On Sunday's "Beat the Press," David Gregory asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) what he thought about the future of US forces in Afghanistan. Graham doesn't see an end to US forces' occupation of that country, rather he calls for an "enduring relationship... in perpetuity."

I think [a permanent US military presence] would be enormously beneficial to the region, as well as Afghanistan.  We've had air bases all over the world.  A couple of air bases in Afghanistan would allow the Afghan security forces an edge against the Taliban in perpetuity.  It would be a signal to Pakistan that the Taliban are never going to come back in Afghanistan.  They could change their behavior.  It would be a signal to the whole region that Afghanistan is going to be a new and different place.  And if the Afghan people want this relationship, they're going to have to earn it.  But I hope they will seek a relationship with the United States of where we can have an enduring relationship, economic and militarily and politically.  And a couple of air bases in Afghanistan will give us an edge militarily, give the Afghan security forces an edge militarily, to ensure that country never goes back into the hands of the Taliban, which would be a stabilizing event throughout the whole region.  That has to be earned by the Afghan people, and it has to be requested by them.

The mind reels. I thought the Bobblehead Translations was exaggerating, but there it is. I know some will point to Germany, South Korea, and Japan as examples where we have "enduring relationships" in the form of military bases, but those bases aren't used to prop up corrupt governments and to fight internal conflicts. Rather, the point of US bases in Germany, South Korea, and Japan are to act as staging bases for actions against the former Soviet Union and China, the dirty commies of the twen-cen period.

The other argument is based on the classic domino theory, in that if the Taliban take over Afghanistan, al Qaeda will start up training camps in that country. Then the Taliban will raid Pakistani army depots for nuclear weapons and give them to AQ, who will in turn bring them into the United States and nuke New York City, despite the multiple, layered defenses and full might of the US intelligence, law enforcement, and military community that is aimed at such terrorist activity.

Lindsey Graham and John McCain are clear evidence of the mind-numbing, corrosive effect of the Tea Party crowd and the Repubs' willing decision to allow morals and good judgment to disappear in relation to the chance to bloviate on national television about their extremist politics. Shameful.

I've not been in favor of the idea of the US government selling M1 Abrams tanks and F16 aircraft to the the Iraqi army. It's not just that their past experience has been limited to Soviet-era equipment (cheap, not state-of-the-art, but it works), but also because I just never thought they could sustain the capability. I think I was largely right, based on Walter Pincus's article in the WaPo.

Although the Interior Ministry has "matured" in its budgeting processes, it "could not effectively plan and contract to procure repair parts to support the Iraqi police vehicle fleet." For example, when the Interior Ministry requested the purchase of a $200 million helicopter fleet, it did not provide for spare parts, maintenance support or required infrastructure facilities.

With about $10 billion in military equipment on hand by end of 2011, Iraq would need about $600 million annually to maintain it, according to the defense IG. In 2010, however, the Iraq Defense Ministry allocated only $40 million for maintenance. Its processes for "identifying requirements, budgeting and executing contracting were broken," the report concluded.

Take the Iraqi army's system for allocating fuel to its commands.

The division commanders do not send their broken vehicles for repair, nor do they report those that are destroyed, because fuel is supplied based on the quantity and types of vehicles on their books. A local commander told the IG investigators that "it was more advantageous to keep unserviceable vehicles in order to continue receiving full fuel allocations and have enough fuel to operate the rest of his fleet."

It was always a mistake to think we could turn the Iraqis into a mini-US military element. It would be a bigger mistake to force US military weapon systems onto the Afghan military, but the Repubs have always thought of enriching their donors before actual national security interests.

I haven't felt the need to weigh into the recent "he said, she said" war of words between President Hamid Karzai and General David Petraeus. But I am amused with Matt Yglesias's comment on the topic.

I don’t really get this. Everyone’s looking for a viable exit strategy from Afghanistan. And what better strategy than a handshake with the President of Afghanistan over a concrete plan for a reduced tempo of operations followed by a steady withdrawal of American soldiers? The premise of a counterinsurgency operation in Afghanistan is that we’re there to help the Afghan government. That strategy can’t work if the Afghan government doesn’t share our vision, and the strategy lacks legitimacy if the Afghan government doesn’t back it. Watch Michael Cohen’s head explode over this if you like.

Now to get the easy target out of the way, no, the important players in this drama are not "looking for a viable exit strategy from Afghanistan." On the one hand, you have Karzai who probably enjoys having the United States pump the equivalent of seven times his nation's GDP into his economy. As long as US forces are there, he's in power and there's security around Kabul. On the other hand, he has to explain to the general public that he's quite upset with the number of Afghan casualties caused by US forces and private military contractors (not to mention those caused by insurgents aiming at US forces).

On the other hand, you have Petraeus and other Very Serious People in the Beltway who believe that, even after 2014, you're going to still need US forces in place to "help" the Afghan police and military operate and sustain their brand-new American security equipment. There are those analysts and military leaders who myopically focus on the idea that they can transform Afghanistan into a secure and safe environment, free of extremist Islamic groups, if just given 10 or 20 more years. Neither of these viewpoints have exit strategies, and the fault ought to be placed on the poor dialogue within the National Security Council (of this and the past administration).

But we tend to see more arguments about the operational and tactical methods of "winning" in Afghanistan than examinations of what our national interest is and how much our country is spending in this adventure. We need to answer the question of what we are trying to do in the first place and whether we're getting there in a reasonable time and level of effort. Do we need a large US force to be there between 2011 and 2014? I submit that planning for $600 billion above what we've already spent, in addition to another 1500-2000 dead Americans and 10,000 wounded, plus thousands more dead Afghanis, is not reasonable or worth the effort.

This isn't an argument for isolationism but rather a request for understanding the limitations of any government seeking to change Afghanistan into a terrorist-free utopia that idealists seem to seek. Al Qaeda is just going to move to another weak state, while training its entry-level applicants against any US forces left in the Middle East. The Taliban don't have any expansionist ideas other than controlling a little turf in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if Karzai says he doesn't need a heavy US military force conducting seek and destroy missions in his country, maybe we ought to listen to him. It's time to deal with these realities.

UPDATE: I guess everyone's kissed and made up. Back to night raids and clearing out the southern provinces.

Over 20,000 Seriously Wounded

Unbelievable news blogged by Raed In The Middle .

There is absolutely nothing this administration will not lie about. But we are not surprised by now. Raed cites an article in today's Stars and Stripes which reports that 20,802 wounded soldiers have been treated at Landstuhl, Germany alone from injuries received in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

The official number of US soldiers wounded in Iraq that was announced by the US DOD (Department of Defense) is 8458 in Iraq and 423 in Afghanistan.

So the number treated in Germany is over twice what the official reports claim. The injuries have to be severe for the soldiers to be flown to Germany.

These numbers are just for the US soldiers that were moved to Germany. There are other thousands that were injured inside Iraq and Afghanistan and treated in small local military clinics and hospitals, or moved to other US military hospitals.

The official number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is 1375 and 144. I wonder what the real numbers are

Hawks Say What We've Been Saying All Along

They are not quick studies. We anti-war types have been arguing from day one that an American invasion of Iraq would be a disaster and would serve as the best recruitment campaign the Muslim fundies had ever seen:

A growing number of national security specialists who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein are moving to a position unthinkable even a few months ago: that the large US military presence is impeding stability as much as contributing to it and that the United States should begin major reductions in troops beginning early next year.

Their assessments, expressed in reports, think tank meetings, and interviews, run counter to the Bush administration's insistence that the troops will remain indefinitely to establish security. But some contend that the growing support for an earlier pullout could alter the administration's thinking.

Those arguing for immediate troop reductions include key Pentagon advisers, prominent neoconservatives, and some of the fiercest supporters of the Iraq invasion among Washington's policy elite.

The core of their arguments is that even as the US-led coalition goes on the offensive against the insurgency, the United States, by its very presence, is stimulating the resistance.

"Our large, direct presence has fueled the Iraqi insurgency as much as it has suppressed it," said Michael Vickers, a conservative-leaning Pentagon consultant and longtime senior CIA official who supported the war.

These people are specialists, for God's sake?

BY THEIR WORKS, YE SHALL KNOW THEM

Change the channel. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops

I wish I could be my usual smartass self, but when I read things like this and this, I just want to cry - or scream. Juan Cole:

Az-Zaman reports that telephone calls with residents of Mosul reveal that the guerrillas who took control of the city's streets the day before yesterday have burned all the police stations in the city and have released from jails all the criminals that had been incarcerated in them. In the center of Mosul, eyewitnesses said, the offices of government service agencies and economic targets had been set ablaze. A number of shops were attacked and/or looted.

Armed men roamed the streets and manned checkpoints between city quarters. Mosque preachers called on Mosul residents to flood into the streets to protect their quarters and government offices and shops. The main streets seemed deserted. American troops had withdrawn from the center of the city, but maintained control of bridges.

All signs of Iraqi national guardsmen and police had disappeared. The police chief of Ninevah province resigned (other reports say he was fired by the Allawi government).

US military spokesmen denied that guerrillas were in control of the city, and maintained that US troops and Iraqi national guardsmen continued to advance into it. US warplanes repeatedly bombed suspected safe houses of the guerrillas. Guerrillas had killed one American serviceman in Mosul on Thursday.

MF

Work has been a little heavier than usual, perhaps as government agencies try to complete their projects before the Christmas holiday incapacitates Washington DC. So I'm glad that Spencer Ackerman is on the job, watching the congressional hearings on Afghanistan.

But both McChrystal and Eikenberry replied that the administration was ultimately providing a long-term commitment to Afghanistan, even if the U.S.-led combat phase would diminish over time. McChrystal said setting the date for beginning a “conditions-based” transition would help navigate Afghans’ complex feelings about the presence of foreign troops on their soil. “The guarantee that we, the coalition, will support them but not stay too long is actually a positive,” McChrystal testified. Eikenberry emphasized that the Obama administration envisioned a “long-term relationship with Afghanistan, a diplomatic relationship, a long-term economic assistance relationship” after the ultimate departure of U.S. troops.

The general said he expressed such confidence in his strategy because the Taliban was “not credible as a political entity,” earning acquiescence from Afghans only through the lack of a credible alternative from the Afghan government and its NATO allies. As the U.S. flows forces into southern and eastern Afghanistan to establish “contiguous security” for the population, “the next 18 months will likely be decisive,” McChrystal said. “Rolling back the Taliban is a prerequisite to the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda.”
-----------
In an attempt to quash media speculation about a chilly relationship between Eikenberry and McChrystal, the two men made a show of their professional partnership. Eikenberry saw his internal doubts about a U.S. troop increase leak to the media last month. But ambassador said that he firmly supported the administration’s strategy and was “exactly aligned with Gen. McChrystal.” The general returned the compliment by gesturing to Eikenberry and saying, “The person I listen to most is about three feet on my right.”

Ahhhhhh... harmony. Isn't it swell? Now if only the Republican politicians at the hearing would act as responsibly as those two, we might just get somewhere. But lost in this discussion, in the hearings and, who knows, perhaps even in the White House, is the damning fact that no number of additional troops in Afghanistan will fix the non-military factors that remain outstanding. Oh, yeah, and this guy is still running around free and easy after eight-plus years...

Today, a friend sent me a PDF copy of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen unclassified new "CJCS strategic guidance" for 2008-09. It makes interesting reading.

Some first thoughts:

"We have the most combat-hardened forces in history."

That's hyperbole, right? Even if you just restrict it to American forces.

"Our Navy and Airforce are unmatched, although our advantage could easily slip."

Slip to who and over what period of time? There isn't a nation on Earth spends a fraction of what the U.S. does on the military, and the next three biggest spenders are all ostensibly allies (France, Britain, Japan). The US could cut its military budget by two thirds and still outspend all of its possible threats combined.

Mullen's version of the objective in Iraq and Afghanistan:

"...a representative, stable, independent Iraq that is an ally and regional leader, and a representative, stable Afghanistan and Pakistan that are allies and cooperative members of the international community..."

Is this in fact doable at any price America is willing to pay and over any forseeable timeline? And why don't Afghanistan - and Pakistan! - have to be "independent" too?

"In the near term, Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan are the probable source of a terrorist attack on the homeland.

So Mullen agrees with Hayden that Pakistan is the true central front in the so-called "War On Terror" (and one the US isn't actually at war in). Is the reason that Pakistan doesn't need to be independent contained therein, for the warmongers? That'll be why we invaded Iraq and sent Pakistan billions in military aid while helping prop up the people in Pakistan's military and intelligence services enabling those Al Qaeda safe havens. That makes perfect sense.

Continue reading »

While progressives everywhere are basking in the knowledge that liberal Democrats now control two of the three estates of the federal government, it is worth remembering that despite the voters' mandate, the Right still controls (barely, by a one-vote margin) the third: namely, the Supreme Court. And the right-wing Federalist Society dogmatists now sitting on the court are not only capable, but extremely likely, to wreak havoc with that mandate.

We received an unpleasant reminder of that reality this week:

The nation's need for Navy sailors to practice using sonar to guard against enemy submarines "plainly outweighs" any legal requirement to protect orcas and other marine mammals, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, turning back environmentalists' efforts to restrict sonar use during naval training exercises.

Quoting a 1907 statement by President Theodore Roosevelt -- "the only way in which a navy can ever be made efficient is by practice at sea" -- the high court's five-member conservative majority said lower courts had improperly restricted naval exercises off Southern California.

But the justices in the majority stopped short of endorsing a Bush administration attempt to justify using a controversial White House waiver to justify the exercises.

When the lower court's ruling was announced earlier this year, it appeared to be a significant win for environmentalists, not to mention the cetaceans affected by these tests. It was also a win for the rule of law, considering the Bush administration's egregious lawbreaking in attempting to foist these tests on us.

But the court took care not to address that issue:

Continue reading »

Download | play Download | play

American speed skater Joey Cheek has done a great deal to bring global attention to the immense suffering of the people of Darfur, forming Team Darfur and even going so far as donating his $40k Olympic bonus to the cause in 2006. Unfortunately, the gold and silver medalist was punished for his activism by the Chinese government -- who has contributed to the genocide in Darfur by fueling and supporting Sudan's murderous military government -- when they revoked his visa this week, preventing him from attending this year's Olympics in Beijing.

During the opening ceremony NBC's Bob Costas discussed the controversy surrounding Cheek and the Chinese government, noting that he made it clear he would not protest the Chinese government during the Olympics:

Costas: "Joey Cheek had planned to invoke the Olympic truce, the time-honored concept of an Olympic truce, to call attention to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. He did not intend to directly protest the Chinese government. The fact that they pulled his visa is so contrary to the Olympic ideal it is simply outrageous."

I wondered if NBC was going to cave on this or take a stand and defend Cheek against the reprehensible actions of the Chinese government. I applaud Costas for choosing the latter.