The Iraqization Of Afghanistan
News: Last year suicide bombings quintupled, attacks on international forces tripled, and support for the Taliban grew. According to CNN terror analyst and Taliban expert Peter Bergen, here are the top 10 entirely avoidable mistakes made by the Bush administration.
|
|
- Letting Osama Escape Tora Bora: Because Donald Rumsfeld wanted a "light" footprint in Afghanistan, only 60 U.S. Special Forces were sent to smoke out bin Laden. During the 2004 reelection campaign, Bush implied that bin Laden wasn't at Tora Bora at all—a claim publicly slapped down by the cia's on-scene commander, Gary Berntsen, a longtime Republican, who pleaded for additional forces, to no avail.
- Too Few Grunts: The initial U.S. deployment was the smallest peacekeeping force, per capita, that America has sent anywhere since World War II.
- Hiring Warlords: By outsourcing security to militias in the first years of the occupation, the U.S. undercut attempts to form a desperately needed Afghan national army.
- Iraq: Almost immediately, time, money, and key personnel were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, including the 5th Special Forces group, which specializes in the region.
- Nickel and Diming: After the fall of the Taliban, aid per capita to Afghanistan was one-twelfth of what Bosnia received following the Balkan war. According to a rand: analyst, "Afghanistan has received the least amount of resources out of any major American-led nation-building operation over the last 60 years."
- Nixing nato: For two years the Bush administration prevented nato troops from deploying anywhere beyond Kabul—i.e., anywhere that mattered.
- Coddling Pakistan: Pakistan arrested some Al Qaeda leaders, but the U.S. allowed it to ignore the Taliban. A former U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan notes: "Pakistani citizens, residents, money, and territory are playing a much greater role in the Afghan civil war than are Iranian citizens, residents, money, or territory in the Iraqi civil war."
- Prioritizing Poppies: Eradicating poppy fields hasn't put a dent in drug exports—Afghanistan now supplies 90 percent of the world's opium—but it has uprooted farmers, some of whom have joined the Taliban. In 2005, the U.S. spent $782 million on narcotics operations, $222 million more than Afghan farmers earned from growing poppies.
- Losing Hearts and Minds: Particularly in the first few years, American soldiers had a tin ear for local customs—failing to grasp, for example, that in tribal society, each civilian death must be collectively avenged.
- Timetable: In 2005, the Pentagon announced U.S. forces would begin to pull out of Afghanistan—prompting Taliban violence to surge. This February, the former U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Lt. General David Barno, told Congress that the Pentagon's statement "caused both friends and enemies to recalculate their options."
Comments:
Perhaps Bush's biggest mistake is getting out of bed in the morning...
Posted by:Richard AberdeenJuly 30, 2007 11:22:16 AMRespond ^
Good God, it never quits. The blunders that this administration has made are simply mind boggling.
Posted by:kay gottschamerJuly 30, 2007 11:24:22 AMRespond ^
All excellent points. All correct. The same ineptitude prevails in Iraq. The fault does not lie with the men on the ground; but with the leadership in Washington. Although I voted for Bush twice I am convinced that the buck stops at the top. Mr. Bush has turned into an ideologue who is listeniong to his own rhetoric and advice from other ideologues with absolutely NO GRASP of what is really happening and unable to see the forest for the trees. Too bad (especially for the troops on the ground).
Posted by:Richard HarrisJuly 30, 2007 11:25:25 AMRespond ^
It's disgraceful that the fiasco in Iraq is obscuring what's happening in Afghanistan. It's also surprising that when Bush states or implies that Iraq is the number one arena for fighting Al-Qaeda, that Congress doesn't immediately point at Afghanistan. What's happening there is allowing Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup. It also threatens to undermine Pakistan which (Bush doesn't mention this much) is a nuclear power with a significant population of religious fundamentalists.
Posted by:Jeff MillerJuly 30, 2007 11:25:55 AMRespond ^
Why has no one done any serious in-depth public investigation into W's background as an incompetent businessman? In the years that he and I both lived in Midland, TX, while his dad was VP, I remember that everyone liked him simply for being "one of the guys," but sort of chuckled at his lack of business success - having every conceivable advantage. Later, as the front man for the Texas Rangers baseball team, he remained just "one of the guys" - in this case though, he was in the right place at the right time. A close look at W's failures as a businessman should have revealed his unsuitability for becoming President, and ultimately, his stubborn incompetence. The bigger disappointment, however, is that half of America voted for him AGAIN, and it seems that these people are the real problem in America. So arises the question, why would anyone vote for anyone who could not run his own company, much less anyone else's? This question is thoroughly examined in Nicholas Kristof's Op-ed piece in the Mondaly, July 30 NYT, and more so in Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter." Accordingly, in taking some sort of collective action against the ignorance of those who vote against their own interest, maybe there would be a way to come at W's sheep (as opposed to just W), and hopefully, such a collective effort could help America get back on track.
Posted by:Michael SparkmanJuly 30, 2007 12:11:35 PMRespond ^
Time and time again we hear this kind of story and yet .... Bush/Cheney are still in power. Curious.
Posted by:michelle staplesJuly 30, 2007 12:22:26 PMRespond ^
Only 10 that are worth mentioning? I had guessed it was a lot more...The biggest problem 'we' are going to face is Iran within a decade or so. There will be a pre-emptive attack on Iran, the US will do this or Israel. What will be the consequences of an attack like that? The Iraq and Afghanistan situation isn't 'new' anymore, people are getting bored by it and used to it, which only means that this will just go on and on untill something big (an attack on Iran) will happen that will change everything again...Like 9-11 for example.
All them warlords and other crazy people running around in Iraq and Afghanistan finally can do what they want, why give this up? For democracy? I'm afraid this will never end with some peace-treaty or something similar...
Posted by:Erick SchluterJuly 30, 2007 12:22:55 PMRespond ^
Let me get this straight. It's ok for this admin to pull desperately needed forces out of what was arguably our most important fight of the 21st century against the very people behind the most devastating attack this country has had. Thus allowing these forces to regroup and continue to pose a continued threat to our security. But Congress is considered unpatriotic and not backing our troops when they try to withdrawl forces from a country that posed no threat to our security. Now who is unpatriotic and wont back our forces???
Its time to pour the necessary resources where they are needed most.
Posted by:Jarvis whiteJuly 30, 2007 12:23:53 PMRespond ^
bush is the worst to happen to USA ...ever
Posted by:gary wilsonJuly 30, 2007 12:32:01 PMRespond ^
Let me get this straight. It's ok for this admin to pull desperately needed forces out of what was arguably our most important fight of the 21st century against the very people behind the most devastating attack this country has had. Thus allowing these forces to regroup and continue to pose a continued threat to our security. But Congress is considered unpatriotic and not backing our troops when they try to withdrawl forces from a country that posed no threat to our security. Now who is unpatriotic and wont back our forces???
Its time to pour the necessary resources where they are needed most.
Posted by:Jarvis whiteJuly 30, 2007 12:32:32 PMRespond ^
shall we call it the afganistation of iraq?
Posted by:Dr.QJuly 30, 2007 12:38:05 PMRespond ^
One suspects that Bush attacked Afghanastan as theater; however, serious long term involvement is precluded by the fact that the country does not have large oil reserves. As Chalmers Johnson and John Perkins indicate in their various books the United States foreign policy is dictated by oil. We have something like 725 military bases throughout the world; however, Afghanastan has little to offer to the great corporations that drive our foreign adventurism.
Posted by:S.R.Keister M.D.July 30, 2007 12:43:27 PMRespond ^
How does the Bushies get away with it? We are surrounded by people who do nothing to stop them. Are afraid they'd be called crazy, America basher, bleeding heart liberal, liberal elite, or whatever. There has been a successful campaign to quiet anyone that disagrees with this administration. So, successful that the Dems are going along with it.
I'm making it a point that I vote for the next candidate running for dog catcher up to the President, who has demonstrated his leadership abilities and desire to do the people's will. I wish I lived in SF so I could vote Pelosi out of office. These are our friends? In the words of MLK: "In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
Posted by:VickiJuly 30, 2007 12:52:32 PMRespond ^
Re: Why has no one done any serious in-depth public investigation into W's background as an incompetent businessman?
Somebody has. Mother Jones ran an article years ago about Bush's business failures. Molly Ivins also wrote about this before Bush was elected P.R.esident.
Posted by:Carl NorenJuly 30, 2007 12:57:40 PMRespond ^
I think that we din't catch bin Laden because the Administration wanted him to escape. If we had uprooted Al Caida and captured or killed all of its leaders, there would have been nobody t purchase Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. This, in turn, would have pulled the rug out from BushCheney Inc. in their plan to "bring the beacon light of democracy to the Middle East." It was essential to let bin Laden go so that the lies leading to the invasion of Iraq would have the sound of truth and scare the American people into an invasion of Iraq. By the way, the only two things that we secured in the initial invasion of Iraq were the oil wells and the Oil Ministry...were WMD's really our reason for going in?
Posted by:Michael StrassbergJuly 30, 2007 1:06:48 PMRespond ^
Yes. Molly Ivins did a wonder job of following Bush's questionable business and political dealings. I loved her nickname for him, "Shrub".
Posted by:VickiJuly 30, 2007 1:09:15 PMRespond ^
I suspect that the number one mistake was to not recognize the results of a real democratic election in the Middle East and then to further demonize the winners of this election by calling them terrorists and force other allies to do the same, including our little lapdog of a Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. I refer of course, to Hamas and the election that was called totally legitimate by the Carter Centre.
Posted by:Keith NoeckerJuly 30, 2007 1:16:57 PMRespond ^
Re: Why has no one done any serious in-depth public investigation into W's background as an incompetent businessman?
Somebody has. Mother Jones ran an article years ago about Bush's business failures. Molly Ivins also wrote about this before Bush was elected P.R.esident.
Posted by:Carl NorenJuly 30, 2007 1:24:43 PMRespond ^
Lets see, we are trying to spread democracy throughout the world. Great but if we only had democracy in the good old USA instead of corporate lobbyist that run both major political parties WE WOULD NOT HAD A 9-11. Our borders would be secure. We would not had a war in Iraq-Afgh. I would like to see a representative government.Example Congress-House.(435):Primary consist of a random drawing out 30 names of each district. (like jury duty) Between the primary and general election I get to pick out of that 30 names the person that I feel best serves my view.
Posted by:Mr.QJuly 30, 2007 2:32:27 PMRespond ^
I like the {nickname} "shrub" for BUSH, stated by Molly Ivins... HERE IS ONE BETTER, lets nickname him "tumbleweed" for never knowing where the hell he/it is going next! The best way to stop a tumbleweed is to *STEP ON IT & CRUSH IT*
Posted by:DMZ1July 30, 2007 3:31:16 PMRespond ^
Sounds like Sean Hannity's list of "mistakes"!
Posted by:paulanderson143@earthlinkJuly 30, 2007 4:25:28 PMRespond ^
Bush administration screws up again!!!
Posted by:Bob BoneJuly 30, 2007 10:14:08 PMRespond ^
But you can't catch Bin Laden! He's the Bush ace-in-the-hole. They couldn't pull a Noriega on Osama. The outcry for a public trial here in the US would be greater than that for Saddam. Where else would we try him? Embarrass the Sauds? He never committed serious problems in Afghanistan. A public trial would mean more rights than anyone in Guantanamo or Abu Graib, more media access, and more embarrassing info on what really happened. Very little about 911 really adds up. It may not have been orchestrated by GW's gang of thieves - but the Al Qaeda connection has not been repeated in this country to show them as other than inept terrorists. Other than 911, the rest of their tries were pathetic. Is 911 just a major offset for the law of averages that insists that for every 5 spectacular failures there must be a spectacular success?
Posted by:JT BarrieJuly 31, 2007 6:44:25 AMRespond ^
What about "You're either with us or you are for the terrorists" by our illustrious President which alienated allies and moderate Arabs and Muslims simultaneously...All folks that we will need to ultimately resolve this. After that, declairing Iraq, Iran & north Korea as the "Axis of Evil" was both inaccurate and foolish. It simply confused the issue and emboldened both North Korea and Iran.
Posted by:Tom KirwinJuly 31, 2007 9:20:11 PMRespond ^
All I can say is that it's a good thing Bush never got engaged in oral sex, otherwise he might have been impeached.Thank god for Bush and his declaring himself the KingPope of the universe.
Posted by:bogi666August 1, 2007 12:55:09 AMRespond ^
"Losing Hearts and Minds"---? Why do sophisticated observers repeat this silly phrase? Exactly whose H&M is going to won over by an invading army of barbarians, trailing gore and destruction behind it? Not mine or yours, so why anybody else's?
Posted by:hquainAugust 1, 2007 4:39:27 AMRespond ^
LIES,LIES,LIES,LIES,LIES and NOW CPL Tillman???? When is the American people going to get together/march to the DC Capital(like in the 60/70's V/NAM Era) and protest these so called wars... *IT IS TIME FOR IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURES for both Bush and Cheney,Inc. You/we may want to consider a new party. The "Libetarian Party" seems to have its act together...........
Posted by:DMZ1August 1, 2007 12:56:09 PMRespond ^
Just more Bush bashing! The reason most voters voted Bush into office was more for a vote against Dems in that election. One of the first things Dems did when they got into power was raise the min. wage! I make a comfortable living but did my pay rise accordingly? Of course not, so now my (and most of Americans) buying power has been decreased. Oh well, the Dems will have their chance once again this coming election.
Posted by:Bob SimcoxAugust 1, 2007 5:41:08 PMRespond ^
Kay, I am glad you have changed your mind. But so sad that you didn't figure it out until after you had helped put him in office twice. :(
Posted by:PaulOctober 15, 2007 3:44:43 PMRespond ^
this dose not give me anuf infomanton
Posted by:meApril 10, 2008 4:30:06 PMRespond ^
