Leak Of Sanitized Afghanistan Report Points To Ulterior Motives
The big headlines yesterday were U.S. military says Taliban set to retake power: report and Pakistan helping Afghan Taliban - Nato. Center of those pieces was a report by the U.S. Special Forces Task Force 3-10 in Bagram. Its assessment is allegedly based on 27,000 interrogations of more than 4,000 captured Taleban operatives and civilians. The report describes the opinions caught "Taliban" and civilians have about their fight. It "leaked" to the London Times and the BBC.
When the news appeared yesterday I asked myself who was "leaking" this to what purpose. The answer came with today's headlines: U.S. to Shift Afghan Role in '13, Panetta: U.S., NATO will seek to end Afghan combat mission next year and NATO Focuses on Timetable for Afghan Withdrawal.
I am pretty sure that the "leaking" of the report yesterday was intentional and was done in preparation for Panetta's announcement of an earlier than planed partial retreat from Afghanistan. Interestingly there are signs that the "leaked" report has been cleansed ar sanitized likely to allow for an argument of a permanent stay of some U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
General Allen, accompanying in Panetta's press conference that generated today's headlines, makes clear that while the U.S. wants to stop the counterinsurgency fight it still wants to stay in Afghanistan:
As the president has said, we're committed to an enduring presence there. We have the missions we're going to be involved with -- those CT operations. We'll be involved with training, advising and assisting, not only the Afghan forces, but we'll continue to have to provide enabling forces for ISAF as well as Afghanistan. And there'll be a large civilian presence there involved with development. So there clearly is going to be a continuing presence in Afghanistan for the long term, and that's something, you know, we'll want to discuss again at this ministerial.
Parts of the original report which "leaked" to the BBC and the Times have been published on the site of London Times reporter Jonathan Boone. Notice the motives:
In the last year there has been unprecedented interest, even from GIRoA members, in joining the insurgent cause. Afghan civilians frequently prefer Taleban governance over GIRoA, usually as a result of government corruption, ethnic bias and lack of connection with local religious and tribal leaders. The effectiveness of Taleban governance allows for increased recruitment rates which, subsequently, bolsters their ability to replace losses.
Later in the report it looks on "Why the Taleban Fight":
The Taleban will not accept any government which is perceived to exclude the Pashtuns, who constitute the largest tribe among the Afghan population. GIRoA corruption, abuse of power, and suspected lack of commitment to Islam continue to provoke significant anti-government sentiment.The Taleban will be hostile to any government that appears to act as an agent of foreign powers to instill “Western” values. The Taleban do not fight for financial gain.
The eventual overthrow of GIRoA remains their primary motivator.
As Kate Clark of the Afghan Analyst Network points out that these descriptions of motives are astonishingly incomplete:
What the report appears to be silent on is the other huge factor driving the war, the ten year foreign occupation – as many Afghans, whether they welcome international forces or not, call it. Night raids, killing civilians, detentions - even when all three of these actions may be legal and/or militarily necessary - upset people. Then there was the torture, mainly by US forces, in the first couple of years and the support the international military gives to abusive Afghan actors. Curiously, there is no mention of this - did the detainees not mention the foreigners?
We can make a safe bet that the prisoners did make the point that the occupation itself, the night raids, killing, detention and torture of compatriots, are a rather large motivation for them to fight and for civilians and Afghan government agents to support them. The seems to intentionally leave out the major motives of the fighters and their supporters.
The "leak's" purpose was to support the now announced decision of the Obama administration to cut short the planned continuation of the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. But if it had included the major motive for the Taliban to fight it could have been used to argue against the planned continuation of the counterterrorism campaign in Afghanistan, which will require a continued occupation by some 30,000 U.S. soldiers, and to support the necessary total retreat from the country.
To "leak" a sanitized version of the report shows that the whole splash of "retreat from Afghanistan" announced now is likely a mere election ploy to deceive some anti-war liberals into again electing Obama.
Posted by b on February 2, 2012 at 17:33 UTC | Permalink
Michael Hastings discussed his book, The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan, which expands upon his June 2010 Rolling Stone article that resulted in the firing of General Stanley McChrystal. He described how he was granted access to the general and his closest staff, and his surprise upon hearing the them make blunt remarks about political leaders, leading diplomats, and European allies. He addressed criticism of his reporting techniques and talked about other war reporters dating back to Neil Sheehan and David Halberstam during the Vietnam War.
I believe B and other moon-bats, had several interesting discussions on the McChrystal fiasco, but I can't get the archives to cooperate at the moment as I'm on my cell...
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 3 2012 4:49 utc | 2
set up to fail, just like Syria. I suspect that giving power/control to more radical elements is like canning food. We have a latent casus belli to open whenever we want. I do also buy into the campaign stunt for Obama's base. But, I have the distinct impression that we're leaving all these strings untied, for us to have something to do later.
Posted by: scottindallas | Feb 3 2012 10:29 utc | 3
or maybe this ...
http://the-diplomat.com/2011/10/18/why-russia-fears-us-afghan-plan/
Posted by: somebody | Feb 3 2012 12:53 utc | 4
Any counter-terrorism campaign after the 2013 pullout may have a problem after this article in todays Asia Times.
Even as several tracks of peace talks with the Taliban open up, Asia Times Online has learned that senior members of the Western-trained and financed Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police plan to defect with vast numbers of their colleagues to the militants once foreign forces start to leave the country.
Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NB04Df05.html
I imagine that once the American fighting force runs back their trailer parks there won't be much Afghan's willing to take on an insurgenccy thats seen by the people as driving out the foreign invaders. No doubt Hamid Karzai will be following closely behind the American exodus as well. After all whats the point of spending 10 years taking kickbacks and bribes if you don't live long enough to spend the money in exile in London or Virginia or Geneva or wherever he plans on retiring. Certainly he is thinking of the last President Mohammad Najibullah who was dragged out of the UN compound in Kabul, castrated and hung from a traffic light in 1994.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Feb 3 2012 13:57 utc | 5
Colm @5
More than that, look at it from an afghan (uzbek/Tajik ethnic groups) POV. Americans leave, they're still there, a smaller ethnic group against the Pashtuns who are going to come after them hammer and tongs once the coast is clear. with all the help from Pakistan which has to re-establish presence and order(which they will with folks from NWFP, I think)
Better to make peace now, then an ethnic civil war that will have them hanged, quartered and eyes gouged out. Remember, in WWII, what the french, the dutch and other countries did to the 'collaborators'?
Isn't it all predictable?
Posted by: shanks | Feb 3 2012 14:13 utc | 6
Perhaps this is little more than an acknowledgment that supply line problems are starting to really bite.
Of course NATO would like to declare victory and "decide" to withdraw!
The US government is now so securely isolated from its electorate that it can stiff public opinion at will. But it can't ignore its military supply line...
Posted by: JohnH | Feb 3 2012 16:06 utc | 7
The comments to this entry are closed.
The report makes the claim that the Taliban is set to retake power. Are you arguing that this claim is an exaggeration? That, as part of sanitizing the report, the writers overblew the Talilban's likelihood to take power, in order to convince people to maintain some kind of military presence beyond 2013?
Posted by: Inkan1969 | Feb 2 2012 22:53 utc | 1