The Times Online reports: “US thinks the unthinkable: asking Iran for help with supply routes” into Afghanistan. The reasons for this move are the loss of alternative routes into the landlocked country after the closure of facilities in Kyrgyzstan and the increasing chokehold of Taliban units over land corridors through Pakistan.
It has been a grim couple of weeks for the snack lovers of Camp Phoenix. First Doritos, then Snickers, now Coca-Cola: all have disappeared from the usually packed shelves of the camp store. They were among the more expendable supplies lost when the Pakistani Taleban set fire to containers bound for US bases in Afghanistan close to the Khyber Pass.
The denuded shelves underline a far more serious problem for the US: how to fuel the military effort in Afghanistan in the face of diminishing regional leverage and growing opposition from neighbours.
Weeks of attacks by the Taleban on convoys from Karachi to the Khyber Pass and the decision by Kyrgyzstan to close the only US airbase in the region have left the US scrambling to find new routes at the very moment it is planning an influx of 17,000 troops. …
That is why, for the first time, people are thinking the unthinkable: Iran. Last week a US Nato commander said that individual member countries could seek supply routes through Iran. The US, when it went into Afghanistan, did not predict the turn of events in Pakistan. The search for new roads may force it to entertain alliances every bit as unexpected.
As readers of this site will know from previous posts, I thought that the Obama administration policy in Afghanistan seemed at odds with basic military precepts. I wrote:
The logistical consequences of the shift to the “good war” now have to be faced. Amateurs it is said, think of war in terms of tactics, but professionals see it in terms of logistics. Nowhere may this be truer than in the question of supplying Afghanistan. But the logistical burdens occasioned by greater troop strength may be only the beginning of the true requirements of the Southwest Asian theater. The real center of gravity of Taliban/al-Qaeda strength is in Pakistan, which can only be indirectly pressured from its neighbor to the West and only at the cost of feeding the fire in Pakistan itself. It is an absurd situation in conventional military terms. US supplies must pass through the enemy heartland in order to do a 180 degree to turn to fight that same foe. If the true theater of conflict is Pakistan then the US faces a possible escalation of effort in the theater depending on contingent events. In which case the real load will be the requirements of supporting an effort, direct or indirect, within Pakistan. But that’s our supply line …
If the US actually does succeed in acquiring a supply route through Iran, or with Iranian help, in order to supply NATO troops across the border from the Taliban in Pakistan, then it is axiomatic that an automatic linkage will be set up between Obama’s efforts in Afghanistan and the fate of Iraq, Lebanon and Israel in the Middle East. It it is almost impossible to imagine that Teheran would accede to such a request without extracting a heavy price from the US for the privilege of feeding its increasing garrison in Afghanistan. What price that is and who would pay it seem unavoidable if such an “engagement” actually becomes reality. If any of these actions makes sense in terms of US national interest, please let me know. I am puzzled.
Open thread.
Tip Jar
Originally Sinless said…
“Regarding Peters below. Although I advocate it as the best of all currently available options – aside from perhaps outright exit – there are also major problems with a reduced presence and less ambitious strategy in Afghanistan. To the point where I doubt we could carry it out coherently, and wonder if it is also a pipe dream.
A significantly reduced conventional presence would spend more time trying to protect itself and figuring out what was going on than would actually accomplishing anything. The bigger it is, the more you retain our current problems with logistics, and the need for regional support. The smaller it is, the higher the risks it could find itself overwhelmed by sheer geographical space, and perhaps find itself effectively undersiege like the British were toward the end of their stay in Basra. On the bright side, it is unlikely that anything battalion size or larger, with attendant air support, would be overrun. On the other hand, they probably aren’t going to accomplish much to justify their continued presence.
What’s going to happen when we significantly reduce our presence? First, the national government and its institutions are probably going to fall apart. I could be wrong, but I can’t see it holding on like the Communist government did. It’s too fragile and dependent on our presence.
It’s more likely the country would devolve into a fluid and murky multi-faction civil war similar to that which occurred in the early 1990s. Intervening would involve real unconventional warfare – small teams working alongside indigenous factions with varying political goals on a week-to-week or month-to-month basis. You’d want it to be directed locally, not from Washington, with its short-term directives, many of which are based on political factors completely unrelated to the mission. Good luck with that.
In theory, it’d be an environment for special operating forces, CIA paramilitaries, and similar assets. Army Special Forces, in particular, were supposedly established for this stuff. But they’ve never operated as far as I know in an environment as messy as this one could get. The closest was training the tribes in Laos, but that was a long time ago and relatively simple in comparison with Afghanistan.
The best case I can think of would be the OSS and Special Operations Executive in the occupied Axis territories (i.e., Yugoslavia). But that was a long time ago in obviously a completely different political environment. I wonder how much a couple score small teams are actually going to be able to accomplish on the ground. There’s also a sigificant chance of betrayal and the loss of various groups.
Furthermore, general Afghan patience for Coalition forces is going to drop significantly once you get rid of the high-profile reconstruction projects, and general promise of a better future. We’re much more likely, though I think we’re already headed there, to reach the point where we’re a national scapegoat hated by all parties, justly or unjustly, for aggravating ongoing violence. Once that happens our presence in the country is going to be completely untenable.
Moreover, the smaller our presence, the less influence we’re going to have on our “allies.” In other words, it’s going to be Afghan-style, carried out alongside sectarian/ethnic/tribal lines – bloody and indiscriminate.
Is this country ready to see that on their newspapers everyday, knowing we’re involved, and that there isn’t going to be any happy ending for Afghanistan? Are they ready to watch us take sides in that fight? I doubt it. There’s not going to be many feel good stories coming out of it. Sometimes we can get away with things in theaters that are under the radar, but this one won’t be. Certainly you can forget about the international troops. These countries will barely take part in a feel-good reconstruction mission.
And even that relies on the assumption that we can latch up with some identifiable factions that share enough of our goals to make it worthwhile. National politics in Afghanistan is going to be dead. You’re going to have to pick out the guys who have real power on the regional and provincial levels, and who are not just Parliamentary figure heads. Then you have to factor in the fact that places like Afghanistan (see Lebanon in the 1970s) have an exaggerated tendency of chewing groups up and spitting out new ones like a sausage machine. Are we going to be able to keep up and still carry out constructive missions against Al Qaeda?
Speaking of Al Qaeda, we’re probably going to pull back from the South and East. Which is probably going to significantly reduce our own ability to gather intelligence on high-value Al Qaeda targets in Southern Afghanistan and Pakistan. Forget about whatever relationships we’ve forged down there. We’re probably going to wind up working up North alongside the non-Pashtuns, which may aggravate relations with the country’s majority, backed as it is by an even larger Pashtun population in Pakistan.
—
It’s too late, I’m going to bed. The bottom line is the entire thing’s a f…… nightmare, even ignoring whatever problems come out of Pakistan. And that’s why the nation-builders are probably going to win, for now. The nation-building strategy, pipe-dream that I think it will prove to be, at least provides policy-makers with an all-encompassing long-term solution to the problem. Everyone else is left advocating various flavors of crap. More realistic crap, but crap nonetheless.”
Said it many times here in the past, Afghanistan since early last year became a “Lose/Lose” situation, as soon as it looked like the US population was no longer behind the war effort and the “Me first” political party looked to take seats and even the White House our friends in money only and fear of the “Cowboy who would call you out” began to buck that Administration, when it became obvious that Jimmy II was gona win they drop all pretense of fear and worry, and began to actually scheme against us, Now that Ms. Clinton has pronounced the new change, one that has nothing to do with “little people” and “all about the momey”, “0″ has been nothing but one blunder, stumbling into another it won’t be long before the US Military becomes the same! God Help our military men and women, God help our freedom loving allies….
(In response to this Peter’s piece I posted)
The mendacity of hope
In the absence of a strategy, we’re doubling our troop commitment, hoping to repeat the success we achieved in the profoundly different environment of Iraq. Unable to describe our ultimate goals with any clarity, we’re substituting means for ends.
Expending blood and treasure blindly in Afghanistan, we do our best to shut our eyes to the worsening crisis next door in Pakistan, a radicalizing Muslim state with more than five times the population and a nuclear arsenal. We’ve turned the hose on the doghouse while letting the mansion burn.
Initially, Afghanistan wasn’t a war of choice. We had to dislodge and decimate al-Qaeda, while punishing the Taliban and strengthening friendlier forces in the country. Our great mistake was to stay on in an attempt to build a modernized rule-of-law state in a feudal realm with no common identity.
We needed to smash our enemies and leave. Had it proved necessary, we could have returned later for another punitive mission. Instead, we fell into the great American fallacy of believing ourselves responsible for helping those who’ve harmed us.
—
Peters then lists what he sees as our options.
“Ranked from best to worst, here are our four basic options going forward:”
What is the basic requirement? It is to deny Afghanistan to al-Qaeda and destroy their influence in Pakistan without compromising US gains elsewhere. Attempts to democratize Pakistan (which are laudable) have changed the circumstances of the US position there. The relevant question is how can the basic requirements be met under the changed conditions?
It is not clear to me (though I may be wrong) that the correct way to go is to augment the forces in Afghanistan when they cannot directly come to grips with the main enemy in Pakistan’s border provinces. Although this can deny Afghanistan’s eastern areas to the Taleban, what hope is there of winning? People talked about Iraq as if it were “Vietnam”, but this situation is far more comparable.
I argued in the previous posts that Obama is, to some extent, where LBJ was in 1965. He can escalate and go all the way or cut his losses. I doubt he will go all the way. I don’t think it is an option. Under those conditions, what actions make sense?
What is at issue here is the best way to fulfill the mission, not to abandon the mission of denying Afghanistan to the enemy. But all warfare is cost-benefit. Once the costs start becoming greater than the benefits, then a re-think is necessary. If a frontal attack won’t work, we must find a flank. Do something different. This feels like sticking one’s head into a noose. Maybe it makes sense, but the argument that we faced with a shit smorgasbord and must delicately select the best hors d’ourves from a bad lot seems wrong.
Foreign Policy This Week at War
Preparing for hybrid warfare
When those U.S. reinforcements arrive in southern Afghanistan, what can they expect? General James Mattis of the U.S. Marine Corps is the commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command and is the leader responsible for preparing and training U.S. military forces before they deploy to Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere overseas. General Mattis and his staff have the responsibility for anticipating the kind of environment U.S. forces will find themselves in and ensuring that they are properly trained for that environment.
What is General Mattis’s guidance? One part comes from a document Joint Forces Command released in January, titled “Capstone Concept for Joint Operations.” What does this pamphlet have to do with southern Afghanistan?
Capstone Concept for Joint Operations requires U.S. military forces to master not only combat, but three additional activities: security (protecting the local population, a basic requirement of a counterinsurgency campaign); engagement (training and supporting indigenous military and security forces); and relief and reconstruction.
Capstone Concept for Joint Operations declares that these competency requirements are not just for elite special forces troops, but for all general-purpose U.S. military forces. In a recent edition of “This Week at War,” I noted the complaint of one U.S. Army captain currently serving in Iraq who observed that the recent Army school he attended did not prepare him to be the “pentathlete” duty in places like Iraq and Afghanistan now requires.
General Mattis believes life for U.S. military leaders will only get tougher. In a recent speech delivered at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Mattis noted that he and his staff are studying the Israeli-Hezbollah clash in the summer of 2006.
This conflict, Mattis explained, was a significant example of “hybrid war.” Hezbollah, a non-state actor, employed an eclectic and effective mix of high technology and rudimentary irregular warfare tactics. In addition to the now-expected irregular warfare tactics of hiding amongst a civilian population and employing roadside bombs, Hezbollah also employed late-generation guided anti-tank and anti-ship missiles, electronic and cyber warfare techniques, and a masterful information operations campaign designed to influence the international media.
Being a military “pentathlete” won’t be enough, it seems. By Mattis’s reckoning, in the very near future, U.S. military leaders must be accomplished “decathletes” if they are to prevail against savvy “hybrid” opponents.
—
– Westhawk
(To which is added the most elemental: Logistics)
Can’t say Canoneer didn’t warn us!
at the same link:
“Afghan troop request? Approved. Afghan strategy? “Not pre-determined.””
—
The CIC is following the Timmy Geithner model:
“We’ll get back to you.”
Maybe he’ll have another breakout session with members of Congress.
Never before have we had a Commander so well versed in Community Organizing.
…now I just need to find that Patton quote about
“It takes a Village!“
Taliban Extend Truce, Gain Sway in Swat
The government’s deal with the militants has raised concerns in Washington and other Western countries that the area will be a sanctuary for insurgents.
Let’s try to get Iran and the Taliban/AQ to bid against each other for the troop-supply concession. To pay for it, we can rent our strategic nuclear forces to North Korea and hire the Kremlin to guard Fort Knox.
During the first few weeks of the Afghan Campaign the US Navy offloaded supplies on isolated Iranian coastal areas and helicoptered them into Afghanistan over Iranian airspace. Iran acquiesced to this arrangement so long as the US did not publicize it.
Iran’s incentive for cooperation was survival of the regime. At that time the fury of the US was something to be accommodated and not challenged. Although the fury is not so palpable today the regime’s incentives remain the same.
Iran will permit a more expansive US supply arrangement because the alternative is war with the USA and the end of the Khomeini revolution. Whatever Obama may choose to give up to Iran in the Levant is gratuitous.
“If any of these actions makes sense in terms of US national interest, please let me know. I am puzzled.”
If you were still pursuing the Bush-doctrine of democracy-building in the region, it wouldn’t make sense. If you had any intention of upholding Israel as the US’ key ally in the region, it wouldn’t make sense. As has been pointed out so many times already here, it would make sense to national intrests to crack Pakistan despite the resulting mess, or just go home.
The implications from even “letting” NATO countries other than the US transit via Iran are rather staggering, in that the leadership there are not so silly as to miss the opportunity to lever-off most of the economic sanctions that are riling society there so effectively. The Europeans themselves would salivate at the opportunity to A) open Iran’s market again, and B) ship Central Asian gas to Middle Eastern ports. There have been recent overtures between Turkmenistan and Iran regarding greater cooperation for exactly that.
The great prize, of course, would be if the US itself sat down to negotiate a supply route through Iran. Ah… the sweet victory over the infidel, and jizya from defeated foes could take many forms.
Given that Obama’s administration is progressively pulling the veils off its orientation toward Israel (and by corollary, Iran), perhaps a better question to ask is what configuration does the world move into when Iran has it’s hand on the spigot for US troops in Afghanistan, Tajikistan is disintegrating into economic hell, and Taliban 2.0 is marching ever closer to having their second, nuclear country.
What do you do if you’re Israel? What do you do if you’re India? Russia? China?
–JC
PS. Gentle on the de-lurking poster, hmm?
Exactly what I was thinking, Boston.
So few were willing to risk taking on the USA when we were in offensive mode, prior to catch and release, Murtha, dissolving the Iraqi Army, and Viceroy Bremer.
It ain’t no fun being a prophet of doom, Doug. Only on The Belmont Club have my jeremiads on this subject gained any traction at all.
What is the basic requirement?
What is the bottom line?
What is acceptable?
What is intolerable?
Who decides?
Do we trust their judgement?
RE: #10 JC
Is Obama in any way pursuing efforts in Afghanistan in order to open channels with Tehran? Maybe he doesn’t have to “sit down at the diplomatic table with Iran,” thereby angering the Right. Maybe he can do it via the military avenue, and gain a somewhat approving nod from the pro-military Right, by asking to use Iranian roads? In this way O gets what he’s after…to sit down at table with the Iranians.
If I were Israel, I’d be worried!
Peters sounds like he read Lifeofthemind’s comment on Insurgency vs Counterinsurgency two weeks ago. Anybody on this thread who didn’t see that one should.
If USA is working with Iran, the Mullahs are indemnified against Israeli attack, right?
I wonder, also, about this administration’s interest in Afghanistan. It’s out of character, as is AG Holder’s forward lean on the War on Drugs, which fills prisons with their natural constituency. Don’t reckon it’s the Genoveses do ya? Keeping a hold on the supply end?
W (#4) as I have said in the past here and elsewhere “US ain’t suppose to be in the Nation building business!” US should be fostering Liberty and freedom where ever a foot hold pops up! US should be encouraging freedom and liberty at every opportunity possible, But as I have said “Freedom ain’t for all, it has to be earned” by this Afghanistan is a prime example, this is a region that cannot support a “Free thinking liberated people’ this area is clearly a 7th century mind set, one in which a kingdom could only survive and progress forward into the 21st century, the job of the US here would to put a benevolent king in place and support it and nurture it, yes even when the “King” does questionable things, then as the population breaks free of its middle age culture (Yes, we are talking Islam) it can transform to a modern state, there is no time schedule to accomplish this feat and it would only progress as the surrounding counties also broke free of their suppressing death cult, Pakistan is another great example, educated, technologically advanced population does not make you a better place, until the culture of Death is its self destroyed it will never advance to a Republic or Democratic functioning 21st century nation!
I always maintained that going big in Afghanistan (especially after advocating defeat in Iraq) was so dumb that Candidate/State Senator Obama had to be lying whenever he said it. But I am now prepared to accept that he meant every dumb thing he has ever said.
Ralph Peters maintained that Iraq would break apart into three pieces. I held that Iraq would hold together. I like to point out when I guess right, as compared to someone who speaks from a depth of knowledge and experience.
After 9/11 I told my friends that we cannot decide who ultimate runs Afghanistan but we can determine who does not.
Unfortunately, we are not now in a position to play all ends against the middle because there is no middle and way too many ends. But we can tie up loose ends in one spot and cut a Gordian Knot in another. We can turn the place into a giant bowl of spaghetti, top it with sauce, and leave the meatballs in charge. Would AQ move back in? We’d be better off if they did. Not even Democrats could allow them to organize another attack from Afghanistan. So we could bomb the hope out of them while playing all ends against AQ.
A larger force in Afghanistan will now be little more than hostages — a pledge of our good behavior and continued ransom payments. And who knows? A draw down may cause the Afghans to step up when they see another bloody, unending civil war in their future (ending, if it ever does, with the Pakistanis in charge — which will suck for them!).
“I argued in the previous posts that Obama is, to some extent, where LBJ was in 1965. He can escalate and go all the way or cut his losses. I doubt he will go all the way. I don’t think it is an option. Under those conditions, what actions make sense?”
The real question is what actions make sense in the DC Inside the Beltway view of things?
Answer: Do it half assed.
I know I’m playing to a deaf crowd but Iran will stop short of actually developing a nuclear weapon, or even enriching uranium to weapons grade. The possibility of developing nukes gives the regime diplomatic leverage. Actually having a nuke creates a liability that could end the regime.
The US/Iraq may deny Iraqi airspace to Israeli bombers but the prohibition would have no effect on Israeli missles. We should not assume that a nuclear first strike on Iran is beyond the boundaries. I’ll bet the mullahs do not.
“If any of these actions makes sense in terms of US national interest, please let me know. I am puzzled.”
If you operate from the idea that Barak Obama and the Soros-funded top Democratic leadership are in their heart Marxists (Marx 2.0), then this does make sense. Marxist ideology and law eventually results in a culture of death as does Islamist ideology and Sharia Law. The cooperation between the current Democratic administration and Iran can be seen as part of an emerging Marxist/Islamist alliance.
I am puzzled about the fate of the American Revolution, because both Marxism and Islamism are elitist ideologies; they both seek to destroy government of the people, by the people, for the people – to make such government perish from the earth; they both aim to destroy the American Revolution.
Indeed everything is linked. If I were in the Israeli government, whether outgoing Kadima or incoming Likud, I would consider that the Obama administration is at best confused and at worst committed to throwing Israel under the bus for no sensible reason. And I would conclude that striking Iran before Bushehr goes live and before the Russian air defenses are installed is a must, regardless of whatever response there is by Iranian missiles, attacks on oil shipping, Hezbollah attacks on diplomatic missions or a chill from Obama. Red lines are real and it takes an incredible yet commonly high degree of narcissism to fail to understand that. Can Obama be that narcissistic? Yes he can!
Giving anything to Iran for access to Afghanistan would truly be “two steps back” in any campaign to stabilize world affairs. Like the Russians, the current Iranian regime does not like to play win-win games. They have no natural allies at all[1] and can only want things that hurt us or our allies.
I think the objective of building a modern State in Afghanistan needs to be put on the back burner while we concentrate on Pakistan. We will have to settle for territorial denial to Al Qaeda with UAVs & commandos working in tandem with “our bastards” in the Karzai government and (if necessary) local warlords. It’s a far from ideal strategy with long term costs (since it does not produce a long-term end game that we like) but it will do us for a spell. That’s probably the best we can get. A small SpecOps and UAV presence can be supplied by air. We can also air-drop supplies to local allies if necessary.
[1] China likes their natural gas. Russia likes how they tie down and distract the US and EU. As soon as these interests evaporate, poof.
Jihadis Speculate on Secret Cooperation between Iran and al-Qaeda
In the articles yesterday that Iran was testing its first domestic nuclear reactor that Russia started building Natanz or Bushehr in 1998. Yesterday’s exercise was attended by both the head of the Iranian nuclear energy and the Russian nuclear energy commissions. Russia also pledged to provide Iran with nuclear fuel for at least 10 years.
Interestingly, 1998 is also 3 years before Iran allowed transit to 2 or 3 of the 9/11 guys through its territory from north to south, an operation that took “about 2 years to plan.” Several of the head al Qaeda are “under house arrest” in Iran since just after 9/11, including bin Laden’s son. Litvinenko claimed al Zawahiri was either a KGB agent or trained by the KGB in 1996.
Just suspend your suspicion for a second.
Now, Obama sits on the button. Russia closes our Kyrgyz airbase, and the Taliban have suddenly discovered – after 7 years – how to attack the US supply line through Peshawar and the FATA, their home turf. North Korea is about to launch a “satellite”, just as Iran recently launched a “satellite.” I note in passing that “Russian officers” were censured last week for “smuggling” over $20 million in weapons to China, including anti-submarine missiles and some other goodies (that is, possibly strategic weapons). Russia is also dredging their old Syrian port.
Any one know what’s happening inGreece lately?
And now Sharif, in Pakistan, has been declared sub-political, and his mobs are torching Rawalpindi (but this is only day 1).
To top it off, people are now seriously considering begging Iran to allow us to use its territory to transit supplies and arms to our boys in Afghanistan.
Someone tell me how this is going to end. I’d add my two cents but I just want to paint the picture. I’m sure I’m leaving something out of the great Risk game.
The emerging logistical and strategic incompetence or incoherence (if you prefer) would be worrisome enough.
What if it’s neither? Obama is decidedly anti-war and further is tied to people who despise America’s standing (strength) in the world. The economic humbling is well underway.
The military? I am beginning to worry that the strategy is precisely to create the conditions for a generational humiliation of the military in a stranded position in Southwest Asia on the order of Little Big Horn, Somalia, Saigon 1975 (complete with telegenic helicopter escape). The point being to make us forever isolationist and get out of the way of the international crew of thieves, despots, tyrants and murderers for a very long time indeed.
I hope to God I am simply losing it. But the moves we are making make no sense to me if a strong and successful America abroad is the goal.
Oh – Bangladesh has put down a minor military insurrection by its border guards, Yemen is buying Russian jets (as Lebanon was just given Russian Migs), Thailand is still – but we’re getting away to the periphery…
A bomb just went off in Egypt. Could be nothing, could be the first part in the apparent strategy of “We’ll say we’re some little group, out of nowhere; we’ll bomb a bus, then another bus, than maybe shoot a few old ladies. Then, after some press releases and a mention by one of the jihad groups, we’ll set off a bomb in a bazaar that kills 200… see? After a while, they’ll just think we’re some group that keeps gaining competence and is capable of larger and larger attacks because we are growing, we’re part of the islamic zeitgeist… soon we’ll be part of the mental furniture… so when the Bomb goes off against Main Enemy, why wouldn’t it be ‘the south faction of the Andalus Justice Brigade,’ with our shadowy ties to ISI and renegade Saudi intelligence?’
I’m just thinking out loud here. Is it me or do you guys feel something coming, in a way in which you haven’t quite felt it before?
I know several people outside of the BC family who are expressing just such anxieties as are posted above. I, too, am very worried. The thought that just haunts me is that this might not all be falling into place accidentally. I don’t remember who said that “there are no accidents in politics”. Am I turning into a conspiracy nut; or, are we onto something?
PB @21…
Your working assumption seems to be that the mullahs will work from Saddam’s Playbook: look for all the world like you’re WMD haves when you’re a have-not.
That didn’t save him, it doomed him.
I’d say the Iranians are also too close to the tabooed technology as to make counter action risk nigh on certain.
Peter Boston @ 9,
What was true back in the post-911 environment is not true now. Bush, and the citizenry, would not have brooked Iranian resistance. When we were still looking for someone’s ass to kick for the twin towers, Iran knew the U.S. was dangerous. We’re not dangerous now. Does anyone seriously believe Obama would start a war with Iran? Absolutely ludicrous. The man has been bowing, genuflecting, and kissing mullah ass since he took office.
Obama’s plan is to fundamentally change the American system domestically. He’s going to play a holding game on foreign affairs – not making waves, trying to placate the various thug autocrats around the world, and turn Afghanistan into Vietnam redux.
Wretchard said it better than I could ever say it in his old post about Keyser Soze and the role of will in warfare. Our enemies don’t fear us, and don’t wonder anymore what we’re capable of. They know the U.S. is now feckless and unwilling to defend its interests. We’ve invited them to exert their influence into the power vacuum, and terrible things may result.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
There is a lot of action by our enemies around the globe. I don’t believe this is some great conspiracy; it is just a rehash of what happened world wide when it became clear that Jimmy Carter was a pacifist coward. In this case there are two large differences.
1) Obama never served as a naval officer aboard a nuclear submarine during the cold war, so our enemies have no illusions that Obama has any spine to stand up for U.S. interests. They suspect that since we’re now unwilling to fight effectively, we will lay back and acquiesce to being raped by Islamic Fascists or anyone else who wants a piece. Today, it won’t take our enemies a couple years to discover that only a hen is guarding the hen house as was the case with Carter.
2) The Soviet Union is no more. As much as Russia may undermine our interests, and enjoys seeing us tied down with problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere, they don’t come close to holding the power of the purse or the sword, or ideology that the U.S.S.R. held above the heads of American haters both foreign and domestic before Jimmy Carter. During the cold war, especially before the Carter white house, any serious action that could upset the applecart was either approved by the Kremlin or quashed.
Today, those who hate America see themselves cut free from any negative consequences for their actions or control from higher authority. It’s analogous to criminals pillaging a city whose police department is on strike.
The worst part of this entire mess is that in the case of the Dept. of Defense, where Obama and his apparatchiks can’t seize power outright, they will create a huge distraction and meat grinder to destroy many of the best, brightest, and most highly motivated Americaphiles who may otherwise oppose them. They will do everything in their power to create and maintain the high casualty quagmire in the Afghan / Pakistan area of responsibility (AOR) that their lackeys in the media and anti-American protesters on the street have prophesied since President Bush announced we would not sit meekly by whining “Thank you sir! May I have another?!” after 9/11.
Wasn’t a an Indian Kashmiri supply route discussed? It seems a “better” option than Iran.
Yes “better” is in scare quotes because it obviously opens a whole new can of worms.
Feel free to way in as to the contents of that “can.”
“”"”"”"Feel free to way “”"”"”"
“weigh” in, excuse me.
Obama’s ego is the best national defense mechanism in the administration. Compare Comrade Barack to Comrade Fidel or Comrade Hugo. Would either of those other enlightened dear leaders allow their manly prowess to be challenged by a humiliating defeat of their military?
I don’t think Obama gives a hoot about the soldiers but he does care very much about his image as an historical figure. By choosing to send more troops to Afghanistan he has linked his personal prestige to their success. When viewed in that light Obama is more likely to act “aggressively” than GWB who took risks rationally.
Apparently David E. Sanger, senior NYTimes correspondant, has a new book coming out saying that everyone knows that Pakistan has been playing us all along, that everyone in the US national security establishment knows this, and that the Pakistanis just basically play stupid about the threat that the Taliban and ISI pose to its own stability, and even their own lives. Some of the Pakistanis claim that they must maintain good relations with Taliban because one day America will get tired and then Pakistan will be left to the mercy of its colossal Indian. He claims Mike McConnel was present at a meeting in which a 2-star Pak general elaborated this theory to a group of other generals as though McConnel wasn’t there.
Could this be true? Could “the Taliban” have (1) gain two formal treaties ceding Pakistan territory to them in 3 years, (2) effectively toppled Musharaff, (3) killed Bhutto, (4) threaten Afghanistan, (5) attack India through terror proxies – all this, directly endangering Pakistan *and its elites – could they really be so seriously stupid as to pursue this strategy? Because they fear India?
India – the country into which they keep sending suicide bombers?
I’m sorry, does this make sense to anyone else?
“When viewed in that light Obama is more likely to act “aggressively” than GWB who took risks rationally.”
It still feels like riding bus and slowly realizing that the driver is drunk.
If Obama *is* a bought President, then ask yourself who will be pulling his puppet strings, and to what end? I think it’s a mistake to go on the assumption that the President of the United States will henceforth do what is good for America automatically, both financially and militarily.
If, for example, Saudi oil money bought Obama his Presidency, then an insistance that he start working with Iran and throw Israel totally under the bus might make more sense (as would him putting Biden in charge of economic efforts on this side of the ocean).
Dan @37:
It becomes more logical if you realize Pakistan has been in a more or less slow rolling civil war for the last five years. There are Islamic fanatics who will whole heartedly strike at the Hindu Indian idolaters until they are dead, or submit to Islam. There is a highly educated class in the military, government, and industry that eschews these extremes. There is a great deal of money coming in from Gulf States, specifically from Saudi Arabia. The uneducated masses have been subject to thirty years of increasingly extreme Wahhabi teaching in mosques and madras. The ruling elite know that if they move to suppress Wahhabi extremists they imperil their gulf funding. They know their national intelligence organs and part of their military are deeply infiltrated by Islamic extremists. They remember their history regarding the founding of Pakistan and the bitter, bloody genocide that took place before and during partition. Yes, the Pakistani elite are feeding the crocodile now, and have been for some time, just like the educated elites in most Muslim ruled nations. Any secular pro-western elements of the Pakistani government are nearly powerless to proceed harshly against the Islamists for fear of touching off a powder keg.
To answer your question plainly, yes, they do seem to be following this strategy, because they are insane. They currently have a split personality. A rational personality that fears India and the loss of the Pakistani elites status if they are absorbed by India, and an insane 7th century personality that wants to destroy the infidel no matter the cost, because martyrs for the cause of Allah are assured a place in paradise, and we all must die eventually. It is not rational. You simply must have faith in the will of Allah!
Welcome to the dissonance so many rational western thinkers encounter when trying to make sense of the actions and motivations of insane, dark aged, fanatics we share our world with today. As the British discovered in Sudan, you cannot reason with an Islamic fanatic, and you will waste a lot of time trying. Best just to kill them quickly and cleanly with a minmum of fuss. Pip Pip! Cheerio! So that you and everyone else can get on with a rational existence.
In our seeking of a frame that fits around all these matters, 5 minutes spent here is a sort of ‘must’.
(snip)
“Seeking new weapons and maintaining massive arsenals makes no sense,” writes Senator Feinstein. The solution, of course, is for the United States to “lead the way” in nuclear disarmament. The Bush administration’s push for replacing obsolete U.S. warheads is dismissed as “threatening.” Nothing is said about Russia’s ICBM deployments or China’s nuclear buildup. In Feinstein’s view, nuclear weapons are evil. “Today,” writes Feinstein, “there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world hundreds of times.” This statement is sadly misinformed. Today’s U.S. arsenal cannot even guarantee the destruction of the main military targets in Russia. Incredibly, the senator is engaged in a “moral crusade” against a weapon that has preserved her life, and her country’s life. What she proposes, I believe, is her own elimination – though she doesn’t know it. From her point of view, the leaders in Moscow and Beijing are not the problem. Our enemy is not some foreign power. Our enemy is a weapon. “We must recognize nuclear weapons for what they are – not a deterrent, but a grave and gathering threat to humanity.”
Subject: Fw: US Oil Reserves
—-
The bureaucrats have done an excellent job keeping most Americans in the dark.
GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind.
SNOPES has an interesting report , as well.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April (’08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since ’95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana … check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ‘s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable… at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.
‘When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.’ says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst.
‘This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years.’ reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken.’ And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. &! nbsp;How ever, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves… and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.
2. And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should – because it’s from TWO YEARS AGO!
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction.
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.
Here are the official estimates:
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it’s all right here in the Western United States .
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil!
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.
The scene Sanger describes isn’t a civil war, however, and the international dimensions of the conflict undermine that thesis, Rex. I used to think that the quasi-civil-war explanation was persuasive, but I am less convinced now. “Asian-ness” is not a good answer anymore, I think. I’m not saying I know the answer, but I think there are crucial pieces of information missing.
Buddy – how about the latest guesses about those “outdated Cold War weapon systems”? The F-22, Virginia Class submarines, and so on? Nice. It only took China 20 years to own the US Treasury and manufacturing capacity (i.e., the US economy); I wonder how many years it will take to get us to become 100% counter-insurgency?
I don’t know what’s more amazing: that this *is* the result of a plot, or that it isn’t.
Sort of tangential, but this is a really interesting article about a historian I’ve meant to read who seems to really epitomize the sophisticated version of the great intellectual errors of our times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr
Once you understand that Obama is a Muslim, or deeply sympathetic to Muslims, against the US, reflexively, things make sense.
Nearly all of his appointees, particulalry staffers, blurt out anti-American rhetoric as a matter of course and the habits and attitudes of a lifetime.
What Obama wants is a huge, humiliating defeat for America as “good for us” and a moral dose of correction so he can avoid any spending at all on the Military and focus on his radical agenda of making America a socialist paradise to uplift those who are “good” (non-Whites) and punish those who he and his followers find “evil” (Working/Middle Class White men).
Obama is of course stupid. He will own the defeat of the US, in whatever Alamo form it takes, in Afghanistan, and the resurgent AQ and Taliban attacking the US worldwide and at home will be his. Including Pakistan “lending” or “losing” a few nukes to AQ so that we can be nuked.
What happens in Afghanistan and fear (or contempt) we generate in Pakistan and Iran makes NYC and six million American lives safer or more forfeit.
Obama, is simply too stupid and bound by his hatreds, racial and religious, for most Americans to understand that and deliver both victory and security.
This ties in with the SWPL folks who elected Obama, see Roger Simon’s encounter with the heart of SWPL Air America, who fear losing their stranglehold on power so much they’d rather have America in ruins than sacrifice one bit of power to fight to preserve their country.
The fatwas on Geert Wilders, the spineless response to the Hostage Crisis in 1979, the push-back on fighting back after 9/11, and Obama’s election to make “Muslims love us” is all part of that broad trend — which will lead to disaster.
We are seeing the collapse of the elite, unable to deliver an economy, or safety/security, or much of anything other than elitist status mongering. Obama is the Savior-based model, on the assumption that the world shares the elites obsession with status and moral posturing.
It’s all going to be crashing down, in an Alamo last stand in Kabul, likely, and a nuclear flash over Times Square. An angry and cynical population in America will turn to a Third Party figure promising harsh measures to bring first security, then defeat and punishment (to our enemies globally), and finally wealth (likely through good old-fashioned colonialism unfettered by moral notions).
Dan, not just those (& you know the raptor is the only thing we’ve got that can beat the new Rus SAMs –the S-300 [?] system on its way to Iran?), but the missile defense and the new brown-water-capable Destroyer. in short, the ‘tech adge’ by which USA makes up for low numbers.
Dunno about the other systems’ sunk costs, but F22 has $32 billion in SUNK costs –all done and paid, and now we’re down to just the per-copy cost. IOW, finally, we’re at the “payoff” –and what do we do but quit.
And what about that stimulation bit? How many jobs lost –engineering jobs –when we shut down these programs?
Finally, military equipment isn’t expensed –it’s capitalized –goes dollar-for-dollar onto GDP. unlike the ACORN army, which is all expensed.
I was at a gathering today where George Will spoke to a conservative energy group here in Houston. He mentioned that Gates had told him that a standoff strategy in Afghanistan was probably the way to proceed forward. Perhaps Gates has said that publicly, but it was news to me.
So if that is really the case, the resolution between his views and that of Obama will be interesting theatre.
43 Lurker, there may be a lot of oil in the Bakken, but it is very expensive to produce at these prices. And that’s why producers are laying down rigs in that area to focus on the more attractive gas shale plays that have a better payback now.
whiskey, speaking of The Alamo, Task Force Deguello officially assumed command and responsibility for intelligence collection in the Afghanistan Combined Joint Operations Area last week.
Are you safer today than you were on Jan. 19, 2009?
As Wretchard and others stated, the goal is to deny Afghanistan as a terrorist base. Administration policy is built on the unstated and unquestioned supposition that totally remaking Afghanistan into something akin to a liberal democracy is the best way to do this.
The only reason Obama said while campaigning he would increase our effort in Afghanistan was to address the thought that, given his statements about Iraq, Iran, NoKo and Venezuela, that he would be weak internationally–he would show that there was som issue on which he would be assertive. This position is totally inconsistent with everything else about him, except its political expediency at the time.
The fact that he seems to be sticking with it suggests he fears a “Who Lost China?” blowback after we pull out of Iraq and start compromising with Iran et al and if not exactly throw Israel off teh boat, greatly weaken our support, with bad consequences. He hopes a strong Afghan presence would let him counter all that, as he pursues the domestic agenda that really motivates him.
So, my guess is he will deal with Iran or Russia re logistics, and hope they don’t put the screws to him too visibly, because Afghanistan is his (only?) foreign policy “Get out of jail free” card. By late 2012 all his domestic agenda will be in place and he’ll be re-elected, then it won’t matter so much and he can abandon his Afghan clients to their fates, and make good his promises to Iran or Russia, as well.
A few hundred troops who died only to buy him time domestically, will not bother him in the slightest.
i think Marty has pretty much got it figured out.
The logistical difficulties were evident when the Georgian Russian conflict blew up. The fact is that without a secure land route into Afghanistan via Pakistan even if 1600 km long then we cannot supply our troops and NATO forces. That mean we can only last for the spring offensive and the hit into Pakistan’s Northwest Territories.
Afghanistan is not worth it. Iraq was, but Afghanistan will take decades to modernize just a little. Without a better system of roads and trade to make the farmers able to afford other than opium crops, the subsistence level of Afghanistan will stay and be unable, even if they wanted, to forestall the Taliban. Taliban has a secure landmass to breed and secure villages in Pakistan. They have short supply lines; we do not.
The only alternative appears from the map is access to Georgia from the Black Sea. And across Armenia to Azerbaijan to the Caspian Sea and then through Turkmenistan.
The plus to this would help Georgia and increase their economy and help secure them from Russia adventurism. Armenia is a Russian puppet but their economy may make them amenable to using the rails and roads to transport supplies to Azerbaijan. Now Azerbaijan would be very happy with this arrangement and I think so will Turkmenistan. They all want help from being swallowed by Russia or China.
Now the major problem is to get Russia to agree. They do not want us to support Georgia since Putin is furious with Georgia and they do not want US to gain influence in that region.
The question is the goal to eliminate the Taliban and modernize Afghanistan a viable goal? I do not think so. The Taliban can just retreat into Pakistan and since they live there, a waiting game is against us. We can hurt the Taliban but they have secure lands deeper into Pakistan with the agreement of control over the Swat Valley. Baitullah Mehsud and the Taliban are slowly conquering Pakistan. Unless we want to take on Pakistan this is a conflict we cannot win with a limited war.
I have to agree # 18 wilderness calling, that a king installed with local ties and hopefully one that has the past royal bloodlines for legitimacy sake would be the best bet. Spec ops and CIA with Special Forces commandos with local warlords is the best bet to set up a semi functioning government. Governors of the provinces would have to be paid off to conduct suppression against Taliban infiltration and raids. That is the best alternative and UAV and SF raid into Pakistan with bombing runs on Taliban targets and training centers.
The most we can do now is a severe attack in the spring as the Taliban cross the border and try to kill as many as we can. The only positive is that 4,000 Muslim Brits have come to fight with the Taliban and the British forces have a chance to kill them rather than have them back in Britain poisoning the British population. A good way to get rid of traitors.
As for our US forces, no more prisoners should be taken. Casualties only since we will not have the ability to hold them for interrogation off the battlefield. So all interrogation has to done there. Since our soldiers would violate the laws of war to use torture to interrogate once they have accepted an enemy to be a prisoner, then we have no choice but to have a take no prisoners policy.
I do not believe that Obama will continue in Afghanistan once he learns the real problems and lack of benefits. He will try to finesse a way to withdraw and declare victory.
Lifeline to Afghanistan
McGuire AFB home town newspaper story about the crew of C-17 tail number 44128.
This is beginning to sound like a cross between Stalingrad and Pork Chop Hill.
“Holy shit where’s my Laiphroiag.”