TOPICS

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1461)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2070)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

My buddy Cernig has noticed an interesting shift in Gen. David Petraeus's rhetoric insofar as Afghanistan and the threat posed by Al Qaeda there:

"Mission creep" is when you keep inventing new reasons for the mission continuing long after the original objective has been accomplished. Fox News reported General David Petraeus' statement that the original UN-mandated mission for coalition forces in Afghanistan has been accomplished .

The head of U.S. Central Command said Sunday that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan, with its senior leadership having moved to the western region of Pakistan.

Gen. David Petraeus said affiliated groups have "enclaves and sanctuaries" in Afghanistan and that "tentacles of Al Qaeda" have touched countries throughout the Middle East and northern Africa. But he said the terrorist group has suffered" very significant losses" in recent months.

"Affiliated groups" means "anyone we say is a Taliban militant", in the same way that the Iraqi insurgency used to be conflated into being just an Al Qaeda operation, ignoring Baadrists, Sadrists, Baathists and opportunists entirely. But Petraeus is only admitting what the US military has known since at least last November, when journalist Douglas Saunders was in Afghanistan asking pinted questions. As he wrote on his return in December:

Earlier this year, I visited several regions of Afghanistan and asked military leaders in regions held by British, Canadian and U.S. forces how many al-Qaeda fighters they were seeing within the country's borders. In all cases, the answer was “none.” ...Afghanistan-based writer Anand Gopal is probably the most well-connected observer of the insurgent groups. He has come to the same conclusion as my Globe and Mail colleague Graeme Smith, who has conducted video interviews with dozens of Taliban fighters and found no sign of al-Qaeda sympathies. “The Afghan rebellion remains mostly a homegrown affair,” Mr. Gopal wrote last month. “Foreign fighters – especially al-Qaeda – have little ideological influence on most of the insurgency, and most Afghans keep their distance from such outsiders. Al-Qaeda's vision of global jihad doesn't resonate in the rugged highlands and windswept deserts of southern Afghanistan.”

Saunders noted back then that coalition soldiers are authorized to oust the Taliban, but only insofar as those “Taliban” are the ones who are going to allow al-Qaeda to operate again. That's just not going to happen - the Taliban in Afghanistan have as little intention of allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven again as their compatriots in Kabul do. Which means, as Saunders also pointed out, that the war should be officially over.

Article 51 of Chapter VII guarantees “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations” – in this case, the al-Qaeda attacks against the U.S. and other countries launched from within the former Taliban administration in Afghanistan. As the UN and the ISAF members have repeatedly asserted, preventing a future Sept. 11 is the raison d'être of the Afghan war. Everything else, no matter how noble, is time-filler. ...Al-Qaeda is gone, and not likely to return. To the extent that it is still around, it's because we're attracting it. If both those statements are true, then no matter how ugly it looks, the war's over

There is no longer any rationale for the current UN mandate for the occupation of Afghanistan. The US military, the Bush administration and now the Obama administration are engaging in mission creep beyond that rationale; firstly by invoking the "you bought it, you own fix it" Pottery Barn deception - the real Pottery barn rule always was "you broke it, you pay for fixing/replacing it and get the f**k out of our store" - and by redefining the battlefield as "Af/Pak" so that the UN mandate can be, entirely illegitimately, stretched into sovereign Pakistan.

Read on...

Transcripts (courtesy of CQPolitics) below the fold

WALLACE: You also said this week that Al Qaida has reemerged in northwestern Pakistan as a centrally organized operation capable of planning attacks in other countries.

Is Al Qaida back in business, sir?

PETRAEUS: Well, Al Qaida has been back in business for years, Chris. There is not an enormous revelation here. What I was merely saying was that the location of Al Qaida’s senior leadership is, indeed, in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of that very rugged border region of western Pakistan just east of Afghanistan.

There’s no question that Al Qaida’s senior leadership has been there and has been in operation for years. We had to contend with its reach as it sought to facilitate the flow of foreign fighters, resources, explosives, leaders and expertise into Iraq, as you’ll recall, through Syria.

We see tentacles of Al Qaida that connect to Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, the elements Al-Shabab in Somalia, elements in north central Africa, and that strive to reach all the way, of course, into Europe and into the United States.

And of course, there were attacks a couple of years ago in the U.K. that reflected the reach of the transnational extremist elements of Al Qaida and the other movements in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

WALLACE: And -- and, General, do you believe that bin Laden and Zawahiri are still in charge of Al Qaida?

PETRAEUS: We do. Again, I don’t think anyone can give you any kind of accurate location for bin Laden or, frankly, for Zawahiri other than a general description of where that might be, but certainly, they surface periodically.

We see communications that they send out. And of course, they periodically send out videos in which they try to exhort people and to inspire individuals to carry out extremist activities.

WALLACE: General, let’s...

PETRAEUS: It’s important to note, by the way, Chris, that -- that these organizations, by the way, in the FATA have sustained some pretty significant losses over the course of the last six, eight, 10 months or so.

And there is a good deal of disruption that has taken place but, of course, that’s transitory in nature, and we’ll have to see how the security operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas -- different from, of course, the fight in the -- in the Swat and North- West Frontier Province areas go.



Login or Register to post comments.

57 comments

We won. Time to bail out! Unless of course we want to nation build. Will the Taliban come back and take over? Do we care? We didn't care before 9-11. Do we care about Dalfur? Personally I think we should pack our bags and leave. (I think)

Why are we still there? I've forgotten.

Those brown people aren't going to torture themselves, you know!

I forgot about that too!

Only by torturing people can they learn to appreciate freedom

this new administration has allocated nearly $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of our imperial projects in Iraq, where military planners now estimate that 70,000 troops will remain for the next 15 to 20 years. It has expanded the war in Afghanistan, including the use of drones sent on cross-border bombing runs into Pakistan that have doubled the number of civilians killed over the past three months.

(Leaving out the $12.8 trillion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and insolvent banks in a effort to reinflate the bubble economy of course.)

Or so claims the cowardly Republicans, who are frightened of everything...

Using right wing logic, if we stay in Iraq and Afganistan and continue to kill people, the only reason they would hate the US is because they hate freedom.

When I saw the headline, I thought of a joke response along the lines of "Sure, Al Qaeda is gone - they've moved into Pakistan!"
Then I read
"The head of U.S. Central Command said Sunday that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan, with its senior leadership having moved to the western region of Pakistan."

BIG F-ING IMPROVEMENT GUYS.

Now, I'm not necessarily in favor of pulling out of Afghanistan. Not because of Al Qaeda regaining a stronghold, but because we already screwed that country once by dumping it in a war then walking off. On the other hand, hanging around at this point might be more disastrous than leaving.

Either way, it's a legitimate debate that should be had, in public.

But that doesn't change the fact that our reason for being there in the first place has officially expired. Meaning that Obama should state such and, if he believes there's value in our continued presence, make that argument. As a NEW mission.

Honesty is a nasty sword that cuts both ways sometimes. Oh, and doesn't this mean we should be going to war with Pakistan now? Except for those pesky nukes...

Unrelated: I had a swell co-worker named Anand Gopal. It could be an incredibly common Indian name for all I know, but it's always a little funny to see a name that seems unusual pop up somewhere like that, moreso than in familiar names you know to be common.

December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas

Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban’s policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.” [BBC, 12/4/1997; Daily Telegraph, 12/14/1997] It has been claimed that the Taliban meet with Enron officials while in Texas (see 1996-September 11, 2001). Enron, headquartered in Texas, has an large financial interest in the pipeline at the time (see June 24, 1996). The Taliban also visit Thomas Gouttierre, an academic at the University of Nebraska, who is a consultant for Unocal and also has been paid by the CIA for his work in Afghanistan (see 1984-1994 and December 1997). Gouttierre takes them on a visit to Mt. Rushmore. [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 328-329]

According pakistani ex and current prime ministers BIN LADEN Is as dead as Elvis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

He was the Boggie man or PATSY ( ATTA too) the Neocons needed.

today he as irrelevant as ALQAIDA (Mujahadini- CIA Data Base)

What kind of "Intelligence" do we have?

"ya Al Qaida out there in the mountains. and it doesnt matter how many of these ribbons you put on my breast it not help me get 'em."

The oil company Unocal signs a contract with Turkmenistan to export $8 billion worth of natural gas through a $3 billion pipeline which would go from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Political considerations and pressures allow Unocal to edge out a more experienced Argentinean company for the contract. Henry Kissinger, a Unocal consultant, calls it "the triumph of hope over experience." [Washington Post, 10/5/98]

Thanks for reminding people of the history of the scramble to curry favor to the Taliban because of energy.

The lies continue, even with US regime change. The fake war on terror continues unabated, but since the election of Obama, media reports are now limited and short. As can be seen by the only 9 comments on this thread, the constant killings in the MidEast area, and imperialistic ambitions, are A-OK as long as it is a Dem government and not those evil murderous Republicans.

The wars are all but forgotten by just about everybody.

Regarding the paucity of comments here, it's Mother's Day and people are busy. I've been outside gardening most of the day and enjoying some sunshine myself.

btw, Happy Mother's Day to all!

comments on other posts, but it's now a trend on here, and other sites. Anything that reflects negatively on the government, is kind of ignored. It's too bad because these posts are the most informative usually.
Oh, and Happy Mommy's Day to all the Mommys out there. Anyone can be a mother, but not all can be a mom!

Sometimes people ignore these threads, sometimes they do not. I've noticed that any criticism of Obama or his choices (ie, Napolitano is a good recent example), especially by Canadians, brings out the worst in some Americans who post here.

Hey people, a little dissent is always healthy. Everything is not all black and white.

Speaking of mothers, Cheney is the mother of all mothers! haha

It's not all B&W.
Excellent point.
He just likes to bitch about the negative.
When was the last time you saw him say anything positive?

Dissent is one thing. Incessant bashing is another.
He refuses to see some of the positives.
Like lifting the ban on Stem Cell. Getting more children covered with medical coverage. Signing into law that women be paid the same.
New home sales are up. Existing home sales are up. Banks are starting to loan money again. The info is out there if you look for it.
I think you get the picture. He just likes to bash the black guy. Simple as that.
He's just another concern troll now.
Hey, he dug this hole himself. He and he alone is the only one responsible for his actions.
He enjoys concern trolling. He likes the attention.

And where are you getting this info about home sales from??? Link? Because all I've been reading is that sellers are dropping prices lower and lower and still not selling. Also I'm hearing that the "lifting" the ban on stem cell research wasn't all it was claimed to be. And ARE women being paid the same as men yet??? Link?

And odn't EVEN get me started on Afghanistan, Pakistan and accountability for war crimes!

And the truth is that Obama is really beginning to look like Bush-lite.

Did you expect who ever got the job to just snap their fingers and make it all go away?
Did you expect the next Prez to do a 180?
Things got pretty fooked up by herr dubya.
To fix it ain't gonna happen overnight.
As for the links you're asking for.I heard it on the Stephanie Miller show.
I don't know about where you are, but real estate agents around here are getting busy.
Me being in construction I actually see it happening.
It may not be happening where you live, but it's happening here.
As for Bush lite, what did you expect? I saw all this coming during the primaries.

Your incessant negativity.
No, wait. It's not new. It's old and tired.
Just more whining and bitching and moaning and complaining.
Yep!
That pretty much sums you up.

I spent MY Saturday morning bringing my congressman coffee at a "town meeting", and then asking him why we are in Iraq/Afghanistan, and why can't the reasons be written down on a 10 cent sheet of paper since the war costs 3 billion a week. Crooks and Liars posts and commenters are generally informative and inspiring. I mailed shoes to Bush, I gave my congressman flak. Now your turn. I can sleep tonight knowing I tried to end the war(s) this weekend. What about you?

The head of U.S. Central Command said Sunday that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan ..

I watched the clip three times hoping to hear Petraeus say this, as I'd seen the Fox headline at Google News aggregator earlier and wondered about it.

It's not there. It's simply not there.

Either Fox simply made up the quote or it's in another segment of the interview.

Of course this doesn't change the view of all the others quoted in the main post - clearly the Taliban are more of a homegrown insurgency than part of a Global Terror Network .. but nonetheless when words are attributed to a speaker that person should actually have said them!

I noticed that too, MM. After I saw the clip, I thought that the headline was misleading.

The reason why Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan is because the Taliban let them have a safe haven to operate there, right? So the problem wasn't just Al Qaeda, it was their Taliban hosts too. We know that the Taliban have reconstituted in Afghanistan, precisely because Bush left the place to invade and occupy Iraq, probably the biggest strategic blunder of all time. So unfortunately, it seems to me that we need to stay in Afghanistan now to finish the job against the Taliban that Bush failed to do.

US war crimes in Afghanistan has greatly increased anti-American sentiment there. With betray-us and his ilk saying all Afghans who are now anti-American are Taliban fighters what you're advocating is complete genocide.

petraeus needs to be fired now.
over a trillion dollars spent, no bin ladin dead, don't know where bin ladin is, al qaeda regrouping in pakistan and petraeus says "mission accomplished"?
i'll tell you what mission accomplished is; bin ladin either strung up by his gonads or in leavenworth along with zawahiri, and the taliban and al qaeda in pakistan crushed and scattered.

You meant Al-Qaeda has moved from basketcase medieval backwater to a sympathetic unstable nuclear power? Excellent work!

onward christian soldiers ,onward as to war, with the blessings of the corporations and the new war whores! thiers not one in a hundread of you who have the guts to go in a war yourselves but youd let others bleed for your shitty ideals, get out of afganistan and packistan and iraq, or get in it yourselves!

who has to have private security guards to protect him from American soldiers really means a lot to me.

"So unfortunately, it seems to me that we need to stay in Afghanistan now to finish the job against the Taliban that Bush failed to do"

We should have not been there in the first place. We went for the PIPELINE UNOCAL wanted to build before 9-11.

Why don't we finish the JOB we have to do RIGHT here regarding the Big crisis and unemploiment and health care we are in and don't waste more money for a bogus and disputed event (9-11)?
That's a foolish thinking to believe we can build stability and peace with more WAR!

Wasn't that the original mission in Afghanistan after 9/11? The mission that was supported overwhelmingly in the U.S. and around the world? I didn't think there was much disagreement that our limited, justified mission after 9/11 was to go into Afghanistan, take down Al Quaeda there, capture or kill Bin Laden (Tora Bora), and take down the Taliban who had hosted Al Qaeda. That's it. Gawd, that's no neocon fantasy of remaking the Middle East country by country or democracy at the barrel of a gun or whatever the PNAC neocon nuts believe, please. It's the limited mission that I thought nearly everyone agreed we were supposed to take after 9/11 and nothing more.

Again, Bush should have "accomplished" that mission in months instead of cutting and running from Tora Bora and fulfilling the neocon fantasy of invading and occupying Iraq, and then we wouldn't be debating finishing the job in Afghanistan (or turning attention to Pakistan, where Al Qaeda apparently regrouped) today.

Is most definitly a neo-con construct. It may not have been originally but it certainly has been for at least the past 5 years. As you yourself point out if the goal really were to simply "take down" the Taliban then that WAS accomplished in months. No neoconbuster is absolutely right in saying that the only reason for the continued occupation IS the neo-con goal of Unocals pipeline. Which in truth was the original goal, just not the stated "mission".

for his political campaigns that will undoubtedly follow his retirement from the military.

ALL of the reasons the Bushistas and now the Obamans have proclaimed for the invasions of sovereign nations have been lies. There is no one in the global government who gives a rat's ass about the long-suffering people in Afghanistan or Iraq or Pakistan.

They only thing they care about is controlling the oil and gas resources and the wealth that flows to them thereafter. Period. Oh, and let's not forget all of those lovely Poppies and the cash-crop of heroin that also flows from Afghani fields.

Bin Laden is dead, and if the folks in Afghanistan don't want to be ruled by the Islamofascist Taliban - that's their fight. That being said, US forces will be dying in those sandy places for a long, long time to come - at least until Israel attacks Iran.

I'll remind you why Canada is there in Afghanistan. Our official mission is not to fight Al Queda, but keep the Taliban from taking over the government, so it's not completely a nightmare to live there. Especially for the women who are suddenly not allowed to get education. The US used that country for war games during the war between the USSR and the CIA-backed Taliban during the 1980's and now this lame General wants to abandon it. Obama knows better. And so does Canada.

I disagree. In Wolf Blitzer's recent interview with President Karzai, the latter said "there were no al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the al Qaeda and Taliban leaders are not really a threat to his country." (This is a direct quote from Blitzer at the CNN site.)

The West, or at least Canada, can help them financially in rebuilding their country, but as long as we are there physically, we will be targets.

Maybe the "Taliban leaders" are not a threat, but their underlings are very threatening. Look at the state Pakistan in is, ordinary citizens are running in fear from the Taliban. No, Canada has goodwill towards the people of Afghanistan and they know it. As long as American troops avoid bombing innocent people over there, it's a good mission and worth continuing.

Since when have American troops avoided bombing innocent people over there? Never.

Just the other day, Hillary Clinton apologized to the people of Afghanistan for the recent losses of life caused by yet more US bombs. I'm sure her words did not make those grieving families suddenly feel all warm and special.

Not to worry though, our NATO commitment will keep us there for many more years.

I respect you, Barbara, but I'm sick of Canadian troops dying for this 'good mission'.

I don't respect YOU. I think you're an anti-Obama troll along with Concerned Canuck.

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

Peace.

They are both honest people who look at the truth and make accurate intellegent opinions based on that. And for the record if you'd been around here longer you'd know that they both supported Obama during the election campaign. But like more and more people every day they recognize that we got gipped. We voted for change and got more of the same instead.

I'm sure CC thanks you too :)

Now I can add Terrible to my list of anti-Obama trolls. Actually I already had you pegged several comments ago.

when I made my joke at 15:52. Oh well. If I have to explain my sense of humour to you, it can't be all that great.

We're different that way. I don't agree with you, but I still respect your feelings. Maybe if more people on this earth could agree to disagree, and try to appreciate each other despite their differences, we wouldn't find ourselves mired in these endless wars where nobody wins.

This story was on CNN this afternoon. It's quite timely to our discussion, isn't it:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/06/a...

Did you read the part about US Military Commander David McKiernan? He's the guy who asked US Central Command to review the investigation of the civilian deaths. Well, guess what? He was fired today.

Anyway, it's been nice chatting.

chatting. Here's what is annoying: people like you who are "more pacifist than thou" always try to make Obama look like a warmonger. Which he isn't. Meanwhile I take great encouragement that he's fired the General who was in charge during that recent civilian massacre by American troops in Afghanistan. I figure a new General will watch his step and be more careful about "friendly fire" incidents. God knows the Canadian military would appreciate it.

More information about the fired General: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/11/u...

You don't even know me.

I have never tried to 'make Obama look like a warmonger'.

I believe in speaking up about issues that concern me. If you don't like it, too bad.

I've always liked Obama very much and want him to succeed. End of story.

Goodbye.

We have no fooken choice now. simple as that.

He's a very sharp and smart dude. I like him. A lot.

:)

And people like Concern Canuk.
We realize that it's going to take some time to fix all the fook ups.
To think that it can be fixed in the blink of an eye or, quickly ,
Is just being ignorant of the way politics/Washington works.
I find it hilarious that some people actually thought the next Prez would change everything right away.
If you recall, I said that Obama and HRC were two peas in a pod.
For people to not see this, is amusing too me.
I have to ask, WTF did they really expect?

I also think McKiernan's firing might be a good thing. We shall see.

are running from the Pakistani military!! The Taliban have been there since before they were ever even in Afghanistan and did you see the citizens running then? NO you did not, only after the US coerces the Pakistani government into sending in troops do you have the millions of refuges. I'm not defending the Taliban by any means but lets speak truth here!

You're saying we still helping the Taliban fight against the Soviets? Or are you trying to say that the former Soviets are helping us fight the Taliban? You comment makes no sense what-so-ever. And IF you'd actually take the time to do some research I'm afraid you're going to find out that for most women in Afghanistan even if they did have to cover their faces that they have been much much worse off since the invasion and occupation by western foreign fighters.

find that the Taliban are the worst for dominating women. They have even forbidden listening to music and kite-flying. So I don't think that Canadian soldiers are "worse for women" than the Taliban.

The Taliban used to be America's friend. And it looks like Petraes would like to be friends with them again. Obama doesn't.

He is basing his claims on what the newspaper reporters say, which is the same story his propaganda corpse gave them?
I wonder why incompetence is so common?

Excerpt from article by Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News, May 11, 2009

"Most Pakistanis do not want to live under Taliban fanatics, and there is a strong thirst for democracy, said Saba Gul Khattak, the executive director of the Islamabad-based Sustainable Development Policy Institute.

U. S. President Barack Obama has realized this, and that's why his war strategy for the region includes a five-year, $7.5-billion investment in development aid for Pakistan. The U. S. wants other countries to contribute, and Canada must. The stakes are too high if we don't.

The terrorists are filling what is a social vacuum in Pakistan: they provide the schools, health care and other social services. All of it comes at a price; recipients are given a dose of extremist Islamic doctrine, the Saudi-based Wahhabism that is not native to this region, and drilled into impressionable young minds in thousands of Madrassas that serve as the recruiting system for al-Qaida and the Taliban."

57 comments

Login or Register to post comments.