The Forgotten War

 

"While the Bush administration is on the defensive for its conduct of the war in Iraq, the real setback in the U.S. war effort is coming in Afghanistan where the Taliban is alive, well and thriving throughout the countryside and even in much of neighboring Pakistan.[...]

The news comes in part from an interview with Hamid Mir, the only journalist to conduct face-to-face interviews with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in the wake of 9-11.

Mir, who has just completed an extensive tour of both countries, says that Pakistanis in government vehicles are no longer permitted to enter Waziristan, Baluchistan, and other tribal areas without the permission of local Taliban commanders. Muslim men who wander into this area without beards are routinely cast into prison as apostates. Kafirs (non-Muslims) are assumed to be enemy agents; most are put to death. Women are only permitted to appear in public in full burqa. And Shariah has become the rule of the land with regular occurrences of stoning, crucifixion and decapitation.

Over 1,500 Pakistanis in recent months, according to Mir, have been publicly executed for saying something in support of the regime of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and the coalition forces. Most were beheaded. The victims, Mir says, were "not ordinary people but very prominent people."

Regarding the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Mir contends that Afghan police are "weak"; that the coalition forces "limited in number"; and that the Pashtun people remain fiercely dedicated to Osama bin Laden and his jihad against the West.

Mir claims he has personally visited 12 provinces of Afghanistan in the past few weeks and has received first-hand confirmation that the Taliban has regrouped, recaptured much of the country, and remains intent upon ousting the coalition forces and toppling the puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai. [...]

Support for the Taliban in the form of munitions and money is coming from Iran and Russia.

Of course. Iran wants its Oil and Gas supplied directly to China via Afghanistan and Putin wants to be the broker.

The Iranian-Taliban alliance, Mir maintains, is a new, unique and disturbing development. When the Taliban came to power in 1996, Mullah Omar and his army were decried by the Shiite mullahs in Iran for the massacre of thousands of Shiite Hazaras and Panjshiri Tajiks. Iran began to send money and arms to Ahmed Shah Massoud and his opposition army of Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras that became known as the "United Front" or "Northern Alliance." The Russians also came to the support Massoud's army to protect the interests of Uzbekistan.

The Northern Alliance continued to receive support from Iran and Russia until the launching of Operation Enduring Freedom (the codename for the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan) Oct. 7, 2001. Overnight, the Iranian and Russian advisers to Massoud became replaced by CIA operatives and Green Beret A team members.

A major blowback of the war on terror, according to Mir, is that Iran and Russia are now allied in Afghanistan on the side of their old enemy.

The first major indication of Iran's change of heart toward the Taliban came in the wake of the bombing of Tora Bora in December 2001, when Mullah Omar and hundreds of his soldiers and al-Qaida agents, scaled the mountains between the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, cut through the southern provinces of Afghanistan and headed west to Iran, where they found safe refuge, thanks to the intervention of Imad Mugniyah and the other leaders of Hezbollah.

For all of you, who are not immediately familiar with the name 'Imad Mugniya', don't miss reading "Tehran's Terror Master" by Patrick Devenny.

The newly arrived guests included such luminaries as Saad bin Laden, Osama's eldest son; Yaaz bin Sifat and Saif al-Adel, al-Qaida military planners; and Mohammed Islam Haani, the mayor of Kabul under the Taliban. Within Iran, they were placed in luxurious safehouses under the protection of SAVAMA, the Iranian intelligence service.

When the war on terror moved to Iraq, Iran came to serve as a base of operations for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qaida field commanders to mount attacks on the occupying armies.

This monumental event – the union [between] Sunni [and] Shiite – remained largely ignored by Western observers.

While the war dragged on in Iraq, Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders returned to Pakistan, gained thousands of new recruits, secured control of much of the tribal areas, and launched the re-conquest of Afghanistan.

The Taliban soldiers are now accompanied by advisers and regulars from the Iranian army and, according to Mir, within Afghanistan, Mullah Omar has received visits from his old friend and fellow jihadi, Osama bin Laden."

Meanwhile, Afghanistan is still by far the world's largest producer of Heroin (70%) and the new Government does not only seem powerless, but riddled with corruption. "The total turnover generated by the sales of Afghan narcotics derived from opium was estimated by the UNODC (United Nation Organization for Drugs and Crime) at 25-billion dollars." Small wonder at these amounts.

Patrick sends me an interesting article written by Gordon Trowbridge for the Army Times in which Trowbridge outlines: “The preferred model of warfare for Rumsfeld and company is Afghanistan,” Flournoy said. “That’s what they want all campaigns to look like.”

From think-tank analysts to angry retired generals to Capitol Hill lawmakers, it has become nearly universal conventional wisdom that the U.S. invasion force that conquered Iraq in 2003 lacked the manpower to secure the country after Saddam’s fall.

But the Pentagon’s civilian policymakers have learned a much different lesson. According to a senior civilian who played a crucial role in developing the just-released Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the problem with Operation Iraqi Freedom was not too few U.S. troops, but too many. [...]

People with ties to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had pushed such a plan in the months before the invasion, but military planners ultimately rejected it as unrealistic, and the defense official said the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction made such an approach impractical.

But the concept fits neatly with Rumsfeld’s push to use precision, speed and information technology to reduce the manpower requirements of warfare. And it’s more than just an argument over theory or past history; the less-is-more concept is crucial to the QDR’s recommendations against increasing the size of U.S. ground forces, which analysts and politicians across the political spectrum have advocated.

To a number of experts, it illustrates the thinking of a Pentagon leadership that seems unwilling or unable to abandon previously held opinions in the face of new evidence. [...]

Senior Pentagon civilian said concepts such as the different approach to the Iraq invasion were crucial to the QDR, which attempts to lay out a long-range strategy.

“It’s not one-size-fits-all,” the official said. “But we increasingly see, especially in complex situations where we need to defeat military forces as well as the broader challenge of stability and establishing legitimate governance, that we have to think about some very different approaches.”

This led to the QDR’s conclusion that while the size of the U.S. military is about right, the available personnel should be shifted away from traditional heavy formations to boost such capabilities as special operations, civil affairs and support functions, the official said.

“People haven’t grasped the point that it’s a big admission on our part that the mix of forces and capabilities we’ve got is wrong and we need to change that,” the official said.

"Criticism of the 2003 invasion force being too small and of the decision after Saddam’s fall to cancel deployment of additional troops for security is perhaps" the most frequently voiced against the Rumsfeld Pentagon, yet to say that the preferred model would be the one deployed in Afghanistan is worrying.

According to several sources, least of all my main link above, we have been caught sleeping at the wheel in Afghanistan. Bill Roggio is taking a trip there in May, amidst accusations by the US soldiers and Marines of "a forgotten war".

Military lessons will be analyzed and learned in good time. Of imminent importance is to inform the public much more forcefully and unambiguously of what is at stake, and especially the truth about how long it is going to take. The Administration needs to bite that bullet NOW and take the initiative, instead of succumbing to the hate mongering of the liberals.

In absence of better reporting, or in fact any hardhitting reporting at all, the MSM, and I have to conclude, the Administration as well, are solely responsible for letting the troops be forgotten, but what is even worse, are letting them feel that the American people are turning against the mission, and in turn ignoring them.

The liberal MSM, are doing it mostly for the sake of making sure that the President has egg on his face come November, and the Administration in turn are caught up in some sort of reflex-response and not even defending themselves, amidst growing criticism. Big mistake.

Comments

[gringoman]

{from Mark]Unfortunately, in this particular case, I think saying nothing is probably best. Trust me, there are plenty of special ops dudes running around there. Everytime the administration takes credit for anything there, or gets hardline, the opposing elements in 'stan get all fired up. Afghanistan is a country that moves very slowly. Give the people a chance, and it will shine through, and Democracy will take full bloom, but its going to be a bit of time. In the meantime, the ANA is being trained, and is engaging the extreme elements. I think that Afghanistan is on track.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mark,

Curious about your advocating a "silent treatment" for the Afghan. Or rather, how this view relates to Iraq, if at all. We are always hearing, especially from military or "conservative" voices, that media is giving Iraq far too much of a silent treatment, except, of course, for the daily bang-bang (old 'Nam expression), the assassinations by the "insurgents," the U.S. casualty figures, the Saddam theatrics in the "trial" etc, as the MSM-ers cover the story from the safety of the Green Zone where they can debrief their local stringers. (Full disclosure: I was ready to get over there this winter as an independent blogger,of the embedded variety, only to be stymied and stopped by the bureacratic powers that be (if not someone even higher up the MRE food chain) despite a background of years in Vietnam and now hearing all the groans and moans about the media "not covering the real story in Iraq." So, are you suggesting that it all machts nichts anyway, that there's no point in good, lively, independent reporting from Iraq now? Or what?

[slowtrain]

What makes the situation in Afghanistan particularly difficult is that the Taliban is made up of Afghans — people whose roots are deeply planted in the one big hostile terrain called Afghanistan for thousands of years, as it is in the hostile ideology that inhibits their progress for almost as long. Obviously, they are not like the Americans and the Dutch who will one day leave Afghanistan to go back to their own countries; they are there to stay, as they have been for a very longtime. As Michael noted, this group of Afghans are determined to wreck the efforts to bring democracy to this region and they will live or die to achieve their aim, even if it takes waiting out the mission or hijacking the democratic process.

The coalition forces will not remain in Afghanistan indefinitely, to put out every fire started by the Taliban. The soldiers have performed splendidly and continue to do so, but there are increasing signs of mission fatigue at home and in the field, coupled with the general perception that the work in Afghanistan is done or almost done, just because there has been an election. As is often said, “Out of sight is out of mind”. The Iraq situation and other issues at home and abroad have also shifted attention from Afghanistan, as has been noted.

Every comment here seems to agree, and rightly so, that the mission must be kept alive, one way or another. But in view of the increasing demands on American forces in Iraq and potentially elsewhere, what would be a realistic expectation from the mission in Afghanistan? Can the progress made so far be realistically measured qualitatively as much as it has been quantitatively? Is there any chance that the Taliban can “morph” into a political entity that is capable of pulling off an upset in future elections as the Hamas did quite recently? How would the West respond in such a situation? Has the West learned and made any adjustments in its strategy and expectation, in light of the recent Hamas election upset?

As for corruption, the fact that it is the one clearly identifiable issue that swept Hamas into legitimate power in the Palestine Territory and the one thing the Taliban could sell to the general public, considering their past record on the issue, should be something to think about and prepare for.

[North by Northwest]

Yeah - I love when the French refer to 'miscommunication'. It reminds me of the movie "Behind Enemy Lines", starring Owen Wilson. Apart from the action-packed story line, the key component was a French General in charge of certain Nato/UN engagement policies, who attempted to prevent US forces from conducting a rescue mission. Hindsight, I wouldn't be surprised if the France/Netherlands/Srebrenica debacle wasn't a significant 'inspiration' for the scriptwriters of the movie.

[Michael van der Galien]

NxN I completely agree; it should be frontpage news. Sadly it is not.

France: I believe they called it something like miscommunication (I do not 'precisely' know why the French did not show up although the report published by the Dutch committee made clear that not only the Dutch government was to blame, but other governments, among which / mainly The French, as well.
They never took full responsibility for it. That was actually part of the debate when a debate started about whether or not our cabinet (government) should resign. Some argued; 'if other governments do not take responsibility, why should we? They are just as responsible as we are'.
Of course the guilt of one does not rule out the guilt of the other, thus the Dutch cabinet took responsibility and resigned.

I think it learned us something; when you make arrangements with other countries that they will help you out, make sure the agreements are 100% crystal clear. Let there be no room for 'wir haben es nicht gewust'.

[North by Northwest]

Well said, Micheal - I missed the Dutch's army involvement in the Srebrenica tragedy. Has anyone ever offered any comprehensive explanation why the French failed to heed the call for air strikes???

Proper information is especially important given the worrisome hook-up between Iran and the Taliban.

Most distressing is the reluctance of the MSM to cover these horrendous murders against pro-democracy and pro-coalition forces Afghani people. These thousands and thousands of brutally murdered people should make front page coverage time and time again. This is the kind of information, which, if properly understood, would make it clear to most, that a hasty departure from Afghanistan as well as from Iraq is not an option.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

In my humble opinion, long posts are usually better quality work, and I find them very informative. Thanks for the long post, Michael. Keep it up.

[Kenny Pierce]

Michael,

If long posts are going to require apologies on this blog, I'm going to have to stop commenting entirely...

[Michael van der Galien]

I would like to add to that, of course, that Parliament needed to take into account that Dutch soldiers can loose their lives in Oruzgan, because the Taliban is quite strong there and getting stronger as we speak.

That aspect of the mission, of course, created quite some debate. Are we willing to put our army in harms way, in a country far away from ours?

In the end the Parliament decided to agree with the mission. Government coalition party D66 however, voted against.

The last couple of days we receive more information about the situation in Oruzgan. Intelligence reports and people who are in the region at this moment, say that the situation is getting worse. The Americans are more and more under attack in the region. The Taliban has quite some support there, because Oruzgan is one of the most conservative parts of Afghanistan.

I watched a debate about this topic this morning. One person who knows a lot about it said that one of the difficulties is that the Dutch forces are probably required to fight and the main goal is, of course, to build. To build schools, to build hospitals, etcetera. The difficulty is that if one wants to rebuild a country, one needs the help of locals.
There are quite some people who wish for a democracy, thus who want to work together with the Dutch forces to rebuild their nation / province. But that expert said that although there are people willing to help out, the Dutch forces cannot protect those people at night. Why not? Well, the Dutch forces will build during daytime, but go back to their barracks at night. When they are away from the towns, the Taliban (supporters) will kill the pro-democracy afghani people. The Taliban concider those pro-democracy people traitors.

In other words: Not only are there a lot of people who are opposed to the presence of Western forces in that part of Afghanistan, but the people who áre willing to cooperate with the Dutch forces, will be attacked by the Taliban. This causes fear. People will refuse to help the Dutch army because of it.

This is the situation the Americans are in right now and sadly one does not read a lot about them in the American MSM at this point in time. Once the Iraq war began (or armed conflict) the MSM swiftly moved to Iraq and started to ignore Afghanistan.

Why is it important for the MSM to pay more attention to Afghanistan? Well, for different reasons.
Because of the fact the MSM is ignoring Afghanistan, people forget about it. When they forget about it, they do not think about the soldier that risk their lives on a daily basis there. Those soldiers, however, deserve our respect and attention. They put their lives on the line for their country ánd help people (the Afghans) form their own democracy and, thus, giving them a chance to determine the destiny of their country.
Besides that, if the MSM refuses to pay the attention to the soldier in Afghanistan that they deserve, popular support for Western / American presence in Afghanistan will drop significantly. After a while people will ask question such like "why are we there anyway?". We cannot afford to let that happen. Our presence in countries like Afghanistan is from the utmost importance for different reasons: To help the Afghani people, but also to help ourselves. We know what happened when the Taliban were in power. We cannot afford to let them regain it.
Lastly the reason why I think it is important for the MSM to spend more attention to Afghanistan is that there is still a lot of work to do there. The system is, like Alexandra said, very corrupt. Their economy is still rooted on heroine. In short: If the MSM spends time and energy on Afghanistan and thus the problems that still exist there, our governments are forced to improve the Afghani situation. Once the MSM let the pressure off, our governments will feel less obligated to do something about the corruption, heroine, etc.

I am sorry for the 2 long posts.

[Michael van der Galien]

NxN says:

"Michael,

It surely seems a victory for a progressive nation such as Holland to find the political backbone to endorse the dispatch of its soldiers. How much do you think has the Jihad murder of van Gogh contributed to the resolve?"

hehe. I understand where you're coming from and the way you reason. However; it is important for everyone to realize that, actually, the Dutch are among the nations that always have dispatched troops (since WW2 that is). Especially with parties such as the VVD and CDA in government, the Netherlands is never afraid to take responsibility. The only, probably, difference to most missions, is that this mission in Oruzgan will probably be a 'fight mission' and not so much a 'building mission'.
Now, we have something like a national trauma called Srebrenica (former Yugoslavia).

Dutch troops were dispatched to Srebrenica in 1994 - 1995 by the UN. The Dutch forces were, in essence, not allowed to participate in armed conflicts, thus they were very badly equipped. If Serbian forces would come to Srebrenica, all the Dutch forces could do, when left by themselves, was to form something like a human shield. Therefore the Dutch government arranged with the French that if the Serbian forces came, the French would intervene (with airstrikes). In 1995 Serbian troops, lead by Mladic, surrounded Srebrenica. The Dutch were not able to fight them due to the strict rules ánd the fact they were, like I said, under-equipped. Therefore they contacted the French for support with airstrikes. They waited and waited for the airstrikes to happen while the Serbian forces came closer and closer.

The French never came.

As you might understand the Dutch Generals in the field were not ready to fight with, litterally almost nothing; it would mean that the Dutch would have been slaughtered. The Serbian troops took Srebrenica and killed thousands of Muslims.

After that a lot of Dutch soldier were severely traumatized: A lot of them felt like they 'should' have done something to stop the Serbian forces. Thus, a lot of soldiers felt it was partially their fault that the Serbians were able to commit genocide.
In 2002 a Committee published a report about Srebrenica. In essence: The Dutch government should never have agreed to a mission in such a dangerous region (Srebrenica) with the limitations put upon them by the UN. The Dutch government should have enforced looser rules and should have made better agreements with for instance the French (or other forces). In other words: The Dutch government should have enforced that they were allowed to fight if necessary, the troops should have been well equipped and there should be clear agreements with other governments to help the Dutch out.
Besides that the UN ánd the Dutch government underestimated the dangers in Srebrenica.

In 2002; the government-coalition resigned due to the report.

This Srebrenica experience made a deep impression on everybody. It taught the Dutch government and army to never underestimate circumstances and to always make sure that you're allowed and able to fight if necessary.
The debates about the mission to Oruzgan left the impression that, once again, the mission could turn into a fight mission. This would mean that the Dutch government should at least make sure that we are allowed to fight, that we are very well equipped and that the Australian and especially American forces would help us out if necessary (lessons from Srebrenica).
So; this took a lot of time. Everybody wanted to make sure that history would not repeat itself.

[Alexandra]

Slowtrain,

Sorry, this kid is a troll and he has been told he is banned from this site, with all his future comments to be deleted, but seems to be obsessed, and comes back thinking that changing names is going to disguise his unmistakable idiocy. He really should stick to cooking rabbits.

[slowtrain]

Fiver,

A grownup looks at a certain painting and sees a concept; a child looks at it and sees squiggly lines, which also happens to be a concept, but childish. You probably spend more time reading children books than thinking about issues grownups have to be concerned about. Hence, it does not surprise me that you don’t understand the issues grownups talk about nor the things grownups say about them. How else can a child see things except through the eyes of a child? Enjoy your childhood; it is the only bliss you will find on earth.

By the way heroin is not grown; it is not a plant. Rather, it is a derivative of morphine, which is made from opium poppy, which is a plant and therefore grown. No wonder you don't worry about much or should I say so much for worrying about something you know very little about.

[slowtrain]

I often hear Generals and military advisers quote from The Art of War by Sun Tzu, the great Chinese general of old. But I rarely see Sun Tzu's admonitions in recent military campaigns, except, perhaps, the Desert Storm. It would seem that the dangerous American tendency of instant results and oversimplification of problems (an aberration of the can-do American attitude) tend to overtake any implementation of lessons that may have been learned from Sun Tzu. Even more dangerous in the engagement of war, is the folly of presumptive self-reassurance and underestimation of the enemy.

In any endeavor, especially warfare, the need to subject plans to adequate sensitivity analysis and to develop adequate contingency plans is crucial; it is necessary for making realistic projections. As often said, one who fails to plan or plan well, has invariably planned to fail. Nowhere is this saying more truthful than in warfare. Everyone knows that wars rarely go as desired or hoped, hence war planners must expect the worst, prepare for the worst, yet hope that the worst does not happen. In other words one must expect the unexpected and be prepared to respond adequately. Anyone who is going to engage a determined enemy in warfare ought to know and value history, as to learn from it. America must learn from history, particularly as it pertains to the people she is in conflict with and from her own past experiences. The knowledge of history and lessons thereof enables one to think like one’s enemies and to realistically anticipate responses from one’s enemies. If history is anything to go by, America should expect to be engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq for the next 25 to 50 years for her efforts to bear lasting fruit.

While it is true that in the age of unprecedented technological advancement, America can fight multiple wars simultaneously, yet if America is to succeed, such wars must all be part of a comprehensive plan, with clear objectives and expectations. America cannot afford to run from pillar to post in the execution of the War in Afghanistan and Iraq—each war should not take away from the other, anything that may compromise success.

[Ghost Dansing]

Oh get off it. The MSM is telling the truth about the whole thing, and that's what Republicans can't stand. Heck, they set up their own little indoctrination network to avoid being exposed the facts.

Afghanistan was a necessary move...anybody in the White House would have had to take on Afghanistan after 9/11 because that was the Al Qaeda sanctuary hosted by the Taleban...and Al Qaeda did the deed.

Iraq confused and distracted the focus for the war on terror. That, in itself, was a strategic blunder.

There are many uncertainties about the progress made by coalition forces and the future prospects for stability and democracy in Iraq, but there is at least one indisputable fact: The Bush administration vastly underestimated the costs of the Iraq war. Not only in human lives, but in monetary terms as well, the costs of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq far exceed the administration's initial projection of a $50 billion tab. While the number of American casualties in Iraq has declined this year, the amount of money spent to fight the war and rebuild the country has spiralled upward. The price is expected to almost double after lawmakers return to Capitol Hill next week when the Senate takes up a record $106.5 billion emergency spending bill that includes $72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed a $92 billion version of the bill last month that included $68 billion in war funding. That comes on top of $50 billion already allocated for the war this fiscal year.

Analysts say the increases can be blamed on the rising cost of maintaining military equipment and developing new equipment. As the cost of military equipment escalates, the cost of the war escalates. In fact, developing state-of-the-art weapons to defeat insurgents and their roadside bombs will hit the wallets of American taxpayers for years to come. "The Department of Defense has increased its investment in new equipment from $700 billion to $1.4 trillion in the coming years," Cordesman said. Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker recently warned lawmakers that the cost of upkeep and replacement of military equipment would continue even after U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq. To fully reequip and upgrade the U.S. Army after the war ends will cost $36 billion over six years, and that figure assumes U.S. forces will start withdrawing from Iraq in July, and be completely out of the country by the end of 2008.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Oops, slipped into a little ungraciousness there. Darn, it is so difficult when faced with such blatant duplicity. However it is well worth remembering why Afghanistan became what it is.

The temptation to just leave the whole mess to the Russians to sort out must be overwhelming.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Some depressing news there about Iran and the Russians. I really think sometimes we should subcontract to the Russians, or better yet encourage the Iranians to go after more Russians and fewer of us? If only because I am to weak to resist the urge to facilitate a little "blowback" for those damned meddling Russians. They'd richly deserve it, what with the entire mess in the region tracable back to THEIR invasion of Afghanistan. Has a certain poetic justice to it, no?

[North by Northwest]

Mark,

Unfortunately, in this particular case, I think saying nothing is probably best.

Well, that would explain the silence.

Again, I haven't been there. But judging from reports and providing law and order would have been established, tourism may very well be an important economic stimulus. Also, oil and gas pipeline projects once realized, may lead to job creation and to the establishment of hitherto nonexistent industries and services. Looking at it historically, most countries of such strategically valuable territories end up doing well economically if governed responsibly. Were it not for the Islamic scourge, we likely would have seen growth from a variety of sources. I guess it is a matter of sitting out 1-2 generations until things truly improve. But eventually the old adage, 'location, location, location' ought to hold true for Afghanistan as well.

[Mark Seavey]

Unfortunately, in this particular case, I think saying nothing is probably best. Trust me, there are plenty of special ops dudes running around there. Everytime the administration takes credit for anything there, or gets hardline, the opposing elements in 'stan get all fired up. Afghanistan is a country that moves very slowly. Give the people a chance, and it will shine through, and Democracy will take full bloom, but its going to be a bit of time. In the meantime, the ANA is being trained, and is engaging the extreme elements. I think that Afghanistan is on track.

If I do have one fear, it is that I don't know what Afghanistan can ever produce that will be worth exporting. One of my troops once said "Just look around... Sometime centuries ago, a guy wandered into this area and said this would be a great place to settle down. He must have been a complete moron, and as far as I can tell, so are his decendants." While not a Condi-esque statement, it was pretty hard to argue with.

[North by Northwest]

Michael,

It surely seems a victory for a progressive nation such as Holland to find the political backbone to endorse the dispatch of its soldiers. How much do you think has the Jihad murder of van Gogh contributed to the resolve?

Mark,

I guess these are encouraging words from you who has been on the ground, if you hadn't stopped short of giving us your assessment as to whether such daily engagements will eventually contain the influence of the Taliban.

In a twisted sort of way, Government involvement relating to the Heroin production in Afghanistan may even help combating international organized crime; but it's not very likely.

Alexandra is IMO correct when asking the Administration to come out with some hard hitting facts and a much clearer communication policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan and Iraq. Mark, if you were to advise the President on how best to communicate our mission in Afghanistan, what would you have them say?

[Mark Seavey]

I don't neccessarily think you should make too much of all this. The Taliban was never extinguished in Afghanistan to begin with. I got back from there in August, and not a day went by that we weren't engaged somewhere. I think this is a bit of hyperbole.

As for the Heroin, there is nothing else that grows there. If you eradicate all the poopy fields, you will anger the local hadjis, and then you might as well give the Gov't back to the Taliban, because you will have given them a campaign issue they can't lose on.

Lastly, of course there are crooked folk in the Stan. Always has been. BUt if you put the crooks in charge for a while, atleast you don't have chaos. Eventually the Democratic ideals will come to the surface, and all will be well. The "Mayor of Kabul" (as some of us heard Karzai referred to) is a good guy in a very bad spot. Give him time. In the meantime, let the SF boys do their work dragging the militants out into the sunlight.

[Michael van der Galien]

Luckily the Dutch media is spending much more attention to Afghanistan due to the new mission to Oruzgan (southern Afghanistan). We will send 1600 troops (some are already there) to one of the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan. The US government asked the Dutch government to take it over from them, so they could withdraw more troops. After a long and heated debate, in which one of the government coalition parties even threatened to step out if Parliament / government would agree with the mission, Parliament decided that it is our responsibility to help the Afghani people build up a strong democracy and to destroy the Taliban. (of course that coalition party was just bluffing)

So; the first troops are already in Oruzgan, more troops to follow. American soldiers die in that part of Afghanistan; because they are still fighting the Taliban there (some even say that the Taliban is getting stronger in regions like Oruzgan).

It will be a difficult, but necessary mission.

[A Holy Fool]

The silence by our Reasonable MSM regarding the threat of Iran deafens, does it not?