Taliban commanders say Pakistan intelligence helps them

Taliban Commanders Say Pakistan Intelligence Helps Them

In a no-surprise non-story, Taliban commanders have revealed, in a BBC documentary, that ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency, provides and has been providing safe haven and weapons to Taliban fighters who kill American troops and Afghan civilians. This item appears a few days after Afghan President Hamid Karzai stated that, in any war between America and Pakistan, Afghanistan would be on the same side as Pakistan.

We know well the Islamic disdain for life on this planet, but this speaks to a desire for the Taliban commanders and Karzai to reside with Allah in heaven sooner rather than later. They may well understand Obama's desire to empower the enemies of America, but it may be that Karzai has underestimated the propensity of the American electorate to take incompetent leaders and put them out of office. We can presume that Obama's replacement will have a different take on paying billions of dollars per year to our enemies.

It has been our experience that moslems desire death with far less enthusiasm than they claim in their public pronouncements, but this time their lives may be closer to their end than they realize.

Situation in Afghanistan

Situation in Afghanistan

An acute and cogent report from the front line in Afghanistan. Note the prescient recommendation for a three star planning HQ in-country just before Gates announced one with his appointment of McChrystal and Rodriguez.

Prescription for Afghanistan

Prescription for Afghanistan

My understanding of the history and people of Afghanistan is the result of thirty five years of observation and study. I am often asked my opinion on the subject of what we should do there next.

We should learn the lesson we should have learned in Vietnam, but evidently didn't, or at least Bush and Obama didn't. Neither of them have read much military history. Obama does not even know the difference between a battalion and a brigade! Once again we have attacked with no strategy. We have had clueless leaders who will not listen to their Generals. In military action there is always the "So What?" factor to be considered. We went in and we killed organized Taliban resistance by stiffening the Northern Alliance, occupied Kabul and sprinkled outposts all over the countryside. So what? Now the Karzai government is more corrupt than King Zahir Shah had been, and Pashtun patriots murdered his family (for corruption, natch) long before the Soviets got there (I was). Slitting throats has been a fond pastime for these people since before Europeans started bathing. I have seen it done, and they truly enjoy the moment. No hellfire missiles can successfully stop a determined man with a dagger in his teeth. Every observer on the ground that I trust says that Taliban are stronger now than at any time since we defeated them.

We need to do in Afghanistan exactly what we need to do in Iraq. Move a couple of Divisions into bases in the deserts near the borders with Iran, on the east and the west, just in case we need them. (We will need them, and we do not need permission) If/when any one of the countries in the region allow terrorists to establish bases to train and prepare to attack American interests, kill them. Our weapons and doctrine are the best in the world at electronic recon and pinpoint attack. We can easily detect and liquidate any formation of company size (Mr. Obama - that's about one hundred men and their weapons) or above.

Let the Pashtuns deal with Taliban. Let them establish their own country if they can, but we should do nothing to undermine the government of Pakistan. After all they already have nukes. Iran on the other hand should be prevented from attaining nuclear power BAMP.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it, until or unless the facts change. But they have not changed for a long long time.

Reality on Afghanistan

Reality on Afghanistan

I love Afghanistan and its people, I really do, but I love my own country more. We need to get realistic about what can and what can not be accomplished there. We are currently engaged in a conflict that we can not win, in fact we do not even know what victory might look like if we achieved it. We certainly have been offered no strategic vision of what the end game might be.

The ever reliable Ralph Peters describes the options we have before us in Afghanistan, and his suggestion of which to pursue, in today's USA Today. The options, as Peters sees them:

Ranked from best to worst, here are our four basic options going forward:

• Best. Instead of increasing the U.S. military "footprint," reduce our forces and those of NATO by two-thirds, maintaining a "mother ship" at Bagram Air Base and a few satellite bases from which special operations troops, aircraft and drones, and lean conventional forces would strike terrorists and support Afghan factions with whom we share common enemies. All resupply for our military could be done by air, if necessary.

Stop pretending Afghanistan's a real state. Freeze development efforts. Ignore the opium. Kill the fanatics.

• Good. Leave entirely. Strike terrorist targets from over the horizon and launch punitive raids when necessary. Instead of facing another Vietnam ourselves, let Afghanistan become a Vietnam for Iran and Pakistan. Rebuild our military at home, renewing our strategic capabilities.

• Poor. Continue to muddle through as is, accepting that achieving any meaningful change in Afghanistan is a generational commitment. Surge troops for specific missions, but not permanently.

• Worst. Augment our forces endlessly and increase aid in the absence of a strategy. Lie to ourselves that good things might just happen. Let U.S. troops and Afghans continue to die for empty rhetoric, while Pakistan decays into a vast terrorist refuge.

For the rest, read the whole thing. Note that Peters offers no advice to the president on how to accomplish this strategic realignment. Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq and beefing up the effort in Afghanistan. The Iraq occupation is resolving itself, but Afghanistan will offer the president no such easy option. The peace-at-any-cost crowd will be behind any military retrenchment, especially in Afghanistan. The left side of his party is already making noise about how he should pull out, so the republicans will make quite a noise if he appears to accede to their wishes. He would be accused of claiming to buttress our effort in Afghanistan as a campaign ploy that he finds disposable.

Obama is learning that campaign mode, where he could conform his message to his audience, does not work when in office, where any decision is clear for all to see. This is not an easy job, being president, and it will not get easier for him. Difficult choices must be made, but no matter what he does in Afghanistan, he will be wrong in the eyes of a tremendous number of Americans. But even doing nothing is a decision to be made. Whatever he does, it is better done sooner rather than later.