
General David Petraeus and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke speak in Afghanistan on October 26. (photo: ISAFMedia on Flickr)
Despite a propaganda buildup that began last weekend, with both General David Petraeus and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen making claims of regaining momentum against the Taliban in the Kandahar offensive, Wednesday’s Washington Post destroys those claims with the headline that “U.S. military campaign to topple resilient Taliban hasn’t succeeded“. As if the destruction of Petraeus’ propaganda offensive by the Post is not enough on its own, BBC chimes in Wednesday, as well, with a fresh quote from Mikhail Gorbachev that victory in Afghanistan is impossible.
Last weekend’s spin began with a Reuters article published on Friday, where Rasmussen was given the opportunity to speak:
“The insurgency is under pressure, under pressure like never before in Afghanistan. Our aim for this year was to regain momentum,” Rasmussen said. “Now we have it.”
The article then went on to explain the means by which NATO claimed to be regaining momentum:
Tarak Barkawi, a defense expert at Britain’s Cambridge University, said the stepped up activity, driven by U.S. and NATO commander General David Petraeus, aimed to put pressure on the insurgents while encouraging them to seek reconciliation.
He said the strategy had been backed by a big increase in special forces activity, and in the use of unnmanned aircraft to target insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal areas.
“Petraeus is fighting a much more kinetic war. He’s let loose the airstrikes a bit more; there’s a huge special forces war going that’s largely outside of media coverage,” he said.
“They have set up a killing machine that is absolutely relentless in the pressure it’s putting on the insurgents. They are clearly now killing off various commanders in the Taliban hierarchies, which is inflicting some serious pain.”
Petraeus himself then grabbed the spotlight in the Washington Post on Saturday:
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, said allied forces are in the “final stages” of a large operation to clear insurgent fighters from key regions just west of Kandahar, the country’s second-largest city and principal focus of the coalition’s military campaign against the Taliban.
Petraeus, speaking in an interview at NATO headquarters in Kabul, said the operation in the Zhari and Panjwai districts, which began a month ago and involves thousands of U.S., Afghan and Canadian troops, is proceeding “more rapidly than was anticipated.” Military officials and Afghan leaders have reported increasing stability in large swaths of the area that had been firmly in the grip of insurgents a few weeks ago, although they acknowledge that they remain contested by pockets of Taliban holdouts.
The progress in Kandahar City’s western fringe is shaping up to be an important part of the case Petraeus plans to make, during crucial assessments of the mission this fall by NATO and the White House, that international and Afghan forces have regained the momentum after years of losing ground to the Taliban.
Petraeus was no doubt very pleased with himself for having planted the concept that momentum was now back on his side in Afghanistan, so he must be quite upset with today’s Post article pointing out that this “momentum” is meaningless:
An intense military campaign aimed at crippling the Taliban has so far failed to inflict more than fleeting setbacks on the insurgency or put meaningful pressure on its leaders to seek peace, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials citing the latest assessments of the war in Afghanistan.
Escalated airstrikes and special operations raids have disrupted Taliban movements and damaged local cells. But officials said that insurgents have been adept at absorbing the blows and that they appear confident that they can outlast an American troop buildup set to subside beginning next July.
“The insurgency seems to be maintaining its resilience,” said a senior Defense Department official involved in assessments of the war. Taliban elements have consistently shown an ability to “reestablish and rejuvenate,” often within days of [sic] routed by U.S. forces, the official said, adding that if there is a sign that momentum has shifted, “I don’t see it.”
Clearly, the “senior Defense Department official involved in assessments of the war” not only isn’t on the same page as Petraeus and Rasmussen, but is flinging their “momentum” claim back in their faces, with an “I don’t see it”. That’s going to leave a mark.
BBC piles onto the pushback against Petraeus, trotting out Mikhail Gorbachev, who has a bit of experience with losing wars in Afghanistan, to offer some advice to Petraeus and the US:
The former leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, has warned Nato that victory in Afghanistan is impossible.
Mr Gorbachev said that the US had no alternative but to withdraw its forces if it wanted to avoid another Vietnam.
/snip/
“Victory is impossible in Afghanistan. Obama is right to pull the troops out. No matter how difficult it will be,” Mr Gorbachev said in an interview with the BBC’s Moscow correspondent Steve Rosenberg.
The picture at the top of this post represents the competing forces at play as the December White House assessment of Afghanistan nears. Will Obama double down on the “relentless killing machine” and the “huge special forces war going that’s largely outside of media coverage” with Petraeus, or will Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan appointed by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, be given a larger role in diplomatic efforts to end the war and withdraw the troops because victory is impossible? Stay tuned as the various factions in these discussions continue to jockey for position prior to the December assessment.



48 Comments

I read this morning that Russia has agreed to send in troops to train Afghan police forces.
This money pit and killing machine biz must be stopped.
recommended
We have momentum alright. The momentum of someone falling into a chasm.
Yes, but with each drone strike and bombing mission, the replacement sales orders keep rolling in, and Petraeus’ star shines brighter with his future employers in the MIC.
Does Petraeus know he’s still in his PJs?
They don’t call it the graveyard of empires for specious reasons. We won’t stop though until we’ve bankrupted this country as thoroughly as the Soviet Union was. The Military/Industrial Complex: Too Big To Fail™.
By all means, let’s bring peace to the world by continuing traumatizing people for another decade- let’s give it another half century after that.
By all means, let’s bring peace to the world by continuing to traumatize people for another decade- let’s give it another half century after that. Really helps our homeland too.
About another 100 Friedmans ought to do it….
Yes, and Gates as well. Obama has made a huge mistake by not replacing them. He is just carrying on the same old Bush routine. What’s more, they don’t even respect him enough to even pretend to do as his orders them to do.
But, that is Obama’s fault. He should become the CIC and get it done or forever be known as the second facilitator of the war of lies.
The military literally loses billions in cash in the middle east. Meanwhile, single moms can’t afford to feed their kids. Here: http://brighton-towne.blogspot.com/2010/09/i-support-single-moms-not-troops.html
It not the war we want, it’s the only war we’ve got for our Career prospects.
Every death of an Afghan, Taliban or not, generates another 10 who become Taliban. While not make the US more secure, it is good for Officer promotions in the endless war.
We have a budget deficit? We need to be fiscally responsible? Where was that mantra from 2001 to 2008? Where were the war taxes? The “shared pain?”
“there are no tanks in baghdad.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf
Recommended, Jim! Now, how can I tweet this?
Petraeus is going to turn on Barry at just the right moment. Defeat in Afghanistan will not be his fault, it will be Barry’s. Barry already trapped himself by giving Him (them) fewer troops than they asked for. He thought that was playing the middle, but he was really taking the bait.
Barry is being played by these guys. Just watch what happens when the House flips.
Powerfully written rant. Recommended.
Cheney should be in jail.
I admire your generosity.
Well, I did give Obama some credit for strategic thinking when he put Petraeus in McChrystal’s spot. As long as Obama assigns at least part of the blame for Afghanistan going down the tubes to Petraeus, then Petraeus is out of the picture when it comes to running for president. And I thank Obama for that.
But as you point out, there will be tremendous effort along the lines you point out to blame it all on Obama.
Oops, the link didn’t take: http://my.firedoglake.com/jimwhite/2010/06/23/obama-finally-makes-a-strategic-move-by-replacing-mcchrystal-with-petraeus/
You could re-tweet mine:
http://twitter.com/#!/JimWhiteGNV/status/28891383226
The unprivilaged enemy belligerents cannot hold out forever. Eventually our death squads and hash-stealing necrophiles will motivate the combatant co-belligerents to stage another attack on the West. And that’s the whole point of the exercise isn’t it?
Agree.
The question is who is playing checkers and who is playing chess? Obama thinks choosing Petraeus makes him own at least some of the blame. Petraeus thinks taking the job (which he may have had to do) puts him in the position of defining winning and losing.
The Rs just can’t let Obama either win this war or exit with grace. He has to be seen as losing. If Petraeus is interested in running for office, he will not be trapped. If he has to, he will publicly split with Obama and look for R support. Which, I think, he will get.
But, I’ve been wrong before.
I think it’s interesting “U.S. military and intelligence officials” are sources for the Posts article. Is the shine is coming off Petraeus, the Afghan war or perpetual war in some circles in the Pentagon?
I think the purpose is for the shine to come off Obama.
Emptywheel has a fresh cross-post ready: Do You Get the Feeling We’re the Adversaries Deputy Defense Secretary Lynn Is Talking About?
But why go through all that trouble? It’s already been demonstrated that an attack on the West can be staged successfully without needing unprivileged enemy belligerents.
So it is time to impeach them all. How about we aim to put Warren in as the replacement.
I sure don’t want the next Republican waiting in line to become the next president, yikes. I think Pelosi should have done it when Bush was still in office and I have never figured out quite why she didn’t.
No support from the press, I guess, or no balls. Or she too is corrupt, like which of them aren’t?
I’m traumatized enough already.
Why bother; with BetrayUS, etal it’ll be the Assess of EVIL!
That’s a good one!
I’m glad to see that question on a forum I am not blocked from (yet). They ask it all the time over at Huffpost, a completely rhetorical question there since all who could answer it, are prevented from doing so.
I am one of those voices that people like you keep asking where were we.
Well let me tell you I protested, I called, I blogged, I did everything I could think of.
I was black balled and ignored by media every where I turned. I really think YOU should stop asking ME why you couldn’t hear me, and instead ask the people who man the filters why they were so diligently blocking me from reaching you.
I think it is a media conspiracy to keep you ignorant, so don’t blame your failure to hear me on me. I was saying all that stuff as loud as I could.
PS. The Tea Party was, in fact, my idea, so somebody must have been listening to me.
My lower taxes Tea Party message is to end war globally.
Yes, that means we start with a complete and immediate pull out from Iraq and Afghanistan. I figure that will save us a ton of money (and help end the massive social corruption of the drug war).
Now, you tell me why Huffpost blocks me.
That too of course, since it’s a WP piece, but he’d be tied in better if it was.
Jim,
What does “senior Defense Department official involved in assessments of the war” mean in Village-speak? Does that phraseology indicate a civilian official in the DoD, as opposed to someone currently in the military? If so, with whom might this person be allied? Could it be someone in the White House?
Are we witnessing the opening move of a strategy to test for public opposition to Petraeous’s scorched-earth strategy and to engage the public in what has been until now an in-house debate about the war?
If so, is someone in the White House on or off the bus and where does Obama fit in this puzzle?
My problem with this whole “launching an offensive” and “we’re making good progress” is that we’re not talking about World War I-style trench warfare. We’re talking about punching pillows. We move troops into an area, the Taliban mostly just move out of the way and sneak back in at night and the fight continues on a political plane, with Afghan citizens wondering “Why is it to my advantage to permit American troops to remain in my town unmolested? If the Taliban set up mines or an ambush for the Americans, is it in my interest to stick my neck out and warn the pale-skinned foreign interlopers that my fellow Afghans are trying to kill them?”
That description suggests to me (although I am not exactly an expert in interpreting Village-speak) that the person is involved in assessing intelligence. Petraeus’ PR offensive comes from his information operations group which is different from the group in Washington who are assessing various information streams. My first guess would be that these are different DoD groups sparring with each other and positioning for December, but that would change dramatically if it turns out the WaPo quote today is from a civilian political appointee. In that case, your suggestion of a trial run on pushing back on Petraeus’ aggression would fit.
The thrill of the hunt.
I believe you’ve identified the specific reason why the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, no matter what our military does.
I thought we were talking about dumping uranium.
I agree with Mason and would add that this is probably much of the thinking behind the analyst’s statement that the offensive is having no real effect.
Jim,
Gotta tip my hat to you for your splendid Petraeous tag,”ass-kissing little chickenshit.”
Doesn’t get any better than that!
Don’t thank me, thank Admiral Fallon (via Gareth Porter):
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
I add that tag on all my Petraeus posts…
There is only one party with two factions. Noam Chomsky in necessary Illusions explains it nicely. (1 hr audio is on torrent.) When Pelosi protected Bush/Cheney she ripped the mask off of their faces, and any semblance of a working democracy. When the piper gets paid for US war crimes I hope she faces justice for nonfeasance along with the rest of them for failure to impeach. These cowards names will be written on a monument to shame.
I just hate these words like “win” and “victory” used in any context regarding Afghanistan because it will not and never was going to be. The goal is to bring in any elements of the Taliban that want to be part of the government, if there are any, into the government. Petraeus has never talked about victory or winning here as he knows and has written that these wars end by negotiation. We should not have been here after we failed to get Bin Laden and everything after that has been an attempt to prop up a failed state and keep Pakistan from falling into the hands of Al Qaeda. Let’s help Karzai get negotiations started and get our troops out of there. As Joe Biden says, we can manage Al Qaeda from elsewhere but this conflict is not going to go anywhere it has not already been.
“Mr. President, bring our troops home and stop this insanity.”
Done. Twice!
They haven’t defined what victory means.
I think the US is encircling China, and extracting mineral resources -hence the infrastructure development, and laying pipeline. with no ocean port,logistics are exponentially difficult, supply lines are the weak link. The insurgents are merely natives that don’t agree with occupation and exploitation and want to be able to determine their own future for themselves and the unrealized wealth of their country, AQ is a boogey man, just like AQAP in Yemen and SA. This is a neocolonial adventure, it’s not for security.
hmmm. Admiral Fallon.. I wonder if he’s got any political aspirations? We could really use a guy like that.
“Mr Gorbachev said that the US had no alternative but to withdraw its forces if it wanted to avoid another Vietnam”
the US has no alternative but to withdraw our forces if we want to avoid a total collapse of our country like happened to the USSR.
In local news:
Air Force Expansion Could Mean Not-So-Friendly Skies Over the West
Opposition building to plans for Ellsworth and Canon Air Force bases to launch thousands more low-flying, sonic sorties over ranchland and other “primarily unpopulated” areas of Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, North and South Dakota.
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/air_force_expansion_could_mean_not_so_friendly_skies_over_the_west/C619/L619/
Where have the cool buttons gone???
Unless I missed it, I didn’t see talk about what the Corporate War Machine (CWM) wants. Clearly they want us to have a long-term presence and for that to happen, there has to be just the right amount of progress. The Petraeus position is that he is the top expert on counterinsurgency and all the experts know that takes a long-term effort, I saw a military sourced story the other day that said the withdrawal can’t really start until 2014. There may or may not be an internal Pentagon fight on how soon we can exit from this failed mission. Or it may instead be a coordinated plan that Obama is not aware of.
The CWM is having a very hard time establishing a future enemy to keep the production and privatization at a high level. That’s because there isn’t one and the CWM will have a hard time creating one because they will not find any allies to prepare to fight with them. Britain is scaring the hello out of the CWM and the congress critters who need the CWM operating in their states during a jobless recovery that has a very gloomy future. Britain has looked at its economic future and knows it can’t keep spending so much on “defense.” The US clearly needs to fallow suit, although it has to be gradual because of the massive job losses, at least those that haven’t already shifted overseas. Any new complex war machine under construction has parts in it from all over the world. What manufacturing we have left within the CWM needs to be shifted over to non-war production and that will not be easy. Looking long range, it will have to happen unless the CWM can keep creating enemies and wars. I don’t see how that is possible.
The reality of our economic crisis and the difficulty of “driving out of the hole” (a simplistic metaphor Barack not at all descriptive of the complex problems involved) is dawning on the American people. Even the sheep are going to realize that we have to stop feeding our CWM. That’s why the poltical future for Petraeus looks dim to me. He has been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan a long time and must want to extricate himself ASAP. If he doesn’t his fate may not be much better than McChrystal’s.
shekissesfrogs, my take is you’re right about China, resources, etc.
This war has very specific purposes and benefits. Short-term, it is a way to exercise social control over an often cantankerous domestic population while simultaneously robbing them blind, funnel stolen public tax dollars to the parasitical corporate investor class, and subsidize hi-tech industry (including drone technology) all at the same time. The war launders public tax dollars through the Pentagon procurement system and many of those dollars appear as private profits in CEO bank accounts.
Longer-term, multi-national corporate crime syndicates and their ideological servants within the US govt. intend to secure a foothold in Central Asia in order to keep tabs on China, put pressure on Russia, control valuable resources near the Caspian Sea, and provide muscle for American corporate interests who believe Asia is a gold mine of future markets. Victory in Afghanistan translates into hundreds of billions in profits for weapons manufacturers, Big Oil, and private companies with US military contracts.
This war has less than nothing to do with fighting Al-Qaeda, spreading democracy, or the safety and security of the American people. It is an illegal, immoral, despicable atrocity of astonishing magnitude.