# U.S. Ambassador Objects to More Troops in Afghanistan



## AWP (Nov 12, 2009)

Am I the only one who sees it as odd/ ironic that the guy lobbying against more troops was also the commander of all of Afghanistan during the period where the Taliban returned in force? Listening to this guy on Afghan policy is like Joe Hazelwood teaching at the Merchant Marine Academy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/11/envoy-objects-afghan-troop-increase/



> WASHINGTON -- The U.S. envoy in Afghanistan, a former Army general who once commanded troops in the country, has objected strongly to emerging plans to send tens of thousands of additional forces to the country, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday.
> 
> Ambassador Karl Eikenberry resigned his Army commission to take the job as U.S. ambassador in Kabul earlier this year, and his is an influential voice among those advising President Barack Obama on Afghanistan. Eikenberry sent multiple classified cables to Washington over the past week that question the wisdom of adding forces when the Afghan political situation is unstable and uncertain, said an official familiar with the cables. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations and the classified documents.


----------



## 7point62 (Nov 12, 2009)

:doh:

I think this is just another part of the orchestrated PR effort by the Administration to counter McChrystal's request. They've been setting this up for weeks now and it smells to me like a prelude to a request denial and the usurpation of McChrystal's plan with the much-touted Biden-supported troop reduction plan (that they've had a woody for). I just think they are looking for the nearest exit.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 12, 2009)

7point62 said:


> :doh:
> 
> I think this is just another part of the orchestrated PR effort by the Administration to counter McChrystal's request. They've been setting this up for weeks now and it smells to me like a prelude to a request denial and the usurpation of McChrystal's plan with the much-touted Biden-supported troop reduction plan (that they've had a woody for). I just think they are looking for the nearest exit.



I agree as well, I also think Obama is going to start looking for away out of the war...:2c:


----------



## 7point62 (Nov 12, 2009)

I don't find it all that ironic that Eikenberry is on the anti-McChrystal plan bandwagon. He's got plenty of motive, both personal and professional, to want to take that course. Her can vent his sour grapes and suck up to his bosses at the same time.

McChrystal's plan (hey guys, this is what it's gonna take to unfuck this AO) calls for some escalation and committment, the two words, more than any other two, that are going to scare the piss out of liberal politicians who were elected by a coalition of anti-George W. Bush voters.


----------



## Voodoo (Nov 12, 2009)

*US ambassador warns against Afghanistan troop surge*

The US ambassador to Afghanistan has dramatically intervened in the debate about troop reinforcements, warning President Obama against committing tens of thousands of extra troops to the country. 

Karl Eikenberry, a retired army general who commanded US forces in Afghanistan from 2005-2007, detailed his concerns in two classified cables last week. 

Yesterday President Obama questioned Mr Eikenberry about his views by video-link during a meeting of his White House war cabinet, as he continues his lengthy deliberations on the question of troop numbers for Afghanistan. 

Mr Eikenberry's concerns reportedly focused on the behaviour of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president recently re-elected for a five-year term in a poll tainted by allegations of systematic fraud. He is said to have questioned Mr Karzai's suitability as a long-term strategic partner, because of widespread corruption in his first administration and the presence of warlords and drugs smugglers in positions of influence. 

The warnings are being seen by analysts as a shot across Mr Karzai's bows, as he puts together his government before he is inaugurated for his second term on November 19. 

The timing and content of Mr Eikenberry's intervention has reportedly infuriated General Stanley McChrystal, the Nato and US commander in Afghanistan, who had asked for an extra 40,000 troops to avert a looming military defeat. 

They also prompted a quick reaction from the Secretary-General of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who insisted today that Nato backed the need for more troops despite Mr Eikenberry's reservations. 

Speaking after a meeting in Downing Street with Gordon Brown, Mr Rasmussen was asked what advice he would give Mr Obama. 

He replied: "We are right now in an intense phase of consultation among allies and I expect a decision on troop numbers to be taken within a very few weeks so I think it is a bit premature to make any final judgment on troop numbers. Basically I share General McChrystal’s view, his assessment, his recommendation of a broad counter-insurgency strategy. 

He added: "I have not made a final decision on the exact troop numbers but for sure we need to strengthen training and education of Afghan soldiers and Afghan police so we will definitely need more trainers, more education facilities, equipment and money to sustain an increased number of Afghan security forces." 

A White House statement read out after yesterday's session was carefully worded to capture the administration's ambivalence about expanding its military commitment with a week and corrupt government as its partner in Kabul. 

“The President believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan Government that our commitment is not open-ended,” a White House official told journalists. “After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time to ensure a successful transition to our Afghan partner." 

The ambassador's intervention, reported today in The Washington Post, comes as draft lists circulated in Afghanistan of names of those said to be in line for posts on Mr Karzai's government. It is understood many of those listed are tainted by corruption allegations and are considered unacceptable by western governments. 

Four options appear to have emerged on future troop reinforcements, but despite various high-level leaks it is far from clear which one Mr Obama will eventually embrace. 

They range from a low-end option involving involving the deployment of about 10,000 to 15,000 US troops, mostly trainers to accelerate the expansion of the Afghan security forces, although such a move is not considered cost-effective by Pentagon planners. 

The most ambitious option involves giving General McChrystal the 40,000 troops. A third course involves sending around 30,000 to 35000 and urging Nato partners to make up the shortfall. 

The final option on the table, dubbed the "hybrid" option, would involve a surge of around 20,000 troops to reinforce major population areas coupled with a renewed counter-terrorist effort against al-Qaeda and Taleban targets in lawless tribal areas along the border with Pakistan. 

Mr Obama leaves today on his first presidential tour of Asia, putting off for at least another nine days a decision that his critics say should have already been made. His press secretary says a decision is still weeks away. 

Yesterday's war cabinet meeting in the White House situation room was the eighth since August specifically focusing on troop reinforcements. Participants included the Defence Secretary Robert Gates, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Mr Eikenberry and General McChrystal both participated by video link from Afghanistan.


----------



## pardus (Nov 12, 2009)

Threads merged...


----------



## Gypsy (Nov 12, 2009)

J.A.B. said:


> I agree as well, I also think Obama is going to start looking for away out of the war...:2c:



Probably.  It's unbelievable to me he doesn't understand this war won't go away.  Ever.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 12, 2009)

So my question is "Where was the Ambassador a month and a half ago?" 

Seems he's a little late with this revelation. Wouldn't surprise me if it has an air of oneupmanship to it.


----------



## LongTabSigO (Nov 12, 2009)

If I recall correctly, a portion of GEN Petraeus's success with the surge is attributed to the excellent working relationship he had with the US Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

They tended to report progress together to US Congress and the President.

Seems to me that this lack of synergy between military and diplomatic leaders is one large part of the whole problem we seem to have in crafting, communicating and executing a strategy for Afghanistan.

Thoughts?


----------



## AWP (Nov 12, 2009)

I found a great quote last night, I'll bring the book in and type it up.


----------



## Mother (Nov 12, 2009)

I disagree with the Ambassador's rejection of the call for more troops in Afghanistan.

I vaguely remember a news report saying that the Ambassador was in favor of focusing money toward bolstering the local clan/tribal governments as opposed to continuing to prop up Karzai's administration of the national government.  The national government of Afghanistan has historically been unable to control much outside of Kabul.  Given the cultural structure of this country, I tend to wonder if, on this issue at least, the Ambassador might be onto something constructive.  I still think more troops are needed in the AO even if the POTUS takes this sort of strategy.

Free I'd be interested in your take on the above paragraph. I've never spent time in Afghanistan and I respect your opinions on matters there.


----------



## AWP (Nov 13, 2009)

Concerning the first British occupation of Afghanistan/ First Anglo-Afghan War:



> All of this flowed from the festering problem that preoccupied and frustrated Sir William Hay Macnaghten. Getting into Afghanistan was one thing, getting out quite another. Calcutta and London insistently pressed for a complete withdrawal, and the East India Company repeatedly protested the high cost of protracted occupation. But should the British pull out, what might happen to Shah Shuja and his _zenana_? For his part, the returning monarch was wretechedly aware he was despised by his own people because his authority derived from foreigners, yet he knew if the British withdrew, his reign was in peril. Disquieting news came in bunches, all arguing for a prolonged stay.



Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac, _Tournament of Shadows_, Copyright 1999.


----------



## x SF med (Nov 13, 2009)

> ... Mr Eikenberry's concerns reportedly focused on the behaviour of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president recently re-elected for a five-year term in a poll tainted by allegations of systematic fraud. He is said to have questioned Mr Karzai's suitability as a long-term strategic partner, because of widespread corruption in his first administration and the presence of warlords and drugs smugglers in positions of influence. ...


 
Ok, the current administration of Afghanistan is different from South American, Southeast Asian, and other Middle Eastern administrations/governments, supported by the US, HOW?


----------



## 7point62 (Nov 13, 2009)

Eikenberry is basing his objections on the corruption of the Karzai government. He wants to make committment conditional to ethical behavior.  In countries like Afghanistan _corruption has to be accepted as part of the strategy._ Corruption in the latest election should have surprised no one. There is no power on earth that will rid Afghanistan of  corruption. We can't even do it in fucking Chicago. To poor people in 3rd World Countries, the important thing is how the government governs...not how it is chosen.


----------



## Trip_Wire (Nov 13, 2009)

7point62 said:


> Eikenberry is basing his objections on the corruption of the Karzai government. He wants to make committment conditional to ethical behavior.  In countries like Afghanistan _corruption has to be accepted as part of the strategy._ Corruption in the latest election should have surprised no one. There is no power on earth that will rid Afghanistan of  corruption. We can't even do it in fucking Chicago. To poor people in 3rd World Countries, the important thing is how the government governs...not how it is chosen.


 
I agree with you 100% It is a way of life in many countries to include our own especially in the large cities on the East coast. Chicago & New York especially!


----------



## newbie (Nov 13, 2009)

It sounds to me, like the ambassador is simply trying to light a fire under the Karzai gov.'s ass.  Then again, I do have a limited perspective on things (simply a well read civie).  I was wondering what the way forward is for Afghanistan.  Part of me says, "we need to stay to honor those who have sacrificed time and blood, as well as the people we have befriended there"  but part of me says "screw you, to the people over there who seem incapable of helping themselves, you dont deserve the best and brightest of the U.S..  you can fix your own damn country."  not sure where that leaves me, but I know that there are better people than I making decisions that count.  I can't really gauge America's opinion on the war anymore.  Im just not sure many people understand it, me included.  to anyone who has been there, Liberal or conservative aside.  How much more should we (NATO) be willing to put into the conflict, while there are other conflicts brewing around the world?  HOnest question, Maybe beyond the scope of this thread.  If so, I apologize.


----------



## 7point62 (Nov 14, 2009)

I think the Administration is looking for a cop-out and they will use Karzai and "corruption" as the reason for rejecting McChrystal's request. Huge mistake in my opinion because international terrorism thrives in a vacume.


----------



## Mother (Nov 14, 2009)

7point62 said:


> I think the Administration is looking for a cop-out and they will use Karzai and &quot;corruption&quot; as the reason for rejecting McChrystal's request. *Huge mistake in my opinion because international terrorism thrives in a vacume*.



Bingo!  I agree.


----------



## AWP (Nov 15, 2009)

Others here have made the statement that slowing down the request for more troops was the financial side, paying for healthcare and whatnot. (JBS and some others I think)

Well, go give 'em some rep or something....and who said Marines don't think? 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/15/military-spending-weighs-obamas-afghan-decision/



> Senior administration officials told the Times that the financial implications of more troops has become a volatile issue as the president works to push a costly health care plan through Congress and the government budget deficit is soaring.
> 
> The cost estimates of adding 40,000 U.S. forces and increasing Afghan security are $40 to $54 billion a year according to officials, and even if less troops are sent, the White House formula would remain constant at about $1 million per soldier.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 15, 2009)

I feel for the boys and girls on the ground in Afghanistan right now, I truly do… Political games should never be played at the cost of US service member lives. Have we not learned anything in the past 60 years?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 15, 2009)

Iif we don't help through political and military force to help guide these festering cesspools into something more productive, we will doom ourselves to having to return again after a safe haven is once again founded for those who are directly against everything and anything we stand for.


----------



## 7point62 (Nov 15, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> Others here have made the statement that slowing down the request for more troops was the financial side, paying for healthcare and whatnot. (JBS and some others I think)
> 
> Well, go give 'em some rep or something....and who said Marines don't think?
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/15/military-spending-weighs-obamas-afghan-decision/




Kudos to JBS, the thinking Marine's Marine :cool:...and he may have nailed it. But being the suspicious bastard I am, I attach a few more levels of deviousness into any statement politicians make and it seems to me  this is just another excuse to bolster voter support for the cheaper and _politically safer_ Biden troop reduction win-the-war-with-less plan.


----------



## 7point62 (Nov 15, 2009)

J.A.B. said:


> I feel for the boys and girls on the ground in Afghanistan right now, I truly do… Political games should never be played at the cost of US service member lives. Have we not learned anything in the past 60 years?


 

We learn...and then we immediately forget.


----------



## LongTabSigO (Nov 15, 2009)

7point62 said:


> We learn...and then we immediately forget.


 
We don't "learn"...we pay lipservice to the idea and then get ADD.


----------



## newbie (Nov 21, 2009)

Heres an interesting article from NY times.  Good news!!??  It's cool when the afghans refer to SF as "the americans with beards".

ACHIN, Afghanistan — American and Afghan officials have begun helping a number of anti-Taliban militias that have independently taken up arms against insurgents in several parts of Afghanistan, prompting hopes of a large-scale tribal rebellion against the Taliban.

The emergence of the militias, which took some leaders in Kabul by surprise, has so encouraged the American and Afghan officials that they are planning to spur the growth of similar armed groups across the Taliban heartland in the southern and eastern parts of the country.

The American and Afghan officials say they are hoping the plan, called the Community Defense Initiative, will bring together thousands of gunmen to protect their neighborhoods from Taliban insurgents. Already there are hundreds of Afghans who are acting on their own against the Taliban, officials say.

The endeavor represents one of the most ambitious — and one of the riskiest — plans for regaining the initiative against the Taliban, who are fighting more vigorously than at any time since 2001.

By harnessing the militias, American and Afghan officials hope to rapidly increase the number of Afghans fighting the Taliban. That could supplement the American and Afghan forces already here, and whatever number of American troops President Obama might decide to send. The militias could also help fill the gap while the Afghan Army and police forces train and grow — a project that could take years to bear fruit.

The Americans hope the militias will encourage an increasingly demoralized Afghan population to take a stake in the war against the Taliban.

“The idea is to get people to take responsibility for their own security,” said a senior American military official in Kabul, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “In many places they are already doing that.”

The growth of the anti-Taliban militias runs the risk that they could turn on one another, or against the Afghan and the American governments, as has happened in the past. The Americans say they will keep the groups small and will limit the scope of their activities to protecting villages and manning checkpoints. For now, they are not arming the groups because they already have guns. The Americans also say they will tie the groups to the Afghan government and tightly control their activities so they do not create more warlords, who have defied the government’s authority for years.

The plan echoes a similar movement that unfolded in Iraq, beginning in late 2006, in which Sunni tribes turned against Islamist extremists.

That movement, called the Sunni Awakening, brought tens of thousands of former insurgents into government-supervised militias and helped substantially reduce the violence in Iraq. A rebellion on a similar scale seems unlikely in Afghanistan, in large part because the tribes here are so much weaker than those in Iraq.

The first phase of the Afghan plan, now being carried out by American Special Forces soldiers, is to set up or expand the militias in areas with a population of about a million people. Special Forces soldiers have been fanning out across the countryside, descending from helicopters into valleys where the residents have taken up arms against the Taliban and offering their help.

“We are trying to reach out to these groups that have organized themselves,” Col. Christopher Kolenda said in Kabul.

Afghan and American officials say they plan to use the militias as tripwires for Taliban incursions, enabling them to call the army or the police if things get out of hand.

The official assistance to the militias so far has been modest, consisting mainly of ammunition and food, officials said. But American and Afghan officials say they are also planning to train the fighters and provide communication equipment.

“What we are talking about is a local, spontaneous and indigenous response to the Taliban,” said Hanif Atmar, the Afghan interior minister. “The Afghans are saying, ‘We are willing and determined and capable to defend our country; just give us the resources.’ ”

In the Pashtun-dominated areas of the south and east, the anti-Taliban militias are being led by elders from local tribes. The Pashtun militias represent a reassertion of the country’s age-old tribal system, which binds villages and regions under the leadership of groups of elders. The tribal networks have been alternately decimated and co-opted by Taliban insurgents. Local tribal leaders, while still powerful, cannot count on the allegiance of all of their tribes’ members.

Militias have begun taking up arms against the Taliban in several places where insurgents have gained a foothold, including the provinces of Nangarhar and Paktia.


----------



## newbie (Nov 21, 2009)

So far, there appears to be some divergence in the American and Afghan efforts. While American Special Forces units have focused on helping smaller militias, Afghan officials have been channeling assistance to larger armed groups, including those around the northern city of Kunduz. In that city, several armed groups, led by ethnic Uzbek commanders as well as Pashtuns, are confronting the Taliban.

“In Kunduz, after they defeated the Taliban in their villages, they became the power and they took money and taxes from the people,” Mr. Atmar, the interior minister, said. “This is not legal, and this is warlordism.”

Colonel Kolenda said, “In the long run, that is destabilizing.”

One of the most striking examples of a local militia rising up on its own is here in Achin, a predominantly Pashtun district in Nangarhar Province that straddles the border with Pakistan. In July, a long-running dispute between local Taliban fighters and elders from the Shinwari tribe flared up. When a local Taliban warlord named Khona brought a more senior commander from Pakistan to help in the confrontation, the elders in the Shinwari tribe rallied villagers from up and down the valley where they live, killed the commander and chased Khona away.

The elders had insisted that the Taliban stay away from a group of Afghans building a dike in the valley. When Khona’s men kidnapped two Afghan engineers, the Shinwari elders decided they had had enough.

“The whole tribe was with me,” one of the elders said in an interview. “The Taliban came to kill me, and instead we killed them.”

The two tribal elders in Achin who led the rebellion spoke at length with The New York Times about their activities. At the request of American commanders in Kabul, who feared that the elders would be killed by the Taliban, the identities of the men are being withheld.

Since the fight, the Taliban have been kept away from a string of villages in Achin District that stretch for about six miles. The elders said they were able to do so by assembling a group of more than 100 fighters and posting them at each end of the valley.

The elders said they had been marked for death by Taliban commanders on both sides of the border.

“Every day people call me and tell me the Taliban is trying to kill me,” one of the Shinwari elders said. “They call me and tell me: ‘Don’t take his road. Take a different one.’ I am worried about suicide bombers.”

The feud between the Taliban and the Shinwari elders caught the attention of American officers, who sent a team of Special Forces soldiers to the valley. This reporter was unable to reach the interior of the valley where the men live, so it was difficult to verify all of the elders’ claims.

Both the Shinwari elders said that “Americans with beards” had flown into the valley twice in recent weeks and had given them flour and boxes of ammunition. (Unlike other American troops, Special Forces soldiers are allowed to wear beards.)

American officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they intended to help organize and train the Shinwari militia. They said they would eventually give them communication gear that would enable them to call the Afghan police if they needed help.

But that, as well as other aspects of the plan, seem problematic, at least for now. There are only about 50 Afghan police officers in Achin, the district center, and none in the valley itself. There are no Afghan Army soldiers in the area, and the nearest American base is many miles away.

The hope, of course, is that the revolt led by the Shinwari elders spreads. Each of the elders interviewed leads a branch of the 12 Shinwari tribes. If they survive, both elders said they believed that others would join them.

“The Taliban are not popular here, not educated,” another Shinwari elder said. “They are stray dogs.”


----------



## pardus (Nov 21, 2009)

It's a good start!


----------



## AWP (Nov 21, 2009)

newbie said:


> A rebellion on a similar scale seems unlikely in Afghanistan, in large part because the tribes here are so much weaker than those in Iraq.



I am not as familiar with Iraq as here, but this seems unlikely to me. Tribes and families are a huge factor in Afghan life, far more so than a government in Kabul. Getting these guys to fight the TB is one thing, getting them to support the gov't is another.

It is a good start, but I see warlords creeping back because of it. Maybe it will give us the breathing room needed to build up the capabilities of the ANA and ANP.

Of course, some of that is moot unless it starts to rain and snow soon. The winter is starting out to be very dry.


----------



## pardus (Nov 21, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> Getting these guys to fight the TB is one thing, getting them to support the gov't is another.


 
Yeah, I think there is almost universal agreement that the A'stan govt is a fuck up.
I don't blame the locals for going with a warlord who is Kin.  :2c:


----------



## Brooklynben (Nov 21, 2009)

7point62 said:


> :doh:
> 
> I think this is just another part of the orchestrated PR effort by the Administration to counter McChrystal's request. They've been setting this up for weeks now and it smells to me like a prelude to a request denial and the usurpation of McChrystal's plan with the much-touted Biden-supported troop reduction plan (that they've had a woody for). I just think they are looking for the nearest exit.


 X2..


----------



## QC (Nov 22, 2009)

Freefalling said:


> Concerning the first British occupation of Afghanistan/ First Anglo-Afghan War:
> 
> 
> 
> Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac, _Tournament of Shadows_, Copyright 1999.



Plus a change plus a meme chose


----------

