
Petraeus only wants happy stories out of Afghanistan, like this terrific bread-buying adventure, not stories of innocent civlians disappearing from their homes in the dark of night. (ISAFMedia photo)
Earlier this year, while Stanley McChrystal still headed US forces in Afghanistan, McChrystal lost control of messaging and stories began to come out revealing the extent to which Special Operations Forces night raids were alienating Afghan civilians. One of the more telling reports was by Anand Gopal, where he described in detail the anguish of families who lose members to these intrusions into family compounds, with loved ones disappearing into a secret prison system. Shortly after that report, we had the disgusting revelation of Special Operations Forces carving their bullets out of the dead bodies of women they killed in a botched raid on a family compound. Somehow, even though the number of these night raids has increased dramatically since David Petraeus has taken over after McChrystal was fired, stories detailing the horrors of night raids and the deaths and destruction caused to families who are incorrectly targeted have not appeared as frequently as they did in the spring. This weekend, the silence on night raids was broken by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and that action sent David Petraeus into a toddler-level pout.
Here is the Washington Post reporting on their interview with Hamid Karzai:
President Hamid Karzai said on Saturday that the United States must reduce the visibility and intensity of its military operations in Afghanistan and end the increased U.S. Special Operations forces night raids that aggravate Afghans and could exacerbate the Taliban insurgency.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Karzai said that he wanted American troops off the roads and out of Afghan homes and that the long-term presence of so many foreign soldiers would only worsen the war. His comments placed him at odds with U.S. commander Gen. David H. Petraeus, who has made capture-and-kill missions a central component of his counterinsurgency strategy, and who claims the 30,000 new troops have made substantial progress in beating back the insurgency.
“The time has come to reduce military operations,” Karzai said. “The time has come to reduce the presence of, you know, boots in Afghanistan . . . to reduce the intrusiveness into the daily Afghan life.”
Those night raids are Petreaus’ main weapon, and when Karzai pointed out how they “only worsen the war” and constitute “intrusiveness into the daily Afghan life” he was upset mightily. He was given a chance to push back against Karzai in the Post:
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the coalition military commander in Afghanistan, warned Afghan officials Sunday that President Hamid Karzai’s latest public criticism of U.S. strategy threatens to seriously undermine progress in the war and risks making Petraeus’s own position “untenable,” according to Afghan and U.S. officials.
Officials said Petraeus expressed “astonishment and disappointment” with Karzai’s call, in a Saturday interview with The Washington Post, to “reduce military operations” and end U.S. Special Operations raids in southern Afghanistan that coalition officials said have killed or captured hundreds of Taliban commanders in recent months.
And, yes, this Post article confirms that Petraeus sees his precious night raids as his only tool:
The night raids are at the heart of Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy and are key to his hopes of being able to show significant progress when the White House reviews the situation in Afghanistan next month.
The Post finds Petraeus’ pout so severe that they feel compelled in the article to state that Petreaeus hasn’t actually threatened to resign.
The New York Times outlines how Petraeus is using the night raids as his primary tool to justify “progress” ahead of a strategy review by NATO:
The phased four-year plan to wind down American and allied fighting in Afghanistan will be presented at a NATO summit meeting in Lisbon later this week, the officials said. It will reflect the most concrete vision for transition in Afghanistan assembled by civilian and military officials since President Obama took office last year.
/snip/
The plan came amid escalating pressure from President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to reduce the visibility of American troops, to halt night raids unless carried out by Afghan soldiers or police officers and to begin withdrawing foreign forces by next year. “The time has come to reduce military operations,” Mr. Karzai told The Washington Post in an interview that stirred renewed concern among American officials on Sunday. “The time has come to reduce the presence of, you know, boots in Afghanistan.”
/snip/
On the ground, the tempo of Special Operations raids has greatly increased, resulting in what the United States military says is a sixfold increase in captures and killings of Taliban commanders, but also in an increase in night raids that sometimes lead to civilian casualties.
Poor little Petraeus had clamped the lid down so well over the real effects of his rampant night raids, only to have Karzai crack that lid just when real evaluations of where we stand in Afghanistan get underway. Little wonder, then, that he would go into full-scale pout and foot-stomping. US strategy in Afghanistan can only be viewed as successful when information coming out of Afghanistan is strictly controlled. When that control slips, failures start to be revealed, and Petreaus is just not used to being viewed as the failure that he is.
The Obama administration and the military are working hand in hand to push back the timeline of withdrawal from Afghanistan because they realize that Petraeus is an utter failure at training Afghan troops, just as he was with training Iraqi troops. With “progress” from night raids now threatened, too, Petraeus has nothing left.



33 Comments

Apparently Pouting Baby is more mature than Petraeus.
LOL, Jim! There are now seven posts in your ouvre with the tag “Ass-Kissing Little Chickenshit”. Well done!
PS:
This sentence is confusing to me:
??
ooops! forgot we don’t have blockquoting possibility.
Thanks for pointing out the bad sentence. I think I have edited it for clarity now.
The “ass-kissing little chickenshit” reference is courtesy of Gareth Porter’s reporting on Admiral Fallon’s response to their first meeting, but it’s just such an apt description that I try to add that tag to every Petraeus post I write.
Link: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
Yes, much clearer. Thanks!
I appreciate you using that tag, no matter who first said it. I needed that laugh today. :-)
Hey, Jim! Where’s pouting baby? …he really belongs with this post.
As for Petraeus, what a whining baby!
Sadly, polling seems to indicate that the more we talk about how badly things are going, the more the American public is inclined to support keeping troops there — very likely on the idea that “we can’t leave the Afghans in the lurch”:
Similar polling from the NYT in 2007 shows similar results.
doesn’t petraeus want to continue the war forever? it’s job security
War without end Amen. Iraq Christian population become refugees. Pakistan supports Taliban and hides Al Queda (including Osama Bin Laden and othe terrorist leaders)but takes our money. Thousands of Americam troops killed, wounded or mentally ill. Millions of Middle Easterners killed. Trillions of dollars spent accomplishing all of this.
One word: Vietnam.
Petreaus has to win in Afghanistan. Otherwise, how can he run for U.S. prez.
The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.
Mao Tse-Tung
The reason I quote this is to the point of either the Taliban or the US forces winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Neither side seems to be able to do this; the Taliban because they are so ruthless and the Americans because we are so foreign. There will be no winners..none.
I dunno, Phoenix…I’ve been outraged about Iraq since before Bush pulled the trigger, and when it turned into the bloody, astronomically expensive can of worms that anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew it would, it sure as hell didn’t make more people want to stay there to “win”; the number of americans calling it a mistake, and wanting us OUT, was tracking the numbers of our troops killed, with predictably accuracy, as I remember.
In fact, positing the other way just doesn’t make sense. You can look at the erosion of support for staying in Afghanistan since Obama came in office and “surged” there. More of our troops have died there in his 22 months, than died in the 7 years of Aghanistan on Bush’s watch, including his invasion of the place.
It’s worse now than it’s been, and the support for staying is dwindling, by the week. As it damn well should.
That’s just dandy! Because he won’t be able to win there and the last thing we need is a former general as president.
If the goal were to win hearts and minds, we could have bought them all tractors and plots of land.
It would have been effective and cheaper by billions of dollars.
The goal is to plummet other peoples’ resources and funnel billions to the Military Industrial Complex.
The Media will back him up. Media Owners want Real Republicans (not Rethug poseurs like Obama) and to pay zero taxes.
Or maybe Obama just has to lose Afghanistan.
I always figured one of the primary reasons Obama sent TMCP to Afghanistan was to prevent him from mounting a presidential run. If he’s still tied up over there in 2011-2012 how can he run?
But if he gets himself into the WP complaining that his hands are being tied, and if he does it repeatedly and starts blaming this on his civilian leadership, and he eventually resigns in “disgust”, well that gives him a pretty solid storyline to sell to the teatards and other assorted knuckle-draggers he will need to win the Republican primary.
Implausable? I don’t know. I guess what I would watch for next is for the ass-licking little chickenshit to start accusing Obama and the Pentagon of interference.
I for one still believe TMCP will be POTUS come 01/21/13.
Here’s hoping I’m wrong…
To paraphrase Rummie “As you know, you go to war with the Leader you install and prop up, not the Leader you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
Betrayus and McChrystal worst generals ever. McChrystal could not keep his contempt and insubordination hidden, for civilian warmonger control of the military. He wanted military warmonger control.
Betrayus, word fail, but not as much as this bloody butcher. He has two epic military quagmire occupations. Betrayus has won the minds and hearts of weapons dealers, drug dealers, and the Dee Cee village. But that is all he has won.
The people of Irak and Afghanistan hate the United States. Also, the people of Pakistan and India also hate the US even though there are enemies of each other. Good job, or heckuva job Hillary.
Plus Betrayus is trying for another Forever War.
Afghanistan is now Obama’s war. The majority of Americans killed in Afghanistan have died in the less than two years Obama has been president. Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and is carrying out a terror bombing campaign in Pakistan, so he can run to the right of the Republicans in 2012.
“Otherwise, how can he run for U.S. Prez.”
Here’s how, Buzz.
This piece is off AW.Com, by Jason Ditz.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/14/petraeus-karzais-criticism-undermining-war/
It says basically the same things that Jim nailed, except, one thing really caught my eye about Petraeus’ pissing and moaning:
“Though Petraeus was said to be furious during his warnings to the Afghan government, officials denied earlier reports that the general had threatened to resign.”
I thought this was a hand-grenade of news.
It could very well be the plan for Petraeus and the repubs. We are NOT going to “win”. It isn’t possible, and Petraeus and the warbots know that. If Obama won’t surge again, and keep surging, then all Petraeus has to do is whisper the words “I’ll resign”, and Obama will shit himself. A “principled” resignation by Petraeus, with him farting and tapdancing around about a presidential stab-in-the-back, would be a best-case scenario for:
A republican party that has NO attractive candidate in 2012
A republican party that doesn’t want to see us out of Afghanistan. (Nor, Iraq, for that matter…)
Petraeus, himself, who can then run for the GOP nomination with an “honorable” resignation on his resume’.
He can’t run if he stays on, and he can’t run if he stays and the situation there keeps getting worse and worse. Losing generals don’t get to ascend to the purple.
I think what it means is this: There is going to be a hell of a crunch coming in 2011, first, with Iraq, and then, with no withdrawal even started in Afghanistan. If Obama tries to keep the plates spinning, it will be one more nail in his political coffin, and after what happened two weeks ago, the lid is already closed and waiting to be fastened. He’s going to be between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and he’s not going to get support and sympathy from very many democrats, for letting these two foreign-policy turds fester away in his political punchbowl. Someone is going to have to deal with the reality of there simply not being a denouement in either quagmire, that’s user-friendly to corporate amurka. Obama had the clout to do it, early on, but he started hoarding that mountain of political capital that he came in with, and now it’s eroded away.
What he’s going to do is anyone’s guess, but it’s pretty much moved out of his hands, as a result of the mid-terms, and his own willingness to sustain the shitmires.
Karzi has the US over a barrel. He knows he can’t be killed the way we killed our Vietnamese puppet, because any replacement will be even more anti-American, unless the US co-opts the drug trade, which from one point of view might help solve the deficit problem. Always a silver lining.
I suppose we’re still not allowed to criticize the troops abroad, no even the ones who willingly engage war crimes activity under the Geneva Convention. Gotta support the troops without question. What a great country we live in.
In case anyone didn’t know the real reason the U.S. is occupying Afghanistan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2017044.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2608713.stm
And Karzai postures again as not a US puppet. Whether sincere of a negotiating tactic it has to do with two things: (1) bringing the Taliban into the political process and out of armed opposition and (2) laying the groundwork for a status of forces agreement that get the US out. Maybe Karzai got a little concerned about the trail balloon on that 2014 “begin to withdraw” date.
That pipeline is pretty much dead except for natural gas going to Pakistan. The -stans with the oil and natural gas cut a deal with China for one pipeline that avoids Afghanistan and another that avoids Afghanistan with Iran. Iran is likely to have a transhipment point on the Arabian Sea that will permit routing of oil and LNG to Pakistan, India, or elsewhere.
My immediate thoughts were, Karzai is our man, he has to be given permission to speak out, or the Afgan people will throw him out and where would that leave us? and then of course Petraeus has to speak out otherwise people will figure out Karzai is our man. And the war games go on. How else would our president be able to become an arms dealer? This is all staged by our war profiteers.
Well the idea was to get central Asian gas out of Turkmenistan by a route that bypasses Iran and Russia but you’re right that the deal I linked to is about dead. I should have been more clear instead of saying that’s why the U.S. is in the country rather that this was the reason the U.S. launched its invasion of Afghanistan in the first place in late 2001. Now there are other economic reasons it wants to stay namely the Afghan mineral wealth (including rare earth metals) that was written about in an article in the Washington Post a few months back. The gas deal however was what got the U.S. there originally.
Yep, thanks to President Cheney.
But it’s not what’s keeping us there. In true fighting the last war fashion, US policymakers don’t want a power vacuum in Afghanistan that allows it to become a haven for non-state military forces. That is the price that the Taliban is going to be expected to pay for any US withdrawal. Pakistan is very key to brokering that deal.
And interestingly enough, the proposed route of that failed project was through the south of Afghanistan where the mountains are not quite as an engineering issue as elsewhere and into the Balochistan province of Pakistan. Guess where the Afghan Taliban (Mullah Omar and company) are strongest?
China built a port in Balochistan on the Arabian Sea at Gwadar, which is approximately 60 miles from the Iran border. China and Singapore are the two major investors and the Singapore is operating the port under a contract with Pakistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwadar
You’ve only got ONE thing wrong ‘my dear friend Tanbark’ (he says in his best Molinari voice):
You got the wrong party!
Obama will be/maybe has already been told to step down, for all the reasons including the war party reasons (fail).
N then HRC & A General (who has or has not resigned won’t matter) will assume the top spot of the Dem Ticket. No primary’s will be allowed/enabled, and if they are, will be shot down early and fast.
The Dem Convention will be a delegate unanimity in their votes for more war never before seen in the history of either party.
All this of course as we crash economically and domestically with hunger and homelessness rampant in the streets.
But the rest of yer script is pretty solid.
*G*
As to polls, PW, they say whatever the persons paying for them want them to say . . . in the questions asked, answers given and results tabulated . . .
*G*
I’d bet the reality on the ground coast to coast is screw the wars get us jobs and protect us from the rich fuckers.
N that growing resentment is getting harder and harder to cover up . . . by the MSM or any pollsters.
*G*
Yeah, it’s like a lot of military adventures in that it hasn’t worked out like its planners intended. In this case a lot of the territory the proposed gas pipeline would have to cross is in the hands of the Taliban again so it’s not currently feasible though I don’t doubt that were things to turn out the opposite way on the ground that the plan would be revived as it offers an alternate route to get Turkmen gas to western markets without having to use the Russian pipeline system and without having to go through Iran, all part of the P.N.A.C.’s larger “War on Terror” which upon even cursory examination proves to be a series of wars for energy resource dominance. Iraq is another good example of how just because a cabal’s original plan and motive for some military adventure doesn’t work out as they envisioned it doesn’t by any means indicate that something wasn’t their intention.
Iraq also illustrates the true nature of the “War on Terror” as the San Francisco Chronicle explained in March 2004 article:
“The case Cheney vs. U.S. District Court is scheduled to be heard before the Supreme Court next month and could end up revealing more about the Bush administration’s motives for the 2003 Iraq war than any conceivable investigation of U.S. intelligence concerning Iraq’s purported weapons of mass destruction. The plaintiffs, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, the conservative legal group based in Washington, argue that Vice President Cheney and his staff violated the open-government Federal Advisory Committee Act by meeting behind closed doors with energy industry executives, analysts and lobbyists. The plaintiffs allege these discussions occurred during the formulation of the Bush administration’s May 2001 “National Energy Policy.” For close to three years, Cheney and the administration have resisted demands that they reveal with whom they met and what they discussed. Last year, a lower court ruled against Cheney and instructed him to turn over documents providing these details.
On Dec. 15, the Supreme Court announced it would hear Cheney’s appeal. Three weeks later, Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spent a weekend together duck hunting at a private resort in southern Louisiana, giving rise to calls for Scalia to recuse himself. So far, he has refused. Why has the administration gone to such lengths to avoid disclosing how it developed its new energy policy? Significant evidence points to the possibility that much more could be revealed than mere corporate cronyism: The national energy policy proceedings could open a window onto the Bush administration’s decision-making process and motives for going to war on Iraq. In July 2003, after two years of legal action through the Freedom of Information Act (and after the end of the war), Judicial Watch was finally able to obtain some documents from the Cheney-led National Energy Policy Development Group. They included maps of Middle East and Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, two charts detailing various Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a March 2001 list of “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,” detailing the status of their efforts. The documents are available at http://www.judicialwatch.org.
These documents are significant because during the 1990s, U.S. policy- makers were alarmed about oil deals potentially worth billions of dollars being signed between the Iraqi government and foreign competitors of the United States including France’s Total and Russia’s LukOil. The New York Times reported the LukOil contracts alone could amount to more than 70 billion barrels of oil, more than half of Iraq’s reserves. One oil executive said the volume of these deals was huge — a “colossal amount.” As early as April 17, 1995, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. petroleum giants realized that “Iraq is the biggie” in terms of future oil production, that the U.S. oil companies were “worried about being left out” of Iraq’s oil dealings due to the antagonism between Washington and Baghdad, and that they feared that “the companies that win the rights to develop Iraqi fields could be on the road to becoming the most powerful multinationals of the next century.”
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-03-21/opinion/17417765_1_russia-s-lukoil-judicial-watch-future-oil
So there we have the real primary motive for the Iraq invasion. Certainly the rebels blowing up oil installations and pipelines put a crimp in their plans as did the sectarian violence but the fact remains that oil was their original intention behind it. For good measure we’ll consider Somalia, another theater in the wars for energy resource dominance. In December 2006 the U.S. goaded Ethiopia into invading Somalia to overthrow the “Islamic Courts” government and install the U.S.-backed puppet government to bend to the will of the oil supermajors. The U.S. provided some air support and intel. support to the Ethiopians with a small special ops unit on the ground but for the most part got them to do their dirty work for them.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-07-ethiopia_x.htm
Why Somalia? Because it is sitting on an undetermined but believed sizeable amount of oil reserves which explains the George H.W. Bush- and Clinton administrations’ interest in Somalia back in the early 1990s.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/15
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15032002/1503200246.htm
http://worlddefensereview.com/pham081407.shtml
My point is that, regardless of the reasons the U.S. ruling elite’s government feels that it must cling to its foothold in Afghanistan, the first key step for a lot of people out there who haven’t had time to look into the matter is to understand the original motive behind the launching of these wars of aggression in order to understand how divorced from reality the orthodox rhetoric of it really is and how utterly useless and immaterial it is to their everyday lives versus the life-or-death posturing of the talking heads and empty suits. If this information is fully absorbed by a critical mass of the population it leaves them less susceptible to fearmongering and it cuts the legs out from under the right-wing worldview. The average American realizing that they really don’t need to take their shoes off at an airport and get groped by a stranger and spend as much on “defense” as the rest of the world combined and have sixteen different intelligence agencies (last time I counted– could be more now) and have a Dept. of Homeland Security is the first step in them realizing what needs to be cut from the budget and shifted around to things that really matter.
And at one point China was looking into the idea of funding the construction of a canal across the Kra isthmus in Thailand so as to bypass the Strait of Malacca and the U.S. naval base at Singapore which controls this chokepoint so that in the event of war with the U.S. they wouldn’t be able to strangle China’s oil shipping lane from the Middle East but the canal would have to go right through Pattani and other restive areas so currently it isn’t workable. It’s all part of the new “Great Game” of world power competition in south Asia but this time over energy resources. Like the U.S. is pursuing its wars to secure as much control over as much of this as possible behind the cover of a “War on Terror” energy-hungry China is looking out for its own interests in trying to find alternate routes of oil and gas importation less vulnerable to foreign interference.