Investigative journalist Gerald Posner told MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan that the Taliban is using heroin as a tactical weapon against US soldiers. "They understand this is an additional weapon and getting their money, as you said, from the heroin and opium crop and looking at the possibility of hooking Americans not only on the cheap heroin but according to the U.S. intelligence report and picking up conversations, they developed the ability now for smokeable heroin," explained Posner.

The Daily Beast has more details here.

No Comment: CIA efforts to keep torture secrets suffer a key loss in British high court.

Amygdala: An epic tour of Afghanistan, part 1.

We Are Respectable Negroes: Crack, Limbaugh and Hitler.

Alicublog: Right-bloggers defend Rush with an NFL boycott.

The Hunting of the Snark: More Logic Fail by McArdle.

Guest post by Batocchio. BG takes over for Mike tomorrow; send tips to bluegalsblog AT gmail

All wars depress me, but this Afghanistan one in particular makes me want to scream. Why are we there? Theoretically, to hunt down Osama bin Laden and stop al Qaeda from using it as a base. But is al Qaeda still there? Is that likely to work? Is it even possible? And if it is possible, is it worth the cost?

Nice to see a high-ranking Democrat asking these questions, too:

The veteran chairman of the House Appropriations Committee posed a series of tough questions Thursday to his colleagues and the Obama administration about the wisdom of further U.S. engagement in that war-torn country.

Rep. David R. Obey , D-Wis., in a statement expressed significant skepticism about the prospects for success of any major effort to stabilize the country, either through additional U.S. troops or by a concerted effort to train more Afghan troops and improve the country’s governance and economy.

“The problem with increasing the number of troops is that we become the lightning rod, and our presence runs the risk of inciting more anti-American sentiment that can become a recruiting tool for the very forces we seek to curtail,” Obey said of one option President Obama is weighing.

“If any adjustment is made in U.S. troop levels, it would be much better if those troops were focused on the job of training Afghani troops and police to take on the job of securing the population and maintaining law and order,” he said. “But even there, we have to ask what is achievable. My understanding is that there have never been more than about 90,000 troops under the sway of the central government. Now we are told that the goal is to train up to 400,000 soldiers and police personnel. I think it is reasonable to ask whether that is a realistic and achievable goal.”

As for a policy bent on counter-insurgency and nation-building, Obey said, “We should be asking not what policy is theoretically the most intellectually coherent, but which policy is actually achievable given the only tools we have in the region; the Afghani and Pakistani governments. Is there sufficient leadership, popular support, and political will, not in the United States but in Afghanistan, necessary for effective governance to take hold? “

Equally important, he said, “Do we really have the tools to overcome language, culture, history and a 90 percent illiteracy rate to sufficiently transform such a country?”

(h/t Heather)

Via Buzzflash. Yes, even the former Texas congressman who was single-handedly dragged us into our initial entanglement in Afghanistan thinks we should get out:

The U.S. military's ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is a movie Charlie Wilson has seen before, and he isn't thrilled with where the plot of this one is going.

"I think they're looking at us more and more like occupiers," he said.

[...] Out of Congress since 1997, Mr. Wilson is now 76 and two years removed from a heart transplant. Because of that, he has significantly reduced his public speaking schedule.

"I actually committed to this one a long time ago. I don't make so many anymore," he said during a recent phone interview from his home in Texas.

Most of his talk will center on Afghanistan, from his covert dealings there in the '80s to its present situation. No doubt he'll be comparing and contrasting the Soviets' experience to what the American military is going through now in its fight against the Taliban.

"I want to make them understand the dilemmas the (Obama) administration is under," Mr. Wilson said. "It's a very tough situation."

Mr. Wilson was better known for his hard partying ways - his nickname was Good Time Charlie - than for his policy credentials when he became deeply interested in Afghanistan a couple of years after the Soviets' 1979 invasion.

"I decided the Afghans were really going to put up a fight," he said. "Basically, I just wanted to embarrass the Soviets as much as possible. Then I got into it big time."

Using his seat on the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, he was able secure enough funds for the CIA to arm the mujahideen freedom fighters with automatic weapons and Stinger missiles.

"It was harder than it sounds," Mr. Wilson said. "We had to buy Russian-made weapons. We had to deal with Poland and Romania. That was all pretty intricate."

The weapons paid off for the Islamic fighters, and the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. Mr. Wilson's efforts were documented by author George Crile in the book "Charlie Wilson's War," which was adapted into the 2007 movie starring Tom Hanks as Mr. Wilson.

Of course, the story didn't end with the withdrawal. Mr. Wilson believes that the United States' failure to invest in Afghanistan's recovery following the war led in large part to the ascension of the Taliban, who provided a refuge for Osama bin Ladin, who had fought with the mujahideen against the Soviets, and Al Qaeda in the years leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"We (screwed) up the end game," Mr. Wilson said. "It would have been very easy and done for a minuscule amount of money. We should have done the basic things for a backward country that's trying to come out of (a war) and have a reasonable hope of economic success."

As President Obama considers whether to send tens of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan, Mr. Wilson worries that the war could become "another Vietnam."

"It's probably best to make a calculated withdrawal," he said. "If I were the president, I'm not sure what I'd do. I'd probably shut it down, rather than lose a lot of soldiers and treasure."

He says this as someone who knows as well as anyone just how fierce and tenacious the Afghan fighters are.

"I'd rather take on a chainsaw," Mr. Wilson said. "They're the world's best foot soldiers, best warriors. And they're fearless.

"They're fearless, and they've got nothing to lose. And they have a pretty serious hatred for those who try to occupy their country."

Lindsey Graham uses the news that eight American troops were just killed by the Taliban in a remote outpost to try and make it seem like President Obama doesn't support the troops if he doesn't bow down to Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan on FOX News Sunday.

GRAHAM: Well, the one thing I can tell you for sure, without reinforcing our troops, you’re going to hear more of what happened today. General McChrystal said without reinforcements we cannot change the momentum that the Taliban has achieved, and the insurgency cannot be defeated in a year if something doesn’t change.

We had this very dilemma in Iraq. We didn’t have enough troops. Everybody thought Maliki was a sectarian prime minister. The country wasn’t governing itself. The security environment became terrible.

The one thing I can tell you, if we don’t add more troops, you’re going to see more of what happened yesterday. The security situation’s going to get worse. And any hope of better governance is lost, and the Taliban will re-emerge.

If you send troops in, we’ll have a second chance at governance. You need to put Karzai’s feet to the fire, or the next government’s feet to the fire, to do a better job. But it’s impossible to bring about better governance without security.

American troops have been getting killed in Afghanistan for a long time and Graham never made that claim before. Are their lives any less meaningful before McChrystal's request? And the troops were stationed in a position that would not be occupied by McChrystal's plan so Goober Graham is wrong on that front too if I understand the strategy correctly.

Eight U.S. troops died in tribal militia attacks on two remote American outposts in eastern Afghanistan Saturday, military officials said.

The attacks, which also killed two Afghan security officers, were the deadliest in months for American troops, The New York Times reported Sunday.

The coordinated attacks by tribal militia occurred in the Nuristan province, along the Pakistan border, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said in a statement.

The tribal fighters mounted the attacks from a mosque and a village in the Kamdish district in the eastern part of the province, and American forces "effectively repelled the attack and inflicted heavy enemy casualties," the U.S .military said.

U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal has outlined a new strategy to close down many of the remote outposts like those that came under attack.

And you'll never hear a FOX host or a republican talk about Iraq with any real honesty. A major reason why the violence went down in Iraq was because we paid off a whole lot of Sunni leaders with big bucks so they would stop the violence.

Now we put up a 100,000 Sunni militia on the American payroll, people who used to be shooting at the United States who are now on our payroll.

A google search helps me find this from a blog called Political Impressions:

In an April 2008 report, The Christian Science Monitor stated,

He (Abu Abdullah of the Islamic Army of Iraq) also maintains that while the US has succeeded in driving a wedge between AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) and Sunnis in Anbar Province, many of the tribesmen there who are now on the American payroll are still aiding IAI and other insurgent groups.

Members of these US-backed militias now number almost 91,000 and are paid a total of $16 million a month in salaries by the US. They are often lauded by President Bush in his speeches on Iraq.

Who do we pay in Afghanistan? Can the Taliban be bribed in different regions? I don't think so. The two countries are completely different in every way and so the comparisons of a surge between the two are absurd.
Don't forget abput Blue America's Afghanistn action called "No Means No!"

September 28, 2009 CNN

MALVEAUX: Joining me now, Senator Kit Bond. He is the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Republican.

Thank you, Senator, for joining us here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

BOND: Thank you, Suzanne.

MALVEAUX: You have been a very big supporter of General McChrystal coming before Congress to testify to explain what should happen next, including the addition of U.S. troops.

But, you know, we have heard from the president, have talked to White House aides, who say, look, we need to make sure we get the strategy right, instead of rushing it. Why the rush?

BOND: First, General McChrystal was sent over by the president to develop a comprehensive plan, which he did, which I read in detail last weekend. He has a plan. But he has not been able to talk to the president -- only once in 70 days.

Now, I think it's baffling that the president has time to travel to Copenhagen, to be on "Letterman" and every channel, except the Food Network, and, yet, he doesn't have time to talk with and listen to his top general.

Continue reading »

September 21, 2009 C-SPAN

It's one thing for the Bernie Sanderses and Russ Feingolds to openly question the mission in Afghanistan. It's quite another for Dianne Feinstein to do so.

KING: Well Senator Feinstein, you're the chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence. To the question of where this ends, it is eight years after 9/11. We've paused and reflected on that just the other day. You see the things that we can't see, the intelligence. Are we winning in Afghanistan? Are we any closer to finding Osama bin Laden, and does the president have a clear strategy, in your view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I can tell you this. A lot of the leadership has been taken out of al Qaeda. I can say and I think you would agree that Afghanistan and the Pakistani border are still the major safe haven, the major safe haven for terrorists in the world. And these are people who will, if they can, come after us, not necessarily the Taliban, but certainly al Qaeda and other affiliated groups.

So we have to consider that. We have about 60,000 troops there, another 8,000 are moving in with our allies, it about equals the force that is in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, the president has had no request for additional troops up to this time. My view is that the mission has to be very clear. I don't believe --

KING: Has to be means it is not now?

FEINSTEIN: I believe it is not now. I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan. I believe it will remain a tribal entity.

I do believe that clearing out Al Qaida, clearing out the Taliban is a bona fide part one of the mission. I do agree that training Afghan troops, Afghan -- Afghan police is an important piece of the mission.

I believe the mission should be time limited, that there should be no, well, we'll let you know in a year and a half, depending on how we do. I think the Congress is entitled to know, after Iraq, exactly how long are we going to be in Afghanistan.

Feinstein is actually more charitable about the presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan than the commanding general on the ground, Stanley McChrystal, who said this week that there are no signs of major Al Qaeda anywhere in the country.

But as far as the wariness of the viability of Constitutional democracy in Afghanistan, you need only look to their recent election, into which the opposition leader is now seeking a criminal investigation. He has accused Hamid Karzai of treason and "state-engineered fraud". Despite this, Karzai will probably win election on the first ballot, and a vote that has been horribly compromised will be made official. We saw in Iran how this can lead to violence and chaos, and Afghanistan is not nearly as stable. Without a viable partner in the government, as Feinstein says we cannot expect an endless commitment. Yet because Karzai is Pashtun the US will likely back him in this fight, alienating the other ethnic groups in the region. Kalashnikovs are flying off the shelves in the Tajik areas. Civil war is not an unlikely scenario at this point.

This further limits the mission, away from state-building and toward dealing with the elements in the country willing to deal. Otherwise we set ourselves up for a decade-long slog that will only end with more dead and more treasure squandered, to little effect. And yes, as Sen. Feinstein says, that process should have an end date.

(h/t Heather)

(h/t CSPANjunkie)
The Afghan war is going very badly and support is shrinking. I heard Michael Ware say on CNN (above clip) that the big multimillion dollar Highway #1 which runs from Kabul to Kandahar that we repaved has been almost destroyed and the Taliban can attack at will. Drivers are left completely exposed to attacks, but what choice do Afghan truckers have?
More troop losses are mounting....

Eight soldiers have died on a bloody day for US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Three died in a roadside bombing in northern Iraq - the US military's deadliest single incident in five months - and one died in Baghdad.

Four soldiers died in what was described as a "complex attack" in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan.

Violence in Afghanistan is at a record high, while attacks have increased in Iraq since a US-led pull-back in July.
{}
In Afghanistan, violence has surged to a record high eight years after the US-led invasion which toppled the Taliban.

Some 820 US soldiers are thought to have died in Afghanistan in those eight years.

The Bush administration mishandled their other war so badly that violence has spiked almost eight years laterand accusations of voter fraud are flying around.

Afghanistan’s UN-backed Electoral Complaints Commission ordered a recount and examination of some ballots in the Aug. 20 presidential election, saying it had found “clear and convincing evidence of fraud” in the vote.

The order came as results released by the country’s election authority showed President Hamid Karzai nearing the majority of votes required -- 50 percent plus one vote -- to be elected. It was the first official confirmation of fraud that independent election monitors say risks undermining the credibility of the vote and the next Afghan government.

The media would like us to forget that this is another Bush/Cheney disaster, but it is and the troops have to pay the ultimate price for getting us into another quagmire. This is the next political battle after health care in DC, but we're hitting it on the net now. After eight years the war is in even worse condition no matter what Joe Lieberman has to say.

The Political Carnival: You can't reason with a sick mind

Brad DeLong: GOP congress critters couldn't find their asses with a map and two flashlights dept.

D-Day: Justice and accountability by inches

Newshoggers: Paging Dr. Mengele of the CIA

Economist's View: Do corporations have a right to free speech?

Informed Comment: 60 said killed in NATO bombings; US Aid money may support Taliban activities

What's that old saying? "Find yourself in hole, stop digging." This Afghanistan war is already a nightmare and escalation is a really bad idea, and here's just one of the reasons:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan is objecting to expanded American combat operations in neighboring Afghanistan, creating new fissures in the alliance with Washington at a critical juncture when thousands of new American forces are arriving in the region.

Pakistani officials have told the Obama administration that the Marines fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan will force militants across the border into Pakistan, with the potential to further inflame the troubled province of Baluchistan, according to Pakistani intelligence officials.

Pakistan does not have enough troops to deploy to Baluchistan to take on the Taliban without denuding its border with its archenemy, India, the officials said. Dialogue with the Taliban, not more fighting, is in Pakistan’s national interest, they said.

The Pakistani account made clear that even as the United States recommits troops and other resources to take on a growing Taliban threat, Pakistani officials still consider India their top priority and the Taliban militants a problem that can be negotiated. In the long term, the Taliban in Afghanistan may even remain potential allies for Pakistan, as they were in the past, once the United States leaves.

The Pakistani officials gave views starkly different from those of American officials regarding the threat presented by top Taliban commanders, some of whom the Americans say have long taken refuge on the Pakistani side of the border.

July 20, 2009 MSNBC Keith Olbermann

Paul Rieckhoff from IAVA gave me a heads up on this yesterday. Ralph Peters is one of those wacko military hawks that FOX News uses to ramp up the Rambo style militia movement they hold so dear to their hearts. He was prattling on (almost spitting up as he spoke) about how this soldier might be a deserter and if that was the case--he should be executed by the Taliban. Yea, real sane analysis by Peters.

Peters: Now look, Julie, I want to be clear. If, when the facts are in, we find out that through some convoluted chain of events, he really was captured by the Taliban, I'm with him. But, if he walked away from his post and his buddies at wartime... I don't care how hard it sounds, as far as I'm concerned, the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills.

Antman11 has more:

I couldn't believe my ears, but just minutes ago on "America's News HQ," guest pundit Ralph Peters suggested something to the effect that the Taliban should "save us the headache" and execute captured 23 year-old American soldier Bowe Bergdahl, because "it looks like" Bergdahl deserted his unit. While prefacing his comments by stressing that a military decision should not be made until all of the facts surrounding Bergdahl's capture are determined, Peters then ignored his own advice and encouraged the Taliban to kill this young man. Fox News' Julie Banderas was visibly shocked at the words coming out of Peters' mouth, but did not challenge any of his statements before awkwardly ending the segment.

You might have forgotten that Ralphie boy also thinks the media should be murdered by our troops too. He's a real psycho. Just the kind of pundits FOX loves.

Peters: Rejecting the god of their fathers, the neo-pagans who dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar.

Pretending to be impartial, the self-segregating personalities drawn to media careers overwhelmingly take a side, and that side is rarely ours. Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.

Bowe Bergdahl is 23-year-old American soldier that has been captured by the Taliban. Fox News strategic analyst Ralph Peters doesn't have any sympathies for the solider because he suspects Bergdahl may have deserted his unit.

Peters escalated his rhetoric when he suggested that the Taliban should kill Bergdahl. "I want to be clear. If when the facts are in we find out it's through some convoluted chain of events he really was captured by the Taliban, I'm with him. But if he walked away from his post and his buddies in wartime -- I don't care how hard it sounds -- as far as I'm concerned the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills," said Peters.

July 06, 2009 CNN