American success in Afghanistan should be measured by “the number of Afghans shielded from violence,” not the number of enemy fighters killed, he said.
McChrystal is now running around demanding more troops for Afghanistan so he can increase “the number of Afghans shielded from violence.”
General McChrystal’s “new strategy” has been leaked to press in what looks to me like a continued effort to box in the President on troop increases. Here’s the core of the document:
The New Strategy: Focus on the Population
…To accomplish the mission and defeat the insurgency we also require a properly resourced strategy built on four main pillars:
Improve effectiveness through greater partnering with ANSF. We will increase the size and accelerate the growth of the ANSF, with a radically improved partnership at every level, to improve effectiveness and prepare them to take the lead in security operations.
Prioritize responsive and accountable governance. We must assist in improving governance at all levels through both formal and traditional mechanisms.
Gain the initiative. Our first imperative, in a series of operational stages, is to gain the initiative and reverse the insurgency’s momentum.
Focus resources. We will prioritize available resources to those critical areas where vulnerable populations are most threatened.
The first two pillars seem to have been written while someone was smoking hashish. Let’s take them one at a time.
When the people of an occupied country want foreign troops out while the people of the occupying country want their troops to come home, and the troops remain, something is wrong. Both the American people and the Afghan people want a troop decrease in Afghanistan. Yet the President is reviewing a strategic assessment prepared by General Stanley McChrystal widely portrayed as a prelude to a request for an escalation. Should the president approve such a request, he’d be saying, in effect, that to protect democracy in America and to build it in Afghanistan, we must trample it.
Bob Woodward’s piece for the WaPo, in which he recounts national security advisor Jim Jones telling military leaders that any further calls for more troops in Afghanistan would occasion a “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment” from Obama, has both COINdinistas and contraCOINers discussing prioritization of the (still benchmarkless) strategy’s confusing components in Afghanistan.
Marine general Lawrence Nicholson is quoted by Woodward as having a mission of “Protect the populace by, with and through the ANSF,” where “killing the enemy is secondary.” By contrast, Obama back in his March Af/Pak stratergy speech said that “These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan Security Forces and to go after insurgents along the border.” Pretty much everyone agrees that there aren’t enough troops on the ground – whether they be U.S., allied or local Afghan forces – to cover all the bases; to both secure population centers in a COIN “clear, hold and build” operation and to go after the insurgency in its own rural and border territory. Something has to give – and it looks like it will be the latter.
It’s encouraging that General Jim Jones, the national security adviser, seems to have laid down the law to US generals in Afghanistan: no more troops.
That’s not the same as less troops, but it’s a start.
In a lengthy Washington Post report, Jones is quoted extensively telling the generals that economic development in Afghanistan will win the fight with the Taliban, not more soldiers. And he used rather colorful language to make his point. During the meeting with Jones, General Nicholson, the US commander, dropped hints that he’d like more forces.
I have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq for our country. I was ordered to conduct nightly patrols, in which my fellow soldiers and I ransacked homes, arresting and beating dozens of people. I have witnessed firsthand the disastrous consequences of an ineffective U.S. military strategy, and I can tell you Congress must not escalate this quagmire with a $96.7 billion supplemental wartime spending bill.
Call the following Representatives and ask them not to support The Supplemental Appropriations Act HR 2346:
Rep. Tammy Baldwin at (202) 225-2906
Rep. James McDermott at (206) 553-7170
Rep. Lynn Woolsey at (202) 225-5161
Rep. Jared Polis at (202) 225-2161
Rep. Mike Thompson at (202) 225-3311
My experiences serving our country led me to join ten other Afghanistan and Iraq War veterans to found a new organization called “Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan.” We have been meeting with members of Congress urging them not to approve this legislation, which became even more controversial when leaders tacked on provisions to give the International Monetary Fund $108 billion for a European bank bailout. With those added provisions, many members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, have begun pulling their support for this spending bill.
As FireDogLake blogger Jane Hamsher recently wrote, “We’ve given money to members of Congress for years because they opposed the war. We urged them again and again to cut off supplemental appropriations…If they won’t hold this administration to the same standards that they applied to the Bush administration, it was all just demagoguery to be tossed overboard when their political advantage lay elsewhere.”
Make some calls today, either by contacting the members of Congress listed here who could really use a boost of support so they don’t buckle under political machine pressure, or by contacting those in Hamsher’s post. Whatever it takes to curb wartime spending.
Now, they are looking to pass the bill by attaching a popular program creating $4,500 vouchers for new, fuel efficient vehicles when people they trade in older, less-efficient vehicles. From Reuters:
U.S. congressional Democrats are considering fast-tracking legislation to boost auto sales by offering Americans vouchers to trade in older, less fuel-efficient vehicles for ones that get better mileage, a congressional aide said on Thursday.
The legislation, known as “cash for clunkers,” would be added to a pending war funding measure in Congress, but “no final decisions have been made” despite wide support for the voucher program, said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The war funding bill is a must-pass spending bill that is largely for U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. Adding the car program would speed the voucher measure’s enactment into law.
Perhaps the author of the article is unaware of the actual politics taking place here. The final line should read “Democratic lawmakers likely hope that adding the car program would speed the passage of the supplemental funding bill.” After all, this move is not designed to help pass the popular voucher plan, but to pass the war supplemental.
At a the forum “Obama at 100: A Progress Report from The Nation” held on April 21, 2009 in Washington DC, Katrina vanden Heuvel discussed the refreshing rhetorical change the Obama presidency had brought to American foreign policy. However, quoting the president, vanden Heuvel pointed out that “the greatest test is ‘not only words, but also deeds’” and, in his conduct of the war in Afghanistan, she feared Obama may not be passing the test.
“I do see parallels with Vietnam,” vanden Heuvel warned. “If we are interested in seeing a successful Obama presidency… we as allies do a service to the nation and this administration by speaking out and offering smart alternatives” such as an Congressional hearings, an exit strategy and visibility to antiwar efforts.
Just who is Dr. Roshanak Wardak? She is a member of Afghanistan’s parliament--one of 68 women in the lower house–committed to women’s rights issues, as well as rebuilding schools and hospitals. Before turning to politics, Dr. Wardak was a gynecologist who practiced for 30 years, during which time she worked with Afghan women in refugee camps in Pakistan. She has witnessed the devastation this war has wrought upon innocent Afghan civilians; she has even experienced it firsthand. Six months ago, a Predator drone bomb landed 200 meters from her house.
As The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim reported, “The blast, [Dr. Wardak] says, lifted her house off the ground and woke up the village. The curious went to see what happened. That’s when the second drone struck, killing roughly 15 civilians.”
We need to hear from experts like Dr. Wardak who understand the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, particularly as our country is sending more troops and more airstrikes, which, as we saw last month, result in rampant civilian deaths that fuel anti-American sentiment. That’s why Brave New Foundation brought her to Washington, DC this week for the America’s Future Now! conference and to meet with members of Congress.
Here at America’s Future Now, I attended a panel this morning on Afghanistan featuring Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films and Rethink Afghanistan, Dr. Roshanak Wardak (whom I interviewed yesterday), Anand Gopal and Ann Jones.
Gopal, a journalist with the Christian Science Monitor, discussed three myths about troop increases that we will hear this summer.
1. Troops Bring Security
The reality, Gopal said, is that troop increases over the last few years have brought more violence and, in particular, more civilian casualties.
2. More Troops Can Prevent Civilian Casualties by Lessening Dependence on Airpower
The claim is often made that with more troops on the ground, the dependence on lethal airpower will lessen. The reality, Gopal said, is that American troops operate in small, mobile units. When they are ambushed, the units frequently call in air support, which in turns causes civilian casualties. Thus more troops actually means more air strikes and more civilian deaths.
3. Afghans Want More Foreign Troops
The reality, Gopal said, is that in some part of Afghanistan, where no major combat operations are taking place, Afghans may welcome the troops who assist in development operations. But in areas where real fighting is taking place, people are simply tired of fighting and being caught in the crossfire or in reprisals from insurgents.
