in Pakistan..

Using your own argument, without factually establishing that the 'rape and murder of innocents' was a stated policy of the insurgent groups (Afghan mujahideen in this case), you cannot condemn all 'Mujahideen/insurgents', much as you cannot condemn 'the entire Indian Army' for the 'rape and murder of innocents buy IA soldiers'.

Those people are there illegally and carry arms illegally. And its all of them and not just the bad apples. So this logic kind of flies on the face of common sense..

In addition, as pointed out already, Kashmir is disputed territory, not Indian territory, so Indian soldiers 'raping and killing men, women and children in Kashmir' are just as much 'external terrorists' as one could argue the Afghan Mujahideen committing these acts are.

I am sorry, but nonsense is too soft a word for the above rant... Kashmir is Indian territory whose ownership is disputed by Pakistan in UN. The land mass in question falls under the purview of the constitution of India and hence no Indian is a foreigner there including the Indian army. Indian army men in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir are as much at home as Pakistani army is in Balochistan or Sindh or KP.

Do remember that Pakistan is disputing Indian ownership of the state of J&K.. It does not make the state as a no man's land.. Win the dispute if you can and then you can lay that claim.

UN as a body does not decide the borders of a country. Countries in question do..

By your logic because Baloch nationals dispute the ownership of Pakistan over the state of Baluchistan, the alleged abductions and killings by ISI and Pakistan army should make them also as external terrorists...

btw, by calling Indian army as external terrorists, you are breaking the rules of a forum which you guys are supposed to administer... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ... Eh?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/announcements/78490-policy-libel-kashmir-related.html

 

[fd24]

Vinod2070 regarding ^^^^^^^^^^^^

When you troll or are off topic or talk general rubbish - the mods step in. What do you expect him to do? Allow you to troll? Improve the quality of your posts and you will see the mods wont moderate you - simples.

 

[Vinod2070]

I have no idea what you are talking about in the first part of your post .. did you conduct a comprehensive survey (or did another reputed organization) that makes you think Pakistanis disagree with my argument?

I meant the Pakistan supporters in the US establishment.

Most of them are now erstwhile supporters.

Secondly, the facts regarding Pakistan's contribution towards the decimation of AQ have been pointed out by even the US State Department - Pakistan has neutralized more AQ members than any other country, and that includes top level operational leaders such as KSM. In addition, Pakistan has assisted the US/NATO in neutralizing even more AQ members.

You are quit right here.

Those are the facts, the rest 'hunting with the hares, running with the hounds' is speculative rhetoric, and is typically used when referencing Pakistan's relations with the Afghan Taliban, not AQ.

It is not speculative.

And it is used for both Taliban and AQ.

Read Bruce Riedel (he has spent his life in CIA and has advised your president Obama on Pakistan policy), watch the BBC documentaries on "secret Pakistan" just for a start.

Through the same engagement with Pakistan that the US had post-Afghan invasion and occupation. Musharraf was a moderate, he would have helped in the hunt for AQ without any qualms, as he did in any case.

Inside Afghanistan?

While the Taliban was ruling? How so?

I see no evidence supporting your claims about 'produced when necessary', and you know there is nothing to support that claim of yours except for speculative rubbish in the media by so called 'analysts'.

The two sources I mentioned above would be a good starting point.

There are many quite reputable sources (many in Pakistan) who have deduced the same. Some earlier than the others.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is really touching. Your being a player and the judge at the same time. And using the "power" so liberally.

Delete/retract your original comment about 'rape and murder' and I'll do the same and we can continue with the topic ... You chose to post an off-topic inflammatory comment, I merely showed you the 'other side of the coin' in response to that.

I have replied to this pathetic canard already.

It would be like comparing the PA to the TTP.

I can detail this out if you need.

Rape is rape - if the PA was bombing schools and massacring civilians in suicide bombings on purpose, then yes, a comparison of those acts would be appropriate. In this case acts of 'rape and murder of innocent men, women and children' should be equally condemnable, whether committed by 'Afghan Mujahideen' or 'Indian Army Soldiers'.

You, and Karan and Foxbat's, degenerate views are pretty clear from the fact that instead of agreeing that 'rape and murder of innocents is condemnable', regardless of who commits it, you chose to offer absurd excuses such as 'The Indian Army is raping and murdering its own family' etc.

The justifications offered by the three of you, in trying to make a distinction between the crimes of the insurgents and the Indian Army soldiers, are the really 'pathetic and disgusting' displays on this thread.

This is the propaganda that was fed to the thousands in the terror camps who were sent to Kashmir to kill the Kashmiris.

Apparently they were not the only ones who were brainwashed thus.

The mass graves and reports by international organizations on the atrocities committed in Kashmir by the Indian Army and other security forces refute you claim of 'propaganda'.

It is apparent you have a soft corner for those "Mujahideen".

May be you hope they will get you Kashmir. I can't take away even that from you.

That will be cruel.

Yet more nonsensical running around in circles - I advise you to actually read the previous posts going back to the original poster instead of manufacturing positions and arguments to dishonestly attribute to others.

The original poster you responded to made no comment about Kashmir - he merely offered his views about the ability of the IA to combat Afghans if deployed in Afghanistan. Now how you can manage to distort the context of his views, and my response to your distorted comments, into the above, is truly something for a shrink to figure out.

I have made no comment about the effectiveness of the IA in combating insurgents on this thread. Try and clear your head out a little bit and control your knee jerk impulse to denigrate Pakistan and Muslims - you might actually understand the posts you read and respond on topic then.

Your comment.

He was responding to a claim of the 'Indian military being better than the superpowers' and referring to the Afghans fighting the IA in Afghanistan, if Indian forces were ever deployed there.

Again, please point out to me where (even in the comment of mine you quoted) I talked about the effectiveness of the IA in combating insurgents?

The comment you quoted explained to you the original posters point. Again, try and control your impulsive anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim hatred and need to denigrate Muslims and Pakistanis, and you might actually understand the posts and be able to respond on topic.

Who were these "Taliban officials" that you put so much trust on?

What did they ever do to earn your trust?

Obviously they didn't manage the trust of anyone else in the world. I have seen no serious opinion maker ever claim that Taliban was trustworthy.

You would know from their Swat record. No?

One was the Ambassador I believe, the others were individuals in Afghanistan that met with Western and Pakistani officials. And there was nothing to lose in exploring their offer - the prospect of war would have been kept on the table, and Taliban compliance with their offer, if agreement was reached, was easily measurable since it involved the detention and trial of specific individuals and certainly various other anti-terrorism measures.

It was Taliban's foolishness to not take the required steps quickly.

The Taliban took the morally and legally correct position on the issue - they refused to hand over anyone without the US establishing guilt, either in a trial in Afghanistan or in a mutually acceptable third country.

So you share the blame with some other countries? Is that what you wanted to say?

You think Hikmatyar and company were any better as they were Pukhtuns?

I am merely pointing out that the US put into power, after its invasion of Afghanistan, a regime comprised of warlords and criminal and/or their associates, who had committed horrible atrocities and crimes, which in turn means that the people the US replaced the Taliban with were not any better, as far as Afghans were concerned at least, than the Taliban.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As long as non-state actors cannot mount any further attacks on the US mainland, Afghanistan is stable from the US PoV.

That depends more on internal US immigration and security mechanisms than on invasions and occupation of other nations.

The 9/11 hijackers did not go to flight school in Afghanistan or Pakistan, they trained in the US.

Please do not be too sure of that dogmatic belief. The trends are worrying indeed.

Primarily because of US policies.

Yes, that is only one of the many costs of being a superpower. One does not get to be a leader by shying away from risks and costs.

There is leadership and there are kinds of leadership - Hitler was a 'leader' as well. The US has not by any means shown 'good leadership' when it comes to many aspects of its foreign policy - its policies and decisions have more often than not inflicted terrible human and material costs on the nations it has intervened in, whether in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East or South Asia.

 

[VCheng]

That depends more on internal US immigration and security mechanisms than on invasions and occupation of other nations.

The 9/11 hijackers did not go to flight school in Afghanistan or Pakistan, they trained in the US.

It was a policy decision to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here", based on the inspirations provided by that region and its "non-state actors".

Primarily because of US policies.

Regardless of who is blamed, the end is result is what I would suggest is important to prevent. This statement is akin to somebody burning my house down, and I want him to put out the fire too since he lit it. My house, my problem. Or else I am homeless.

There is leadership and there are kinds of leadership - Hitler was a 'leader' as well. The US has not by any means shown 'good leadership' when it comes to many aspects of its foreign policy - its policies and decisions have more often than not inflicted terrible human and material costs on the nations it has intervened in, whether in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East or South Asia.

I would agree here that US leadership needs to be whole lot better than it has been over the last decade.