And some commentary on Obama's recent speech on the Afghan campaign.

Excerpted:

That looks like a pretty big if. Dr. Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome were extrapolating resource exhaustion circa 1980-85. Didn't even come close to happening; their model had its defects. All that really seems to be going on is increased viability of mining lower-grade ores, extracting more and more difficult oil, and so on across the board. Start accessing the Solar System, and iron among other things gets rather suddenly very very abundant.

There is plenty of iron (and coal) still in the Earth's crust.

Usable water, farmable land, catchable fish stocks ... we're getting squeezed for those already.

Bump.


Marjah.

I hope this works.

Canals could make life difficult for armored vehicles. The presence of civilians makes using air strikes and firepower tricky. Helicopters will be very effective, but a lot of this is going to be done with boots on the ground.

Will the talleban make a stand? or fade away into the mountains?

Either way, I presume that we will have military control of the main areas within a few weeks or so, but will we have done so much collateral damage that the locals decide they hate us more than the other mob?

Quietly ongoing have been discussions between the Taliban, Afghan government, and NATO (America). Many Taliban leaders (apparently) did not want this war. Are negotiating for positions in the Afghan government. Just another example of way informed leaders ALWAYS talk to everyone - even to the enemy.

Nibble away at their political support base ... good, good.

Only possible when our leaders come from where intelligence resides. Only extremists said they must earn the right to talk to us. By talking rather than torturing, it nibbles.

Mike Yon with an excellent description, with lots of pictures, of how they supply remote bases from the air. And another hot lady pilot, guys. :blush:

The Beeb on Marja(h). Quick summary of the place and operation.

Includes this:
I think it is worth noting that by these numbers,the Taliban are less than one percent of the area's population.

New York City has over 8 million people, controlled by 36,000 cops.

Well that explains why no-one in Marjah ever gets a parking ticket.

How would you tell the difference between a ticket written in Arabic and a flyer for the local pizza shop?

If a ticket is in Arabic and you ignore it, did the parking ticket ever exist? Do they behead scofflaws?

WTF? This Ain't Right!
 

This shit has to be fixed right now! :mad2:

<BITES TONGUE>

So what we have now is Europeans uninterested in doing the heavy lifting, Americans out of money to do the heavy lifting, China completely focused on itself, Russia playing games...

If the shit really hits the fan we'd better hope the Aussies and South Koreans are up to fixing it. Maybe the Canadians can help.

From what I've read the Brits, Aussies, and Canucks, are doing very well at holding up their end. Some of the Eastern European countries, too. Oh, and the Japs are spending a fortune on local civilian improvement projects, as they are not allowed to get into the fight.

The Afghan war from behind enemy lines: Documentary-maker follows Taliban as they attack U.S. soldiers
Read more
There is a lot more ... Both pics and videos

I hope the boys got some good intell from his video and audio feed. We need more people to infiltrate.

Debka
I don't know what to make of this.
Are we negotiating the release of bin Laden to end the war or is the Taliban giving him up?

I thought Bin Laden died years ago?

I reported that multiple times as it came up in the press.

Hahahaha. He was right - then or now, whatever it takes.

Mike Yon is back in country, not embedded, checking out USAID projects, that seem to be doing well. I didn't realize there is so much antagonism between the Afghanis and Iran. On Facebook

That myth was widely promoted by sources with a political agenda.

When asked about bin Laden 6 months ago, the CIA director said he wished he knew where bin Laden was. That the CIA had no solid information - then repeated for emphasis. But they believe he was in tribal areas of Pakistan where the Taliban have many allies.

America has a serious problem. Nations that remain at war for decades end up dying nations 20 years later. Obama constantly demanded an exit strategy from the Generals. Only got requests for more troops. To protect America, we must decide in a few years whether we have been defeated. Hard decisions necessary because some fool invented a myth "Mission Accomplished" rather than achieve victory.

Wars are never resolved on the battlefield. Wars are always resolved at the negotiation table. Expect people such as Holbrook (moderates) to be proposing many ambitious solutions because America is, otherwise, that close to defeat.

Iran does not hate Afghanistan as much as Iran hates the Taliban. Never forget what happened. Iran sent six negotiators to Afghanistan to resolve issues. Bodies came back without heads. Everyone here should know that story - or have a serious problem with their information sources.

The region is full of hatred. Many parts of the Pakistan government regard Afghanistan as allies of India. More hate. By letting bin Laden go free, we got ourselves in a real pickle

An interview (transcript + video) of an important player in Afghanistan's media. Interesting stuff.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...0/s3011854.htm

First female officers of Afghan National Army graduate, albeit headed exclusively for administrative roles.

Well I guess it is a start, until we are gone, then I have a felling things are going to fall apart. We will have to see what Obama is going to do next. The latest book by Woodward seems to have some telling insight as the struggle they are having staying on task.

If the Afghans see how much better things can be, than when the Taliban was running things, maybe they'll be more disposed to keeping it when we leave.

We can only hope. But my fear is that they operate and understand a feudal system more than one based on an educated system of democratic potential. I certainly do not have the answers.

An apparent mishap during efforts to develop a biological or chemical weapon forced a branch of al-Qaeda to shutter a base in Algeria, a high-level U.S. intelligence official told the Washington Times on
reports that the accident had killed 40 terrorist operatives were accurate, but rejected the claim in the London Sun tabloid that the cause of death was bubonic plague.



___________________

That sounds like a good thing, 40 idiots get to meet 40 virgin sheep.:rolleyes:

http://www.pajhwok.com/affiles/image...9a0a7b11_z.jpg

10th-grade Afghan boy builds airplane:

http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2010/10/19...ght-permission

pretty cool.

Troops chafe at restrictive rules of engagement
Wash Examiner:
I thought this changed when Patreus took over?

Some interesting photos documenting a popular sport in Afghanistan, bodybuilding:

That's because he learned in Iraq, he can only form alliances with, and garner support from, people that believe he's the baddest motherfucker in town. Those people want nothing to do with perceived pussies.

A tank is no different than a chopper or an armored humvee to an insurgent. Insurgency never stick around for a frontal attack. And never do frontal attacks. The tank is a minor asset in the soldier’s arsenal. And too many who do not get the bigger picture will hype the tank as if it will solve everything.

Tanks on this battlefield are nothing more than a mobile artillery piece. Instead, one should be first defining the strategic objectives in this war. What exactly are we trying to accomplish? And what is the method (defined by fundamental military doctrine even 2000 years ago) being used to accomplish that objective?

Tanks do not do that. Tanks simply make it easier (in some cases) for other assets to accomplish more important goals. To many are making a big deal about a deployment that is not significant in this type of battlefield.

Say what, Willis?

You cannot be serious. :facepalm:

BTW see this movie, if you haven't already:

The grunts that are looking at the "Big Picture", instead of their fire zone, end up dead.

Depends on the kind of war.

For fighting the Nazis in Normandy, or Saddam's republican guards, tanks are great.

For fighting guerrillas inside a town full of people who you hope to win over, you need accurate information and brave grunts to go and shoot the enemy.

Afghanistan is a mix of both types, I'd say, but more of the latter.

Very serious. And some think otherwise only because a big tank inspires a big penis. Emotions do not create reality or facts.

Others who better understand these concept understand why tanks were so necessary in Normandy or in Desert Storm. But have minor value in Afghanistan.

Far more important - by hundreds or thousands of percent more valuable - are choppers. And a weapon that the Brits wanted more than anything provided by the UK - A10s.

As you should know, in WWII, tanks were not as important as many would hype. The Army with the shittiest tanks won the war. Because that nation had other more important assets.

Uh no. Tell it to Petraeus. :eyebrow:

Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor
Link

Does it matter? Does anyone really believe that Taliban leaders' negotiations would be anything other than delaying tactics for circumventing hostilities to conserve firepower with which take over again after US withdrawal? President Karzai's pathetic government wouldn't be competent enough to prevent a takeover a decade from now let alone by the 2014 commencement of US downsizing there. The US - Karzai alliance has to capture the hearts and minds of Taliban followers. If the alliance deals with the Taliban leadership, it gives that leadership legitimacy to bind their followers to anyone they choose ... including Al Qaeda. Trying to wean Taliban followers from its leadership after that is a fool's errand and commits us to perpetually buying their passiveness. McCrystal understood that the current US administration's policy (it's cheaper and politically expedient to dance with the devil) made him an impotent flunky for short term gain. He rejected it. Petraeus understands this too; however, Betrayus has ambitions that make him willing to accept the role. He knows he'll be retired before the ramifications come back to haunt us, a lesson he learned from GWB.

US presence in Afghanistan as long as Soviet slog

By PATRICK QUINN, Associated Press Patrick Quinn, Associated Press – Thu Nov 25, 4:37 pm ET

KABUL, Afghanistan – The Soviet Union couldn't win in Afghanistan, and now the United States is about to have something in common with that futile campaign: nine years, 50 days.

Anyone remember how long did the SU lasted after their over-reach?

That fake Mansour incident has me torn.

I find it very amusing that some scammer has just conned a global military force, and gotten away with the loot. Cheeky and talented.

I find it very worrying that it is our side in the war that just got scammed. It appears we don't even know what our enemies leadership looks like, and are hopelessly lost among the politics of Afghanistan.

We know who they are, just not where they are, or what they look like.:rolleyes:

Welcome to VietNam. Exact same scenario. Back in America, we had no idea who was winning or losing in 1968 even though reality had been known in 1965.

Did we lose that war in 2003 when George Jr all but surrendered to the Taliban? How many years had the Taliban retaken Afghanistan before you knew it?

The purpose of war is always - there is no exception - to take the conflict back the negotiation table. Apparently in trying to do just that, a scam artist prospered. But it does not change the only way to win a war - we must always talk to our enemies. No way around that reality. The only problem in Afghanistan is trying to get them to talk. And to know we are talking to our enemy.

But again, we will only learn how well we are doing in ... well in Vietnam, we were losing in early 1960s. For many who are experts on this stuff, that reality did not become obvious until 1968 - the Tet offensive. For many Americans, the defeat was not apparent until 1972 or 1975 when the Pentagon Papers or the fall of Saigon made it impossible to deny reality.

We do not yet know if we lost the Afghan war back in mid 2000s. Hard facts are hard to separate from the chaff. So much chaff because many are preaching a political agenda rather than grasping the number one purpose of war. To take that conflict back the negotiation table.

Tw neglects to mention the Democratic-controlled Congress of the first half of the 1970s, and its direct role in collapsing the Saigon government. And of course the "reeducation camps" that followed, along with a couple million extra deaths, all because of socialism, and a quarter million surviving boat people, same cause -- with all of which he seems altogether content, as long as it impairs both this Republic and humanity's God-given birthright of freedom together. The motivations beneath what he writes about Vietnam remain disgusting. If only the man were perceptibly anti-totalitarian. He isn't.

The US Administration has "completed" it's review of the war in Afghanistan, but the
public debut and the prospects of it becoming public information seemed very, very slim.
Where's Wikileaks when you need them ?

On TV, Sec of State Clinton said very little of substance,
except the current montra of "Pakistan needs to do more"

NY Times
Report Shows How Pakistan Still Bedevils Obama
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: December 16, 2010

They spent a year developing this report, but I should done it for them
My report has been stuck on the back of my truck for about a year:

Uh, no. They didn't spend a year developing the report. They report is where they stood when it was completed, 5 months after Petraeus took command, and may not even be valid now.
Your cutsie bumper sticker, is just a less than clever statement of your opinion, and has no bearing on the realities or consequences of any actions taken but the coalition in Afghanistan.

And let's be perfectly clear about this. We have no idea if we have already lost. The consequences of not doing nation building may have already sown the seeds of defeat. At some time, we must decide whether we were already defeated long ago when George Jr all but surrendered to the Taliban in 2003.

All other relevant parties are also making decisions based upon what occurred in 2003. For example, why would Pakistan want to be helpful? Pakistan is vying for control after America leaves. Pakistan is at war with India over who will be their ally in Afghanistan. From Pakistan's viewpoint - and especially because Afghanistan is so much like the South Vietnamese government (corrupt) - Pakistan only cares about winning the hearts and minds of the victor. Doing so to defeat India.

How do we get Pakistan to conduct war against the Taliban? The Karzai government must be replaced by a government that does not promote overt corruption. But that is not going to happen. Just one of so many reasons why we have been defeated so many years ago. And we still do not yet know it.

How do great nations fold? They end up trying to get into wars everywhere. The two longest (hot) wars in America's history - Mission Accomplished and Afghanistan. And we are paying for them at Halliburton prices using Chinese money.

Even if we win militarily, how serious is this defacto defeat? And bin Laden still runs free thanks to George Jr's surrender in 2003. Never forget the disaster preached by George Jr when he said, "America does not do nation building."

Oh, I'm sad it didn't appeal that much to you.

I'm not sure, how many countries from the original "coalition of the willing" are still in"?
People don't usually leave the winning team

As in the last years of the the Viet Nam war (for those of us old enough to remember :rolleyes:),
the situation seems very similar... militarily and politically.

Presidents have a very hard time getting past the "not on my watch" attitude.
So we hear more and more often from leaders that,
- even tho our troops have done everything we asked of them,
the war can not be won militarily, only politically and so it's now up to
[insert current favorite - Vietnamization / Afghanstanmization / Pakistanimization].

So rather than wait for a another political turning-point,
like the Tet Offensive, where we won the battle but lost the war
it's reasonable to support our troops by bringing them home.
Yes, it is just my opinion.

The sentiment, In my opinion, is an option which should be seriously placed in consideration, and not trivialized as a bumper sticker slogan.

Popular expression of hot and very deeply felt political issues has always contained that kind of thing though. Ok, granted there weren't any 'Free the Slaves' stickers on the carriages during the civil war, but there were coins, and plaques and ceramics, and other such objects with pictures and slogans: such as the abolitionist emblem of the kneeling slave, in chains, and the slogan 'Am I not a man and a brother' across the top.

From History Org.



This kind of sloganizing in European and American popular and political culture has deep roots. I don't see it as trivialising.

Heh. I should post a pic of my bumper stickers.... I have some that reflect my clever statement of how F'd up our government is currently. One says "Got Bilked?" with a pic of Pelosi, Reid, and Biden. :lol:

Sloganizing is exactly what's wrong with our politics.
Factions tossing slogans back and forth, never discussing solutions, never even finding out what they actually agree on.