Top Ten Bloggables – Marc Lynch, Foreign Policy: "5. Admiral Mullen’s strategic communication. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just released a blunt three page article challenging the military’s new conventional wisdom on strategic communications. His bottom line — that words matter less than deeds — is no different from the top-line recommendations of dozens of reports on public diplomacy over the last few years. Everybody says that deeds matter more than words. But words do also matter — nothing speaks for itself, framing matters, and failure to engage in the public rhetorical battles would be disastrous. I suspect that his real target was the 'strategic communications' industry which has grown up remarkably in Pentagon circles over the last half decade. That really does need to be reined in, a I’ve written about often over the last few years and as Obama’s Pentagon and some parts of Congress have already begun to do. I’ll definitely have more to say about this!

http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/..._ten_bloggables

AS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS MOUNT IN AFGHANISTNAM, THE OBAMA-ITES ARE BECOMING MORE CIRCUMSPECT ABOUT CALLING THE ELECTION A SUCCESS ....

PERHAPS THEY ARE RECALLING DIEM'S RIGGED ELECTIONS IN VIET NAM BACK WHEN ....

OR MAYBE IT IS SO SIMPLE AS THEY ARE EMBARASSED BY WHO THEY ARE IN BED WITH, WITH KARZAI ....

And so ...

"Serious fraud complaints double in Afghan vote"

By Peter Graff

31 AUGUST 2009

KABUL (Reuters) – Afghanistan's election fraud watchdog said on Sunday it is probing 567 allegations of abuse it considers serious enough to affect the outcome of the Aug 20 vote, more than double the number announced two days ago.

The country has been in a state of political limbo since the presidential election, with partial results so far placing President Hamid Karzai in the lead, but not by enough to avoid a second round against his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

The election, which Taliban militants failed to scupper despite scores of rocket attacks, was initially hailed as a success by Western officials, but those assessments have grown more circumspect as accusations of fraud have mounted.

The latest partial preliminary results, released late on Saturday, gave Karzai 46.3 percent of the vote to 31.4 percent for Abdullah, with 35 percent of polling stations tallied.

Most votes have yet to be counted in the south, heartland of Karzai's ethnic Pashtun support -- and also the area where Taliban violence and threats had their greatest impact on turnout, and where complaints of fraud are concentrated.

Abdullah, a former foreign minister, has accused the president's camp of stuffing ballot boxes on a massive scale, and says he will not accept the outcome if cheating was decisive.

An Electoral Complaints Commission, with foreign members appointed by the United Nations, can discard results from entire polling stations if it suspects abuse.

Ahmad Muslim Khuram, spokesman for the body, said it was now looking into 2,493 complaints, including 567 it classifies as "Category A", meaning they are serious enough to alter the outcome.

On Friday there were 270 Category A complaints.

To avoid a run-off, a candidate must win more than 50 percent of the vote.

The results from southern provinces might put Karzai over the top, but could be challenged by the complaints body.

Full preliminary results are due later this week, with the final result, after all complaints are checked, due two weeks later.

A run-off, if needed, would be held in October.

(Editing by Nick Macfie)

DEFENSE CONTRACTING IN AFGHANISTAN AT RECORD HIGH

There are more Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan today than there are uniformed U.S. military personnel, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service. Not only that, the ratio of contractors to troops in Afghanistan is higher than in any prior military engagement in U.S. history.

"As of March 2009, there were 68,197 DOD contractors in Afghanistan, compared to 52,300 uniformed personnel. Contractors made up 57% of DOD’s workforce in Afghanistan. This apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by DOD in any conflict in the history of the United States," the CRS report (pdf) said. A copy of the report was obtained by Secrecy News.

At a time when the deployment of U.S. forces in Afghanistan may be increased (or reduced), the CRS report casts a detailed and fairly nuanced spotlight on the role of defense contractors there. The report notes, for example, that more than 75% of the DoD contractor personnel in Afghanistan are local nationals. Only about 15% are U.S. citizens.

Contractors provide essential logistical, translation and other services, while offering increased flexibility. But they also pose management challenges in monitoring performance and preventing fraud. In the worst cases, "abuses and crimes committed by armed private security contractors and interrogators against local nationals may have undermined U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan," the CRS report noted. See "Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis," August 13, 2009.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40764.pdf

War IS our only real growth industry here in America ....

We are turning into another Hesse that makes its money exporting its citizens to fight foreign wars ....

Like the Hessian "contractors" who King George III sent here back in the Revolution ....

And so ....

"Gates: Report details highs, lows of Afghan fight"

By ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer

31 AUGUST 2009 mins ago

FORT WORTH, Texas – The United States and NATO need a new strategy to defeat the Taliban, the top commander in Afghanistan said Monday as he delivered a classified assessment that is widely seen as the groundwork for a fresh request to add more American forces next year.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal said the nearly 8-year-old war is winnable, but his report is expected to be a blunt appraisal of the Taliban's increasing tactical prowess and diminishing popular support in Afghanistan for both the foreign-led war effort and the fragile, corruption-riddled central government.

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious," McChrystal said, and success "demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort."

McChrystal did not ask for more troops but is expected to do so in a separate request in a couple weeks, two NATO officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter.

NATO nations have repeatedly declined U.S. requests to send larger numbers of new troops or to lift restrictions on many of those now fighting in Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday that the Obama administration will look closely at the "resources requests" expected to flow from McChrystal's assessment.

Gates said the review's hard look at the U.S. military's performance contains bright spots amid "gloom and doom."

"We have been very explicit that General McChrystal should be forthright in telling us what he needs," Gates said following a tour of the Texas factory where next-generation F-35 fighter jets are built and tested.

U.S. officials are bracing for a troop request above the 21,000 new American forces President Barack Obama committed to Afghanistan this year.

That would force an unpleasant choice on Obama:

Add more troops to Afghanistan just as the strain of the huge force commitments to the Iraq war begins to diminish, or risk losing the war he had argued the United States neglected in favor of Iraq.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president has not seen McChrystal's review yet.

Gibbs described the review as "an assessment of where we are and what in his assessment needs to change."

"Any resource — specific resource recommendations, I'm told, will be made in the coming weeks, but are not a part of this report," he said.

There is little appetite at the White House and in Congress for further expansion of a war that is backsliding despite nearly eight years of fighting and millions in development money.

U.S. and NATO commanders have said they do not have sufficient troops and support to expand the fight against a resilient and well-organized Taliban insurgency.

But Gates noted his oft-repeated worry about placing too many forces in Afghanistan, a strategy that failed for the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

"I think there are larger issues," Gates said.

"We will have to look at the availability of forces; we will have to look at costs."

"There are a lot of different things we will have to look at."

McChrystal's recommendations were being sent up through U.S. Central Command commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, who would add their comments to it.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would not say whether Gates had seen it yet, but said the report would not be made public.

In Brussels, NATO spokesman James Appathurai said the report would also be examined by NATO's political and military leadership.

He stressed it was an assessment by the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, "not a change of strategy."

McChrystal's report recommends focusing the U.S. and NATO counterinsurgency efforts on the Afghan population and less on militants, one of the NATO officials in Afghanistan said.

Last week, McChrystal said troops "must change the way that we think, act and operate" in newly released counterinsurgency guidance.

McChrystal hopes to instill a new approach in troops to make the safety of villagers the top priority.

McChrystal said the supply of fighters in the Afghan insurgency is "essentially endless," the reason violence continues to rise.

He called on troops to think of how they would expect a foreign army to operate in their home countries, "among your families and your children, and act accordingly," to try to win over the Afghan population.

Gates requested the report as a gut check following Obama's announcement of a pared-down counterinsurgency strategy and the rare wartime firing of a top general this spring.

McChrystal was sent to Afghanistan this summer to oversee the addition of 17,000 U.S. combat forces, part of a record U.S. commitment of 68,000 by the end of this year.

"While there is a lot of gloom and doom going around, I think that General McChrystal's assessment will be a realistic one, and set forth the challenges we have in front of us," Gates said.

"At the same time, I think we have some assets in place and some developments that hold promise."

The allied strategy in Afghanistan hinges on increasing the number of Afghan soldiers and police so U.S. forces can one day withdraw.

Some 134,000 Afghan troops are to be trained by late 2011, but U.S. officials say that number will need to be greatly increased, an expansion that the U.S. will finance.

The deaths of two U.S. service members Monday in the south — raising the record death toll to 47 in August, the deadliest month of the eight-year war — underscored the escalating violence.

Concerned about the growing use of roadside bombs or "improvised explosive devices," Gates said he wants to send additional armored vehicles and more surveillance equipment.

In Texas, Gates got a first look at the MC-12 Liberty, a relatively low-tech answer to the problem of airborne surveillance that is already flying in Iraq and will soon be sent to Afghanistan.
___

Associated Press writers Jason Straziuso in Kabul, Slobodan Lekic in Brussels and Lara Jakes in Washington contributed to this report.

Not only war...

Pressed for time, apologies if this has been already posted.

Afghanistan for Dummies

By Ray McGovern

I’m going to ask for my money back. I’ve seen this Afghanistan movie before. The first time, Vietnam was in the title. Continue

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23410.htm

I’m going to ask for my money back. I’ve seen this Afghanistan movie before. The first time, Vietnam was in the title.

As in an early scene from the Vietnam version, U.S. military officials are surprised to discover that the insurgents in Afghanistan are stronger than previously realized.

And our protagonist, Gen. Westmoreland — sorry, I mean McChrystal — sees the situation as serious but salvageable. As Westmoreland did with President Lyndon Johnson, McChrystal is preparing to tell President Barack Obama that thousands of more troops are needed to achieve the U.S. objective — whatever that happens to be.

As in Vietnam, uncertainty about objectives and how to measure success persist in Afghanistan. Never has this come through more clearly than in the fuzzy remarks of “Af-Pak” super-envoy Richard Holbrooke who has purview over Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On Aug. 12 at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C., think tank, Holbrooke tried to clarify how the Obama administration would gauge success in Afghanistan.

John Podesta, the center’s president who was President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff and served as head of Obama’s transition team, waxed eloquent not only about his friend Holbrooke but Holbrooke’s team; really spectacular, impressive, multidisciplinary, interagency, truly exceptional were some of the bouquets thrown at team members.

Holbrooke said his Af-Pak squad is “the best team” he’d ever worked with, adding that “Hillary” – the Secretary of State whose last name is Clinton – personally approved “every member.”

It may indeed be a good team but that doesn’t change the fact that it appears to be on a fool’s errand. Each member has considerable expertise to offer, but no one knows where they’re headed.

The whole thing reminds me of the old saw: If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there. (Or you might say Holbrooke’s team finds itself in a dark place peering into the distance looking for a light at the end of the tunnel.)

Pressing for Answers

To his credit, Podesta kept trying to get a clear answer from Holbrook about the overall objective in Afghanistan, as well as seeking some metrics to judge progress.

“There is increasing concern here at home and in allied capitals abroad about the cost of winning in Afghanistan, and to what end-goals we should aspire,” Podesta said. “I hope to focus on … our objectives in Afghanistan and how we measure progress.”

Holbrooke was as smooth — and vacuous — as Gen. William Westmoreland and his briefers were in Saigon:

“We know the difference with input and output, and what you are seeing here is input,” Holbrooke said. “The payoff is still to come. We have to produce results, and we understand that.

“And we’re not here today to tell you we’re winning or we’re losing. We’re not here today to say we’re optimistic or pessimistic. We’re here to tell you that we’re in this fight in a different way with a determination to succeed.”

In an apparent attempt to get Podesta to stop asking about objectives and how to measure success, Holbrooke tossed a bouquet back at the Center for American Progress for doing “an extraordinary job of becoming a critical center for our efforts.”

For those who may have missed it, Podesta’s Center surprised many, including me, by endorsing Obama’s non-strategy of throwing more troops at the problem in Afghanistan. (The charitable explanation is that there is something in the water here in Washington; less charitably, the Center may have feared losing its place at Obama’s table.)

Holbrooke’s flattery, though, did not deter Podesta, who kept insisting on some kind of cogent answer about objectives and metrics.

Podesta: “From the perspective of the American people, how do you define clear objectives of what you’re trying to succeed as outputs with the inputs that you just talked about?”

Holbrooke: “A very key question, John, which you’re alluding to is, of course, if our objective is to defeat, destroy, dismantle al-Qaeda, and they’re primarily in Pakistan, why are we doing so much in Afghanistan? ...

“If you abandon the struggle in Afghanistan, you will suffer against al-Qaeda as well. But we have to be clear on what our national interests are here….

“The specific goal you ask, John, — is really hard for me to address in specific terms. But I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we’ll know it when we see it.” (Emphasis added.)

Holbrooke almost chokes on the words as they proceed out of his mouth, and then takes a very visible gulp of air. Up until this point, Podesta has been bravely suppressing any outward sign of frustration with Holbrooke’s vacuous comments on U.S. objectives and measures of success.

After the “we’ll know it when we see it” remark, Podesta pauses for a few seconds and looks at Holbrooke — as if to say, and that's it? Then, like a high school teacher ready to move on to the next ill-prepared student, Podesta utters a curt "okay."

“Know It When You See It”

The Supreme Court test involving “know it when you see it” refers to a phrase used by former Justice Potter Stewart 45 years ago. Frustrated at not being able to define pornography in an obscenity case, he gave up and fell back on the “know it when you see it” formulation.

The same phrase was used by a similarly frustrated official, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in December 2002, just three months before the U.S.-U.K. attack on Iraq.

Unable to come up with any specific evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, but determined to rebut Saddam Hussein’s claims that he had none, Wolfowitz quipped, “It’s like the judge said about pornography. I can’t define it, but I will know it when I see it.”

How is it that we let people get away with that kind of rubbish when it means people — Iraqis, Afghanis, as well as Americans — are going to get killed and maimed?

But Holbrooke’s “we’ll know-it-when-we-see-it” measure of success is just the latest sign that the Obama administration has been playing the Af-Pak strategy by ear. The President himself seems generally aware of this, given his readiness to give wide latitude, not clear instructions, to Holbrooke and the generals.

An early hint of the disarray came on March 27, a little more than two months into his presidency, when Obama showed up a half-hour late to the press conference at which he announced a “comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

No explanation was given for his lateness, which required TV talking heads to reach new heights of vapidity for a full 30 minutes. I ventured a guess at the time that his instincts were telling him he was about to do something he would regret.

It soon became apparent that Obama’s 60-day Afghan policy review lacked specificity on strategy but tried to make up for that with lofty rhetoric — kudos to the alliterative speechwriter who coined the catchy phrase “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda.”

More important, the President also took pains to assure us that: “Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course.” Rather, he promised there will be “metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.”

(Yet the key “metric” appears to be what Holbrooke blurted out on Aug. 12, “we’ll know it when we see it.”)

In Holbrooke, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appear to have picked a loser. It is bad enough that he does not seem to have a clue about how to measure success toward U.S. objectives — or, at least, cannot articulate them — even before a friendly audience.

Perhaps Secretary Clinton and President Obama were also unaware of his well-deserved reputation for logical inconsistencies, not to mention the delight he takes in bullying foreign officials — the more senior the person, the better.

A former Foreign Service officer who worked on the Balkans confided that he believes Holbrooke actually prolonged the Yugoslav civil war for several years by pushing a policy of covert military support for the Muslim side.

It should come as no surprise, then, if Holbrooke ends up playing a role in deepening the Af-Pak quagmire, if only by adopting a belligerent attitude towards the Pashtuns and also the Pakistani government — not to mention rival U.S. officials.

In sum, Holbrooke will probably prove more hindrance than help in working out a sensible U.S. strategy and objectives. Worse, he is not likely to serve as a much needed counterweight to the generals, who may well succeed in persuading Obama to give them still more troops for an unwinnable war.

George Will Favors Pullout

Surprisingly, one of the new voices urging a troop drawdown in Afghanistan is conservative columnist George Will, who showed his human side in an op-ed appearing Tuesday in the Washington Post, “Time to Get Out of Afghanistan.”

Will starts and ends the piece with references to a young Marine who had just lost two buddies. To his credit, Will avoids the customary quote from the poet Horace — “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” (“How sweet and fitting it is to die for one’s country”) or anything like it.

Will says, in effect, that syrupy sentiments and faux appeals to patriotism do not apply in present circumstances. He would probably be the last to draw this connection, but he has begun to sound like Cindy Sheehan, who has been trying for over four years to get George Bush to explain to her the “noble cause” for which her son Casey died in Iraq.

Will ends his article with a heartfelt appeal for substantial troop reductions now, “before more American valor…is squandered.”

On Wednesday, the neoconservative editors of the Post compiled a series of rebuttals to Will’s column in a section entitled "Where Will Got It Wrong," including a lengthy excerpt from a blog post by leading neocon theorist William Kristol, who attacks Will for sentimentality when “it would be better to base a major change in our national security strategy on arguments.”

Not surprisingly, given his enthusiastic support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Kristol advocates “a surge of several brigades of American forces” in Afghanistan and a determination “to support a strategy, and to provide the necessary resources, for victory.”

Alongside Kristol’s blog post was an op-ed by Post columnist David Ignatius, another enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq War.

Regarding Afghanistan, Ignatius concludes that “this may be one of those messy situations where the best course is to both shoot and talk – a strategy based on the idea that we can bolster our friends and bloody our enemies enough that, somewhere down the road, we can cut a deal.”

You may recall that President Johnson followed a similar strategy of trying to bomb his Vietnamese enemies to the bargaining table.

Counting the tragedy in Iraq – as well as the one in Vietnam – this is the third time I’ve seen this movie.

To see a clip of the exchange between Holbrooke and Podesta, click here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN5a9WomVqs..._embedded#t=460

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

This item was first published at Consortiumnews.com

"Poll: Most Americans oppose more troops for Afghanistan"

By Steven Thomma, McClatchy Newspapers

Tue Sep 1, 7:13 pm ET

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans think the country isn't winning the war in Afghanistan, and an even larger majority opposes sending more troops in an effort to turn things around, according to a new McClatchy/Ipsos poll.

The survey found that 54 percent of Americans think the U.S. isn't winning the war, while 29 percent think it is winning.

Another 17 percent weren't sure or had no opinion.

At the same time, 56 percent oppose sending any more combat troops to Afghanistan, while 35 percent support sending more troops.

Another 9 percent had no opinion or weren't sure.

The skepticism about the war and the opposition to sending more troops underscore the political dilemma that President Barack Obama faces as he heads to a Camp David retreat Wednesday with a copy of a new report on Afghanistan that urges a new strategy for the war there.

Senior Pentagon officials are expected to request as many as 45,000 additional American troops in a separate report later this month.

Obama has long pledged to do what's necessary in Afghanistan to defeat al Qaida terrorists there, politically portraying it as a just war against those who attacked the U.S. in 2001 while lambasting the war in Iraq as a mistake and a distraction.

He faces growing pressure, however, from some within his party — and from the broader public, according to the poll — to limit or even reduce the American commitment to a war that they think isn't being won.

Senior Pentagon officials have told McClatchy that they've detected White House hesitance to commit more troops.

Afghanistan isn't Obama's only political challenge.

The McClatchy/Ipsos poll found continuing opposition to Democratic health care proposals — 45 percent opposed and 40 percent supporting — and served as another reminder to Obama that he needs to find a way to reframe the debate if he's to win public and congressional support for a health care overhaul.

It's Afghanistan , however, that's rapidly turning into a major test, as violence there escalates.

Despite Obama's commitment of 17,500 more combat troops and 4,000 more trainers — the U.S. now has 62,000 troops there and with 6,000 more on their way — the security situation has only worsened.

Last month, 51 U.S. troops were killed, making 2009 the deadliest year of the eight-year war for both U.S. and NATO forces — with four months still to go.

Skepticism runs deep, and cuts across demographic lines.

It rises with age, for example, with 45 percent of those who're 18-34 saying the country's not winning, rising to 57 percent of who're 35-54, and hitting 61 percent of those who're 55 and older.

One possible reason: Older Americans remember Vietnam.

The belief, or fear, that the U.S. isn't winning also rises with income — 51 percent of those making less than $25,000, 55 percent of those who make between $25,000 and $50,000, and 61 percent of those who make more than $50,000.

People living in the Northeast are most likely to think that the war isn't being won; people in the South are the most likely to think it is being won.

Even in the South, however, there are more skeptics than there are believers, by a margin of 48 percent to 34 percent.

Blacks were the most optimistic, with 35 percent saying the war is being won and 45 percent saying it isn't being won.

Politically, Democrats were the most pessimistic and Republicans were the most optimistic.

Again, though, there were more skeptics, even among Republicans, by a margin of 53 percent to 35 percent.

Opposition to sending more troops also cuts across almost all lines, with the deepest opposition coming from women, young people, those making less money, people with less than a high school education, Hispanics and independents, followed closely by Democrats.

Only one group, Republicans, had a majority supporting the dispatch of more troops.

Women oppose sending more troops by the lopsided margin of 60-30, men by 52-40.

The biggest opposition to sending more combat troops comes from people who're 18-34 — those most likely to fight — and drops with age.

Young adults oppose additional troops by a margin of 61-32; those who're 35-54 oppose it by 54-37; and those who're 55 and older were against it 53-36.

Similarly, those who make the least money were the most opposed, with those making less than $25,000 opposed by a margin of 70-27; those making $25,000-$50,000 opposed by a margin of 58-35; and those making more than $50,000 split, 45-45.

Geographically, the West was the most opposed to sending more troops, followed by the Northeast, South and Midwest.

Opposition to more troops was strongest among the least educated: 67-28 among those with less than a high school education and 49-38 among those with some college.

The tide turned among the college educated, with 46 percent favoring more troops and 44 percent opposed.

Hispanics were the most opposed, 86-9, followed by non-Hispanic blacks, 78-15, and non-Hispanic whites, 49-42.

Politically, independents were the most opposed, 67-18, followed by Democrats, 66-27.

Republicans favored sending more troops by a margin of 52-40.

( Nancy A. Youssef contributed to this article.)

BARACK OBAMA HAS NEVER BEEN TO WAR HIMSELF ...

NOR HAS BARACK OBAMA EVER GIVEN ANY INDICATION THAT HE HAS A CLUE ABOUT WAR AND WHAT IT ENTAILS ....

SO I MUST WONDER FROM OUT OF WHAT THIN AIR BARACK OBAMA IS GRABBING HIS "NEW" WAS STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTNAM AFTER EIGHT LONG YEARS OF FAILURE ...

And so ...

"Gates says it's not time to leave Afghanistan"

By LARA JAKES and PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writers

4 SEPTEMBER 2009

WASHINGTON – Facing eroding public support for the war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon chief said Thursday that the Obama administration's effort in the eight-year-old conflict is "only now beginning."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates also said he disagrees with people who say it's time to get out of Afghanistan.

Several recent public opinion polls have shown Americans expressing declining support for the idea of sending more troops to the conflict and falling confidence in how the campaign is going.

But at a Pentagon news conference, Gates challenged the public perception that the effort is getting away from the administration.

"I don't believe that the war is slipping through the administration's fingers," Gates said.

"The nation has been at war for eight years."

"The fact that Americans would be tired of having their sons and daughters at risk and in battle is not surprising."

Gates argued that President Barack Obama's new strategy in Afghanistan hasn't even been given a chance to work.

"I think what is important to remember is the president's decisions on this strategy were only made at the very end of March; our new commander appeared on the scene in June," Gates said, adding that the extra troops Obama ordered are not even all there yet, nor is the "civilian surge" he wants on hand to help.

"So we are only now beginning to be in a position to have the assets in place and the strategy or the military approach in place to begin to implement the strategy," he said.

The new U.S. and NATO commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, on Monday delivered a classified assessment of how the war is going and is expected in the coming weeks to ask for more troops and money to turn the war around.

Obama is reading the report during the long Labor Day weekend at Camp David, his aides said.

Neither Gates nor Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen responded to a question about what the still-classified report concludes.

But they repeatedly dropped references to some of McChrystal's recommendations, with Mullen calling it a "frank and candid" look at how military forces can accomplish the Afghanistan mission.

Much of the debate around Afghanistan has centered on how many additional troops are needed there, and for how long.

By the end of the year, an estimated 68,000 troops will be in Afghanistan — 21,000 of which were ordered there by Obama last spring.

Military commanders and State Department officials on the ground, however, say many more are needed to get the job done.

Mullen said questions of how many more troops might be sent was just a piece of the needs that the Pentagon soon will ask Congress to fulfill.

"It's a piece — critical, but it's not total," Mullen said.

HOW DO PEOPLE IN THE AIR IN HIGH-SPEED NATO WARPLANES MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT PEOPLE ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE ABOUT TO KILL ARE NOT CIVILIANS?

"NATO airstrike in Afghanistan kills up to 90"

By DOUGLAS BIRCH, Associated Press Writer

4 SEPTEMBER 2009

KABUL – A NATO jet blasted two fuel tankers hijacked by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan, setting off a huge fireball Friday that killed up to 90 people, Afghan officials said.

The NATO command said a "large number of insurgents" were killed or injured in the pre-dawn attack near the village of Omar Khel in Kunduz province.

An Afghan police officer said the 90 dead included about 40 civilians who were siphoning fuel from the trucks.

He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

The top NATO commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has ordered curbs on airstrikes after a strong backlash among Afghans against the high number of civilians killed in such military operations.

Police Chief Gulam Mohyuddin said Taliban fighters stopped the vehicles as they were about to cross the Kunduz River.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Christine Sidenstricker, a public affairs officer, said NATO warplanes attacked and destroyed the two tankers after determining that there were no civilians in the area.

She said that NATO and the Afghan government are investigating reports of civilian casualties.

Another NATO spokesman said one reason the fuel tankers were targeted was they are frequently used in suicide attacks.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said insurgents hijacked the trucks as they were headed from Tajikistan to supply NATO forces in Kabul.

When the hijackers tried to drive them across the Kunduz River, the vehicles became stuck in the mud and the insurgents opened valves to release fuel and lighten the loads, he said.

He said about 500 villagers swarmed the trucks to collect the fuel despite warnings that they might be hit with an airstrike, he said.

Mujahid said no Taliban died in the attack.

Kunduz Gov. Mohammad Omar, who also gave the 90 deaths figure, said a local Taliban commander and four Chechen fighters were among those killed.

Many of the bodies were burned beyond recognition.

Humanyun Khmosh, director of the Kunduz hospital, said 12 people were being treated for severe burns.

He could not say whether they were civilians or insurgents, although one was a 10-year-old boy.

He said the hospital had only one confirmed death — a truck driver.

In Kabul, the deputy chief of the U.N. mission, Peter Galbraith, said he was "very concerned" by reports of civilian casualties in Kunduz and that all efforts must be undertaken to care for the wounded and compensate families of the dead.

"Steps must also be taken to examine what happened and why an air strike was employed in circumstances where it was hard to determine with certainty that civilians were not present," he said, adding that a U.N. team would be sent to Kunduz to investigate.

Kunduz province had been relatively peaceful until violence began rising earlier this year.

German forces who are based there come under almost daily attack, including rockets and mortars at their bases and small arms fire against patrols.

Violence has soared across much of the country since President Barack Obama ordered 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, shifting the focus of the U.S.-led war on Islamic extremism from Iraq.

Fifty-one U.S. troops died in Afghanistan in August, making it the bloodiest month for American forces there since the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001.

Rising casualties during this summer's fighting have undermined support for the war in the U.S., Britain and other allied countries.

On Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the war is worth fighting and signaled for the first time he may be willing to send more troops after months of publicly resisting a significant increase.

At a Pentagon news conference, Gates said Obama's efforts are "only now beginning" to take effect and should be given a chance to succeed.

"I don't believe that the war is slipping through the administration's fingers," Gates said.

Later, he added:

"I absolutely do not think it is time to get out of Afghanistan."
___

Associated Press writers Amir Shah in Kabul and Frank Jordans in Kunduz contributed to this report.

AND AS "WILEY" GATES AND OBAMA GRASP AT STRAWS WITH RESPECT TO AFGHANISTNAM ....

WHAT ARE WE DOING IN BED WITH THE BRITISH HERE?

"Britain, US defend Afghanistan strategy"

by Michael Thurston

Fri Sep 4, 12:53 pm ET

LONDON (AFP) – Britain and the United States on Friday defended their strategy in Afghanistan amid mounting criticism over the rising death toll from war-weary voters.

But a keynote speech by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was clouded by the resignation of a ministerial aide in protest at London's stance in Afghanistan, where 212 British soldiers have been killed in the campaign.

In Washington, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates insisted on Thursday that the war was not "slipping through the administration's fingers," but admitted:

"There is a limited time for us to show that this is working."

"We are mindful of that, we understand the concerns of many Americans in that area but we think that we now have the resources and the right approach to start making some headway," Gates told reporters.

The bloodshed mounted Friday as up to 90 people were killed in a NATO air strike on two fuel tankers hijacked by Taliban insurgents, while a French soldier was killed and nine others wounded in a bomb attack on their convoy.

In London, Brown pledged that Britain would not walk away from Afghanistan when its own security was at stake.

"People ask what success in Afghanistan would look like."

"The answer is that we will have succeeded when our troops are coming home because the Afghans are doing the job themselves," he told the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS).

His message came after the resignation late Thursday of Eric Joyce, a parliamentary aide to Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, who warned there were problems in Afghanistan "which need fixing with the greatest urgency."

Joyce, a lawmaker and former army major, also criticised NATO allies in Afghanistan, saying many of them "do far too little," leaving Britain to shoulder more of the combat role.

He called for more "geopolitical return from the United States for our efforts," adding:

"For many, Britain fights; Germany pays; France calculates; Italy avoids."

After a fraud-tainted first round last month which has left much-criticised Afghan President Hamid Karzai edging towards re-election, Joyce also urged better communication of London's rationale for war.

"I do not think the British people will support the physical risk to our servicemen and women unless they can be given confidence that Afghanistan?s government has been properly elected," he said.

Brown has faced growing questions over the Afghanistan mission amid a surge in British troop deaths which has sparked a row over whether soldiers have adequate resources to combat the Taliban extremists.

"When the security of our country is at stake we cannot walk away," Brown told the IISS think-tank.

Speaking after Brown, Ainsworth insisted Britain would maintain its forces in Afghanistan as long as it feels necessary.

"We are not going to set an artificial deadline... it would be ridiculous to say that this operation will go on for a set period of time," he said.

The comments came after officials said Thursday two more soldiers were killed in southern Afghanistan, taking the British toll to 212 since 2001 when a US-led invasion ousted the hardline Taliban regime.

US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Michael Mullen stressed that "there is a sense of urgency" and "time is not on our side" in Afghanistan -- but he rejected some commentators' suggestions that US troops withdraw now.

"There's no way to defeat Al-Qaeda, which is the mission, with just that approach, you can't do it remotely, you can't do it offshore," Mullen said.

"I certainly don't think it's time to leave."

"US general: Afghan civilians injured at bomb site"

By JASON STRAZIUSO and FRANK JORDANS, Associated Press Writers

5 SEPTEMBER 2009

KUNDUZ, Afghanistan – The top NATO commander in Afghanistan said Saturday that local villagers were among those wounded at the site of an airstrike on hijacked fuel tankers, declaring his resolve to limit civilian casualties that threaten to undermine the war against the Taliban.

U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal inspected the spot where a U.S. fighter jet blasted the hijacked tankers early Friday, killing as many as 70 people.

The pre-dawn strike occurred despite McChrystal's new orders restricting the use of airpower if civilian lives are at risk.

McChrystal also visited a hospital Saturday where the wounded were taken, stooping low to talk with a 10-year-old boy with severe burns, his arms and legs swathed in gauze.

Local officials have said scores of people died in the fiery blast, but it was unclear how many were militants and how many were villagers who rushed to the scene to siphon fuel from the stolen trucks.

A NATO team began an official investigation Saturday amid a clamor from European leaders for answers, with some calling the airstrike a "tragedy" and "a big mistake" that must be investigated.

"From what I have seen today and going to the hospital, it's clear to me that there were some civilians that were harmed at the site," McChrystal told reporters in Kunduz.

He did not say if any civilians were killed.

McChrystal waded through knee-high water to view the blackened NATO tankers, which exploded when a U.S. F-15E Strike Eagle jet dropped two 500-pound (225-kilogram) bombs on them a few miles (kilometers) outside the main town in northern Kunduz province.

Reporters traveling with him saw about a dozen small yellow fuel cans had survived the blasts.

Several were still full of fuel.

Before traveling to the site of the bombing, McChrystal met Afghan leaders in the provincial capital.

He expressed sympathy for any civilian losses and said the fight against the Taliban should not come at the expense of civilian lives.

"I am here today to ensure that we are operating in a way that is truly protecting the Afghan people from all threats," McChrystal said.

At least one local official supported the allied bombing, saying it would help drive the insurgents from the area.

"If we did three more operations like we did yesterday morning, the Kunduz situation would be peaceful and stable," said Ahmadullah Wardak, a provincial council chief.

McChrystal discussed the incident with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and later told senior commanders that "we need to know what we are hitting," an aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity under command policy.

The NATO investigative team flew over the site on the Kunduz River where the U.S. jet, called in by the German military, bombed the tankers, which reportedly became stuck trying to cross a river.

German officials have said the Taliban may have been planning a suicide attack on the military's nearby Kunduz base using the tankers, which were hijacked carrying NATO fuel supplies from neighboring Tajikistan.

The team led by U.S. Rear Admiral Gregory J. Smith, NATO's director of communications in Kabul, also spoke to two wounded villagers in the Kunduz hospital, including a boy and a farmer with shrapnel wounds.

Mohammad Shafi, 10, who was injured in the blast, told Smith from his hospital bed in Kunduz town his father told him not to go near the stolen tankers, but he went anyway.

"While I was going to get the fuel, on the way I heard a big bang, and after that I don't know what happened," he said with bandages on his arm and leg.

Local government spokesman Mohammad Yawar estimated more than 70 people were killed, at least 45 of them militants.

Investigators were trying to account for the others, he said.

Germany said 57 fighters were killed in Friday's airstrike and no civilians were believed in the area at the time, based on surveillance of the tankers by a drone aircraft.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, however, acknowledged some civilians may have died, and the U.S.-led coalition and the Afghan government announced a joint investigation.

European leaders called Saturday for a speedy investigation.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner called the airstrike "a big mistake," though he said he was not blaming anyone until the probe is complete.

EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner called the incident "a great, great tragedy."

German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung insisted in comments to the Bild am Sonntag weekly that officials had no information indicating any civilians were killed in the airstrike.

"Based on the information I have at this time, only Taliban terrorists were killed in the strikes carried out by U.S. aircraft," Jung was quoted as saying.

The deputy U.N. representative to Afghanistan, Peter Galbraith, said Saturday he was "very concerned" about the reports of civilian deaths.

"Steps must also be taken to examine what happened and why an airstrike was employed in circumstances where it was hard to determine with certainty that civilians were not present," Galbraith said.

NATO said two U.S. service members died in Afghanistan on Saturday.

One died of wounds after coming under fire in eastern Afghanistan, while the other was killed by hostile small-arms fire in the west, statements said.

A Polish soldier was killed and five others were wounded by a roadside bomb in eastern Afghanistan, Poland's Defense Ministry said Saturday.

The incident occurred when the bomb exploded under their armored vehicle Friday.

A bomb blast hit a German military convoy Saturday in Kunduz, damaging at least one vehicle and wounding four troops, none seriously.

The more than 1,000 German troops in Kunduz have come under increasing militant attack in a region that had largely escaped the scale of violence seen in the east and south of Afghanistan.

"US-German rift emerges over Afghan deaths case"

By JASON STRAZIUSO and FRANK JORDANS, Associated Press Writers

6 SEPTEMBER 2009

KABUL – An airstrike by U.S. fighter jets that appears to have killed Afghan civilians could turn into a major dispute for NATO allies Germany and the United States, as tensions began rising between them Sunday over Germany's role in ordering the attack.

Afghan officials say up to 70 people were killed in the early morning airstrike Friday in the northern province of Kunduz after Taliban militants stole two tanker trucks of fuel and villagers gathered to siphon off gas.

Afghan and NATO investigations are just beginning, but both German and U.S. officials already appeared to be trying to deflect blame.

German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said the Taliban's possession of the two tankers "posed an acute threat to our soldiers."

German officials have said the tankers might have been used as suicide bombs.

"If there were civilian casualties or injuries, of course we deeply regret that."

"At the same time, it was clear that our soldiers were in danger," Jung said in comments to German broadcasters.

"Consequently, I stand clearly behind our commander's decision" to order the air strike.

Meanwhile, Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, the top U.S. and NATO spokesman in the country, said German troops let too many hours pass before visiting the site of the bombing Friday.

He explained that it's important to hold the ground after a strike and determine what happened before the enemy comes out with its own version of events.

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, visited the site Saturday where two charred trucks and yellow gas cans sat on a riverbed.

He asked a top commander in Regional Command North about the response time.

"Why didn't RC-North come here quicker?" McChrystal asked Col. Georg Klein, the commander of the German base in Kunduz.

"I can honestly say it was a mistake," Klein answered, in a discussion witnessed by an Associated Press reporter.

On Sunday, Smith said that in McChrystal's judgment the response time "was probably longer than it should have been."

German troops in Afghanistan have long been criticized for avoiding combat operations, even as militants have increasingly infiltrated northern Afghanistan the last year, destabilizing the once-peaceful region.

Taliban militants stole two fuel tankers late Friday that became stuck on a riverbed outside Kunduz.

Villagers — either forced by the militants or enticed by offers of free fuel — gathered near the trucks, even as U.S. jets patrolled overhead.

German commanders watching images from the U.S. aircraft could see about 120 people, McChrystal said Saturday.

The commanders decided that the people were militants and ordered the airstrikes, Smith said, even though images provided by the U.S. aircraft would have been grainy and difficult to see.

Whether the German commanders or the U.S. pilot are at fault for any civilian casualties may turn into an inner-NATO tussle.

Smith said the ground force commander "is the decision maker for close air support."

"That's doctrine."

But he also conceded that a pilot can refuse an order to drop a bomb.

Klein, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, declined to say whether images provided by the U.S. jets had been clear enough for weapons to be seen among Afghans on the ground, citing the ongoing investigation.

A German Joint Terminal Air Controller, or JTAC, who spoke on condition that his name not be used because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly, said the rules for ordering an attack clearly state that the ultimate decision rests with the ground commander.

But rules also require that both the pilot and the JTAC get a good positive identification of the target before the commander can order a weapon deployed, the JTAC said.

"Only when both are sure that what we see is a target, only then will the pilot drop the bomb," the JTAC said.

The German Defense Ministry, meanwhile, pushed back against a story published in the Washington Post that German officials said painted their commander in a poor light and played up the U.S. version of events.

The ministry said the article "will definitely influence at least the preliminary investigation by the various bodies."

"The Defense Ministry is very surprised about the unusual procedure of using a journalist as a source to reveal initial investigation results," the ministry said.

Kris Coratti, director of communications for the Washington Post, said in an e-mail:

"The story speaks for itself."

Smith said a trip to Kunduz by military officials from Kabul was not an official investigation but a fact-finding trip.

"And I think it's much, much better for people to understand the facts," he said of the decision to allow a journalist to witness the discussion among military officials.

No NATO officials will yet say how many civilians they think may have died.

Smith on Saturday said the preliminary overall death toll was believed to be 56.

Afghan officials say it's in the low 70s.

Smith said he hopes a U.S.-German rift does not develop over the strike.

"I hope everyone allows the investigation to proceed and we'll determine what we know more precisely and move on from there," Smith said.

The director of an Afghan human rights group criticized NATO's International Security Assistance Force for the deaths.

"It was carelessness in terms of ISAF using force without doing enough to investigate whether this is a civilian location," Ajmal Samadi of Afghan Rights Monitor said.

German troops have long been criticized for restrictions that limit the battle their troops see.

A U.S. based military analyst, Anthony Cordesman, said German troops don't have "the situational and combat experience" to confront Taliban on the ground.

"They're as oriented toward staying in their armored vehicles as any group I've met," Cordesman said.

"They're not active enough to present much of a threat to the Taliban most of the time."

Klein rejected the claim that his troops lacked combat experience.

"Since I arrived here we have unfortunately seen many combat situations and my soldiers performed very well," he said.

"But the thing that's always given us a very good reputation in the civilian society here is that we tried as best as possible to exclude any civilian casualties, and I've got very good feedback on that from the Afghan people," he said.
___

Associated Press reporters Douglas Birch and Kay Johnson in Kabul and Melissa Eddy in Berlin contributed to this report. Frank Jordans reported from Kunduz.

AND AS U.S. COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA CONTINUES TO ALIENATE THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTNAM BY HAVING HIS TROOPS ACT LIKE A HOARDE OF BARBARIANS OR HUNS OR HESSIANS OVER THERE, WE HAVE ....

"Charity: US troops stormed through Afghan hospital"

By KAY JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

7 SEPTEMBER 2009

KABUL – A Swedish charity accused American troops Monday of storming through a hospital in central Afghanistan, breaking down doors and tying up staff in a search for militants.

The U.S. military said it was investigating.

The allegation that soldiers violated the neutrality of a medical facility follows the reported deaths of Afghan civilians in a U.S. airstrike in the country's north last week.

An Afghan human rights group said Monday the strike on two hijacked fuel tankers may have killed as many as 70 civilians in Kunduz province.

Civilian deaths and intrusive searches have bred resentment among the Afghan population nearly eight years after the U.S.-led coalition invaded to oust the Taliban's hard-line Islamist regime for sheltering al-Qaida terrorist leaders.

Foreign forces are working to persuade the population to support the Afghan government after last month's presidential election, which has yet to be decided amid allegations of vote-rigging.

On Monday, the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan said the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division entered the charity's hospital without permission to look for insurgents in Wardak province, southwest of Kabul.

"This is simply not acceptable," said Anders Fange, the charity's country director.

The U.S. troops came to the hospital looking for Taliban insurgents late at night last Wednesday.

Fange said they kicked in doors, tied up four hospital employees and two family members of patients, and forced patients out of beds during their search.

When they left two hours later, the unit ordered hospital staff to inform coalition forces if any wounded militants were admitted, and the military would decide if they could be treated, Fange said.

The staff refused, he said.

"That would put our staff at risk and make the hospital a target."

The charity said on its Web site that the troops' actions were not only a violation of humanitarian principles but also went against an agreement between NATO forces and charities working in the area.

"We demand guarantees ... that such violations will not be repeated and that this is made clear to commanders in the field," a statement said.

U.S. military spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Christine Sidenstricker confirmed that the hospital was searched last week but had no other details.

She said the military was looking into the incident.

"We are investigating and we take allegations like this seriously," she said.

"Complaints like this are rare."

Violence has surged across much of Afghanistan since President Barack Obama ordered 21,000 more U.S. troops to the country this year.

Two foreign troops were killed Sunday when their patrol hit a roadside bomb in the country's south, NATO said without giving their nationalities.

NATO was also investigating last week's U.S. airstrike.

The strike came despite new rules for foreign forces limiting use of airpower to avoid civilian casualties.

The provincial government said most of the dead were militants, but on Monday, the Afghan Rights Monitor said interviews with 15 villagers indicate that only a dozen gunmen died and 60-70 villagers were killed.

The group called for further investigations.

"Even if all the victims were supporters of the Taliban, the fact that most of them were unarmed and were not engaged in any combat activity does not warrant their mass killing," said Ajmal Samadi, the rights group's director.

A spokesman for the provincial government, Ahmad Sami Yawar, said Monday that only five of the estimated 70 killed were civilians.

The increasingly violent insurgents have killed more civilians in bombings and other attacks.

On Monday, the government said three militant rockets landed overnight in the capital, Kabul, hitting a house and killing three people.

In central Uruzgan province, a remote-controlled bomb targeting a police vehicle exploded in a busy market, killing two children and wounding 16 other people, according to local police official Gulab Khan.

A United Nations report in July said the number of civilians killed in conflict in Afghanistan has jumped 24 percent this year, with bombings by insurgents and airstrikes by international forces the biggest killers.

The report said 1,013 civilians were killed in the first half of 2009, 59 percent in insurgent attacks and 30.5 percent by foreign and Afghan government forces.

The rest were undetermined.
___

Associated Press Writer Rahim Faiez in Kabul contributed to this report.

"Afghan group says NATO strike killed 70 civilians - Afghan group says German-ordered airstrike killed 70 civilians as troops defend actions"

By FRANK JORDANS, Associated Press

Last updated: 3:45 p.m., Monday, September 7, 2009

KUNDUZ, Afghanistan -- An Afghan rights group said Monday a recent airstrike on a pair of hijacked fuel tankers killed as many as 70 civilians in northern Afghanistan, as the German troops whose commander ordered the bombing defended the action.

Afghan Rights Monitor, an independent human rights group, reported that its survey of the area following Friday's attack shows it killed as many as 70 villagers who were siphoning gas from the vehicles after they became stuck on a sand spit in the Kunduz River.

The group's report came as the German government backed down from its previous insistence that only the Taliban hijackers had died, conceding some civilians likely were killed.

But Germany defended the decision to call in an airstrike, citing fears the tankers could have been used to mount a suicide attack on its troops.

Mohammad Omar, the governor of Kunduz, has also said he fully supported the airstrike, which he said killed up to 72 people -- likely all militants.

The Taliban, however, issued a statement calling on the U.N. to join an international investigation of the bombing and claiming that 150 villagers had died.

"If they respect human rights and the blood of human beings, they should determine the truth or falsity of this situation," the statement said.

German soldiers in Kunduz on Monday rejected criticism that their commanders acted rashly in calling in the U.S. warplanes.

Three soldiers from Armored Infantry Battalion 391, who spoke on condition of anonymity under German military rules, said they went to the scene of the airstrike hours after it occurred and found Afghan police carrying broken weapons away from the smoldering tankers -- proving, they said, the dead were linked to insurgents.

The soldiers, interviewed at their Kunduz base, were eager to defend their commander, Col. Georg Klein, who asked U.S. jets to attack the hijackers.

But that decision has come under intense criticism, inside and outside Afghanistan.

In another incident where NATO coalition troops were criticized for their use of force, a charity Monday accused American soldiers of storming through a provincial hospital, breaking down doors and tying up staff and visitors.

The U.S. military said it was investigating the allegation.

Civilian deaths have undermined support for foreign forces among many Afghans.

Growing public anger prompted the top American and NATO commander in the country, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to draw up a new doctrine aimed at limiting such casualties.

McChrystal has pledged to investigate Friday's air strike.

The attack on the hijacked tankers provoked outrage in Germany, where newspapers ran graphic photos of badly burned victims, stoking opposition to the war.

Germany, which has some 4,200 soldiers in northern Afghanistan -- the third largest contingent of foreign forces behind the United States and Britain -- has been reluctant to commit more troops.

At the same time, the U.S. and its NATO allies are considering a major expansion of their troop levels here.

For many Germans, the country's role in the Afghan conflict raises unwelcome memories of their country's past militarism.

The German public also fears losing more soldiers -- 35 have been killed in Afghanistan since 2002.

Battalion 391's third company has already lost two soldiers in combat since arriving in Kunduz three months ago.

Sitting in a shady courtyard in the Kunduz base, the three German soldiers said they hoped voters and politicians would rally behind their work, which is under intense scrutiny as the country gears up for Sept. 27 parliamentary elections.

They added that they are proud of their record in Afghanistan.

German troops operate under more restrictive rules of engagement than some other NATO forces, and until last week had a reputation for caution.

They have even drawn criticism for their restraint.

U.S. military expert Anthony Cordesman has said the Germans' low profile has contributed to an increase of militant activity in the north, particularly around the Kunduz region where support for the Taliban is strong.

Omar, the Kunduz governor, told senior German officers Monday that the people of his province want them to take a tougher stand against militants.

But the German soldiers said they have engaged militants whenever necessary and would continue to do so.

They also said their caution has resulted in fewer civilian casualties than U.S. troops operating farther south.

"There's not one cowboy among us," the officer said, as other soldiers nodded assent.

------

Associated Press writer Geir Moulson contributed to this report from Berlin.

VIET NAM AND DIEM ALL OVER AGAIN ...

And so ...

"Observers say neat Afghan vote totals show fraud - Karzai wins votes in neat, round-number blocks, proof, observers say, of Afghan election fraud"

By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press

Last updated: 1:25 p.m., Monday, September 7, 2009

KABUL -- At the Afghan polling station called Haji Nehmetullah House, every one of the 725 votes cast during the country's Aug. 20 election went to President Hamid Karzai.

At another site, Haji Akhtar Mohammad House, the incumbent got each of the precisely 400 ballots cast.

Allegations of ballot box stuffing, voter intimidation and other fraud have been lodged from all corners of the country following last month's presidential contest.

An Associated Press examination of returns shows what officials said Monday appear to be highly suspicious -- and improbable -- results.

Stations across Afghanistan's south gave Karzai 200, 250 or 500 votes, according to figures compiled by the Independent Election Commission.

Observers say these neatly rounded numbers show patterns of fraud consistent with allegations that large-scale vote rigging took place in dangerous regions that observers couldn't reach.

A senior Western diplomat alleged Monday that a majority of the votes in three provinces -- Kandahar, Paktika and Khost -- are fraudulent.

Partial returns from each of those provinces heavily favor Karzai.

The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of his work.

At the Zoor District Center in Paktika province, Karzai got 300, 250, 200 and 200 votes at four of the center's six polling stations.

As of Monday, the votes were still listed as part of the overall tally.

A Western elections expert in Kabul called such returns "illogical."

He also spoke on condition he wasn't identified because of the nature of his work.

Afghan and international officials had predicted that vote fraud would occur, but hoped the election would be credible overall.

Instead, the scale of the accusations and the questionable returns has thrown the ballot process in doubt.

The Western diplomat, one of Kabul's power brokers, said that several people had advised Karzai before the election "not to pull a Nixon."

"That is, don't steal an election you've already won."

The elections expert, meanwhile, said many of the suspicious results came from voting stations that didn't exist, supposedly located in remote parts of the country that Afghan tribal chiefs knew observers couldn't reach and where security forces would not be posted.

He said there were likely as many as 800 such fake polling sites.

Another expert here conceded the credibility of the election is in question.

"The amount of allegations indicate that there has been massive fraud, but we need to wait for the Election Complaints Commission to do its investigations," said Haroun Mir, the director of Afghanistan's Center for Research and Policy Studies.

A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman, Caitlin Hayden, said Monday that the U.S. is looking for election officials to count all votes and then "exclude all fraudulent votes."

"Anything less than rigorous vetting would call into question the credibility of the announced results," she said.

"A legitimate electoral process is vital to the ability of the international community to partner with a newly elected Afghan government."

The Independent Election Commission on Monday took down results it had previously posted on its Web site that showed Karzai won 4,085 and 4,049 of votes cast at two polling stations in Kandahar province.

These were among about 12,000 votes once counted for Karzai that the IEC has withdrawn, according to an Associated Press review of voting data.

The country's election commission has slowly been releasing results from the Aug. 20 vote.

With results from 74 percent of polling stations, Karzai has 48.6 percent, while top challenger Abdullah Abdullah has 31.7 percent.

The commission is expected to release its completed count Tuesday.

Once it does, the separate U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission will investigate about 650 allegations of serious fraud.

Only after the complaints panel's investigations are over can the results be finalized.

If Karzai has less than 50 percent of ballots cast, a two-man run-off will be held with Abdullah.

Spokeswoman Nellika Little said the Electoral Complaints Commission has received complaints questioning the tallies at stations where Karzai won 100 percent of votes.

She said the panel is also studying allegations that election officials have received returns from polling stations that were never approved to open, or shut down by violence or closed for other reasons on election day.

Should Karzai win a second term, a tainted election could significantly affect his standing in the West.

The Western diplomat noted that U.S. and European support for the Afghan mission is already eroding because of growing troop casualties.

After adding high levels of vote fraud, "you have to ask what are our sons and daughters dying for."

"It's hard to make the case it's for democracy."

Karzai says the allegations of electoral fraud are part of a U.S. campaign of intimidation.

In an interview published Monday in the French newspaper Le Figaro, Karzai said "the Americans" were attacking him secretly because they would like him to be more docile, but that "nobody has an interest in the Afghan president becoming an American puppet."

It is not unusual for candidates in Afghanistan to win by overwhelming margins in given districts, because voters tend to cast ballots for candidates endorsed by their tribal leadership.

But the senior Western diplomat likened appearances of fraud to a U.S. Supreme Court judge's definition of obscenity: You know it when you see it.

One government official, the diplomat said, told him tribal voting patterns explained the overwhelming margin of victory Karzai had in some voting centers.

The diplomat responded:

"Is it also true that you always organize yourself into groups of 500?"

Among the 12,000 Karzai votes withdrawn on Monday were 950 votes from the Hasti village mosque in Paktika province.

Karzai had received 350, 350 and 250 votes at the mosque's three polling sites -- 100 percent of votes cast.

Mir said Karzai's supporters in the south stuffed ballot boxes because they were afraid he might lose.

Because the president appears to have gotten many votes in northern areas, he said, such cheating wasn't needed.

"It turned out to be a mistake by his supporters," Mir said.

"It will have a negative effect on the legitimacy of Karzai's next five years."

------

Associated Press reporters Douglas Birch and Heidi Vogt contributed to this report from Kabul.

------

On the Net:

IEC Web site: http://www.iec.org.af/results

Karzai votes the IEC at first posted and have since recalled:

http://www.iec.org.af/results/pollingstation/2811199.html

http://www.iec.org.af/results/pollingstation/2811200.html

"Karzai says US 'attacking' him over election - Afghanistan's Karzai to French paper: Americans attacking me, want me more docile"

Associated Press

Last updated: 12:05 p.m., Monday, September 7, 2009

PARIS -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai says in an interview published in France that the United States is attacking him because it wants to him to be more "docile."

Karzai's re-election bid has faced controversy over alleged fraud.

Le Figaro newspaper quotes him as saying that fraud is "inevitable in a budding democracy."

He says Americans who are "attacking Karzai secretly" are wrong to do so -- and it's in no one's interest for the Afghan president to be a U.S. puppet.

He says he believes he has won the August election.

The official outcome is not expected for weeks.

Karzai said in the interview from Kabul published Monday that he has sought in writing, but failed to obtain, U.S. proof of allegations that his younger brother Ahmed Wali Karzai is a drug trafficker.

Hornberger’s Blog

RSS Feed
Information about RSS
Hornberger’s Blog Archives
FFF Email Update — September 4, 2009

Friday, September 4, 2009

Enough Is Enough in Afghanistan
by Jacob G. Hornberger

As Americans are gradually discovering, the 8-year occupation of Afghanistan is about opposing the Taliban’s attempt to regain political power, not about capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Thus, the occupation is about empire. That’s the way empires operate — placing their people into positions of power in foreign countries. The idea is that if Afghan president Karzai or some other U.S. puppet remains in power, Americans can feel safe and secure knowing that Afghanistan is “pro-U.S.” If the Taliban regains power, Americans will supposedly need to feel insecure because an “anti-U.S.” regime will be in power, one that supposedly could provide sanctuary for terrorists, such as al-Qaeda.

This is all very dangerous and destructive imperial nonsense. It’s involving the United States in the middle of a civil war, much like the case with Vietnam. In the process of taking sides in such a war, the U.S. military continues killing multitudes of Afghani people, including those who are not even actively engaged in the civil war, such as wedding parties.

Those killings are not a good thing as far as Americans are concerned. Of course, if any of the victims ever retaliates against the U.S. with a terrorist attack, U.S. officials will undoubtedly announce that the attack was motivated by hatred for America’s freedom and values, not out of anger because, say, a daughter or wife was killed by an American bomb.

The U.S. government has never produced one iota of evidence that the Taliban conspired with Osama bin Laden to commit the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration decided to attack the Taliban regime for one reason: the Taliban refused to comply with Bush’s orders to arrest bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. government.

That’s it! That’s the reason the U.S. government went after the Taliban. If the Taliban had complied with the order, they would still be in power today.

Why didn’t the Taliban comply with the order? Well, for one, there was no extradition agreement with the U.S. Second, the Taliban did express a willingness to deliver bin Laden to an independent tribunal, something that Bush was unwilling to consider.

Yet, Bush himself, along with his successor Barack Obama, have themselves been unwilling to deliver an accused terrorist to Venezuela for trial. The man’s name is Jose Posada Carriles The case is actually much more egregious than the case against the Taliban because there is an extradition agreement between Venezuela and the U.S.

What is the U.S. government’s reason for denying Venezuela’s request for extradition? They say that they’re afraid that Venezuela might torture Posada, who has previous ties to the CIA.

Would the Taliban have been unreasonable in assuming that the CIA would have tortured bin Laden?

Let’s not forget also that the war against Afghanistan and subsequent occupation have been illegal under our form of government, whose Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war against another nation state as a condition for waging war against it, something that Bush did not secure.

What about the case that the U.S. government is killing al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan? That’s ludicrous. They’ve been dropping bombs now for more than 8 years. That’s more than enough time to kill all the al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. Indeed, how many al-Qaeda terrorists could there be left to kill in Afghanistan? Isn’t it possible that the occupation itself is producing new anti-U.S. terrorists every day?

Moreover, how important really is a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan for al-Qaeda terrorists? Aren’t there plenty of other countries whose regimes are anti-U.S. for al-Qaeda terrorists to hold meetings and planning sessions? North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela come to mind. But what’s the likelihood of an anti-U.S. regime, including one controlled by the Taliban, risking war with the U.S. by conspiring with some terrorist gang to commit a criminal act in the United States?

Why do al-Qaeda terrorists need Afghanistan to hold their meetings? What prevents them from meeting in some hotel room in any country in the Middle East or, for that matter, anywhere in the world? In fact, didn’t some of the 9/11 terrorists have meetings in Germany?

Eight years is plenty time to kill all the al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. Sure, it’s true that they still haven’t gotten bin Laden but what are the chances that he didn’t skedaddle out of Afghanistan a long time ago? The U.S. has no business being involved in the civil war in Afghanistan. All that the occupation of Afghanistan is accomplishing is producing more potential terrorists for the United States. After 8 years, it’s time to exit Afghanistan. Enough is enough.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

http://fff.org/blog/index.asp

Good to see you, Snuf ...

AND IN THE MEANTIME ...

"Taliban car bomber kills 3 in Afghan capital - Taliban car bomb outside Kabul airport kills at least 3 in apparent attack on NATO convoy"

By RAHIM FAIEZ and AMIR SHAH, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:05 a.m., Tuesday, September 8, 2009

KABUL -- A car bomb exploded near the entrance to the military airport in Kabul early Tuesday in an apparent attack on a NATO convoy, killing at least three civilians, Afghan officials said.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the blast, the third major attack by insurgents in the capital in four weeks.

U.S. and NATO forces said they did not yet have details on the incident or casualties, but the chief of Kabul's criminal investigation department, Abdul Ghafar Sayadzada, said three Afghan civilians were killed and six wounded.

Sayadzada said he was briefed by NATO forces, who said at least one international soldier was wounded.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid claimed responsibility and said a suicide car bomber rammed into a NATO convoy and destroyed three Land Cruisers.

The early morning blast rattled windows more than a mile (1.5 kilometers) away, and vehicles still burned more than an hour later as fire trucks ringed the area.

Small blasts could be heard, likely from ammunition exploding inside the vehicles.

A police official for the area, Rohullah, said the attack appeared to be against a NATO convoy.

Like many Afghans, the official goes by one name.

A witness said he saw the car ram into a line of SUVs.

"I saw three or four Land Cruisers for the foreigners just in front of the gate ... then there was a car and it hit them, then blew up," said Humayun, who watched the attack from his nearby shop.

U.S. forces spokesman Lt. Col. Todd Vician confirmed an explosion south of the airport, but said he did not have details.

The military airport used by U.S. and other international forces is right next to Kabul's civilian airport, but they have separate entrances.

Insurgent attacks, often deadly, occur in Kabul despite tight security and blast walls.

Suicide bombers have hit government buildings and gunmen have overrun ministries.

In the run-up to Aug. 20 elections, a suicide attack near the main gate of NATO headquarters killed seven people and injured scores, gunmen briefly took over a bank in the city, and insurgents fired on the presidential palace on the same day that they unleashed a suicide car bombers on a NATO convoy.

Late Monday, two militants fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the rear gate of Camp Phoenix outside Kabul, NATO said, but said there were no injuries to anyone inside and no damage to the base.

Afghan police said the two militants were killed.

Taliban insurgents ambushed a police convoy in the village of Dahna Ghori in Baghlan province Monday evening, Gov. Mohammad Akbar Barakzai said Tuesday, and police killed 12 Taliban in the resulting firefight.

No police were killed in the ambush, he said.

But as the convoy was returning to Pul-e-Khumri, the provincial capital, it was hit by a bomb that killed one policeman and wounded 17, two seriously, Barakzai said.

"4 Americans killed in attack in Afghanistan - 4 US troops killed in Afghanistan; NATO confirms civilians died in airstrike"

By KAY JOHNSON and DOUGLAS BIRCH, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:36 p.m., Tuesday, September 8, 2009

KABUL -- Four U.S. troops died Tuesday in a militant attack in eastern Afghanistan, and NATO forces acknowledged for the first time that civilians were among the dozens killed in an airstrike on two hijacked fuel trucks.

Top NATO and U.S. commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal appointed a Canadian major general to lead an investigation into Friday's strike on the fuel tankers in northern Kunduz province.

An Afghan official appointed by President Hamid Karzai to examine the attack said his best estimate of the death toll was 82, including at least 45 armed militants.

Also Tuesday, McChrystal banned the sale of alcohol at the military alliance's Kabul headquarters after becoming frustrated when he had trouble getting in touch with some of his staff after the attack in Kunduz, said Capt. Elizabeth Mathias, a U.S. military spokeswoman.

Mathias said four American troops were killed in "a complex attack" in eastern Afghanistan's Kunar province but did not give details.

McClatchy Co. newspapers reported four U.S. Marines died in an ambush by insurgents.

Seven Afghan troops and an interpreter also were killed in the attack and hours-long battle that followed, McClatchy's Jonathan S. Landay reported.

He said the fighting took place after U.S. and Afghan forces were asked to a meeting with local elders near the village of Gangigal some six miles from the Pakistani border.

The deaths bring to 11 the number of U.S. service members killed in September.

Last month, when 51 troops died, was the deadliest for American forces in Afghanistan since the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001 to oust the Taliban regime.

Fighting has intensified since President Barack Obama ordered 21,000 more troops to the country this year, and controversy after the attack in Kunduz has reopened the debate over how international forces conduct operations.

Taliban militants have used reports of civilian casualties to rally support among villagers.

McChrystal appointed a Canadian major general to lead the inquiry -- a delicate inquiry because the incident involved German forces ordering the airstrikes and U.S. fighter pilots carrying them out.

A U.S. Air Force officer and a German officer also are on the investigating team.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tuesday that her government won't accept "premature judgments" about the airstrike in Kunduz.

Germany's military has been criticized for calling in the strike and for initially insisting it appeared only militants were killed.

Merkel acknowledged the possibility that civilians were harmed, but she told parliament the identities of those hit were still unclear.

Lt. Gen. Mirza Mohammad Yarmand, who Karzai named to investigate, said it was difficult to determine whether those killed were civilians or militants.

He said the Taliban commander who led the hijacking, Abdur Rahman, apparently phoned supporters with tractors from surrounding villages to try to move the fuel tankers after they got stuck in a muddy riverbank.

Other villagers reportedly came to collect free fuel.

McChrystal has said military officials could see about 120 people around the tankers when the airstrikes were launched.

German officials have said they believed all were militants, but the decision to call in airstrikes appeared to run counter to directives from McChrystal to draw back from conflicts rather than risk civilian deaths.

In Kabul, McChrystal issued the order banning alcohol sales at NATO headquarters, where more than 2,000 officers and civilians work.

The prohibition was an effort to "limit distractions" rather than comply with Islam's ban on alcohol consumption, Mathias said.

The sale of alcohol to Muslims is illegal in Afghanistan.

Mathias said McChrystal had been considering the ban for some time, but she conceded he expressed frustration early Friday after he had trouble contacting some of his staff after the Kunduz airstrike.

The ban does not affect U.S. troops, who are already barred from drinking alcohol.

Forty other nations participate in the NATO mission here, and some are more lenient about alcohol.

Also Tuesday, a car bomber attacked an international convoy near the entrance to the military airport in Kabul.

The chief of Kabul's criminal investigation department, Abdul Ghafar Sayadzada, said three Afghan civilians were killed and six wounded.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the blast, the third major attack by insurgents in the capital in four weeks.

No foreign forces were killed in the Kabul attack, Mathias said.

The Belgian Defense Ministry said one of its soldiers was seriously wounded and that three others were lightly wounded.

The violence in the capital comes amid growing uncertainty over the Aug. 20 presidential election.

A U.N.-backed commission investigating the vote said Tuesday it had found "clear and convincing evidence of fraud" and that it was ordering a recount of questionable polling stations.

------

Associated Press Writers Amir Shah and Rahim Faiez in Kabul and Frank Jordans in Kunduz contributed to this report.

"Afghan recount ordered because of fraud charges - UN-backed commission orders Afghan recount as Karzai wins majority of votes"

By JASON STRAZIUSO and HEIDI VOGT, Associated Press

Last updated: 7:06 p.m., Tuesday, September 8, 2009

KABUL -- A U.N.-backed commission found "convincing evidence" of fraud Tuesday in Afghanistan's presidential election and ordered a recount of suspect ballots in at least three provinces, a process that could take months.

At the same time, Afghan officials released new returns that give President Hamid Karzai 54 percent of the vote with nearly all ballots tallied, enough to avoid a run-off unless large numbers of tainted ballots are ultimately thrown out.

The separate announcements from the complaints commission, which is dominated by U.N.-appointed Westerners, and the election commission, which is filled with Karzai appointees, could set the stage for a showdown.

The image of a crooked Afghan president rigging the vote threatens to discredit the entire U.S.-led mission here at a time when NATO casualties are mounting and American, European and Canadian voters are fatigued and disenchanted with the war.

"The perception of fraud will shorten the length of time that one can expect foreign support," said Ronald E. Neumann, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.

"People will just get disgusted."

"They'll say, 'Why do I sacrifice my son for a leadership that cannot rally the country fairly?'"

Four more U.S. troops were killed Tuesday during what the military labeled a "complex attack" in eastern Kunar province.

August was already the deadliest month of the eight-year war for both U.S. troops and the entire NATO force at the hands of a resurgent Taliban in southern Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama is facing increasing resistance to the war at a time when he has little political capital to spare, and many supporters are urging him to scale back the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

Obama ordered 21,000 additional troops to the country this year with the immediate goal of ensuring a safe and credible election, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal will soon ask him to send thousands more.

Those favoring an increased U.S. presence argue that the American troop buildup has not been given enough time to succeed.

Also in need of much more time is the process of sorting out the many allegations of vote fraud.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday it could take months -- but that the most important thing is for the allegations to be addressed in a way that gives ordinary Afghans confidence in the legitimacy of the outcome.

New results released Tuesday gave Karzai more than 50 percent of ballots cast for the first time since officials began releasing partial returns following the Aug. 20 vote.

With results in from almost 92 percent of the country's polling sites -- representing 5.7 million votes -- Karzai has 54.1 percent, and will likely finish the preliminary count with a majority.

The standing of top challenger Abdullah Abdullah has dropped dramatically as more results have come in from the south -- Karzai's stronghold -- in recent days.

Abdullah now has 28.3 percent.

If, as expected, the Afghan election commission soon announces that a final count shows Karzai won a majority of the vote, the U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission will begin its investigations of fraud.

The commission took its first step in that direction Tuesday, ordering a recount at polling stations where it had found "clear and convincing evidence of fraud."

Daoud Ali Najafi, chief electoral officer of the Afghan-run election commission, said recounting votes could take "two months or three months."

Afghanistan's electoral law gives the U.N.-backed complaints commission broad authorities.

It can nullify any votes it deems fraudulent, order a re-count of votes or order a new vote entirely.

The commission is made up of one American, one Canadian and one Dutch national -- all appointed by the U.N. -- and two Afghans appointed by an Afghan human rights organization and the country's Supreme Court.

The U.N. commission did not indicate how many polling stations would require re-counts, but said it had so far identified some with questionable results in Ghazni, Paktika and Kandahar provinces -- all southern areas dominated by Karzai's ethnic Pashtun group.

If it voids huge blocks of votes in the south, that could drop Karzai's total below 50 percent and force a run-off with Abdullah -- a contest which Karzai would be favored to win.

The commission said it was also launching investigations in other provinces after receiving more than 720 major fraud complaints throughout the country.

The results announced Tuesday do not include potentially tainted ballots that the Afghan-run commission had already quarantined from more than 600 of the country's 26,000 polling stations.

The U.N.-backed commission will investigate and determine whether they can be counted or be discarded.

Western officials say ballots have been submitted from hundreds of fake voting sites, especially in the south.

The Afghan-run commission has tallied dozens of voting sites where Karzai won neatly rounded blocks of ballots -- 200, 300 and 500 votes -- results that one Western official labeled "illogical."

It was unclear whether they were among the ballots that the Afghan commission has set aside.

Polling stations showing 100 percent turnout or with a candidate receiving more than 95 percent of the vote will need to be audited and recounted, the U.N.-backed commission said.

Stations with fewer than 100 ballots will be exempt.

Grant Kippen, chairman of the complaints commission, said other irregularities include ballots not being folded -- meaning they would not fit in a ballot box slot -- identically marked ballots and overly large counts.

Kippen said he saw a box with 1,700 ballots in Kandahar, even though the maximum should be 600.

Although Karzai was practically the toast of the Bush administration, U.S.-Afghan relations cooled significantly when Obama came to office in January.

The Afghan leader has angered Washington by pardoning drug dealers and cozying up to warlords, actions that he evidently thought were necessary to ensure his re-election.

It would now appear that those very same Afghan power brokers have fueled the hundreds of apparent incidents of fraud to help re-elect Karzai and thereby retain the patronage jobs and other benefits they've reaped by allying themselves with his government.

The US Empirical Forces don't do very well micromanaging Afganistan...

How come every time that you pull the covers back, there is America in bed with another oily, corrupt little tin-pot dictator somewhere on the globe?

Afghanistan by the Numbers: Measuring a War Gone to Hell
Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com
World: Maintenance cost for the force of 450,000 Afghan soldiers and police U.S. generals dream of creating: approximately 500% of the Afghan budget.
http://www.alternet.org/world/142521/afgha...r_gone_to_hell/

Sarah Palin, the Neocons & Howard Dean Love the War in Afghanistan
Jeremy Scahill, Rebel Reports
World: As the war worsens and support plunges, an alliance of neocons and some partisan Democrats is supporting the White House.


http://www.alternet.org/world/142488/sarah...in_afghanistan/

As the war worsens and support plunges, an alliance of neocons and some partisan Democrats is supporting the White House.

Afghan war reaches a tipping point
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's air strikes in the northern province of Kunduz on Friday, which killed or injured more than 100 people, have left Afghan blood equally on the hands of all NATO countries. The incident shows this is no mere fight against terrorism; it is about NATO's role as a global political organization and the "unfinished business" of the Cold War - as well as about defining the new world order. - M K Bhadrakumar (Sep 8, '09)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KI09Df03.html

THE ROVING EYE
Enduring Freedom until 2050
In only 450 days, the number of troops in Afghanistan has swelled from 67,000 to 118,000. Since 2001, the United States has spent $179 billion in the country, while its European allies have burned $102 billion. The tragicomedy is clear: the US and its allies will do - and spend - whatever it takes to implant military bases on the doorstep of Russia and China, and to get their gas pipeline on track. - Pepe Escobar (Sep 8, '09)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KI09Df01.html

Careerists Pull Obama to Afghan Mess
Media and political careerists want President Obama to plunge deeper into the Afghan morass, says Melvin A. Goodman. September 8, 2009

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/090809b.html

September 9, 2009
The Flood of Kabul-"expletive deleted"
Trigger-Happy in Afghanistan

By RICHARD NEVILLE

http://www.counterpunch.org/neville09092009.html

You're on a roll there, Snuf ...

It's appreciated ....

And so ...

"US monitors: Afghan turnout numbers too high"

By HEIDI VOGT, Associated Press Writer

Thu Sep 10, 1:56 am ET

KABUL – A U.S. monitoring group said Thursday that "large numbers of polling stations" had more than 100 percent turnout in Afghanistan's election, the latest black mark against a vote increasingly tainted by reports of fraud.

Though there are no official turnout figures from the Aug. 20 poll, government officials and independent observers have generally said that voters showed up only in low numbers because of Taliban threats ahead of the vote and attacks on election day.

Dozens of people were killed amid rocket bombardments, bombings and polling station raids.

International censure of the vote has increased since Tuesday, when election officials released results from 92 percent of polling stations showing that President Hamid Karzai had finally passed the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff.

A U.N.-backed commission in charge of investigating fraud has ordered an audit and re-count of any station with turnout at or above 600 votes — which represents 100 percent turnout — along with stations in which one candidate won more than 95 percent.

However, the commission has not said how many polling stations will be affected.

The Washington, D.C.-based National Democratic Institute said its analysis of results found large numbers of stations with more than 600 votes in Nuristan, Paktia, Helmand and Badghis provinces, along with others.

These are areas that were considered some of the least secure on polling day and in which anecdotal accounts of nearly empty polling stations suggested low voter turnout.

Few international observers went to these areas because of the security risks.

The monitoring group said it had "deep concern" over the high levels of fraud complaints pouring into the investigation commission.

The Electoral Complaints Commission has received more than 2,800 complaints about polling day and the counting process, of which 726 have been deemed serious and specific enough to affect polling station results.

"It will be impossible to determine the will of the Afghan people," unless fraud complaints are thoroughly investigated, it said in a statement.

The group had more than 100 international and Afghan observers in 19 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces.

It did not have observers in many of the provinces where it saw problems in the results, but the figures have been posted on the Web.

Partial results released so far show Karzai with 54 percent, far ahead of top challenger Abdullah Abdullah, who has 28 percent.

Election officials have said they expect to release full results Saturday, but these will not be deemed official until all fraud complaints have been investigated and any re-counts are finished.

Election officials have said they are holding back suspicious results, but they appear to be using a different metric than the investigation commission because voting center results in which candidates won more than 95 percent of the vote have been posted.

The National Democratic Institute says it is a nonpartisan organization aimed at strengthening democratic institutions, and that it is funded partly by private donations and the U.S. and other governments.
___

On the 'Net

The National Democratic Institute: http://www.ndi.org/

Worst Case Unfolding in Afghanistan? -- A Commentary
A U.S. Marine provides security during a road reconnaissance patrol in Helmand province's Nawa district, Afghanistan, Sept. 6, 2009. The Marine, assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, is part of an effort to secure a reliable, safe passage between the government center in Nawa and Forward Operating Base Geronimo in Nawa. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Staff Sgt. William Greeson

From DoD Buzz:

What if the entire U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is based on a flawed premise? A counterinsurgency campaign is waged to defeat insurgents who are trying to supplant a central government with some version of their own. In Afghanistan, the U.S. military has been trying to defeat a largely Pashtun insurgency that doesn’t care much for our man in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai.

Read more ....
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/09/10/worst-ca...in-afghanistan/

The writer for this commentary .... Greg Grant .... hits it on the nose. The Afghan election appears to have failed on many levels .... but the most important level that it has failed on is on the perception of legitimacy.

From where I stand .... this election has been a disaster. It has alienated many groups .... and worse .... it is giving legitimacy to the Taliban and their calls that the Afghan Government is corrupt and incompetent.

And you know what .... the Taliban are right.

After 7 years of military intervention to install and prop up the Karzai government, an escalating military occupation is deemed necessary to prop a government that most agree is corrupt and incompetent.

If Obama attributes part of the crushing budget deficit to the invasion and occupation of Iraq; then he needs to set policy consistent with that attribution and put troops on ships and planes headed for home.

Right, right ....

As if Obama could actually do that and get away with it ....

And so ....

Which three people would have to agree to bring him down if he tried?

I think the number would be up in the hundreds, not three, and in the end, only one would have to agree to a change in presidents, along the lines of what went down when LBJ replaced JFK ....

And so ...

I think that if Obama told "Wiley" Gates right now to bring home the troops from Afghanistnam next week, that "Wiley" Gates would laugh right in his face ...

And then, what would Obama do?

What three people could he go to then to have them do something about removing Gates?

Good question. Power tends to be distributed in triadic networks. One would have to assume that Barack Obama occupies one of these three points so who are the other two?

To answer that, it would be helpful to know who eventually found the power to get rid of Donald Rumsfeld, who appeared to be invincible for so long ....

And so ...

Actually, one would not have to assume that, rla ....

I don't ....

I think his actual power is very limited, in fact ....

And so ...

"Fraud group voids ballots from Afghan election"

By DOUGLAS BIRCH and JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writers

10 SEPTEMBER 2009

KABUL – A U.N.-backed fraud commission threw out votes Thursday from 83 polling stations and ordered recounts at hundreds of others in three provinces that form Afghan President Hamid Karzai's political base, reducing his chances of avoiding a runoff.

It was the first time the commission has flexed its muscles in the aftermath of an Aug. 20 presidential election marred by allegations of ballot stuffing, phantom polling stations and turnout at some polls that exceeded 100 percent of registered voters.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Karzai's chief challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, charged that the massive scale of what he called "state-engineered" fraud has become clear only as the numbers have trickled out over the past three weeks.

With results in from 92 percent of the country's polling stations, Karzai has 54 percent of the vote, according to the latest official count.

That's enough to avoid a runoff election with Abdullah, who has 28 percent.

But if the U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission invalidates enough votes, Karzai's margin could drop below 50 percent, forcing him to face Abdullah one-on-one in a second round of voting.

Decisions by this fraud commission are final under Afghanistan's electoral law.

The group — comprised of one American, one Canadian, one Dutch, and two Afghans — is releasing decisions from each province as investigations finish.

On Thursday, the commission threw out ballots from 51 polling stations in Kandahar province, 27 in Ghazni and five in Paktika.

Although it did not say how many ballots were invalidated, thousands are likely involved.

It ordered election officials to recount votes in hundreds of other voting centers across the three districts in the presence of observers, commission members and representatives of the candidates.

All three provinces are dominated by voters who, like Karzai, are ethnic Pashtuns and form the president's political base.

The Karzai-appointed Independent Election Commission, which is conducting the count, says it has deducted questionable votes from its totals.

But that commission's Web site still lists results from one polling center in the Kandahar city of Spin Boldak where Karzai received exactly 3,000 votes, 600 from each of the five polling stations.

Statisticians say such uniform results are highly unlikely and evidence of fraud.

"Of course there were fears and concerns about the possibility of fraud or rigging," Abdullah told the AP.

"But ... when you investigate it, then you see that the whole thing was state-engineered and unfortunately in collaboration with the IEC (Independent Election Commission), in most cases."

Abdullah said he expects that, once the fraudulent ballots are excluded, Karzai's margin will drop below 50 percent, triggering a runoff.

There are about 770 polling states still being counted in Kandahar, according to the IEC Web site, meaning the 51 thrown out in the province represent about 5 percent of voting sites.

But the fraud commission has ordered audits and recounts of every vote cast in three of Kandahar's province's 17 districts, as well as more than a dozen additional polling stations in Paktika and Ghazni.

Investigators examined only a portion of the ballots in voting centers where there were complaints.

In Kandahar's Shorabak District they examined 15 out of 41 polling stations.

Officials found evidence of ballot stuffing in every one they looked at.

In Spin Boldak, investigators found "clear and convincing evidence of ballot stuffing" in 17 of 27 polling stations checked, resulting in the invalidation of more than 6,000 ballots.

The commission ordered a recount and audit of all the remaining 354 polling stations in the district.

A top official with the IEC, the Karzai-appointed Afghan election commission, has said that recounting ballots at so many polling sites could take months.

That raises the question of when a second-round election could even be held, given Afghanistan's harsh winters.

Some Western officials have floated a national unity government led by Karzai as a way to ease the electoral crisis and avoid a potentially messy runoff.

But Abdullah ruled out that possibility Thursday, telling the AP that he would not accept a position in a new Karzai government.

"At this stage one has to focus on the credibility of the process and how to help the process survive," Abdullah said.

"The process survives when the fraudulent results are taken out and ... the outcome is decided based on real results rather than fraudulent votes."

Asked if that meant no, Abdullah loudly spelled out his response: "N-O."

Throwing out ballots is a more severe step than ordering a recount, in which some or all votes could eventually be included in the count.

The commission ordered an audit and recount countrywide of stations where turnout was at or above 100 percent, or where one candidate won more than 95 percent of the vote.

The Washington-based National Democratic Institute said its analysis of results found large numbers of stations with more than 600 votes — the maximum number of ballots they are supposed to receive — in Nuristan, Paktia, Helmand and Badghis provinces, along with others.

These areas were considered among the most dangerous places to vote, and anecdotal accounts of nearly empty polling stations suggested low voter turnout.

Few international observers went to these areas because of security risks.

Many voters are thought to have avoided the polls because of Taliban threats and attacks.

Dozens of people were killed in rocket bombardments, bombings and polling station raids.
___

Associated Press reporter Heidi Vogt contributed to this report.
___

On the Net:

The National Democratic Institute: http://www.ndi.org

It might be more like three million people whose livelihoods in the defense sector of the economy would be impacted in the short term. Even though there would be an eventual peace dividend and reduction in deficit spending associated with a withdrawal there would be painful and immediate economic dislocations. We're addicted to both oil and war.

My guess is Papa Bush...

Let them eat cake...

Be it that simple.

I suspect that Obama's political calculus is that he can kiss a second term good bye if he withdraws troops from Afghanistan. If the war in Afghanistan becomes increasingly unpopular; the GOP would be unlikely to run their 2012 candidate on a peace platform. Red states have more than their share of military bases and defense industries. During the Vietnam era, anti-war sentiment didn't reach a threshold such that it could trump the political machine supporting the MIC. Look what happened to McGovern in 1972.

My hope is that Obama will come to see that ending perpetual wars for empire will free up resources badly needed to cope with a collapsing economy.

If Obama attributes part of the crushing budget deficit to the invasion and occupation of Iraq; then he needs to set policy consistent with that attribution and put troops on ships and planes headed for home.[/color][/b][/size][/quote]
Right, right ....

As if Obama could actually do that and get away with it ....

And so ....
[/quote]

Which three people would have to agree to bring him down if he tried?
[/quote]

It might be more like three million people whose livelihoods in the defense sector of the economy would be impacted in the short term. Even though there would be an eventual peace dividend and reduction in deficit spending associated with a withdrawal there would be painful and immediate economic dislocations. We're addicted to both oil and war.
[/quote]

Let them eat cake...
[/quote]

Be it that simple.

I suspect that Obama's political calculus is that he can kiss a second term good bye if he withdraws troops from Afghanistan. If the war in Afghanistan becomes increasingly unpopular; the GOP would be unlikely to run their 2012 candidate on a peace platform. Red states have more than their share of military bases and defense industries. During the Vietnam era, anti-war sentiment didn't reach a threshold such that it could trump the political machine supporting the MIC. Look what happened to McGovern in 1972.

My hope is that Obama will come to see that ending perpetual wars for empire will free up resources badly needed to cope with a collapsing economy.
[/quote]

And if he doesn't. He never would have been allowed to have the position of President except that it was necessarily
one that was between a rock and the hard place...

Health Care vs. Warfare: The Future Costs of the Afghanistan War

by Jeff Leys / September 9th, 2009 (1)

On Wednesday, President Obama will address a joint session of Congress on health care. Later this year he will decide whether to deploy additional troops to the war in Afghanistan, on top of the 69,000 troops already deployed. The struggle for health care and the struggle to end warfare are inextricably linked. The cost for substantive (though imperfect) health care reform as envisioned in the House of Representatives approach (with the public option) is projected to average $100 billion per year for the next 10 years. The cost to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan …
(Full article …)
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/09/health-c...fghanistan-war/

Not my favorite line from last night's speech, but it still caught my eye....

...the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years - less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.

Keep that in mind when your local school district is forced to cut a few more programs or lay off a few more teachers, when your car hits another pothole on a bridge that needs repair, when your public transit system cuts service or raises fares, and when the federal budget deficit continues to rise. Stupid foreign policy decisions don't just cause problems overseas; they undermine our quality of life here at home. And as I said once before, it remains a puzzle why the GOP is eager to tax us to pay for ambitious social engineering projects in faraway lands, yet loathe to fund programs designed to benefit Americans here at home. It's equally puzzling (to me at least), why Americans have gone along with this idea. So far.