A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

[unicorn]

Number of traumatized German troops hits record high
IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

Berlin, Nov 10, IRNA -- The number of traumatized German soldiers returning from foreign military operations reached a record high, the daily Mitteldeutschen Zeitung reported in its Wednesday edition.

Some 483 troops have been diagnosed with the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during the first nine months of this year which was already higher than the total number of 466 in 2009.

There has been a steady surge in the number of those diagnosed with PTSD since 2007 when 149 cases were reported.

Most of the soldiers diagnosed with PTSD were deployed either in Afghanistan or the Balkan region.

German military officials expected the number of traumatized troops to rise as a result of widening combat actions in Afghanistan and the subsequent surge in German military deaths.

The German press reported earlier this year about a serious shortage of psychiatrists to treat the afflicted soldiers.

There was reportedly only one psychiatrist for the 4,500 German soldiers based in Afghanistan.

 

[unicorn]

Their strategies will only work if their soldiers will be able to do work.I seriously do not understand USA future plans for continuing the war in Afghanistan.With all their allies are planning to leave and are very likely to leave soon,what is the point of keep telling that we will stay...
If they do not realize this I am very hopeful that they will very soon...

 

[unicorn]

Mullen Appreciates Chance for Afghan Strategy Review
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT, Nov. 10, 2010 – The White House review of the strategy in Afghanistan will be tremendously useful as a report card, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said today.

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen told reporters traveling with him to Los Angeles today that the review process already is under way.

President Barack Obama ordered the review in December during a speech announcing the strategy at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. Under the strategy, the United States deployed an additional 30,000 servicemembers into Afghanistan, increased civilian diplomatic and aid workers in the country and vowed to protect the population.

“We will look at the major issues associated with the strategy, and particularly as we look at them in comparison to what we were doing a year ago,” Mullen said.

The review, he said, will look at what planners believed the risks and concerns were last year, and how that forecast looks today.

“This is a review of how we are implementing and executing the strategy, as opposed to any expectation on my part that we will have a significant strategic shift due to the review,” the chairman said.

Security is still the greatest risk, Mullen said, noting the risks associated with getting troops and resources into the country. About 100,000 American servicemembers are now in Afghanistan.

Getting the resources in place to train the Afghan national security forces was also a risk, but now that is proceeding apace, Mullen said.

Risks also have posed challenges in setting up the federal, provincial and local governments, the chairman told reporters. This is a work in progress, he added, acknowledging that it is going well in some districts and not so well in others.

“I do think progress has been made in the security areas,” Mullen said.

The commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, has talked about arresting the insurgency in some parts of the country. “We put significant resources in, NATO added 10,000 and the last … of those have just arrived,” Mullen said. “We’ve trebled our civilian capacity, and we’ve begun the Afghan local police initiative,” in which armed neighborhood-watch groups overseen by the Afghan government play a role in local security.

Mullen said the review forces him to step back and look at Afghanistan more holistically. He sees the day-to-day reports, he said, but he added that it’s easy to get lost in the details. The review will enable him “to make a judgment about overall progress,” he said.

The chairman said the strategy had to lead with security, noting that the Taliban had the momentum in many parts of the nation last year.

“It’s been a tough fight, and tragically, we’ve lost tremendous young men and women in this fight,” he said. “Security is getting better, but literally, as we speak, it is a very tough time, and I expect next year to be a pretty tough fight as well.”

 

[unicorn]

UK ‘misleadingly optimistic’ over Afghan war, says former envoy
IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

London, Nov 10, IRNA -- Britain's former special envoy to Afghanistan has called for political leaders to challenge some of the “very optimistic military advice” they get on the situation in Afghanistan.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, who left the Foreign Office last month after being replaced in Kabul, accused the military of submitting misleading reports on the state of the war, entering its tenth year.

'I think it is a question of politicians and civilian officials having the confidence to question some of the very optimistic military advice they get,” Cowper-Coles said.

'I am not in any way blaming the military. You could not have a serious military unless they were incurably optimistic. But I saw over my three-and-half years papers that went to ministers which were misleadingly optimistic,” he told MPs.

Officials and ministers who challenged the report, he said were accused of being “defeatist or disloyal in some way,' he said when giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday.

The former envoy was suddenly suspended from his post of shadowing his American counterpart, Richard Holbrooke, in June after clashing with senior NATO and US officials over his insistence that the military-driven counter-insurgency effort was headed for failure.

No official reason was given for his suspension. At the time, the Foreign Office said he was expected to be back at his post by autumn but in September he was replaced.

Speaking in public for the first time since leaving, Cowper-Coles told the parliamentary committee that civilian leaders in the UK and America needed to wrest control of policy in Afghanistan from the military, who had 'distorted an understanding of the problem.'

Part of the problem, he suggested was the Afghan government that British and US troops were fighting to uphold. He said it was less popular among much of the population in the south of the country than the Taliban.

'They are violent. They are unpleasant. But for many Pashtuns, in my view, they are a less bad alternative, a fairer, more predictable alternative than a corrupt and predatory government,' the former envoy said.

On Monday, Britain’s new military chief cast doubt on whether the UK would be able to start a limited withdrawal of its 10,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan next year, saying NATO will remain there for as long as it takes.

'We are in a demanding part of Afghanistan and therefore, inevitably, we're going to be shouldering the burden at least through next year,” the Chief of Defence Staff General Sir David Richards said.

Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged that British troops would end combat operations in Afghanistan by 2015.

After meeting US President Barack Obama in July, Cameron suggested that a limited withdrawal could begin in 2011.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Abandoning project jihad

According to a report by the BBC, the Pakistani state is allegedly still involved in the training and funding of militants in Kashmir. Not that this allegation is new, but it has managed to stir up some vehement denials by the government. The foreign ministry terms the report “baseless” and “malicious”. The report claims that the radicalisation of militants to fight in Kashmir and the arms and money being funnelled to them for their Kashmir jihad are being supplied by the country’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). Some Kashmiri fighters claim this ISI intervention has had the effect over the years of changing this largest regional nationalist cause into a religious one. Others claim the ISI is saving these militants for a rainy day so that they may be used as bargaining chips in any negotiations with India while keeping India tied up in conflict.

To gain strategic depth in Afghanistan, the Pakistani establishment has been nurturing the Afghan faction of the Taliban militants, much like this report suggests it has been doing for the Kashmiri militants. Pakistan has been saving the Afghan Taliban as a trump card for a centre-stage seat in Afghanistan after the US/Nato troops withdrawal. Such allegations are hardly a secret by now for the country, the region and the world at large. Therefore, whilst the BBC report is old news, it has ignited some fresh thought and recommendations on the topic.

The intelligence establishment has to learn to prioritise and put the country first. Enough of dual policies, war games and the sponsoring of militants which, although the government is denying, it seems at the very least to be tolerating. The Pakistani militants we were using for Afghanistan have turned on the state and engulfed it in the flames of terrorism. This report, if true, confirms that we have not learnt from past mistakes and could suffer similar consequences if and when these insurgents decide to turn on Pakistan as well.

Pakistan is in a state of increasing state failure. No institution seems salvageable and we are having trouble managing what little resources we have. To stake everything on a claim on Kashmir when we are hard put to it to manage our domestic affairs is increasingly too high risk to be continued with equanimity. India is progressing globally at breakneck speed and could eventually trigger an internal collapse in this country without firing a single shot, a la the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. We must abandon this militant adventurism we have embarked upon on many fronts and work hard on the process of dialogue leading to regional peace. *

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[Bhairava]

India is progressing globally at breakneck speed and could eventually trigger an internal collapse in this country without firing a single shot, a la the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. We must abandon this militant adventurism we have embarked upon on many fronts and work hard on the process of dialogue leading to regional peace.

Sums up everything.

 

[monitor]

How the West can get out of
Afghan quagmire

Maleeha Lodhi and Anatol Lieven


The political half of America's strategy in Afghanistan is now in ruins. This is not just due to the debacle of the Afghan presidential elections. Eight years after US troops arrived in the country, as General Stanley McChrystal conceded in his report to President Barack Obama, there is a "crisis of confidence" among the Afghan people in their government.
As a result of the collapse of the political strategy, Washington's military mission now appears to have no goal beyond the avoidance of defeat. Asked to define victory, the US special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, could only say, "We'll know it when we see it." American and allied soldiers should not be asked to sacrifice their lives for such an unclear goal.
But the West should not simply leave. That would repeat the error of the 1990s when the US abandoned the region, contributing to the chaos that helped nurture the attacks of September 11 2001. The choice is not between scuttling away or deepening an open-ended military engagement. Neither is feasible.

Exit strategy
The US and its allies need to recognise two facts and shape their strategy accordingly: successful "nation-building" in Afghanistan can only be undertaken by Afghanistan's own people; and, above all, it is the Western military presence in Afghanistan that is driving support for the Taliban both there and in Pakistan. Put these together and what results is the need for a carefully phased exit strategy combined with a military and diplomatic strategy vis-a-vis the Taliban.
This will involve talking to the Taliban leadership. The Taliban today probably does not enjoy the support of a majority of Pashtuns -- but then, neither the IRA in Northern Ireland nor the FLN in Algeria were supported by a majority of their communities. To continue their fight indefinitely, such groups only need to be stronger than any other group in their community, and to appeal to one deeply felt idea. In the case of the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan, that is a strong desire for the departure of Western forces from Afghanistan. From this point of view, the notion that the Western presence is protecting Pakistan from the Taliban misses the point completely.

Political solution
The West should therefore pursue a political solution, open negotiations with the Taliban and offer a timetable for a phased withdrawal in return for a ceasefire. This should begin with the military pulling out of specific areas in return for Taliban guarantees not to attack western bases and Afghan authorities in those areas.
If the Taliban refuses such terms, then military pressure should continue. The point should not be to eliminate the Taliban - which is impossible - but to persuade it to agree to a deal. Similarly, a new approach to Pakistan should focus not on putting pressure on the Pakistani state to destroy the Afghan Taliban on its territory, but on persuading Islamabad to help bring the Taliban to the negotiating table. Meanwhile, Kabul should be secured as a neutral space by the establishment of a UN peacekeeping force from Muslim countries.

Decentralisation
This approach should be combined with political reforms to decentralise the Afghan state and with a move from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government. In the parliamentary elections due next year political parties should be allowed to stand (at present this is banned). The Taliban should be encouraged to form a political party, which could take local power in many Pashtun areas through the political process and share in central government in Kabul. The west's central condition must be that the Taliban pledge not to permit sanctuaries for terrorism in areas it may dominate. Indications that the Taliban's alliance with al-Qaeda may be fraying need to be seriously tested.
Why should the Taliban agree to these terms if the west is leaving anyway? Because otherwise, after withdrawing ground forces, the US will give massive long-term military aid and air support to the anti-Taliban forces of non-Pashtun ethnicities, rekindling the civil wars of the 1990s, but on terms vastly disadvantageous to the Taliban and the Pashtuns.
This approach will not bring quick results. But the military-diplomatic strategy we have proposed offers a chance of a settlement and orderly withdrawal - whereas the present strategy offers only endless quagmire.
Maleeha Lodhi is Pakistan's former ambassador to US. Anatol Lieven, a professor at King's College London, is writing a book on Pakistan.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

i guess after the review the US will formerly Launch peace talks and will eventually bargain its own terms with the Taliban but would maintain a sufficient Military presence in Afghanistan to look after the democratic system installed and the training and upbringing of the ANA.

1. I guess separating Alqaida from Taliban and making sure that it dont return to Afghanistan to lauch yet another terrorist attack on US soil will be the Chief Bargain with the Talibs.

2.US will some how negotiate with the Talibans not to mess up the current Democratic SYSTEM and the process of training and Upbringing of the ANA.At the same time it will also force the ex Northern Alliance leadership to engage constructively(without using violence) in the Democratic SYSTEM.

3. The Security for the Developmental Firms and the Private Contractors carrying out Development Projects inside Afghanistan will be negotiated and guaranteed.

4. Effective Military Presence of US solely dedicated for the training of ANA until it develops into a real time organization brought up on Moderen Military Lines.

I guess if the US succeeds to win these Bargains with the Talibs then it could have some sort of success inside Afghanistan after all those years.

But thats only the bright side of the Picture.
The Talibs would agree with the Bargain number 1.
Issues such as enforcement of the Sharia Law as enforced in Saudia Arabia and other Arab countries could hinder development in the Bargain number 2.Plus the factor of Drug Trafficking & the pro US Drug lords(Opium Lords) in the Karzai Gov aka Northern Alliance would never agree to Sharia Law Talibs would like to enforce.
Every Party Might agree unanimously with the Bargain number 3.
The Taliban would staunchly oppose any Foreign Military Presence , Be that be of any good to them even.Hence the Bargain number 4 could simply be used to strengthen the deal on the other Bargains or could be negotiated to maintain a slight intell presence inside Afghanistan. The one Alternative to this could be any other Foreign Military acceptable both to US and the Afghans(Talibs and NA) whom could carry out the task of training the ANA.

Having said All that the US would also need to take into the account of Post US enteties operating inside Afghanistan which are The Arabs,Pakistanis,Iranians,Indians .. etc What are there roles and objectives? and in the light of perusing there Objectives they might not derail the exit strategy.
The Indians are there primarily with an objective to export terror into Pakistan's Baluchistan and to aquire an outpost to do buisness with the CARs.
Pakistanis are there soly to contour Indians.
The Iranians Fear a pro Arab settlement inside Afghanistan.
The Arabs solely want and Anti Iran setup inside Afghanistan.

In short it depends upon the US how they make the Best use of the behaviors of these Foreign Entities inside Afghanistan to strengthen up its Bargains and eventually Exit Afghanistan.

But this is valid only if the Sole intent of the US is to leave Afghanistan.
Leaving Afghanistan could provide a vital Political support to the Obama admin in to Political Landscape of the US.
On Strategic Level i think the US has entirely consumed the Afghan Card.Its almost dead now.

 

[muse]

We have heard from the US that it now seeks a smaller footprint in Afghanistan -- readers will note Mr. Karzai's comments about US operations published in the Washington Post - and readers will be aware of the commanding US general's comments -- BTW, the commanding general is a evacuation specialist.

With this smaller footprint, just how "Western" will this so called "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" be? What role will Islam and it's "ism" supporters play in formulating it's policies? What will come of it's Westernized legal system ???

Ozymandias! Look at what you left behind, under the dust and sand.

 

[Rafi]

Those of us who are privy, to the inner workings of the "Afghan Project" know how precarious the whole thing is, nine years on, there is little progress, the ethnic and political de-construct is obvious, the only way out is a new "Misac-E-Milli" ie a National Covenant, which would come through a Loya Jirga gathering of all the tribal, ethno-religious groups.

There is I repeat, no security or military solution alone to this Gordian Knot, there has to be a negotiated settlement.

The current US reservations about the corruption, dodgy dealings remind me, about the top secret memo's the US Embassy in Saigon, used to send back to Washington, (about the stuff such as Nguyễn Cao Kỳ prime minister of now defunct South Vietnam used to get up to) Back then those were also leaked to the US media.

Those in the know, have a good idea - that the US is exhausted, if the situation does not improve in the next year or two, then I foresee a pull out of NATO forces, no matter what the Afghan cabal say or do.

 

[muse]

Indeed - when the commanding US general in the Afghan capital claims that should the elected president of Afghanistan speak out against US operations, the relationship will become "untenable" - and does so publicly, well, it should give you some idea of the substance of what's going on there - our own CENTCOM IO not withstanding.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

We have heard from the US that it now seeks a smaller footprint in Afghanistan -- readers will note Mr. Karzai's comments about US operations published in the Washington Post - and readers will be aware of the commanding US general's comments -- BTW, the commanding general is a evacuation specialist.

With this smaller footprint, just how "Western" will this so called "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" be? What role will Islam and it's "ism" supporters play in formulating it's policies? What will come of it's Westernized legal system ???

Ozymandias! Look at what you left behind, under the dust and sand.

Whats it going to be this time..? Another Runway General in the making..
Or Karzai's Brother will make an entery into the scene...?
At least the General now has a scape goat if incase the failures of his strategy are being exploited after the Review.
BTW They Plan to pull out by 2014.Wonder whose going to be Incharge in Washigton at that time.

 

[muse]

Whats it going to be this time..? Another Runway General in the making..
Or Karzai's Brother will make an entery into the scene...?
At least the General now has a scape goat if incase the failures of his strategy are being exploited after the Review.
BTW They Plan to pull out by 2014.Wonder whose going to be Incharge in Washigton at that time.

Fratello Chemico, US's ally in Vietnam, also had brothers, neither survived. And the US is now degraded to such a level that it needs scapegoats, just think about how low it has fallen, not in our eyes or in anybody else's, but in it's own -- all that rubbish about new world order, Democracy for the Muzloom, and my favorite, "they hate our freedoms" -- all of that and a ambitious military commander with his eyes set on 2012 and beyond - America will need a savior, can you guess who??

As for the Afghans, Abdullah Abdullah (new and more mellow version) will be offered on the advice of a strategic ally (guess who) - but it's last gasps, clutching at straws.

And then on to the Arabian peninsula, to bring "relief" to the house of Saud.

But really I'm more concerned about how that will impact Pakistan, the US policy and policy makers are no longer a viable entity and will soon seek to embroil Pakistan in hostilities - just watch, you will see this go from bad to worse till we can be free of them.

 

[Developereo]

Recent American moves are openly provocative towards China. Obama's Asian tour was a who's who of anti-China alliance, and Hillary referred point blank to China as the reason for her visit to renew military ties with Australia.

There is no way the US is going to let go of such a well-positioned base on China's western front. One way or another, the US is here to stay for a looong time.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

'Rebranding' US Detention of Prisoners in Afghanistan​

A Taliban commander says there can be no deals until the US leaves Afghanistan

The US military has an effective weapon in the intelligence war with the Taliban - the chocolate nut muffin.

"It's a head game," said Colonel "T", who is in charge of interrogations at Parwan Detention Centre, the US military's gleaming new prison for the Taliban.

Often, what it took to get a hardened insurgent talking was the offer of a chocolate nut muffin, he said. That, or apple cinnamon.

Military interrogations have been governed by an updated US Army Field Manual since 2006.

It prohibits waterboarding, sleep deprivation and putting prisoners in stress positions. President Barack Obama made that the rule for everyone, including the CIA, in 2009.

But the bad image from previous abuses persists, and US military prisons remain places of fear for many Afghans.

That is damaging to US war aims in Afghanistan, where, the generals believe, victory will depend on winning over the Afghan people.

So Parwan was built to replace the notorious Bagram.

Public Relations

It is - in marketing terms - an exercise in "rebranding". We got an escorted tour where officers proudly showed off the new cells, dental clinic and kitchens.

"Prisoners put on 25lb (11.3kg) by the time they leave here," one said.

Previously, it would have been unthinkable for journalists to visit Parwan's two large interrogation hangars, filled with the small cabins where prisoners are questioned.

"One table, three chairs," said Colonel "T" repeatedly when I asked him about the techniques used by his soldiers and the tools available to the interrogator; nothing more.

The men at Parwan have not had a criminal trial. They have been interned on the basis of suspected Taliban membership but American officials say they are not denied due process.

Showing off the "Detainee Review Boards" is another reason to bring journalists to Parwan, demonstrating the "transparency" of the legal process to the Afghan people.

The hearings are held in a windowless conference room. When we arrived, a detainee was pleading for freedom after two years in one of Parwan's large cells, shared with 20 other men.

He sat in the centre of the room, dressed in one of the red uniforms for maximum-security prisoners, handcuffed and shackled.

He had been arrested in southern Afghanistan while planting an IED or roadside bomb - a photograph of the device was projected on a big screen on the far wall.

He said first that he had been forced to do it by a man to whom he owed money.

Then he said he didn't know that the two wires he was asked to connect were part of a bomb, and he insisted he was not an insurgent.

We left before the hearing concluded, but he didn't look as if he was convincing the panel.

Part-Time Fighters

Everyone else in the room - including the man appointed to help and advise the detainee - was from the US military.

The US says some Taliban militants are fighters simply because they can't find other jobs How could this deliver a just outcome, I asked Mike Gottlieb, the civilian deputy director of the task force that runs the prison. The hearings were "fair, thorough and robust," he said.

"The process is designed to sort out the worst of the worst offenders from those who are accidental guerrillas or part-time participants in the insurgency."

The idea, he went on, was to identify the "$5-a-day Taliban who are suitable for re-integration".

We met some of those in the prison grounds. Men who - the US military said - had once planted bombs were now being taught how to plant sunflowers or bake bread.

The Americans hope that giving former insurgents skills will stop them taking up arms again. Some are thought to fight just because they can't find a job.

But many of the Taliban are deeply ideological. After we left Parwan, we went to meet a middle-ranking Taliban commander.

We saw him in Kabul. The capital is under government control but the insurgents can still come and go.

Taliban commanders say their fight will continue unless the US leaves Afghanistan. Both sides approached the meeting somewhat nervously.

Muwlawi Abdel Rahman was wearing dark glasses and wrapped in a large peach-coloured pashmina by way of disguise.

We sat on a carpeted floor as he told me he had 900 fighters in Wardak province.

As Mullah Omar did in his Eid message, he repeated the Taliban's very simple line: no peace negotiations until the Americans leave.

"My advice to the Americans is, if they love their lives, if their families are suffering from their presence here or their deaths in Afghanistan, they should go. As long as one American remains in Afghanistan, we won't stop our jihad."

What then, I asked?

"The day the foreign forces leave Afghanistan, we will sit down with the government... if they do not accept our demands, we will continue our attacks. There will be jihad until we have an Islamic government in this country based on Sharia law."

But weren't many Afghan civilians being killed in the jihad, I asked?

"We're doing our best to avoid civilian casualties," he said. "When we plant mines for American convoys, most of the time we don't do it in civilian areas. We've even stopped using so many suicide bombers to reduce civilian casualties."

Dual Identity

Despite those assurances, there are continuing civilian casualties from the Taliban campaign. Even so, the insurgents are getting new recruits.

A member of our local staff met and filmed someone who had just joined up. He was working in a government ministry - a civil servant by day, a Taliban volunteer by night.

"I joined the Taliban because of what the Americans are doing to this country," he told us.

"They break down doors in the middle of the night; they kill innocent people. The infidels have occupied our country. If I die fighting them then at least I will get the chance to be martyred."

None of that comes as any surprise to Major General Philip Jones, the British officer who is in charge of Nato's efforts to get fighters to leave the insurgency.

"There's more violence now than there was a year ago," he said. "One of things that has proved remarkably resilient about the insurgency is their ability to recruit people. There always has to be some sort of political dialogue that takes you to an end of this conflict - not a military solution."

Nato hopes it can persuade insurgents to leave the Taliban faster than it recruits. That could be the difference between success or failure for the campaign in Afghanistan.

BBC News - 'Rebranding' US detention of prisoners in Afghanistan