Failure in Afghanistan risks rise in terror, say generals

[zimv20]

observer (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2126817,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12)


Military chiefs warn No.10 that defeat could lead to change of regime in Pakistan

Britain's most senior generals have issued a blunt warning to Downing Street that the military campaign in Afghanistan is facing a catastrophic failure, a development that could lead to an Islamist government seizing power in neighbouring Pakistan.

Amid fears that London and Washington are taking their eye off Afghanistan as they grapple with Iraq, the generals have told Number 10 that the collapse of the government in Afghanistan, headed by Hamid Karzai, would present a grave threat to the security of Britain.

Lord Inge, the former chief of the defence staff, highlighted their fears in public last week when he warned of a 'strategic failure' in Afghanistan. The Observer understands that Inge was speaking with the direct authority of the general staff when he made an intervention in a House of Lords debate.
'The situation in Afghanistan is much worse than many people recognise,' Inge told peers. 'We need to face up to that issue, the consequence of strategic failure in Afghanistan and what that would mean for Nato... We need to recognise that the situation - in my view, and I have recently been in Afghanistan - is much, much more serious than people want to recognise.'

Inge's remarks reflect the fears of serving generals that the government is so overwhelmed by Iraq that it is in danger of losing sight of the threat of failure in Afghanistan. One source, who is familiar with the fears of the senior officers, told The Observer: 'If you talk privately to the generals they are very very worried. You heard it in Inge's speech. Inge said we are failing and remember Inge speaks for the generals.'

Inge made a point in the Lords of endorsing a speech by Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, who painted a bleak picture during the debate. Ashdown told The Observer that Afghanistan presented a graver threat than Iraq.

'The consequences of failure in Afghanistan are far greater than in Iraq,' he said. 'If we fail in Afghanistan then Pakistan goes down. The security problems for Britain would be massively multiplied. I think you could not then stop a widening regional war that would start off in warlordism but it would become essentially a war in the end between Sunni and Shia right across the Middle East.'

'Mao Zedong used to refer to the First and Second World Wars as the European civil wars. You can have a regional civil war. That is what you might begin to see. It will be catastrophic for Nato. The damage done to Nato in Afghanistan would be as great as the damage done to the UN in Bosnia. That could have a severe impact on the Atlantic relationship and maybe even damage the American security guarantee for Europe.'

Ashdown said two mistakes were being made: a lack of a co-ordinated military command because of the multinational 'hearts and minds' Nato campaign and the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom offensive campaign against the Taliban. There was also insufficient civic support on, for example, providing clean water.

Ashdown warned: 'Unless we put this right, unless we have a unitary system of command, we are going to lose. The battle for this is the battle of public opinion. The polls are slipping. Once they go on the slide it is almost impossible to win it back. You can only do it with the support of the local population.

'There is a very short shelf life for an occupation force. Once that begins to shift against you it is very very difficult to turn it round.'

The warnings from Ashdown and the generals on Afghanistan will be echoed in a report this week by the all-party Commons defence select committee. MPs will say that the combination of civilian casualties, war damage and US-led efforts to eradicate lucrative poppy crops risk turning ordinary people towards the Taliban.

(more)

this is the Nightmare Scenario, imho. i always thought, post-9/11 anyway, that the easiest way for AQ/Taleban to get nukes was to overthrow musharraf. boom, insta-access to nukes. and already loaded onto missiles.

i really really hope some combination of British Special Forces, MI-6, CIA, and US Special Forces already have some plans to grab/disable those nukes in the event of. you know, like in the movies.

[dswoodley]

damn, you're busy today, Zimv. bin laden was the prize, and we took our eye off it.

[miloblithe]

Even if we can grab the nukes, what next? We're having such ease dealing with 32 million Afghanistanis and 27 million Iraqis, 167 million Pakistanis will be a breeze.

[obeygiant]

damn, you're busy today, Zimv.

Yeah, I almost forgot this was PRSI forum and it had magically turned into zimv's own personal blog.

[solvs]

I'm starting to think Bush really is trying to start Armageddon, because nobody is this incompetent.

[MACDRIVE]

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3378376&page=1)

Michael Scheuer, a former CIA official who is now a terror analyst for the Jamestown Foundation, said, "We've tried to do Afghanistan on the cheap, and it's going to cost us domestically in terms of the next attack in the United States."

"The United States should say to Pakistan," said Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism official at the White House and now an ABC News consultant, "'We're going to eliminate al Qaeda one way or the other. Either you do it and you do it by a certain date, or we'll do it and you don't complain too much.'"

[matthew24]

I'm starting to think Bush really is trying to start Armageddon, because nobody is this incompetent.

..or prevent it, but of course those brilliant democrats do have the solution.

[Swarmlord]

..or prevent it, but of course those brilliant democrats do have the solution.

Is that what that all nighter is all about? Have they negotiated the terms of our surrender yet?

[.Andy]

..or prevent it, but of course those brilliant democrats do have the solution.
Are you buying into the cheerleading all the way from the netherlands now?

[obeygiant]

Are you buying into the cheerleading all the way from the netherlands now?

Geography has nothing to do with opinion in this forum. Unless we should take your opinion with a grain of salt because you live in kangarooland. :)

[matthew24]

Are you buying into the cheerleading all the way from the netherlands now?

To be honest, I am sceptical both ways, politics only go that far.

[solvs]

..or prevent it, but of course those brilliant democrats do have the solution.
No one has the solution. There is no solution. Bush got us stuck in so deep, we're screwed no matter what. They're screwed no matter what. And the longer we're there, the more we do, the worse it gets.

At least some of us can admit that.

Is that what that all nighter is all about? Have they negotiated the terms of our surrender yet?
Surrender to who? Are we going to have to go over this about Al Qaida again, because frankly it's getting tiresome. They're only a very small, as in single digits, percentage of the people fighting us in Iraq. Even then, they aren't the same people who attacked us on 9/11. Those folks are still out there because we pulled resources to go to Iraq, which had nothing to do with anything and were not a threat to us. If anything, they are gaining support because of our mistakes in Iraq, and we're more vulnerable that ever. Or is this about Iran, which also has nothing to do with anything and if anything we're also helping.

But since the latest reason is to help the Iraqis, and they want us to leave, and it's pretty much well known by everyone there is no way for this to end well, what are you talking about?

[matthew24]

No one has the solution. There is no solution. Bush got us stuck in so deep, we're screwed no matter what. They're screwed no matter what. And the longer we're there, the more we do, the worse it gets.

At least some of us can admit that.


Surrender to who? Are we going to have to go over this about Al Qaida again, because frankly it's getting tiresome. They're only a very small, as in single digits, percentage of the people fighting us in Iraq. Even then, they aren't the same people who attacked us on 9/11. Those folks are still out there because we pulled resources to go to Iraq, which had nothing to do with anything and were not a threat to us. If anything, they are gaining support because of our mistakes in Iraq, and we're more vulnerable that ever. Or is this about Iran, which also has nothing to do with anything and if anything we're also helping.

But since the latest reason is to help the Iraqis, and they want us to leave, and it's pretty much well known by everyone there is no way for this to end well, what are you talking about?

Could it not be said that the main problem in Iraq is that these Sunni's and Shiites (together the majority) do not appreciate freedom at all? What the US did is remove a corrupt and dangerous regime only to find out that the alternative is even worse. In hindsight does Iraq deserve anything better then Houssein? The destructive mindset of the numerous Islamic groups is in my opinion the real problem in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria,libanon and Iran. I do agree with you, that the US should get out of Iraq, but that does not solve the thread that comes out of that region of the world.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>Those folks are still out there because we pulled resources to go to Iraq, which had nothing to do with anything and were not a threat to us. If anything, they are gaining support because of our mistakes in Iraq, and we're more vulnerable that ever. Or is this about Iran, which also has nothing to do with anything and if anything we're also helping.

<snip>

They were a threat according to the intelligence sources through three administrations.

We will fight Al Qaida where ever they reside. It will continue through the next administration and the next until we kill so many that they can't recruit enough troops anymore.

[Queso]

We will fight Al Qaida where ever they reside. It will continue through the next administration and the next until we kill so many that they can't recruit enough troops anymore.
Or the USA bankrupts itself, which is a far more likely outcome going by the current rate of spend.

[Swarmlord]

Or the USA bankrupts itself, which is a far more likely outcome going by the current rate of spend.

Yeah, count on that. If anything entitlement spending would dry up before funding for defense.

[Queso]

Yeah, count on that. If anything entitlement spending would dry up before funding for defense.
Right, because Americans all think like you, don't they?

[Swarmlord]

Right, because Americans all think like you, don't they?

About half do. :)

[Queso]

About half do. :)
I think you're being a little generous there. Besides, if you think cutting the laughably tiny amount of social programs the US has in place will shave enough off the federal budget to pay for constant war you've got a shock coming.

[leekohler]

Yeah, count on that. If anything entitlement spending would dry up before funding for defense.

Including government retirement funds for Republicans who served in federal positions?

[Swarmlord]

Including government retirement funds for Republicans who served in federal positions?

In this state our retirements are self funded through 403B plans. The only people receiving pensions at the state level are politicians!

If I could give up social security in exchange for not having to pay into it anymore even at this late stage in my working career, I'd sign up in an instant. I could do a heck of a lot better with 15% of my income than I'll ever get out of that program.

[Ugg]

Yeah, count on that. If anything entitlement spending would dry up before funding for defense.

Hmmm, defense is considered entitlement spending by a great deal of American businesses.

The first rule of war is that it's all about money.

[skunk]

They were a threat according to the intelligence sources through three administrations."Al Qaeda in Iraq" did not even exist during the previous two administrations. As for Hussein, we all know how accurate the intelligence about him was.

We will fight Al Qaida where ever they reside. It will continue through the next administration and the next until we kill so many that they can't recruit enough troops anymore.Dream on. The more you kill, the more you recruit.

[leekohler]

In this state our retirements are self funded through 403B plans. The only people receiving pensions at the state level are politicians!

Exactly my point. Pay attention please.

If I could give up social security in exchange for not having to pay into it anymore even at this late stage in my working career, I'd sign up in an instant. I could do a heck of a lot better with 15% of my income than I'll ever get out of that program.

Because you are an island of course. SS couldn't possibly indirectly benefit you. :rolleyes:

[dswoodley]

"Al Qaeda in Iraq" did not even exist during the previous two administrations. As for Hussein, we all know how accurate the intelligence about him was.

Dream on. The more you kill, the more you recruit.

Well, the intelligence was that he was a brute, a saddist and a murderer - that part was right. It was the intelligence about his war-making ability that was the issue. If he had actually possessed the weapons he clearly wanted throughout the 90s, recent events MAY have been kinder to Bush, at least he wouldn't have had to seek gainful employment in the information fabrication industry.

As far killing Al Qaidas=more recruits, that's always been a fact of war. One that you have to be willing to risk. Japan makes war on US, then american boys gleefully line up to wear khaki. US declares war on germany, then tens of thousands of german decide to make the US eat schnitzel. It's age old game.

[imac/cheese]

Well, the intelligence was that he was a brute, a saddist and a murderer - that part was right. It was the intelligence about his war-making ability that was the issue. If he had actually possessed the weapons he clearly wanted throughout the 90s, recent events MAY have been kinder to Bush, at least he wouldn't have had to seek gainful employment in the information fabrication industry.

As far killing Al Qaidas=more recruits, that's always been a fact of war. One that you have to be willing to risk. Japan makes war on US, then american boys gleefully line up to wear khaki. US declares war on germany, then tens of thousands of german decide to make the US eat schnitzel. It's age old game.

While all this is true, the current situation is a little different. We are not in a war with Iraq, so currently most of the Iraqis are not fighting us. As we kill their brothers, dads, cousins, friends, etc, their view of us changes and they become insurgents. So in this case, the number of our enemies keeps growing instead of reducing.

Also, when innocent Iraqis are killed in collateral damage, their familes get angered at the US and want to fight back.

[solvs]

They were a threat according to the intelligence sources through three administrations.
Which is why Bush I and Clinton kept him under check. Clinton never stopped bombing his facilities. We had him under control. Even after he wasn't our "friend" anymore, which he was when he committed the atrocities he was hanged for. We could have done this a lot better, but we didn't. We screwed it up. So yeah, he was the better choice for them and us. I wish it wasn't that way, but we can all thank the administration's short sidedness for the fact that it is and nothing can seem to change it. Especially not more of the same, which is all they're doing.

But no, Saddam was no direct threat to us, and there was no Al Qaida or connections to terrorism before we invaded. And, for the billionth time, the Al Qaida that's there has little to nothing to do with those who attacked us. All 3-7% of them.

We will fight Al Qaida where ever they reside.
Then why didn't we finish in Afghanistan before pulling resources to go to Iraq? Why go to Iraq at all if there was no Al Qaida there, and why spend so much time and money and resources for a place that has so few Al Qaida now that are only there because we are? Recruiting more people against us because of our mistakes? And why are we ignoring Pakistan? And Bin Laden? We aren't stopping terrorism, we're making it worse! What part of that are you not getting?

This is getting ridiculous.

[skunk]

Even after he wasn't our "friend" anymore, which he was when he committed the atrocities he was hanged for.The attack on Halabja took place in 1988: he was still your friend then and afterwards.

[solvs]

The attack on Halabja took place in 1988: he was still your friend then and afterwards.

Maybe I misspoke, but that was my point. ;)