American Morning
Journalist: U.S. officials skeptical of Obama’s Afghan surge
President Obama is shifting America's military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. His strategy includes more boots on the ground and more cash and diplomacy. Will the strategy work or should the Pentagon turn to quick intense strikes?
Michael Hastings is a contributor for GQ Magazine. He is just back from the Afghanistan/Pakistan border where he was embedded with American forces. Hastings spoke to John Roberts on CNN’s American Morning Monday.
John Roberts: Some of the soldiers and commanders you spoke with are, according to your article, skeptical of whether or not this surge strategy is going to work. Based on your reporting, what do you think?
Michael Hastings: I think I found there was a significant amount of skepticism among U.S. officials and soldiers on the ground there and that a long-term, 10-25 year, multi-billion dollar commitment to Afghanistan has a very low chance of success. And essentially the question these officials asked was what are we winning? Even if we win in Afghanistan, what is it exactly that we're winning? Maybe the answer is maybe we're winning security gains, but that's not even for sure and there’s certainly no guarantee of that.
Roberts: In the president's plan, 17,000 new combat troops are to go into the southwestern area of the country and 4,000 other soldiers are to go in as trainers. Based upon what you've seen and heard, how is the training program going? Is it paying off?
Hastings: Well, the training has been slow, painful, and very disorganized. The Afghan police are notoriously corrupt. At least 15% of their new recruits tested positive for drugs and I guess that's probably a low number. The Afghan army is just getting into shape after the Americans sort of took over the program from our European allies who haven't really picked up the ball there. It’s sort of a flashback to the 1980s when we armed another group of Afghans to fight the Soviets, which became the blow-back that later became al Qaeda. And now we're saying we’re going to arm this group of Afghans and this time we’re going to get it right. And so I think there is a lot of skepticism about whether or not this is a good thing to do in the long run.
Roberts: We’ve seen that the training of the Mujahadeen was actually quite effective because they turned themselves into quite a fighting force, on the wrong side, unfortunately.
Hastings: Some of the Mujahadeen we trained are the ones we are actually engaged in on a daily basis there.
Roberts: The Obama administration is counting on help from Pakistan to get the job done. You talked to an Afghan captain who told you, “Pakistan doesn’t want Afghanistan to have peace. Pakistan wants to keep Afghanistan unstable and destroyed.” Did you see any evidence to back that up?
Hastings: Sure. I was out on the border with Americans and Afghan border patrol. And literally you could see the Pakistani border outpost about a mile or so away. And in the morning, we were attacked by Taliban that had literally walked past the Pakistan border outpost to attack us with the soldiers I was with. So it's certainly a common view held among Afghan officials that Pakistan wants to destroy them. I think the Obama administration's goal to reshape or reform the Pakistani military and intelligence service is also one that I would think would have a very low chance of success. And if it is going to have success, we're talking billions of dollars and as military advisers will tell you, 10 – 25 years.
About this Show
Welcome to the American Morning blog where you can get daily news updates from American Morning's reporters and producers. Join us for "the most news in the morning," weekdays from 6-9 a.m. ET, only on CNN.
On Twitter
I agree with the earlier comment on Pakistan. Let's arm India and let them wipe out Pakistan.
Bev says the United States should encourage one nuclear power (India) to go to war with another nuclear power (Pakistan). Then she criticizes the Bush administration. So, ousting a brutal dictator who tried to use military force to seize control of half of the worlds oil supply in 1990 was wrong, but encouraging one ally to start a nuclear war against another of our allies because they arent as good of an ally as we would like them to be is somehow okay? Wow! Please tell me you don't vote.
Poor Bev. Getting the crap beat out of her on the message board for being a typical mindless sheep of the democrat party and showing just how ignorant she (and all the others like her) really are.
Larry
I'm a little at a loss here. It seems to me that they're saying that its a bad idea to do anything with Afghanistan, that it should just be left to rot, and do... what exactly?
This is where the army should have been all along. Instead, its gotten neglected because of Bush's hateful war.
Why exactly weren't they saying this when they invaded Iraq? Its only suddenly now that there's a Democrat President that they're having a fit over it, but they were perfectly willing to spend billions of dollars a month in Iraq where troops weren't needed.
This is extremely two faced to me.
Frankly, I'm sick of it.
This is another failed Obama policy that will not work. We should not be supplying arms or cash to anyone outside the United States. Fix every road, bridge and school in the United States and tell the rest of the world we have no money for you. We are broke fixing our own issues. When are the voters going ot wake up and elect someone who really stands for change? We didn't get change with Obama, Biden and Clinton.
Bev says we should encourage one nuclear power (India) to go to war with another nuclear power (Pakistan). Wow! Please tell me you don't vote.
Uhm, to WarisHell,
As a reminder of what we are doing in Afganistan. We are there, because decades after the Soviet war in Afganistan, Al Queda used Afganistan as a safe haven and base of operations to launch the attacks on 9/11. Presently we are fighting a holding action/area denial campaign to prevent this enemy from regaining this safe haven, from which to launch future attacks upon the U.S.
The real problem, is not Afganistan, but the situation on Pakistan that is allowing the terrorists a base from which to launch attacks in Afganistan.
Bev,
Musharraf is no longer the president of Pakistan and India is a nuclear power. Interesting that it would be acceptable to allow India to initiate a war.
The bottom line is Pakistan is sympathetic to Al Qaeda and they have a safe haven. Pakistan is not allowing us to fully tackle the problem. We have had success with drones, but until we are able to operate without restraint, we will have the same issues as today. It doesn't matter how many boots we have in Afghanistan.
God bless the troops. We all pray for your safe return.
This is another failed Obama policy that will not work. We should not be supplying arms or cash to anyone outside the United States. Fix every road, bridge and school in the Uniteds States and tell the rest of the world we have no money for you. We are broke fixing our own issues. When are the voters going ot wake up and elect someone who really stands for change? We didn't get change with Obama, Biden and Clinton.
This Afghan policy is horrendous. We're radicalising Pakistan, a country of 150 million people with nukes. They don't want to really help. They're more concerned with holding India at bay, which means a chaotic situation in Afghanistan, where India would like to ally themselves to encircle Pakistan. Our drone attacks are creating an enemy that will dwarf both Iraq and Iran. Pakistan pretends to go along to get the $1-2bn in aid, but it's slowly losing control over its people. Obama. This depiction of the drone attack as successful in killing 'top' Taliban or Al-Qaeda figures is definitiely missing the forest for the trees. Hopefully the American media and people will debate this issue more than they debated before the the Iraq war.
Who is in charge is merely a point of order (albeit no small point), but it still does not make irrelevant Bev's overall point.
Regardless as to who is at the helm, this "mess" was started and perpetuated by the former administration and the current administration is actually trying to do something about it. If we all agree that Al Quaeda and the Taliban are or continues to be a threat to our national security and bin Laden needs to be brought to justice (in whatever form it takes) for his part in the attacks on our soil then our military and our CIC has to do whatever is necessary (and smart) to lessen or eradicate the threat and squash the enemy.....and quickly. Anything long and protracted will be a loss, just as much as if they overtook our forces.
Since when have journialists become experts in Afganistan? They're talking heads, who like the now irrelevant Republican party, think they have something important to say while turning petty nonsense into a news story in the hopes of being recognized. Your intelligence is second only to your lack of understanding of anything that isn't negative and misleading. People like this should work for Entertainment Tonight, where gossip is still rules
I'm such a moron.
Oops... forgot Zardari won the election a few weeks ago. Please hold back my previous post.
Correction to comments from "Bev – NYC": First of the all the correct spelling of the general's name is "Musharraf". Secondaly unless you've been living in a cave, he is now the former President of Pakistan, last time I checked he resigned in 2008 and now Pakistan has an elected government.
Thirdly, AlQaeda and Taliban are CIA's creation and Pakistan IS and has been the victim of Afghanistan war just because Afghanistan is on its Western border. Fourthly, India and CIA has a vested interest to distablize Pakistan especially Baluchistan attacks by using the Taliban who largely are sent from Afghanistan trained jointly by Indian RAW and American CIA. It's a well known fact amongst officials of Indian, American and Pakistani army.
The sad thing is that American public is kept at large from these facts and they only know what media censored for them (of course it's professionally done). I should ask how come none of these "planted" journalists never embed with Pakistan Army and get the real facts?
Jackie, then who would you ask? The enlisted and the officers on the ground are exactly who should be asked. The politicians have no idea what is going on and neither do you or I.
The new U.S. troops are going to arrive right before and during the Afghan presidential elections; at the same time the Taliban is planning to intensify its summer fighting campaign in the south. The result is going to be more violence and increased instability in Afghanistan.
As for Afghan police corruption, it is epidemic; some Afghan truck drivers are more afraid of the Afghan police than the Taliban. The Afghan government, the one we are supporting, is incredibly corrupt and that corruption fuels Afghan support for the Taliban. We, along with Pakistan, are supplying the fuel, the matches, and the fire fighters for this conflagration.
Islam doesn't need the Taliban, much like Christianity doesn't need the Vatican – they're both political constructs built by fanatics who use religious doctrine to further their own, misguided human interests.
That the Taliban has a stranglehold on political power in Afghanistan, whether we in the West like it or not, and that Pakistan is torn by sectarian & religious strife according to where a population happens to be in the majority – with a militaristic dictator unable to act to support human rights and justice – only makes it more than clear that nothing we in the West can do will make much of a difference.
Musharraf would like nothing better to have the Taliban align with his interests in overcoming the perceived threat of India. Stone-age cultures in the West's 21st Century will be an irritation, no matter what.
I have heard many views on the idea of Pakisans desire to keep Afghanistan in disarray. Pakistan military can and probably do "allow" the movement of these terrorists (criminals) back and forth but don't forget the military answers to itself not the central government. They are for the most part ill equipt and/or trained to battle the bad guy's who are seasoned veterens.
The Taliban and AlQeada are back in force by the popular demand of the people. Pussy-footing around with these guys and Pakistan won't take 10-25 years; it will never be over in my opinion. Think history because the strongest armies have all left in defeat!!
Hastings is not correct about the US-funded Afghans becoming Al-Qaeda. He needs to go back and re-read the articles and papers about the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the fact that he seems to have made a slight, though important, error there makes me question the rest of his assertions.
Bring all troops home.
Afghanistan broke the USSR and it will do the same to America.
Obama is appeasing the Neo-cons with this unjust
Obama needs to wake up and save the economy over the Empire.
Your comment would sound more on point if Musharaff were still in power in Pakistan. Just keep blaming Bush/Cheney for all the ills in the world.
Bev, I agree. The interference of the U.S. continuing to police the Middle East is ridiculous. Many innocent people have been killed and at this point there is nothing to be "won". Benazir Bhutto already let the world know that bin Laden is dead anyway.
Then some people still wonder why the Middle East hates America. If Russian and Chinese soldiers were over here on our soil policing America I would hate both Russia and China (as most Americans would if that were happening over here). But there are many people who are still too ignorant to understand this whole "War on Error" from the point of view of the innocent people who have to live in the Middle East and experience this mess on a day to day basis. God bless the Middle East and the soldiers who should have never went over there in the first place.
We cannot resolve corruption or religious or cultural conflict. So make a deal. Taliban, give us Bin Laden and you can have Afghanistan. If the Afghans don't like you let them throw you out. It's none of our business.
I hope Bev-NYC does not work for Obama. Both Pakistan and India are armed to the teeth including nukes. The last I heard of Musharraf he is no longer in government but growing poppy's in Afghanistan.
Discontinuing our support for Musharraf probably isn't really a valid position to take considering he is not the president of Pakistan.
And I'm not sure there is really any need to "arm" a country that already has nuclear weapons. They seem to doing just fine in that department all on their own.
So what was your point again?
Get bold or get out. Stop playing with Pakistan. They sure aren't playing with us. Clean up Afganistan and then Pakistan. Why spend the money, time and lives if you aren't going in to win.
Perhaps you are alluding to the past – Pakistan is not lorded over by Musharraf anymore. It has a civilian, democratically-elected government.
The gist of your argument maybe true. History has shown that India and Pakistan have tried to influence Afghanistan over their side. The Taliban were allied to Pakistan, and treated India with disdain. It was only natural for them to cultivate ties with Pakistan then. Now that the present set-up in Afghanistan is pro-India, Pakistan is naturally concerned. Lets not forget that India has set up a string of high commissions in the cities bordering the Afghanistan-Pakistan border from where it routinely stirs up trouble for Pakistan. Even the American officers on the ground have acknowledged this.
It is my understanding that unless the lingering issues between India and Pakistan are resolved, Afghanistan will reel from one blow to the next. Please do not blame Pakistan, it is playing in its national interest. If you want the issues to be resolved, the interests have to be aligned, not further aggravated.
What a MESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is not solvable in my opinion. Except for the sadness about the abuse of women I'd say bring the troops home. This is not the sole responsibility of the U S to police or try to change the world. The U N are a bunch of wimps. The U N should be doing this type of thing with the support of all nations. This is 2009 after all. A lot of us have had enough of all the B S. Human Rights are paramount. Thank you.
Bev – Musharraf is no longer in charge. He was replaced by a democratically elected president at the urging of Western governments, including the Bush administration if the fall of 2008. He originally came to power during the Clinton administration. His support was key to the early success we did have in Afganistan.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons, which I suspect they would use on Indian targets if faced with losing a full scale war, so arming India isn't going to solve the problem. Pakistan's problem is that its democratically elected government is to weak and divided to rule effectively. It can't control large sections of the country or force its military to solve the problem.
We need to decide if we really want to win in Afganistan. If we are want to win we need to go in with a large force get the country clean up. Then we need to take a bold stance with Pakistan. Only the goverment in Pakistan wants to work with Americans for the money. The people can't stand Americans and would love to see us fall. Get bold or get out.
Now that makes a lot of sense Bev. Let's let two countries with nuclear weapons go at it. I think you also missed the fact that Mushiraf is not President of Pakistan any more. The current President is Asif Ali Zardari, from Mushirif's opposition party. Don't let the facts get in the way of a bad idea. Lets weaken Pakistan so the Islamic radicals can take over the rest of the country like they have the Tribal areas and they can get their hands on the Nukes. But I'm sure it one ends up in NY, you'll still blame Bush and/or Cheney for letting it happen, even though Obama is President. But like I said, let's not let facts and reality get in the way......
When seasoned US commanders express "skepticism" about bolstering our occupation that's simply a euphemism for – 'THIS IWILL NOT WORK'. Hastings has it right when he states our commanders have no idea what we're fighting for or what we're "winning" exactly. If they have no idea, then our troops who are fighting and risking their lives every day have no idea, either. Furthermore, niether do the American people! The occupation started out as a simple police action to get Osama Bin Laden (not unlike our invasion of Mexico to hunt down Pancho Villa in 1916), but then turned into an eternal occupation whose purpose is constantly evolving from women's rights, to democracy, to educating Afghan children, to training Afghanis, the list goes on and on. Every year there's some new excuse to keep thousands of soldiers and spend billions on a pointless occupation. Profits, obviously, posit the answer as to why will have no intention of leaving Afghanistan -or Iraq, for that matter.
We have no business in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We're not defending anything but the defense industry. How many people are going to have to die for us to realize this?
I believe the only course for the USA is to buy off the "war lords" and have them take the fight to the Taliban. Afterall they are the ones who have the most to lose if the Taliban once again gain control of the country.
Cruise missles and Hellfire drones can take care of any terrorist camps.
Centuries of war has told us that this country is not worth fighting and dieing for, since it's a corrupt and backward land of mud huts, goats, rocks, and ignorant people.
My son who is currently stationed in this God forsaken land has no intention of defending the inhabinents, since they do not care about a Centralized Government, any more then they care about the Taliban. He has told me that if he is attacked, he will fight for his fellow soldiers, but he has no intention of inciting the locals, since the entire country is not worth one colalition soldiers life. When a carrer soldier tells me like it is, then I tend to believe him.
I say let the war lords and the Taliban kill each other, and if we see that there is a resugence of terroist camps, reign our missles down upon them with out mercy.
Musharraf probably isn't the problem since he resigned 8 months ago. Oh and provoking an open war between two nuclear-armed nations with more than a billion civilians is impressively worse than Bush/Cheney.
When Afghans with the support of Nato's help having enormous military might with sophisticated technology unable to stop the infiltration then how comes it can be expect from Pakistan to stop the complete infiltration from the border with its limited resources? In fact all the Uzbic fighters are coming into Pakistan from Afghanistan and it is becoming reality that more and more miscreant persons are being smuggled into Pakistan’s Fata and Balochistan with the help of India to create disability in Pakistan.
Afghanistan/Pakistan will be Obama's Vietnam. He has committed to end the "stop-loss" program but hasn't a plan on how to replace soldiers. As the war drags on past the stop-loss deadline, he will either have to extend the program or institute a draft. Recruit numbers aren't there now, his only hope being to keep enough young people unemployed so military service is the only option. Extending the stop loss program could be as politically damaging as a draft. He needs to realize we lost the war in Afghanistan a long time ago. Foolishly concentrating on Iraq, we let the enemy become entrenched in a position that we are not ready, willing and able to invade and conquer. Before long our soldiers will be in a static position with the bulk of military action being performed by bombers. Like all good democrat commanders before him, he will bomb the bejesus out of them trying to force compliance. It has never worked in the past. It won't work for him. He needs to withdraw now. Bring our soldiers home and formulate a fresh plan of action not based on 10 years of failure.
Someone needs to do some research before commenting. Musharraf isn't running things anymore and Bush/Cheney aren't in office. Pakistan is as much a "puppet" of Pelosi/Reid/Obama as Bush. They ALL supported him, it wasn't just Bush. So get over the "evil Bush blah blah blah..." He's gone, if you haven't noticed, and if anyone is to "blame" for current actions of the U.S. govt. it would be the current head of the U.S. govt. But remember, EVERYONE supported Pakistan, the enemy of our enemy, after 9/11 and that includes the stalwart Democrats like the Hill, Teddy and the rest of them. The blame goes all around and yes, it even goes to Bush-hating liberals.
So much for change. Change in venues for war maybe. No one learns.
Bev-NYC. You need to update yourself before you start typing. the"Bush-Cheney puppet Mushiraf" has been out of office for some time now. There is a new puppet in Pakistan and he looks more like obama in that they are giving the country to the Taliban, and hoping the taliban won't want more.
This is nothing but spin.....I was in Afghanistan and Iraq as a US Marine (retired). Are you telling me that you actually believe for 6 years the troops supported ousting Saddam (who had nothing to do with 9/11) and fighting Iraqis with not attainable goal and now we want to question the administrations decision to go after Bin Laden? We went through 2 surges with the Bush administration and everyone thought it was the greatest thing, now all of a sudden the "soldiers and officials" are skeptical? You're not even going to camouflage you bias reporting? Oh and by the way Hastings, you were not attacked by the Taliban, the troops with weapons who are fighting were. not some right-wing reporter looking for a story. And you were not "embedded" you were following or riding along with but you served no purpose other than to bring your version of spin back to the US so your assimilation listeners could grab a hold and go along with anything anti – President Obama. Have some integrity!
I agree with some of your points. I don't think it will help US standing in the world at large, or the Muslim world in particular, to aide *another* anti-Islam government.
(The US support of Israel is the #1 offense, according to radical Islamists.)
Also, I feel obliged to point out that Musharraf was forced from power last year.
Bev, you realize that Musharraf isn't even in office anymore? Pakistan needs to be looked at, but enough shoving everything onto Musharraf's shoulders.
the mujahadeen that were fighting there during the 80's wouldn't be considered Afgans, but foreign "freedom fighters", so its not comparable to the US training the Afgan army now - big difference in fact.
it is interesting though that so many times over that last few decades the US has gotten fearful enough of a particular group, that we befriend their enemy or have the CIA stage a coup, then pay the price more heavily down the road. ie - Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Cuba, etc...
Obama is a man with a good vision but he is trying to appease the wrong people in this case. Giving billions of $$ to Pakistan without any committments is too bad. The $$ land into the same hands of the people you are trying to fight. So, in a way we are sponsoring the bad people as well as spending money to fight them. Time has come for United States to be smart and try make right alliances with probably India, Russia to form a joint force to weed out the problems. China will not be helping anyways. There is nothing like good or bad Taliban. Taliban and terrorists are bad in all forms. Its time to be smart and not follow the appeasement policy. Many American soldiers and people have sacrified their precious life in this war. If we take the example of Daniel Pearl then we know all the Pakistani establishment is involved in promoting this mess in the first place. We need to clean up these people with whatever it takes and bring the respect and dignity to the departed and existing millitary personel and the country.
I realize its hard for some folks not to blame Bush/Cheney, but Mushiraf has not been in power in Pakistan in Aug 18, 2008. Its the new elected demorcratic government that cant seem to control its own territory and its own borders. At least when Mushiraf was in power there was a small amount of cooperations with the West.
well let me tell you that the outcome of this war wont be good for anyone.taliban and al qaeda unfortunately will get more stronger because they are paktuns and for centuries they have been renowned for civil wars ,inter tribal wars.'bloodshed" is in their bloods.they have been trained by the same nation(USA) in 1980s and ARE NOW FIGHTENING TO ELIMINATE THEM.
and one of the possible reasons for al qaeda uprising was the harm israel was causing to palestine (war crimes).they are just up for revenge from the west.
INDIA should not take care of the Pakistan problem.they firstly have to take care of their own domestic problem like poverty,unequal income etc.
Nothing more than the opinions of those who call themselves reporters. The news media sucks.
Everyone knows that in order to drain a swamp, you have to eliminate the source of the water. In order the drain the swamp that is Al Qaeda, the source of the water (ISI of Pakistan) has to be eliminated. ISI has got very good at this game through the 20 years of practice that they have had in breeding anti-Indian terrorists. Most of the funding for ISI is coming through US military aid. The world and the US should impose severe economic sanctions against Pakistan if they do not end support of terrorists (all of them). The Pakistan army is not stupid..they can and they will get rid of the terrorists if their money supply is halted.
Musharraf hasn't had power in Pakistan for months now Bev. But yeah, the same problem remains, if not being worse than before. If as this reporter claims the Taliban fighters freely walked right by a Pakistani border outpost then I'd say it's time to consider the Pakistani government an enemy rather than a friend. They certainly seem more concerned with their relationship with the Taliban than with the west. How to deal with that is going to be the next huge foreign affairs decision for President Obama. Unfortunately it seems unwinable. The USA certainly can't invade Pakistan and paying Pakistan to be an ally hasn't helped much but on the other they can't let them continue to harbor the Taliban. I'm glad it's not my decision is all I can say.
Billions of dollars wasted, more troops into a quagmire with no discernable strategy to win, finally, some change we can believe in.
P.S. Bev, Musharraf stepped down from power months ago...
Bev, Musharraf resigned from office on August 18th 2008 and was succeeded on September 6th 2008 by Asif Ali Zardari. I question your understanding or insight into what's going on in the region when you don't even know Musharraf has been out of office for about 8 months now...
Let America poor billions and billions of more dollars into a no-win situation, Iraq and Afghanistan, and what have you got is a failure to communicate with the region. It probably makes Israel feel safer with our presence in the Middle East for the next 10-25 years. It did not stop the possible terrorist activity that was being plotted in England recently and will not stop future terrorism plots.
The Afghan war will be the true test of our resolve. After all, it has no oil. All it seems to produce are drugs and terrorists. Time to pack it in?
Bush should have taken care of Afghanistan in the first place and forgot about Iraq. instead he opened "pandora's box" in Iraq and we still have the Afghanistan mess to contend with. Bush's philosophy was let the next guy worry about it.
It's very simple just follow the money! take or destroy illegal drug revenue either surround tribes in pakistan allow innocence to leave and clean house from their
Bev – NYC
Pervez Musharraf resigned from office on Monday, 18 August 2008. I don't think you are going to be the next Hillary Clinton any time soon, babe.
Interesting article...and I agree. Pakistan is more of a threat to peace & progress especially so given their nuke supply. Scary. What a mess....and its costing teh US billions. Ugh. My taxpaying dollars. Too bad we didn't get it right before even thinking about Iraq. Afghanistan was never close to being secure before teh invasion of Iraq, totally screwed the American people & strains our military. No easy or clear cut solution to this mess. Only way is to win the people...infrastructure, education, basic human neccessities.
Bev – Musharef has not been in power for some time now. You may want to brush up on the current events.
Bev – Mushiraf is gone – has been for some time now. Obama is offering the same "handouts" to Pakistan only, of course dramatically more. Obama doesn't spend money in a small way – only tons at a time.
The old "bash Bush" just doesn't cut it any more – we have a new BOZO on the bus, Obama, and this guy out Bozo's them all.
Arm India, Bev? Kind of like how the U.S. government has been arming Israel for decades? How has that worked out? Oh yeah, widespread hatred of the U.S. in the Arab world and 3,000 Americans dead on 9-11. People outside of America aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are, Bev. They can see more clearly than the Dancing With the Stars-watching zombies in this country who is providing those bombs that have been killing their friends and family members for decades.
Um...Musharraf is no long in power in Pakistan - hasn't been since August of last year. I'm glad Bev isn't in change of foreign policy for the US.
The state of Pakistan has ceased to exist in terms of being an entity that can deliver. This is a multi headed hydra that will promise being an ally and stab you from the behind. We risk nuclear weapons falling in the hands of the terrorists. Wake up before its too late ! The Democaratic Indians are our only true hope to take care of this problem.
What a dimwit Bev is....you know that the Bush/Cheney puppet Musharif as been gone for 9 months now....of course you don't. No end to the idiots with opinions.
Obama must have never taken History in school. Russia wasted time and money in Afghanistan while having a closer proximity. Use satelite surveilance and use drones but don't waste troops on a pointless war. Iraq had viable targets but Afghanistan is a Vietnam type war.
They are questioning a decision of President Obama? Really that is news. Can you tell me one decision that he has not been critisized for?
Everyone knows what our goal in Afghanistan is. As soon as Osama Bin Laden is dead, we're leaving. If the Afghans can't stand up to the Taliban, they can move to Pakistan or one of the other 'stans. They had their chance, time for us to get out. For the American lives and treasure we save by getting out, I'm willling to risk an increased chance of another terrorist attack.
Journalist?
GQ Magazine?
Right. jona
The rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda wasn't a back fire. It occurred because we abandoned the Mujahedeen after the Soviets left. Same thing that could happen if we abandon them now.
Bev – Musharraf is not longer president of Pakistan, but you're right in that they are fly. However, I'd be very wary of letting India deal with them.
Quote: BEV – NYC
"Pakistan is becoming the fly in the ointment. It’s time to arm India and let them take care of the Pakistan problem. We cannot continue to support the Bush/Cheney puppet Mushiraf if he continues taking our handouts with one hand and sticking his finger in our eye with t e other. They need to learn that Al Queda and the Taliban don’t care who they kill as long as their agenda is furthered."
HOW MANY WRONG FACTS CAN YOU POSSIBLY HAVE IN 3 SENTENCES?
I like how he provided his own insight into how the problem should be solved.
Bev - India is armed, and with nukes, and there have been tense stand-offs between the two countries on occasion. I don't think the area needs a nuclear war while American troops are there. And Mushiraf resigned in August of 2008 after the Pakistani coalition pressured him; Zardari was elected democratically in Sept of 2008.
No one knows what will or won't work there until we try something. Extremism in any field (politics, religion, etc) is dangerous, and that area is strong with it.
So, the story as Mr. Hastings would have us believe is that the boots on the ground have no faith in the strategy that has been presented by our military leaders and approved by the President. Please remember our military commanders have been requesting more support for Afghanstan for some time. This problem is the legacy of Bush's Iraq War! While I understand the soldiers's reluctance to be identified, the so-called U.S> officials should man up and make their opinions known versus hiding behind a reporter!
Keeping al Qaeda from re-establishing secure bases and training operations anywhere in the world has been the sole valid reason for military intervention since 9/11. Bush took the US eye way off the ball with the misbegotten invasion of Iraq. Now the Taliban is on the move again in Bush's neglected Afghanistan– surprise!– and can al Qaeda be far behind?
Any US President who allows al Qaeda to regroup, as Bush did, should be considered a complete failure as commander-in-chief. This is where Obama is coming from– he has clearly identified US security interests and is trying to protect them. We don't have to "win" anything in Afghanistan. What we have to do is disrupt al Qaeda AND KEEP ON DISRUPTING THEM UNTIL THEY ARE NO LONGER A THREAT. It would be nice if we could train reliable Afghan and Pakistani forces to do this for us so we could leave, but critics rightly point out the difficulty with doing so. Since this has always been obvious to all but the pointy-headed idelogues of the Bush administration, we may assume the Obama administration is aware of the difficulty. What we are not hearing from any critics is ANY SHRED OF AN INKLING OF A BEGINNING OF AN ALTERNATIVE.
Leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban and hence al Qaeda is a non-starter for a post 9/11 American President, and anyone who proposes it is not serious about US security. SO WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE GENTLEMENT?
I say we can try to stabilize but we can't leave while al Qaeda is still a threat, however long it takes. Nor can we interdict and disrupt without actually having bases and forces on the ground in Afghanistan. With his hands tied in the 90s by Republican isolationism and other stupid right wing distractions, Clinton tried some interdiction from afar and was not very successful. We have Predators and Hellfire missles now, but without bases to launch them from even these would be useless, and no one thinks that would be enough to stop al Qaeda anyhow.
Bush's failures in Afghanistan and Pakistan have left the Obama administration with no serious alternative but to slog it out on the ground there in spite of the difficulties.
I can't help but think that the trillion dollars that will have been spent on Iraq by the end of that war– whose only result has been to turn Iraq over to the co-religionist buddies of our worst enemy in the area– could have gone a looong way further in stopping the Taliban and al Qaeda on the Afghan-Pakistan border if spent competently– not that the Bush administration was even capable of such a feat. Let's hope that Obama's people do better, but then, they can scarcely do worse.
LWE
Arlington, VA
Obama is NOT taking care of our own people. What the h- are we doing in other countries????? STOP wasting the working peoples dollars by giving to the useless non-workers here and let us keep SOME of our money. Let the Afghans start spending their own drug money and the Iraqi's start spending their own oil money. Why the h- should we pay for everyone when we can hardly afford to keep our middle class status here???? STOP giving away money that is NOT yours, Obama!!!!
Veb – you're a racist and ignorant person. You can't even get the names right and you still think Musharraf is in power.
India is already armed... Mushiraf has been gone for months... and yes Pakistan is in bed with Al-qaeda
It's a difficult move to try to bring Afghanistan out from under the drug agriculture, corrput politicans and tribes that take sides which ever way the wind blows, but where do you take a stand if not here? Pakistan, I believe, is now having her own problems with these extremists. They should have never appeased them by giving them territory. Gee, didn't that happen with Hitler? We know where that went. If Pakistan comes apart then the whole region becomes a firestorm. It will them become India's problem as well. One can hope that Pakistan can now see their own future and it's not looking so good. Their folly of keeping Afghanistan in turmoil may just be their undoing.
Great idea except both nations have nuclear weapons. That will not end well for anyone. Including all the nations around them.
Bev, Musharraf is no longer in power in Pakistan. The current government in Pakistan is taking a stance of appeasement toward the Taliban in the border regions and is going to be no help at all. If Obama is planning to send any assistance to Pakistan, he might as well just flush the money down the toilet. He'll get just as good a return on his investment.
Pervez Musharraf is no longer the president of Pakistan.
Hey Bev:
Indian and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons...I would rethink that "arm India and let them take care of Pakistan"
I think the Iraq, Afgan and Pakistan problem is not going to be resolved by our intervention. If we want to win this "war" we need to be more warring. Our real problem is our government. It was in Korea, Viet Nam and now in everything we do. All the money that is spent, and all the lives that are wasted, are do to the ignorance of the politicians. If just once, they would listen and act on the information being provided by their military leaders, we might have a chance at success. I am curious, is this really a war? Like Viet Nam, I see it as a police action. Here we are again, good ole' USA acting as the World's cop. No wonder we are so well liked.
A Vet that knows.
That's not true Bev. Pakistan has long clamoured for weapons like the F-22 from the United States for the same reason Israel does – they aren't preparing for an insurgency war against the Afghanis( or Palestinians); they are preparing for a war with a bigger rival – India (or Iran).
Sans political motive, the situation is parallel with India. India, due to the presence of Pakistan and religious invasion, has been culturally cut from Afghanistan politically for decades, culturally for centuries – there is still aid flowing but if India were 'armed' (with what? ....?...) to 'take care' of Pakistan, they would only find themselves co-occupiers of Pakistan/Afghanistan like us. We/they don't need that.
The Bush puppet you speak of is the lesser of two evils, the greater evil being the Zardari government(sympathetic to the Mujahideen=>Taliban of the 90s), which tried to come back last year via his wife, Bhutto. She's dead (Because of those same Mujahideen, irony of ironies), and then the true colors of Pakistan – the fact that it is more easily a ideologue paradise (and guess which idea...) than a nation state will become painfully apparent. Musharraf was the fat dictator sitting on top of the rabid dog. (The rabid dog are those Pakistanis formerly connected with the military and intelligence services that sympathize with the Islamic fundamentalists)
What President Obama should do now is what President Bush began – covert action within Afghanistan and Pakistan, with as much regard to sovereignty as the terrorists have – none. We saw this in the SF raids in Pakistan, and the CIA raids in Syria (both in '08) if I recall.
We only heard about those two; President Obama should aim for such a success rate in action.
Why cant we just go in and nuke Afghanistan? I mean, they are all held up in tunnels in the mountains, not much civil life there, lets just bomb the hell out of them in the mountain region and let the remaining few live in the aftermath of a nuclear fallout. As far as asking what we would be winning....we would be winning security and hopefully Osama Bin Laden's death. Im all for it....and this is coming from a hardcore democrat mind you! 🙂
Bev- get a clue. Pervez Musharraf isn't in power, and hasn't been for a while.
I see you got the "Bush/Cheney" line dropped in there, but i guess you must have forgot to add the other standard "the last 8 years" line.
You don't want a pakistani/indian nuclear war.
As far as our president is concerned- Obama has no idea what he is doing. He's in way over his head.
The war in Afghanistan, is a religious one, and not a military one. you cannot win a religious war, without either eliminating the combatants, or decimating them so badly that they give up.
The US coalition has only been taking on combatants a few dozen at a time. There is no way, they are even making a dent in the problem, nor are they prepared to take the kind of large scale action, necessary to win a religious war.
Just more waste of US dollars and lives, with no real attempt at eliminating the problem. The Taleban and the Islamist extremists, will still be there, years from now.
Musharraf has been gone for 9 or so months, and another India Pakistan war would be a horrendous idea seeing as they both have nuclear arsenals.
Bev, Pervez Musharraf isnt in power anymore. Nice try with the Bush/Cheney comment, but this isnt their mess. India is armed and has fought Pakistan on and off for decades. They aren't going to take care of Pakistan since they are nuclear armed and share a border. A best case solution here would be Pakistan's Intelligence (ISI) being consolidated and placed under their president's power so that they would stop aiding the Taliban, but that is completely outside of the USA's power. Another great solution would be China intervening/helping, but Pakistan serves a useful deterrent/distraction to India's rising economy, and aids in China's hegemony of the reason, so that also seems unlikely.
Would someone explain to me what are we doing in Afghanistan? As far as I'm concerned, we are the invaders, they are just protecting their country...World history shows time and time again they the West always have a tentency to want to colonized weaker countries...making it in our own image...scary if you know a bit about the book of Revelation...
Musharraf hasn't been the leader of Pakistan for a while now
Correction – North WEST Pakistan instead of North East – my bad
Uh Bev, news break, Mushiraf hasn't been president in Pakistan for a while. Try to keep current.
Point of order – On 9 September 2008, Asif Ali Zardari, sworn in as President of Pakistan ousting Pervez Musharraf. North East Pakistan is a haven for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, however, our Predator UAVs are keeping their heads down. As much as you want to paint this a Bush/Cheney war it’s now President Obama's war. I hope he sticks with it as these bad guys don’t want to play nice – as you correctly point out – they want to kill us.
You cannot win any support when you kill one terrorist and 30 civilians including women and children.
We have to change the way we attack those suppose targets and make sure we are acting on some information that is based on revenge or hate for a group of people or maybe even to settle a score from years ago.
I firmly believe a lot of the information that were given to be terrorist were acts of vengeance that we did for someone with false information.
We cannot rely on a lot of information that is given to us by the Afghanstanians. We need to build our own spy network with people we can trust.
Bev,
Do you mean musharraf? If so, he hasn't been in power for some time now. The current 'president' is Asif Ali ZARDARI. With arming India..no need. They are a nuclear capable country with a very big, strong army. They're just more of your passive type country which you don't hear much about military wise. They are roughly 1.3ish million strong just in their army. We need not help any more countries, for we have stretched ourselves past our max. Keep our money here and take care of ourselves. It's sad that we try to help so many other countries from everything when we can't even feed are own people here. Priorities are off track.
As the seventh generation of military veterans in my family, the enlisted and officers "on the ground" are rarely in a place to see the overall effectiveness of a strategy. As well, it will take some time for the strategies to start paying off.
I agree that I don't like to see us commit such money and forces without clearcut and attainable goals, but President Bush left President Obama no real alternatives in Afghanistan. Totally pulling out will be an admission of failure, while escalating will anger a lot of Americans. By not following through with the initial military goals in 2001-2002, President Bush basically made the situation "unwinable" no matter what President Obama does. As well, Pakistan, as Bev – NYC said, is a terrible fly in the ointment.
Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. How much more "armed" would you like them to be? :\
Bev – NYC said, "We cannot continue to support the Bush/Cheney puppet Mushiraf..."
You might be interested in knowning that Pervez Musharraf is no longer the head of Pakistan. It's well past time to stop pretending that everything is Bush and Cheney's fault.
Pakistan is becoming the fly in the ointment. It's time to arm India and let them take care of the Pakistan problem. We cannot continue to support the Bush/Cheney puppet Mushiraf if he continues taking our handouts with one hand and sticking his finger in our eye with t e other. They need to learn that Al Queda and the Taliban don't care who they kill as long as their agenda is furthered.