McChrystal's Unclassified Afghan Assessment

[EjazR]

Well the Assesment for India is quite interesting particularly

"While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan and India"

A veiled threat? Would it be fair to say that the hawks and military advisers still continue to be heavily supportive of Pakistan even if over fair concerns of India?

 

[Kasrkin]

Was that what Pakistan was doing when it was supplying Hekmatyar with all the artillery ammunition he needed to bombard Kabul? When Afghanistan finally gets all the food, water, and electricity it needs, btw, that'll be the FIRST time.

Don't rant. Stick to the matter of the report for God's sake, all of you.

Quite likely as our direct role in the affairs of Afghanistan would have very uncomfortable to the ISI's direct role in such. I'm uncertain that they'd have been in harmony particularly given the political trajectory we were on with Pakistan in the early 90s. Not a good one.

You're assuming too much here. Logic would dictate that Pakistan and the US would most certainly have shared a more harmonious 'political trajectory' had the US decided to stay committed to the region and to Pakistan. That would've meant Washington ensuring that Pakistan retained its position as an important ally and continued to receive economic and military assistance along with Afghanistan. It is a more credible narrative, one shared by Robert Gates and Hilary Clinton apparently, that had American conduct been different many of the issues of the region today might not have existed. American involvement and commitment would've meant reassurance for Pakistan in terms its very legitimate concerns in regards to Afghanistan. Thus the policy of support to the likes of Hikmatyar and the Taliban might very well not have been pursued. A lack of chaos and civil war there would not have permitted it, or required it.

Furthermore, your argument about the Afghans decrying American 'interference' had it been through aid and investment as opposed a purely military orientation as we saw in the war isn't very credible. If individuals like yourself don't mind in the slightest the protests of those who object to America's very military oriented involvement today, why should you see the possibility of some Afghans objecting to American rebuilding efforts as enough of reason to disengage then. Surely no one here suggested that the US ought to have replaced the USSR as an occupying power after their withdrawal; but to have built on the goodwill established with Afghans and Pakistanis in the region through a concrete post-war commitment. Such was lacking, as acknowledged by your own leaders.

 

[S-2]

"Logic would dictate that Pakistan and the US would most certainly have shared a more harmonious 'political trajectory' had the US decided to stay committed to the region and to Pakistan."

Really?

Logic dictates to me that your pursuit of a nuclear weapon would have made impossible our seeing eye-to-eye with your nefarious ambitions in Afghanistan. These issues could not be disconnected. NOTHING could be disconnected from that tiny conumdrum and you know it.

Tone for our relationship had been set by Pakistan for the nineties.

I fully disagree.

Thanks.

 

[Developereo]

"stop the deaths of innocent afghans..."

Please quit ranting incoherancies. You conveniently pass over the salient FACTS that the taliban have killed the majority of afghans-often by targeted intent. Other times they've sheltered behind them- human shields. Then they intimidate. Schoolgirls attacked with acid?

Get off your self-righteous, sanctimonious high horse.

When the US defense boils down to "yeah, but we're not as bad as the Taliban", that shows the level of desperation and moral bankruptcy of the argument.

"...understand afghan people..."

As though you do or even afghans? I doubt highly there's much understanding (nor desire) to know about the tajiks, turkomen, hazara, and uzbeks of Afghanistan. At least not in Pakistan. All you've concerned yourselves with are the interests of Pashtuns.

That's a BIG part of the problem. Were Pakistan/ISI to have cared more for the interests of tajiks, uzbeks, hazaras, and turkomen in 1992, there's a far higher liklihood that the taliban may never have arisen. So much for the equanimity of your mentoring hand.

Ethnic rivalries in Afghanistan date back centuries. Pakistan neither created, nor exacerbated those tensions. India and Pakistan divided the ethnicities between them to wage a proxy war. The blame is shared equally by all parties.

"...and making sure people get food, water and electricity."

Was that what Pakistan was doing when it was supplying Hekmatyar with all the artillery ammunition he needed to bombard Kabul? When Afghanistan finally gets all the food, water, and electricity it needs, btw, that'll be the FIRST time.

Leaving aside the Wahabi ideology and speaking purely about food, the Taliban almost eradicated poppy production and steered farmers towards more "moral" crops. Under NATO and the Indian puppet Karzai, the farmers have switched back to opium.

Finally, it's a pleasant giggle every time I hear or read this argument about us remaining in a place to which we had no enduring and abiding interests after a brief intersection of opportunity and need. Makes no sense when viewed in proper context.

The US refused to take responsibility for its actions and left others to clean up the mess.

What's equally funny are the number here, though, eager to see us now LEAVE Afghanistan, as though they've some better plan. The sad fact of the matter is that our government can't leave until the Afghan gov't is sufficiently strong to withstand the predatory behavior of the Pakistani gov't.

The US will not leave until it has established a strong Indian client state in Afghanistan. This is in line with the neocon agenda to help India become a regional power, to counter China.

 

[Kasrkin]

Logic dictates to me that your pursuit of a nuclear weapon would have made impossible our seeing eye-to-eye with your nefarious ambitions in Afghanistan.

Logic dictates if that aspect was overlooked before, when we were allies, could've been after the war too. Sudden stroke of righteousness or the desire to drop an ally once its purpose was served? Our nuclear program was not a revelation that hit the US after the Afghan War, far from it.

Thanks for your contribution (while it lasted).

 

[S-2]

"Sudden stroke of righteousness or the desire to drop an ally once its purpose was served?"

I'd be more inclined to call it the power of legislation. You weren't certifiable. Simple. The laws were on the books and Pakistan knew it's day of reckoning was closing fast. No avoiding our shared "trajectory" short of dropping your nuclear ambitions.

We THOUGHT we had an ally in accordance with our vision. Found out otherwise and the consequences were already embedded within our laws.

Thanks.

 

[S-2]

"...the Taliban almost eradicated poppy production and steered farmers towards more "moral" crops."

Don't be a self-serving fool.

The taliban spent four years in power with INCREASING opium cultivation, to include then world records set in 1999. Check the UNODC data. Facts help.

When they cynically chose to pursue an anti-narcotics program, it was eradication effected in the space of nine months.

It STARVED the nation.

So much for the taliban's "moral" hand.

Do some research instead of indulging your myths. That might include reading the LATEST Afghan Opium Survey from UNODC. Down again from last year. That's two years in a row.

The trends are reversed again despite Karzai and his bunch.

 

[Kasrkin]

No avoiding our shared "trajectory" short of dropping your nuclear ambitions.

We THOUGHT we had an ally in accordance with our vision. Found out otherwise and the consequences were already embedded within our laws.

Indeed. Like I said, comes down to the same thing. You needed an excuse, found it in our nuclear program. Are you trying to tell me that you THOUGHT we weren't building nuclear weapons? Don't waste your time there.

Was Israel an ally in accordance with your 'vision' as well? Its hypocrisy, simple. Legislations aren't a God sent phenomena, they're reasons behind why they're introduced, and why they're not.

The taliban spent four years in power with INCREASING opium cultivation, to include then world records set in 1999. Check the UNODC data. Facts help.

So did the US/NATO and their patrons, to more than double the levels of the Taliban's highest actually.

Now if you're done trying to convince us of your country's supposedly indisputable moral righteousness, we might get back to the report. Thanks.

 

[SeaGull]

Indeed. Like I said, comes down to the same thing. You needed an excuse, found it in our nuclear program. Are you trying to tell me that you THOUGHT we weren't building nuclear weapons? Don't waste your time there.

Was Israel an ally in accordance with your 'vision' as well? Its hypocrisy, simple. Legislations aren't a God sent phenomena, they're reasons behind why they're introduced, and why they're not.



So did the US/NATO and their patrons, to more than double the levels of the Taliban's highest actually.

Now if you're done trying to convince us of your country's supposedly indisputable moral righteousness, we might get back to the report. Thanks.

Highlighted> that was a killer argument. Kudos to you Kasrkin.

No sense going round and round in circles.

 

[S-2]

"Are you trying to tell me that you THOUGHT we weren't building nuclear weapons?"

Enough amendments already out there at the time to call this a straw-man. I'm trying to tell you that we hoped you'd STOP.

Pakistan didn't- a small but salient difference that I'm sure your subtle eye can catch. Things happened automatically at that point as it was impossible to ignore your determination to see such through. Our legislature and yours operate somewhat differently. Perhaps here lies the confusion you exhibit?

"Its hypocrisy, simple."

Hmmm...I'd say it was a predictable outcome given the existing legislation and concern raised by the increasingly obvious intent to circumvent such. Not "if" but "when" given your ambitions. Unavoidable but for your gov't reneging it's objectives and that wasn't going to happen.

Be careful mixing hypocrisy with foreign policy/nat'l security objectives. Please also be careful attempting to suggest that a complex relationship driven by a huge range of issues is "simple". It isn't and I'd encourage you not to use trite generalizations as a substitute for critical thinking should you insist on diverting this thread from the stated topic. If you insist, though, then generally, our relationship with Israel bears no comparison to that with Pakistan. Nor should it. That certainly includes nuclear weapons and their possession. The issue, though, extends beyond national comparisons of Israel and Pakistan. You ignore context and historical conditions, to include issues of proliferation, in so doing.

I regret that McChrystal's assessment boils down to rants about Israel and abandoning Pakistan. Neither, of course, are relevant to the assessment. Moreover, neither Clinton nor Gates own the final nor necessarily the most sage perspective on abandonment.

So...back to the assessment, please, as this dissemblance, however typical for conditions here, is tiresome and a distractor from the posted topic. I'd appreciate it. If that's too much to ask, then I'll exit the thread and you may do as you see fit with it.

Thanks.

 

[Kasrkin]

I'm trying to tell you that we hoped you'd STOP.

You turned a blind eye towards it because you hoped we’d just stop? Makes no sense. And all this, you expect me to believe, had nothing to do with the fact that Pakistan was helping fight a war you very much wanted? Convenient, isn't it.

Our legislature and yours operate somewhat differently. Perhaps here lies the confusion you exhibit?

You accuse me of exhibiting 'confusion' without being able to point out any inaccuracies in my view. I know your legislature well enough, more so than you do ours I dare-say.

Hmmm...I'd say it was a predictable outcome...

'Predictability' to you does not make the case exclusive of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is relevant here by the precedents set by similar but distinctive events of the same nature and significance.

Be careful mixing hypocrisy with foreign policy/nat'l security objectives.

If hypocrisy is used to serve national policy objectives does that mean it’s not hypocrisy? I fail to comprehend your 'logic' when you've spoken of lofty things like 'vision'.

If you insist, though, then generally, our relationship with Israel bears no comparison to that with Pakistan. Nor should it.

Ofcourse it doesn't. That much is apparent. But the reasons behind this run deep and constitute the core of my argument. Your arguments of 'vision' and 'morality' and 'legislation' are just a smokescreen, one that simply fails to explain the contrast with Pakistan. It also fails to constitute a legitimate morality argument given the glaring exceptions I’ve mentioned. Ones that you haven't addressed ofcourse, not that I feel you could.

You ignore context and historical conditions, to include issues of proliferation, in so doing.

I've not ignored historical context and conditions, unlike you here. Your argument so far about the contrast in treatment (including on the nuclear issue) handed out to Pakistan before and after the Afghan War having nothing to do with the war itself is failing miserably. Also, please do relate instances of American concern or involvement or even intelligence about nuclear proliferation at the time the likes of which say... would not be seen with other aspiring nuclear nations like Israel.

I regret that McChrystal's assessment boils down to rants about Israel and abandoning Pakistan. Neither, of course, are relevant to the assessment.

back to the assessment, please, as this dissemblance, however typical for conditions here, is tiresome and a distractor from the posted topic.

Then I can only hope that you’ll refrain from derailing threads in the future.

Moreover, neither Clinton nor Gates own the final nor necessarily the most sage perspective on abandonment.

Well, their assessments are infinitely more credible than anything you’ve thrown at us so far. And given that they’re representatives of your nation, their perspective has all the more relevance here.

Back to the topic.

A digital version of the report:
washingtonpost.com

 

[Developereo]

Don't be a self-serving fool.

Takes one to know one.
Your descent into name calling whenever challenged doesn't do much for your image.

It STARVED the nation.

So much for the taliban's "moral" hand.

So, opium production is good if it feeds the country, eh?

Do some research instead of indulging your myths. That might include reading the LATEST Afghan Opium Survey from UNODC. Down again from last year. That's two years in a row.

The trends are reversed again despite Karzai and his bunch.

FACTBOX: Some facts about Afghanistan's opium crop | Special Coverage | Reuters

* The amount of opium Afghanistan produces every year far exceeds world demand for illicit opiates derived from the drug -- around 5,000 tons. High levels of production over the past few years have caused prices for opium to fall dramatically.

The average wholesale price for dry opium in 2009 was $64 per kg compared to $95 last year, a 33 percent drop.

* Lower prices mean opium farmers' gross income also decreased this year to $3,562 per hectare, a 24 percent decrease on 2008. In 2003, a farmer would earn on average $12,700 per hectare.

Supply and demand.
No heroics.
No morality.

Here's an idea. Maybe the US can fill up a few C-5's with wheat instead of bombs and send them to Afghanistan. Better still, borrow a few Antonov AN-225 from the Russkies to do the job.

And do stop comparing yourselves to the Taliban. It's really embarrassing to watch the wealthiest nation on earth get into a pi**ing match with a ragtag bunch of stone-age fundamentists.

 

[SeaGull]

Supply and demand.
No heroics.
No morality.

Here's an idea. Maybe the US can fill up a few C-5's with wheat instead of bombs and send them to Afghanistan. Better still, borrow a few Antonov AN-225 from the Russkies to do the job.

And do stop comparing yourselves to the Taliban. It's really embarrassing to watch the wealthiest nation on earth get into a pi**ing match with a ragtag bunch of stone-age fundamentists. [/QUOTE]


Oh you've really got to hear what Prof Noam Chomsky has to say about the heroics and the bravery of these American Military.
Fighting the Vietnamese peasants. The Guatemalans, Nicaraguans and now the Iraqis and the rag tag Afghan stone age people. They would never fight the Soviets or the Chinese Military. Do you know why?
Oh so you figured that out already? Right!!

And have you wondered why we do not hear a whimper even of the War in Georgia, ah yes - it has the potential to escalate to US-Russia confrontation.
'Now don't look at it so simplistically because it has political, historical, economic undertones'. Why doesn't this wisehead just shutup and stop giving us lessons.

Bombing Wheat and Flour instead of those conventional bombs on the destitute Afghans is an excellent idea. I do hope Obama, who has more brains than all his military combined, does get to see this.

 

[Kasrkin]

It would be nice if you guys could start discussing the report and express your views in context of such. There is much to be said about the Afghan War and about US military history in general but lets stick to the topic please.

Next time if someone derails the topic, instead of replying I'd appreciate it if you report it or contacted me because then I won't have to make exceptions so both sides can have a say if I delete the relevant flaming remarks early on.

 

[gambit]

Oh you've really got to hear what Prof Noam Chomsky has to say about the heroics and the bravery of these American Military.
Fighting the Vietnamese peasants. The Guatemalans, Nicaraguans and now the Iraqis and the rag tag Afghan stone age people. They would never fight the Soviets or the Chinese Military. Do you know why?
Oh so you figured that out already? Right!!

That is funny because ol' Noam conveniently left out an important fact that did not make the typical 'whole truth'. The NVA sent a delegation to Mao with a proposal that either China or the Soviets or both would send troops in active combat instead of being merely 'advisors' the way the US sent combat troops to lead and fight in the USA/ARVN alliance. Both China and the Soviets refused. The most China offered was 'volunteers' but those still served in the usual advisory capacities. There were rumors of Soviet and Chinese pilots among the NVA ones. And the NVA even boasted of offers of combat troops from East Germany and other Warsaw Pact countries. In the end, the NVA stands alone and never defeated the US Army in battle...And they admitted it...

Why the latest good news from Iraq doesn't matter. - By Phillip Carter - Slate Magazine

In 1975, Army Col. Harry Summers went to Hanoi as chief of the U.S. delegation's negotiation team for the four-party military talks that followed the collapse of the South Vietnamese government. While there, he spent some time chatting with his North Vietnamese counterpart, Col. Tu, an old soldier who had fought against the United States and lived to tell his tale. With a tinge of bitterness about the war's outcome, Summers told Tu, "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield." Tu replied, in a phrase that perfectly captured the American misunderstanding of the Vietnam War, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

Even after the US Army largely left the battlefield, the NVA could not defeat the ARVN, long reputed to be incompetent and corrupt. The NVA fail against the ARVN in the Easter Offensive of 1972.