Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
January 8, 2011
Still No U.S. Strategy On Afghanistan

On December 21 General Petraeus launched a trial balloon via the New York Times. As his campaign in Afghanistan is failing he presented the great idea to extend the ground war into neighboring Pakistan.

From today's Washington Post we learn that this plan, for now, has thankfully been rejected in favor of more political engagement:

The strategy, determined in last month's White House Afghanistan war review, amounts to an intensifying of existing efforts to overcome widespread suspicion and anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, and build trust and stability.

President Obama and his top national security aides rejected proposals, made by some military commanders and intelligence officials who have lost patience with Pakistan, to allow U.S. ground forces to conduct targeted raids against insurgent safe havens, officials said. They concluded that the United States can ill afford to threaten or further alienate a precarious, nuclear-armed country whose cooperation is essential to the administration on several fronts.

It is unclear from the article what the actual strategy is supposed to be. Biden is flying to Pakistan but what he is supposed to deliver is unclear. It sounds a bit like muddling through like before until something happens or not:

Beginning with Biden's visit, the time may be ripe for a frank exchange of views and priorities between the two sides, another administration official said. The Pakistanis "understand that Afghanistan-Pakistan has become the single most important foreign policy issue to the United States, and their cachet has gone up." But they also realize that they may have reached the point of maximum leverage, this official said, "and things about their region are going to change one way or the other" in the near future, as Congress and the American public grow increasingly disillusioned with the war and a timeline for military withdrawal is set.

"Something is going to give," he said. "There is going to be an end-game scenario and they're trying to guess where we're heading."

There have already been many "frank exchanges" and yes, the Pakistanis, especially General Kiyani, have been asking for a end-game scenario:

"Kayani wants to talk about the end state in South Asia," said one of several Obama administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the sensitive relationship. U.S. generals, the official said, "want to talk about the next drone attacks."

The problem is that the U.S. still does not have a strategy and has no idea what it wants. Waiting until "something is going to give" is neither a strategy nor an end-game.

Repeating what was done before, talking tough with Pakistan, they look at the U.S. logistic lines and laugh about it, and tinkering at the edges of the economic aid policies will change nothing. While it has rejected Petraeus lunatic plans, the White House seems still to be under influence of military operational thinking instead of developing some sane and realistic policy to end the Afghanistan conflict.

Comments

They don’t want to end it.

Posted by: 99 | Jan 8 2011 20:02 utc | 1

@99 – that is certainly a possibility.
Just re-watched this PBS “documentation” from 2006: Return of the Taliban which sorely confuses Al-Qaeda and the various “Taliban”.
It also shows that not one bit of the U.S. strategy changed even after now nine years of doing the same again and again with the same negative results. The empire is incompetent.

Posted by: b | Jan 8 2011 20:45 utc | 2


The empire is incompetent.

No. Racist and stupid. Every raghead a terrorist, no way of knowing the tribes from one another, their human terrain specialist or whatever scumbags coming in with their ‘white man’s burden’ theory all contribute to this failure. It’s instructive in one sense that the ‘coalition’ in A’stan is not saying anything to the USA, whatever countries are left, that is. What is their motive in letting the USA dig a deeper hole?
Bottom line is this: In A’stan, the USA are the evil guys. No matter how much that turd is polished, it’s still a turd.
Ron Paul hit the nail; a country with no major arms, airplanes or even jungle cover engaging the superpower for 10 years.
Now, that’s incompetent!

Posted by: shanks | Jan 9 2011 2:38 utc | 3

“The empire is incompetent.”
I would agree were it not for the fact that incompetence does not apply to them. They make up all the rules and all the evaluation criteria and “incompetence” as it might apply to themselves, is outside the envelope of consideration and context. The financial/military complex has accrued so much power, since even the Vietnam era, that any opinion expressed outside the group-think is seen as a source of counterproductive drag on the lucrative expansion of these re-combined-re-enforcing institutions. They continue to resist all attempts of budget cuts, reform, re-regulation, or circumvention – so they will continue apace until either the money dries up and to the extent it reaches elite finance or the military breaks up to the extent it effects the military elite personally.
One could assume, that all this is typical of late stage societal decay when normal defensive security and steady financial growth and health are displaced by the obsession for malignant expansion on the fly. And the faster it goes, the less likely it becomes that it’ll be looking in any rear view mirrors for perspective.
Mostly though, it’s more a failure of government to analyze, mediate, and regulate the financials and the military, than the independent failure of what they both do. Because what they are doing, is what they do, and they will continue to demand doing more and more of it until they have it all.
In this respect, winning and losing are for the high school sports field, in this one if you’re playing, you’ve already won.

Posted by: anna missed | Jan 9 2011 5:51 utc | 4

until people can accept peak oil, they’re not going to understand why we’re in afghanistan and pakistan.
we’ve accomplished nothing there? …well, no.
we’ve prevented the construction of two pipelines that would have given china and india access to persian gulf and central asian gas and oil, we’ve prevented china from building a tanker port that would have been fed by persian gulf and central asian gas and oil.
we’ve also reestablished drug trade that will provide hundreds of billions of revenue to help prop up the global financial system, and that drug trade will also finance all kinds of skullduggery that needs to be kept off the official books …that drug trade, if channeled in the right direction at the consumer level, will help cripple the dread russians, who were giving signals that they were gonna opt out of the PNAC project early on, before 9/11. (media oligarch gusinsky hightails it to israel in the spring of 2001)
it’s no wonder we’re hearing rumblings about NATO staying in afghanistan for another 30 or 40 years… at present rates of consumption, in 30 or 40 years the amount of oil left in the middle east wont be worth fighing over.
or maybe it will, so we’ll still be there in 50 years, or 60 years… how long have we occupied japan, south korea and germany?
no sweat, GI.
too bad the troops will have to come home way before that, though, to shoot americans.

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 9 2011 7:17 utc | 5

the math goes like this:
the world is burning 85 million barrels of oil a day (31 billon barrels a year)… let’s be charitable, and give the middle east a trillion barrels of reserves left…
30 billion barrels per year X 30 years = 900 billion barrels… burned in 30 years at present rates of consumption

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 9 2011 7:46 utc | 6

if you want to get technical about it, we are NOT burning 85 million barrels of oil a day, we’re burning 72 or 74 million barrels a day, and the fact that the oil reporting agencies include corn squeezings, natural gas liquids and lord knows what else (which makes up the difference) could be seen as… what…?
…an attempt to obscure the fact that global crude oil production probably peaked in 2005 or 2006?
why would they want to obscure the fact that oil production peaked? …was peak oil the motive behind 9/11, which kicked off western what-passes-for-civilization’s last gasp attempt to achieve benevolent global hegemony?
which leads to the inevitable question: how many people will we have to kill to establish our benevolent global hegemony?

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 9 2011 8:33 utc | 7

In this morning’s WaPo:
‘Great Game’ gets encore, with Pentagon’s applause
what make?

Posted by: beq | Jan 9 2011 14:23 utc | 8

could be an attempt by the pentagon to legitimize the afghan wars on the basis of “well, our presesence in afghanistan is just a continuation of “The Great Game“…
wonder if the play mentions that the original great game was an attempt to defend britain’s opium trade with china
the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 9 2011 20:24 utc | 9

in case anyone doesnt know, it was a trade triangle, full ships on every leg…

“opium exports were an essential component of a triangular trade that was central to England’s position as a world power. Trade figures for the 1820s, for example, show that the triangular trade was large and well balanced: 22 million pounds sterling worth of Indian opium and cotton to China; next, 20 million pounds worth of Chinese tea to Britain; and, then, 24 million pounds of British textiles and machinery back to India.”
Opium History Up To 1858 A.D.

it’s a family tradition… i’m sure that will make all those dead and wounded people, who attend the play, feel better.

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 9 2011 20:50 utc | 10

The International Energy Agency….
.. without much explanation, the world’s leading compiler of everything about energy has gone from denying that conventional oil production will peak in our lifetime to saying it happened four years ago.
Bit of a surprise!
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-24/iea
second article at link
The ‘war’ in Afgh. is not a war, it is an occupation. The US is simply occupying this strategic chunk of land. To do so, it is making an unholy mess, fighting the resistance or ‘insurgents’, running the drug trade, or collaborating in that, spending mountains of money that go to the military-industrial-security-CIA-USAID-NGO-add on more-Afgh. collaborators for ex.
A failed state, a dystopian modern, volatile and violent Wild West, full of opportunities for some individuals, groups, corps. The US has no interest in ‘democracy’ or stabilizing Afgh. in any way. It has no interest in controlling the people, they are useless thrash, nor in the land itself (barring the one cash crop, which doesn’t take much organization or labor), nor in making money from it in any other way.
It isn’t fighting a war that it intends to win, it is throwing good money and resources (energy, troops, matériel, goods..) after bad to maintain hegemony, hold its world position. While the ‘war’ can’t and won’t be ‘won’, retreat would be defeat, failure, ignominy, or at least that is the present vision.
Flickerv. outlines some objectives and putative successes, and those may well be correct, personally I tend to agree, but then without any stated objectives and taking into account the HUGE costs involved it all looks like hapless warring in the void, empty sadism and destruction, and utter incompetence.

Posted by: Noirette | Jan 9 2011 20:54 utc | 11

noirette, it looks to me like the whole PNAC effort is nothing more than cover for looters… sure, there are believers, but as time wears on, i think more and more of the believers will convert to looting.
the logic runs like this: the rational shakers and movers know the israeli american empire is doomed because of its dependence on cheap oil.
the wars and the opium provide opportunities to loot… meanwhile, china seems destined to become the interim world leader as america collapses, and the chinese will dominate until oil shortages make global trade and projection of power impossible (or at least, impossible on the scale that the globalists have been counting on)…
but if we can cobble up excuses to restrict chinese access to energy without confronting china directly, we might be able to prolong our opportunities to loot.
the trends (including the deterioration of human rights, etc, etc, in america) all seem to point in that direction, and the biggest worry will be whether or not true believers of one stripe or another are willing to go nuke to defend their faith… or, in the case of the israelis, will kill as many people as possible as they go under, out of spite.
which leads us back to pakistan: if israelis are entitled to a samson option, are pakistanis entitled to a samson option?

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 9 2011 21:16 utc | 12

flickervertigo,
“we’ve prevented the construction of two pipelines that would have given china and india access to persian gulf and central asian gas and oil, we’ve prevented china from building a tanker port that would have been fed by persian gulf and central asian gas and oil.
we’ve also reestablished drug trade that will provide hundreds of billions of revenue to help prop up the global financial system, and that drug trade will also finance all kinds of skullduggery that needs to be kept off the official books …that drug trade, if channeled in the right direction at the consumer level, will help cripple the dread russians, who were giving signals that they were gonna opt out of the PNAC project early on, before 9/11. (media oligarch gusinsky hightails it to israel in the spring of 2001)”
The question I have (and I do believe in peak oil) is: If US strategy is so threatening to China/Russia, then why are they being so passive about it? It seems they could arm the Taliban with all manner of weapons to make NATO occupation either untenable or so costly it hurts them more than Russia and China.
The fact that neither seem to bother makes me think either Afghanistan’s strategic value isn’t all that, or that the West has made the Russians/Chinese some sort of secret sweetheart deal.

Posted by: Lysander | Jan 9 2011 21:27 utc | 13

the chinese are in a quandary… they’ve got maybe a couple trillion of US dollar reserves, and they cant seem to find enough stuff, mainly oil, to buy while the dollar’s still worth something… so it behooves china to orchestrate the collapse, too…
not to mention the fact that, if things really go to hell, chinese purchases, like the tar sands in canada, will probably be seized.
then, china is going to have to rehab all those factory workers once the factories close …that could get ugly.
the russians still have lots of oil… their biggest worry is some loony neocon getting his hands on the trigger and touching off a nuke first strike on russia.
other than that, russians are probably content to be an observer as america falls apart.

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 9 2011 21:42 utc | 14

there’s one other thing here about china and russia…
russia’s got oil and gas that china needs, and iran would be, if the americans would go home, russia’s biggest competitor when it comes to selling gas to china.
so the fact that we’re restricting iranian gas sales to china is benefiting russia.
sweetheart deals are a possibility, maybe some factions are trying to peddle that point of view to the russians and chinese… seems likely that the most rabid neocons and israelis, though, are believers, and if anything, will default to looting… if they abandon samson option suicide.

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 9 2011 21:56 utc | 15

what it boils down to is that the neocons have been outsmarted again, if they’re believers.
they are forcing an alliance between their two greatest rivals, china and russia.
of course, if the neocons are nothing but looters, then they’ve outsmarted everybody… including the little jews who will probably get the shit kicked out of them.
again.

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 9 2011 22:10 utc | 16

Interesting points, but if that’s the case, it seems to me that China’s interests would be a link to Iran at almost any cost. It maybe they figure the Afghan resistance will eventually oust NATO on their own without China getting its hands dirty. Then they can build the Iran-Afghanistan-China pipeline.
But if not, they will be in a lot of trouble if your scenario is true.
The treasury debt the Chinese hold is a lost investment. Trying to prop up the US in the vain hope they’ll be paid back is a loser’s game.

Posted by: Lysander | Jan 9 2011 22:30 utc | 17

“…they will be in a lot of trouble if your scenario is true.”

just looks to me like all the industrialized nations will be in a lot of trouble unless some genius comes up with a non-polluting sustitute for oil.
it seems likely to me that china is aware of its predicament, they realize there’s no easy way out, they realize that they may have to kill a few million of their own people as it all winds down.
but apparently they decided to pay that price, it that’s what it takes to industrialize enough to defend themselves from israeli america.
they learned the hard way.

Posted by: flickervertigo | Jan 9 2011 22:44 utc | 18

If US strategy is so threatening to China/Russia, then why are they being so passive about it? It seems they could arm the Taliban with all manner of weapons to make NATO occupation either untenable or so costly it hurts them more than Russia and China.
Nitty gritty: because there is not much to be won.
Russia got burned bad in Afghanistan. They know more about it than so called US experts in Kabul or Washington. Russia just lost its own ‘empire’ in a bloodless implosion, a breaking away. Russia has its own problems at home. Russia has energy reserves.
China’s strategy is long term (or so they believe) and is based on commerce, development and influence. Why fund freedom fighters when you can buy what’s for sale? Who needs the headache?

Posted by: Noirette | Jan 10 2011 16:07 utc | 19