Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 17, 2012
That Lost War In Afghanistan

It seems obvious now that the U.S. and its NATO appendix lost the war in Afghanistan:

Over the past two years, the farming districts of Zhari, Panjway and Maiwand northwest of Kandahar city—the cradle of the Taliban movement—were the key battlefield of the U.S.-led military campaign in southern Afghanistan. The U.S. has held up its successes in routing the Taliban there as proof that it is winning the war.

Pushed out of these rural districts by the surge, the Taliban last year concentrated on Kandahar city, ramping up their campaign of assassinating government officials. This fighting season, however, they appear to have trickled back to their old home turf.

Enemy activity in the three farming districts has risen by 31% this fighting season, said U.S. Army Maj. Gen. James Huggins, the commander of coalition forces in southern Afghanistan. This upsurge contrasts with a sharp decline in attacks inside Kandahar city and in the neighboring southern provinces of Uruzgan and Zabul.

"The good news is we have been able to provide the major population center a tremendous amount of security. But it has pushed the insurgency into Zhari, Panjway and Maiwand," Gen. Huggins explained in an interview.

The U.S. surge troops squeezed the water filled balloon in the rural areas and the Taliban evaded the squeeze and fought in the city. Two years later the surge troops retreat from the rural area and press the balloon in the city. The Taliban flow back into the rural areas.

The U.S. military claims, of course, a double victory. First it won in the countryside and now it has won in the city. In fact nothing has changed at all. Two years on the surge had zero effect on the overall situation.

With limited resources and time the U.S. and NATO are losing the war.

Another example: This morning the ISAF Twitter account @ISAFmedia tweeted:

IJC morning op update: 10 day op in Farah province completed with multiple ins. detained and weapons confiscated. http://ow.ly/aY0ar

The link goes to the usual morning update which said:

[A] combined Afghan and coalition security force detained multiple suspected insurgents during a 10-day operation that ended Sunday in Khake Safayd district, Farah province. During the operation, the combined force searched a suspicious location and detained the suspected insurgents without incident. The force also recovered 21 IEDs, four rocket-propelled grenades, one mortar, seven AK-47 rifles, one machine gun, more than 8 pounds (4 kilograms) of opium and 30 motorbikes during a subsequent search of the area. The suspected insurgents were taken in for questioning and the weapons cache was destroyed.

But just a few minutes after that hit the wires reality caught up with such success phantasies:

At least 11 people died on Thursday after Taliban insurgents attacked a provincial governor’s office, but were beaten back by security forces, Afghan officials said.

The 10 a.m. attack was apparently an attempt to assassinate the governor of western Farah Province, Mohammad Akram Khapalwak, who was in his office at the time, and the insurgents once again resorted to the ruse of disguising themselves as Afghan police officers, according to the police security chief for the province, Mohammad Ghaus Malyaar.

A ten day operation in Farah province manages to find a few guns and to steals 30 motorbikes. But at the same time the Taliban, laughing at such diversion, successfully attack the province governors office and kill nearly all his bodyguards. It is obvious that the propaganda does not match the facts on the ground.

It is no wonder the U.S. and NATO are, rather silently, Beating A Retreat.

Like in the two scenes above the marketeers of upcoming NATO summit will have difficulties to patch over the obvious rush to the exit from this lost war.

Comments

The AAN report you link to looks really worth reading. I’m struck by the many parallels with the debacle of Washington’s political end-game in Iraq… Basically, telling the ‘Host Nation’ interlocutors: “You meet our benchmarks or we’ll cease supporting you”– and having the HN interlocutors say, “So the heck what!”
Interesting, too, to look at the political timing of all this. I.e., the Speedy & Undignified Exit out of Iraq Agreement got signed by the GWB admin just after the 2008 election– and it’s extremely likely that the Speedy & Undignified Exit out of Afghanistan Agreement will get signed on around Nov 7 this year?
However, executing a Speedy & Undignified Exit out of Iraq is child’s play, logistically, politically, and financially, compared with doing so out of Afghanistan… Hey, maybe Washington could distract attention from the those challenges by launching yet another salutary “little” war?? Like take a portion of all that military materiel that’s getting shipping out of Afghanistan and point it toward Syria or Iran??

Posted by: Helena | May 17 2012 22:03 utc | 1

Pointless, futile wars against powerless people are the elite’s ideal way to siphon money out of the Treasury and into their pockets. From their viewpoint, there are no victims (unless you count a few wogs). Better still, no opposition gets stirred up, and the bill won’t come due until any statutes of limitations run out.
The perfect heist.
Of course, Jamie Dimon, Lloyed Blankenfein, Vikram Pandit are running gigantic scams of their own, which could bring the due dates on the bills forward significantly.
Too many parasites kill the host.
By comparison, AIPAC’s theft of taxpayer monies looks like chump change.

Posted by: JohnH | May 17 2012 23:51 utc | 2

Unfortunately Helena’s point is prolly the easiest way for the money-men & their associated war-crims in government ‘n the military to extricate themselves from Afghanistan.
It is unthinkable that any amerikan political movement could turn off the killing = grabbing tax revenue= giving it to the ‘gang’ faucet old gwb turned from steady stream to gusher back in 2003.
So there will be another war, and at first glance Iran does look like the most likely target for the elites’ latest scam except an attack/invasion of Iran doesn’t tick many of the boxes regarded as essential for a ‘top little war’. Such a conflict requires extras to ensure everyone cops a prolonged earner.
First of all the siege of Iran hasn’t been in place long enough to guarantee a demoralised population with an underequipped badly trained similarly demoralised military.
Like all long established ME societies Iran’s population isn’t a homogenous monolithic community, but neither does it have substantial tribal/ethnic or religious groups who can be made to feel aggrieved ‘n disenfranchised.
This means when the slaughter starts Iranians are gonna unite against the invader leaving few cracks in the society for the invaders to drive a wedge into.
Instead of being a long, drawn-out, low invader casualty, conflict this war would probably be decided relatively quickly, and the result may not favour those who control fukusi.
Even worse even a win would be a loss since the Iranians will be difficult to divide into the fractious, argumentative, internecine population necessary for creating a failed state scenario that allows extraction of resources and arming up one side to kill the other side.
That means only a few large snouts in the trough not the well dispersed (throughout the corporate elite) slosh of richly fertilised with the blood of Muslims fare for all.
There is one alternative that comes to mind, and that is the Yemen. The Englanders carefully tended a low level conflict in the Yemen from the end of WW2 until the bliar tossed it into the kitty as part of englanders’ table stake for entry to fukusi.
There are many parallels between Afghanistan and the Yemen not least of all that its population fiercely resisted invasion. It is tribal and suffers from intractable financial problems exacerbated by an IMF ‘structural adjustment’ package. The tribalism does allow for a continuation of the englander play encouraging Yemenis to beat themself up. Same as Afghanistan.
Most importantly like Afghanistan the Yemen has few natural resources but it is of huge strategic importance, being in the southern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, the Yemen not only presents as an ideal spot to establish a beach head into Saudi
Check out this if yer unfamiliar with the Yemen’s geography:

View Larger Map
See no peeps gonna get far with ‘it’s all about the oil’ which it sorta is, as well as being a great spot to kill Muslims and coin dollars.

Posted by: Debs is dead | May 18 2012 2:30 utc | 3

apologies for spelling and disconnects I’m flat out today. The other point I wanted to make was Yemeni control of neighboring waterways is a big card – one that had england in there for close to 100 years. Especially since Eritrea doesn’t always do as it is told.

Posted by: Debs is dead | May 18 2012 2:36 utc | 4

I think our “withdrawal” from Afghanistan will mirror our “withdrawal” from Iraq. Drawing down military forces, while still achieving hegemony in the region, is the game. Our new SOFA, with our puppet Gov. in Afghanistan, ensures the Empires presence though 2024, and beyond. Debs is right, it’s not only about resources, but geopolitical strategy too. In a state of perpetual war, there is much money to be made.

Posted by: ben | May 18 2012 14:17 utc | 5

WAY OFF TOPIC BUT VERY IMPORTANT
from the Irish Times
MONDAY’S STRONG statement by EU foreign ministers on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict marked a significant and important shift in
EU thinking on the stalled peace process, and appeared to signal a new
level of engagement. After the meeting Minister for Foreign Affairs
Eamon Gilmore, going further, suggested that Israel may have until the
autumn to respond positively to specific EU demands on illegal
settlements, arrests, demolitions of buildings, and Palestinian economic
deprivation, or possibly face measures such as an EU ban on goods from
Israeli settlements.
Although hedged with standard expressions of the union’s longstanding
concerns for Israeli security, and deploring rocket attacks from Gaza
and the targeting of civilians, the ministers’ statement is remarkable
both for its detailed demands on Israel and its sharp warning that the
situation is in imminent danger of reaching a point when the commonly
accepted eventual settlement, a two-state solution, would no longer be
feasible.
“The viability of a two-state solution must be maintained,” the
ministers insisted. “The EU expresses deep concern about developments on
the ground which threaten to make a two-state solution impossible.”
Specifically they “decried the marked acceleration of settlement
construction” following a 2010 moratorium, what other have described as
Israel establishing “permanentfacts on the ground”. And they
specifically criticised evictions and demolitions in east Jerusalem,
demanding the reopening of Palestinian institutions in the city, the
“future capital of two states”.
“Settlements remain illegal under international law, irrespective of
recent decisions by the government of Israel,” the statement insists
bluntly. “The EU reiterates that it will not recognise any changes to
the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than
those agreed by the parties …. All outposts erected since March 2001
should be dismantled.”
The Israeli army has also destroyed some €49.14 million worth of
EU-funded development projects in the West Bank and Gaza over the last
10 years, according to EU Commission figures seen by Reuters.
The tone and detail of the statement reflect exasperation with both the
Israeli government’s procrastination and the US’s at best half-hearted
engagement with the issue. And it appears to mark a significant shift in
thinking in Germany, until now, for understandable reasons of history,
Israel’s most uncritical defender in the EU. Israel would do well to
take note.

Posted by: boindub | May 18 2012 14:22 utc | 6

Excellent, boindub.

Posted by: Alexander | May 18 2012 14:30 utc | 7

As the war is lost the propaganda about the “aims” must be changed: U.S. Redefines Afghan Success Before Conference

even as American officials prepare a list of benchmarks they can cite as achieved in the war effort — expect to hear much about strategic partnership agreements and assurances that the Afghan people have not been abandoned — they acknowledge privately that the bar has been significantly lowered on how success in Afghanistan is defined after 11 years of combat.

In previewing the meeting for reporters on Thursday, President Obama’s national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, described a hoped-for outcome in Afghanistan that was far less ambitious than what American officials once envisioned.

Anthony H. Cordesman, a longtime military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote a paper three weeks ago called “Time to Focus on ‘Afghan Good Enough.’ ”
“Is progress sustainable?” Mr. Cordesman wrote. “Almost certainly no.
“The real question for everybody now is, can you hold this thing together to the point where, yes, the Pakistanis will have some influence, and Iran will have major influence in the northwest, and we’ll lose influence in the south and the east but we might be able to hold onto Kandahar.”

Posted by: b | May 18 2012 17:14 utc | 8

@b – so practically, what remains of the aims for Afghanistan, is a military base near Kandahar …

Posted by: claudio | May 18 2012 18:34 utc | 9

boindub @ 6 — Well, well, well. EU proposing sanctions –more warranted than some of the sanctioning going on elsewhere– against Israel. Most of the EU goes along with US proposed sanctions hither and yon, but I doubt any US polician will dare support such sanctions against Israel, the bastion of democracy in the Middle East (/snark).
Ought to be interesting, first to see if the EU does such a thing and how strongly, then what the US does. And timing will be of interest for the US elections in November.

Posted by: jawbone | May 19 2012 11:06 utc | 10

“hold onto Kandahar”:
notice the cultivation level of opium in the various provinces, published in the UNODC Afghanistan Opium Survey Winter Assessment 2011, and it might answer the question of why Kandahar, instead of Kabul or other places
Kandahar and its west-neighboring province, Hilmand, objects of multiple Us and Nato military operations, have the lion’s share of opium production

Posted by: claudio | May 19 2012 13:52 utc | 11

It all depends on what one sees as the aims of control of a region that is, like Afgh. at a ‘crossroads.‘ Contractors in place of soldiers may be fine.
Capturing and controlling the opium market (illegal, so therefore highly profitable) has been a great success (see claudio above.)
As has killing off ordinary ppl and depriving them of everything possible – clean water, electricity, agriculture, medical care, the possibility of exporting, etc.
Afghanistan used to be self-sufficient for food.
Impossible to believe if you google, as all the links say that Afgh. COULD be so. That state of affairs was destroyed deliberately. (So that Afgh. would have to buy Australian wheat, amongst other things.)
hard to come up with links, but see for ex.
http://gpfa.org/about/the-need/
http://www.icarda.org/afghanistan/PDF/FHCRAA.pdf
http://aciar.gov.au/node/11207
Afghanis have successfully been removed from the world stage as producers (except in mafia-type circuits, dependent on overlords, always insecure on tenterhooks, without any rights), and consumers. (Construction is the same.)
They don’t use any energy to speak of, and have no power to make claims even on their own resources – fields, water, irrigation canals, seeds, roads, husbanding of long term plantations (e.g. dates), fertilizer (etc.) not to mention local organization which might include seed banks, easy loans to farmers, communal ownership of machines and technology (e.g. shared tractor, smart phone, etc.), safe roads/circuits for sales, export, exchange, etc.

Posted by: Noirette | May 19 2012 16:40 utc | 12