.Obama: Afghan war will worsen before it improves

[Guest guest]

When Bush said this about Iraq when there was the troop surge, Democrats tried

to stomp him. Odd that everyone is so silent about this now.

Administrator

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan

By ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer Anne Gearan, Ap National Security

Writer – Wed May 12, 8:04 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The war in Afghanistan will get worse before it gets better,

President Barack Obama warned on Wednesday, but he declared his plan to begin

withdrawing U.S. forces next year remains on track.

Standing alongside Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Obama said, " What I've tried

to emphasize is the fact that there is going to be some hard fighting over the

next several months. " The two leaders spoke at a White House news conference as

U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan prepare to push hard into the Taliban's

birthplace in Kandahar province in June. The campaign for Kandahar, already

under way in districts outside the city, is expected to be among the bloodiest

of the nearly 9-year-old war.

" There is no denying the progress, " Obama said. " Nor, however, can we deny the

very serious challenges still facing Afghanistan. "

Karzai's warm White House welcome followed months of sniping and frustration

over management of the war and about fraud allegations surrounding Karzai's

re-election last year. Both leaders said disagreements are normal with so much

at stake.

" There are moments when we speak frankly to each other, and that frankness will

only contribute to the strength of the relationship, " Karzai said with a smile.

The United States has taken " extraordinary measures " to avoid civilian deaths in

the war, Obama said, a nod to Karzai's loud complaints last year that U.S.

airstrikes were killing innocents and making enemies of those who might be

friends.

" I do not want civilians killed, " Obama said, adding that he is ultimately

accountable when they are.

Heavy restrictions on when U.S. warplanes can fire at suspected militants are

among the changes to war policy installed by the general Obama sent last year to

turn around the war.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, facing Obama and Karzai in the front row Wednesday, has

said he is willing to let a few killers slip away if it means saving civilian

lives. Insurgents often hide among civilians, taking over homes or using refuge

provided willingly by sympathizers. Obama accepted McChrystal's argument that

either way, killing the other people in a house only breeds resentment and makes

it harder to argue that the U.S.-backed government in Kabul is on their side.

" After all it's the Afghan people we are working to protect from the Taliban, "

Obama said.

In announcing a major expansion of the war last year — one that will bring a

record 98,000 U.S. forces to Afghanistan by the end of this summer — Obama also

said he would begin bringing some forces home in July 2011. The date was meant

to reassure Pakistan and Obama's anti-war supporters at home that the war was

not open-ended. It was also intended as a signal to Karzai that the United

States expected something for its commitment, namely progress in establishing a

real working government and attacking endemic corruption.

" We are not suddenly as of July 2011 finished with Afghanistan, " Obama said.

" After July 2011 we are still going to have an interest in making sure that

Afghanistan is secure, that economic development is taking place, that good

governance is being promoted. "

Addressing Americans, Obama said they should know " we are steadily making

progress. It's not overnight. "

At least 982 members of the U.S. military have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and

Uzbekistan as a result of the U.S. military action since late 2001, according to

an Associated Press count.

Billions in aid, roughly 80 percent of it from the United States, has helped

provide schools, roads, government offices and impartial judges. The money and

the constant presence of U.S. forces have failed to decisively turn the tide of

the war, however, and military commanders say time is dwindling to make a

difference.

The Taliban have surged back over the past five years to become a flexible army

with plenty of resources and wider popular support than the United States has

sometimes been willing to acknowledge.

" I've used whatever political capital I have to make the case to the American

people that this is in our national security interests, that it's absolutely

critical that we succeed on this mission, " Obama said.

The war against violent extremism isn't confined within Afghanistan's borders,

he said.

Questioned by an Afghan reporter, he said he sees a growing recognition among

leaders in neighboring Pakistan that the extremist groups who are based there

represent a " cancer in their midst. " He said Pakistani leaders are recognizing

that the groups that are using Pakistan's frontier as a base are threatening the

nation's sovereignty.

Later Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden said he thought the Afghan leader was

a trustworthy partner. " I certainly do, " Biden said in response to a reporter's

question before a dinner with Karzai. Biden also said tensions between the two

governments " absolutely " had eased.

Obama's Afghanistan exit strategy depends heavily on propping up a strong

central government in Afghanistan. But U.S. military and civilian officials say

that won't be possible until the local population learns to trust the new

authorities.

Only a quarter of the key regions in Afghanistan support or even sympathize with

the government in Kabul, with large swaths of the country still hesitant to

swing behind the U.S.-backed authority, according to a Pentagon assessment

released last month.

The report found that as of March, much of the country is either neutral to

Afghan authorities or supportive of the Taliban insurgency. Only 29 of 121

districts in Afghanistan identified as " key terrain " support or sympathize with

the Kabul government. More Afghans did report feeling safer, with 84 percent

saying security levels were " fair " or " good. "

Afghanistan's top leaders are spending most of the week in Washington for

fence-mending and an examination of the war strategy ahead of the Kandahar

operation. The visit comes about midway between Obama's announcement last

December that he would add 30,000 troops and what he has said will be a

reappraisal of the U.S. battle plan at the end of this year. It also comes weeks

ahead of a peace summit called by Karzai to prepare for eventual talks with

Taliban and other militants.

Karzai appears to agree with outside analysts who say that senior Taliban,

including some with blood on their hands, must be at the table for any serious

negotiation to stick. The United States has ruled out discussions with anyone

who has not renounced ties to al-Qaida, reflecting the sensitivity of cutting

deals with people who were even indirectly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

The United States, however, has not spelled out what middle ground it might

approve, and although Obama said the outreach effort must be managed by Afghans,

Karzai has said he needs U.S. backing before he makes a move.

Initial outreach is directed at Taliban foot soldiers who are not motivated by

ideology or affiliated with terrorists, Karzai said. He called them " country

boys " driven to the fight by economic hardship. Obama said the two leaders will

keep talking about how to approach the larger goal of a full reconciliation that

could end the war.

___

Associated Press writers Loven, Anne Flaherty and

contributed to this report.

Obama: Afghan war will worsen before it improves

[Guest guest]

They were silent when Clinton was deploying troops around the world to various and sundry hotspots. Most deployments than Reagan and Bush the first combined. They were also silent when Clinton bombed Serbia harder and longer than Bush did Iraq in the First Gulf War, and were even silent when Embassies and train loads of civilians were hit, ancient treasures destroyed and the Danube River (a major trade artery) was blocked by the collapsed wreckage of bridges we bombed (but never did clear away, leaving that to the locals).

As I've said, Obama is going to end up leaving a lot of troops high and dry in Afghanistan. Maybe in Iraq too if he leaves a small, token force behind. That would be a force supposedly to buck up the Iraqi Army, but that army will crumble once it faces real pressure leaving our troops in deep trouble. The thing is, Iraq and Afghanistan have long histories or there being officers and then enlisted men. We do to, but in those nations, officer are typically very corrupt, steal from the men whom they also treat worse than livestock. They aren't taught leadership, but basically rule by beatings of the troops, that is when they bother to interact with them. No NCO corps exists to help lead the troops. As a result, morale is low and training practically doesn't exist, save for marching in formation or being able to beat up unarmed civilians.

The US has been trying to build up a proper officer and NCO corps. Thing is that could take 10 years or more because they need experience in the positions to learn their trade. Unfortunately, in many countries and cultures, there is an inertia that causes this training to fade very quickly if Americans aren't around to keep them at it. Sometimes this is because the host nation sees trained leaders and special troops as a threat to their power and so they break up those units and otherwise undercut the soldier's power, or the historic corruption and other attitudes come back and erode the force. This will surely happen in Iraq and Afghanistan and we'll have wasted a lot of time, wealth, live and international prestige.

In a message dated 5/13/2010 1:03:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

When Bush said this about Iraq when there was the troop surge, Democrats tried to stomp him. Odd that everyone is so silent about this now. Administrator

[Guest guest]

Yes, but on the other hand, we don't want troops around the world that are as

well-trained and well-disciplined as American troops because then, not only

would they know our tactics, but they would be tough in a fight.

Better to train them up enough so they can keep order and then leave them to

their own fate. They need to take responsibility for themselves sometime or

other, and if they cannot do it, then they deserve what they get.

Administrator

The US has been trying to build up a proper officer and NCO corps. Thing is that

could take 10 years or more because they need experience in the positions to

learn their trade. Unfortunately, in many countries and cultures, there is an

inertia that causes this training to fade very quickly if Americans aren't

around to keep them at it.

[Guest guest]

This is true. However, we also have this problem domestically. Many gangs are sending members into the military to get training and they then come back to the gangs and train others. Not sure how successful this will be in the long run though, but it is a concern.

For that matter, the US spent hundreds of millions of dollars training and equipping a Mexican unit to fight the drug gangs. Many of the members turned around and left the military and joined the drug gangs. Of course, the US then spent more money building up yet another group. It would have been cheaper and more effective in the long run to have sent the National Guard to secure the border.

In a message dated 5/13/2010 6:29:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Yes, but on the other hand, we don't want troops around the world that are as well-trained and well-disciplined as American troops because then, not only would they know our tactics, but they would be tough in a fight. Better to train them up enough so they can keep order and then leave them to their own fate. They need to take responsibility for themselves sometime or other, and if they cannot do it, then they deserve what they get.Administrator