Mediaboss Marketing

A U.S Army soldier walks behind an Afghan policeman during a joint patrol with Afghan police and Canadian soldiers west of Kandahar, Afghanistan in 2007. (Goran Tomasevic/Reuters)Its not nearly as high as it should be, because the American people have for the most part declined to hold the liars accountable.

Late last year, Donald Trump announced that he wanted to completely withdraw troops from Syria. Then, the usual policy experts the few left serving his administration talked him down or ignored him and suddenly the White House announced it had reversed that decision. Then, this year, Trump moved between 40 and 100 troops out of one spot in Syria, and political and foreign-policy experts lost their minds. Kurdish allies were betrayed by the move, they said. ISIS prisoners were released. American influence was squandered and surrendered. What would potential allies think of us for having turned tail?

At Foreign Policy, Peter Feaver and Will Inboden wrote to criticize the handful of realist and restrainer voices praising Trumps Syria pullout:

Trump and the realists both tend to present the debate as a false choice between endless wars and total withdrawal. And both offer the false comfort that immediate withdrawal will not impose high costs to U.S. interests.

Even those with qualified praise for Trumps decision complained about the haphazardness of his policy-making and its implementation, and of his departure from the norms of American foreign policy.

What, you might ask, were those norms producing for us? Forever war or isolation is a false choice, they say. But cast your eyes over to Afghanistan, where it really does seem like the alternative to leaving is staying endlessly. At least thats how policymakers in three administrations have thought about the Afghan conflict, to judge from the Washington Posts latest scoop, a huge tranche of documents recording the candid, occasionally emotional assessments of the U.S. War in Afghanistan made by White House officials, generals, and policymakers.

My personal favorite is the early and perspicacious note from then-secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld: We are never going to get the U.S. military out of Afghanistan unless we take care to see that there is something going on that will provide the stability that will be necessary for us to leave. He was right. The United States had almost immediate success in routing the Taliban from Kabul and denying safe havens to al-Qaeda, but met with almost immediate failure in its efforts to create a stable state that would prevent the return of the Taliban and the safe havens for terrorists that it provided absent a continual American presence. Weve remained in this state of half-success, half-failure ever since.

The more troubling revelation in the Posts story was that multiple presidents and generals had lied elaborately to the public about the war, pretending it was going well even though theyd privately concluded that our objectives were contradictory and our strategy was a mess. Worse yet was the lying they did to themselves, creating endless color-coded metrics and then manipulating the data that was measured by them.

Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible, said one Army colonel and senior advisor during the Obama years, Surveys, for instance, were totally unreliable but reinforced that everything we were doing was right and we became a self-licking ice cream cone.

Americans are still dying in Afghanistan. So are the Afghans who risked their lives to ally with U.S. troops against the Taliban. Over 60,000 Afghans have died in the 18-year war, against an enemy American presidents long ago concluded we could not or would not defeat. Has anyone asked what future allies might think of us for sticking around and bleeding our Afghan allies dry in a war we were simply unwilling to end or win?

Classical statements of just-war theory put the prospects of success at the heart of the moral calculation. Wars are occasions for so much evil that there must be reasons to believe their aims are achievable if they are to be pursued in a just way.

But the U.S. has pursued practically utopian aims in Afghanistan, including the establishment of a strong central government. Under the Obama administration, we tried to use our military to prop up the institutions of a stable country for the Afghans, believing that if they built enough schools and canals, a civil society would just appear around it all. And in a sickening replay of late Vietnam-era follies, officials continued to lie to the public about the level of corruption in the allied Afghan government, and about the effectiveness of its own armed forces against the Taliban.

Of course, what the Post reveals as the attempts of multiple presidents, generals, and other officials to mislead the public has also been half success and half failure. Did you, dear reader, ever believe that a modernizing civil society was starting to flourish in Afghanistan under American tutelage? No. Of course not. The lies were not credible. But I suspect that, like me, you havent decided to hold one president or another particularly responsible for pursuing an unattainable and thus by definition unjust objective in Afghanistan. And in that sense, the strategy of lying to the public has succeeded.

The U.S. governments propaganda failed to convince American citizens that Afghanistan was really getting better, but American citizens have failed to punish their government for lying to us and wasting American blood and treasure.

In normal countries that is, smaller and more vulnerable ones failures in war are punished severely and even spectacularly. Generals, policy advisors, and heads of state are sometimes hung or shot in the streets at the conclusion of a failed war. But we are a large and powerful enough country that the public doesnt bear such immense costs for its nations foreign-policy blunders and lies, so we dont give out such ugly punishments. In fact, we tend to give the architects of such failures new positions at universities or think tanks, or even advising the next president.

Perhaps there is justice in all this anyway, though: Having spent two decades lying about Afghanistan, the normal experts are now left to rattle to cable-news cameras, and for the most part they arent believed even when they tell truths about Washington. It may not be a just punishment, but it could be a fitting one. And in any event, its the only one forthcoming.

See the original post here:
The Price Our Government Has Paid for Lying about Afghanistan - National Review

A Canadian construction engineer conducts a survey for a new bridge near the Dahla Dam in Kandahar province of Afghanistan on April 16, 2008. PST

Recently, the Washington Post published a lessons-learned report on Afghanistan authored by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR. The report, based on 600 interviews with American civilian and military leaders directly involved in the operations in Afghanistan, reveals bleak pictures of an unwinnable war, with the U.S. administration deliberately hiding the truth. The report caused a sensation in the international community involved in Afghanistan.

Canada spent $20 billion for the Afghanistan mission: military operations and development assistance (of $2.2 billion). Certainly, Canadas largest development assistance program in history must address public accountability principles. While David Mulroney, a former deputy minister who oversaw the Canadian operations in Afghanistan, welcomes a comprehensive review of Canadas involvement, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan dismisses the findings of the SIGAR report. He defends Canadas military and development record, based on what he witnessed during his time in Afghanistan. He claims that to comprehend the degree of the impact of Canadian presence in Afghanistan, one must be on the ground and see the ups and downs over the years.

I certainly meet this criterion, and my personal experience contradicts the ministers over-optimistic assessment of progress.

In 2003, I saw optimism pervading the country. I saw it on the faces of men, women and children. While my very first impression was that Kabul was the poorest of all Asian capitals I had seen, it was nonetheless vibrant: the Kabuliwallahs in their majestic turbans going about their business; lovely children, with smiling faces, running to the roadside greeting passengers in cars; women bargaining in the street with vendors.

What I see today in my drives in Kabul are certainly not signs of development or improved well-being. Children still line the roadside but childhood has been robbed from their faces. I see fearful eyes of women; and old men in tattered clothes; burkha-clad women carrying babies; young and able-bodied unemployed men and school-aged children, begging in the streets. I traverse a war zone marked with checkpoints, sniffing dogs, concrete barriers, steel walls, sandbags, armed guards and armoured vehicles all signs of declining security in the capital of a country we spent $18 billon to secure.

Contradicting Sajjans claims of progress in development, meanwhile, the most burning examples of our failed development projects are: the Dahla Dam, where we spent $10 million for security out of the total cost of $50 million, with little water flowing to Afghan farm lands; the polio vaccination drive, which has not been successful in erasing the title of Kandahar as the worlds polio capital; and the building of 52 schools with $90 million, a large number of them not operational.

We supported pomegranate production as an alternative livelihood to prevent farmers from cultivating poppy. We should have known that no other crop could compete with poppy prices. Afghanistan today is the largest narcotics-producing country in the world. Similarly, programming for womens development, largely detached from the ground realities from the start, produced all but dismal results. Aid workers question figures on enrolment of children in schools, as meaningful data collection is not possible under the deteriorating security situation; and the absentee rate and dropout numbers, especially of girls, are abysmal. In the health sector, the reduction in infant mortality rate is also questioned. Malnutrition in children under five is reaching dangerous levels.

Undoing the past is not possible but learning from it will help us avoid the mistakes made and save us from losses in similar ventures. Let us move our government to launch an independent comprehensive review of our Afghanistan mission with this purpose.

Dr. Nipa Banerjee, currently with the University of Ottawa, served 34 years in CIDA, Canadas Official Development Assistance agency. She was the resident head in Kabul, of Canadas aid program (2003-2006). Since 2007, she has visited Afghanistan twice a year, on average.

ALSO IN CITIZEN OPINIONS

Gower: Ottawas official plan is innovative but will require a shift in thinking

Poliquin: Talking to anglophones about francophone immigration

White: I quite my well-paid desk job and went back to teaching. Heres what happened

Read more here:
Banerjee: Why we still need a review of Canada's role in Afghanistan - Ottawa Citizen

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) --

Two pararescue Airmen received the Silver Star medal in a ceremony Dec. 13, for gallantry in action against enemies of the United States while deployed to Afghanistan.

Tech. Sgt. Gavin Fisher and Staff Sgt. Daniel Swensen were awarded the U.S. Armed Forces third highest military combat decoration for saving nearly 40 lives and eliminating more than 100 enemy fighters in two separate combat engagements.

For some of you, you may ask yourself how these two individuals in the face of such adversity performed so admirably, said Lt. Col. Douglas Holliday, 58th Rescue Squadron commander. Airmen like Dan and Gavin are part of a profession that dedicates their lives to a motto That Others May Live. A foundation of that motto is a pledge they made going through selection and years of arduous training. In the face of adversity, when Americans and our allies lives are on the line, under no circumstance will you quit on them. Never quit.

Gen. CQ Brown Jr., Pacific Air Forces commander, echoed Hollidays sentiments while comparing the actions of Fisher and Swensen to those of yesteryears comic book heroes and the rarity of heroes today.

We can become so absorbed by the tales and the characters and their abilities that we can lose sight of our real-life heroes heroes like Tech. Sgt. Gavin Fisher and Staff Sgt. Daniel Swensen, Brown said. Only 1% of our service men and women, representing 1% of the population have received this Silver Star. So, these gentlemen are in a very exclusive club.

Tech. Sgt. Gavin Fisher 350th Special Warfare Training Squadron, Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, Texas

Fisher was awarded the Silver Star medal for his gallantry as a pararescue technical rescue specialist while engaged in ground combat against U.S. enemies Aug. 11 and 12, 2018, in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan.

Ultimately, Fishers actions saved the lives of 10 critically injured U.S. Soldiers, medically evacuated 20 casualties and eliminated 118 Taliban fighters.

Prior to the attack, a Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force was conducting a 10-day crisis response mission to fend off Ghazni City from more than 500 Taliban fighters. Fisher was serving as a rear gunner for the lead vehicle of the convoy, when Taliban fighters struck the armored vehicles with rocket propelled grenades and heavy machine gun fire.

In the midst of the ambush, Fisher was struck by grenade shrapnel; however, he remained focused, firing back at the Taliban and directing his vehicle out of danger. While still fending off two enemy fighters, he provided advanced medical treatment, stopping bleeding and administering blood transfusions to two critically injured Soldiers. Fisher then kept his brothers-in-arms stable until a medical evacuation team arrived.

Wounded and refusing to leave with the patients, Fisher was involved in a second ambush. Placing others lives before his, he treated five additional critically injured partner force casualties and requested a second medical evacuation.

The Taliban continued to strike the task force, eventually striking the mission support site and wounding 12 partner-force soldiers. Fisher, without hesitation or regard for his safety, maneuvered through 75 meters of heavy machine gun and small-arms fire to treat five of the wounded comrades.

Jumping back into the rear gunner seat of his armored vehicle, a wounded Fisher manned the heavy machine gun as his team continued clearance operations of the city. Suddenly, a rocket-propelled grenade struck the vehicle, severely wounding Fisher; however, he refused to falter while on guard.

Fisher returned fire and directed his team to safety, before he finally relented to medical care.

Getting this medal is important because it lets people know the war is still going on, and valiant efforts by men and women are still going forth, Fisher said. People are still out there dying and fighting for each other, and it needs to be recognized.

Staff Sgt. Daniel Swensen 58th Rescue Squadron, Nellis AFB, Nevada

Swensen was awarded the Silver Star medal for his gallantry as a pararescueman while engaged in ground combat against U.S. enemies Sept. 13 and 14, 2019, in Farah Province, Afghanistan.

Ultimately, Swensens actions directly saved the lives of nine American and partner force special operators.

On the night of the attack, U.S. Army Special Forces Operational Detachment-Alpha 1215 was conducting a helicopter assault to reclaim the Anar Darah District Center and police headquarters, which were under Taliban control. Simultaneously, Swensen, who was embedded with the detachment, was leading a ground-assault team through a compound, when Taliban fighters initiated an ambush less than 100 meters away.

Within moments, the Taliban were relentlessly sending heavy machine gun fire and rocket propelled grenades into the compound. Eventually, a grenade struck the wall behind Swensen, wounding him and five of his teammates.

Injured, trapped and separated from the support fire team, Swensen remained vigilant as he fired back at the Taliban and directed his partner forces to safety. In the midst of the chaos, he ran through intense enemy fire to rescue a fallen Soldier incapacitated by his injuries. As the gunfire sprayed overhead, Swensen treated the life-threatening wounds before moving him out of danger.

Swensen, continuing to ignore his injuries, grouped the casualties and prepared for extraction. He loaded an injured Soldier onto his shoulders and then directed the team to the helicopter landing zone 800 meters away.

Not long after the group had arrived, the Taliban executed a second ambush with heavy machine gun fire.

With disregard for his safety, Swensen remained exposed to enemy fire to direct the casualties behind cover and then continued treatment of the critically injured. Eventually, the medical evacuation helicopter arrived, and the injured were flown to safety; however, for Swensen, there was still work to be done. He then led the remaining team members back through the city to retrieve four additional casualties before allowing medical attention for his wounds.

Its weird to receive so much attention for something that I feel anyone else wouldve done on the battlefield that night, Swensen said. Im honored my peers think I deserve this medal.

Read more from the original source:
Two pararescue Airmen receive Silver Star for gallant actions in Afgha - Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base

Editors Note: This article originally appeared on Order from Chaos.

It is a serious charge to accuse U.S. officials of deceit and duplicity in their dealings with the American people. That is arguably what happened in Vietnam, to a large extenthelping explain why the 1960s were among the worst decades in American history in terms of domestic cohesion and trust. Now, the Washington Post has accused U.S. officials of both parties and several recent administrations of a similar pattern of untruthfulness in regard to the American-led mission in Afghanistan since 2001. Does this charge hold up?

The short answer is no. The Washington Post did a disservice with this report. At a time when trust in American institutions is already weak, and U.S. officials accuse each other of lying all the time, the country does not benefit from yet more of its trusted voices being wrongly demeaned and diminished.

Yes, the Afghanistan experience these last 18.5 years has been marked by tragedy, frustration, many failures, and a general sense of disappointment. Even those of us who generally have supported the mission would acknowledge as much. But no, there has not been a campaign of disinformation, intentional or subliminal.

It is fine to accuse many elected leaders, ambassadors, generals, and other officials of endorsing bad policiesand not seeing clearly or quickly enough when those policies were failing. That is much different, however, than an assault on the integrity of those individuals. To be sure, wishful thinking afflicts public servants as much as other human beings, and people who favor one policy or another sometimes spin the facts to suit their pre-determined argument. But that is much different than intentional and concerted efforts to lead the country astray. And for every person attempting positive spin about the Afghanistan mission over the years, there have usually been several harping on all the problems.

Indeed, very few American leaders have ever seen Afghanistan through rose-colored glasses. Consider:

The Washington Post is right to document, for the umpteenth time, the lack of progress in fighting opium production, making Afghanistan safer for its citizens, reducing government corruption, and building Afghan security forces that can handle the job without us (though it is worth noting that those forces now do in fact hold all major and mid-sized cities, and do perhaps 95% of the fighting and more than 99% of the dying among coalition forces these days). It is wrongbadly wrongto claim to have proven that the Bush, Obama, and/or Trump administrations, as well as top military and diplomatic leaders charged with the Afghanistan mission, systematically and intentionally misled the country about what was going on.

Continued here:
What the Washington Post Gets Wrong About the United States and Afghanistan - Lawfare

Thank you very much, Madam President. And thank you to the Special Representative and Ms Khurram for their really helpful briefings and nice to see Ms Khurram here again. And thank you to my colleague, the Afghan Ambassador. Were very pleased to be part of the Group of Friends of Women in Afghanistan and its very heartening to hear so much support from colleagues around the table. So thank you very much for that. And also, big thank you to the Indonesian Foreign Minister for her guidance as well.

First of all, I think for the Special Representative, its a huge thank you once again for what youre doing and for the work of UNAMA in incredibly challenging circumstances. So thank you for that. And Id like to come on in a minute to the three main issues of today: the peace process, the elections and economic development.

But at first, I just wanted to add the United Kingdoms voice to all those condemning the attack on the UN vehicle in Kabul last month and the recent attack that killed Dr. Nakamura. We join all those who lament the loss of these fine colleagues. We send our sympathies and our condolences to their families and to all those who knew them. There is absolutely no justification for these disgraceful acts of violence. The Taliban claim to speak for the people of Afghanistan and yet if they do not take part directly in such attacks, they certainly create an environment where such attacks become possible. And in that connection, I would like to mention the Taliban attack on Bagram last Tuesday, which killed two civilians and injured many more. And the United Kingdom calls on the Taliban to end such attacks in order to give Afghans a chance for the stable and just peace that they so much deserve.

Turning to the peace process, we share the view of other members that only a political process can deliver a lasting and just peace. And a deal between the US and Taliban is crucial to unlocking intra-Afghan talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The United Kingdom also hopes talks can resume soon, but its clear the Taliban need to firmly commit to a concrete reduction in violence as a matter of urgency. The Taliban needs to show its serious about peace, the Afghan people need respite from the awful violence, and we need to create a conducive environment for these crucial intra-Afghan talks to succeed.

Madam President, Ive mentioned the vital role that women have to play in the peace process and I join my colleagues in once again underscoring that. I wanted to commend you now on the opening of the Nationwide Global Open Days on women, peace and security with the symposium in Kabul in October.

My second point concerns the Afghan presidential elections. Madam President, we join others in calling on all stakeholders to respect and uphold the integrity of the electoral management bodies as they work to complete the process and deliver the results in a timely manner.

We welcome UNAMAs continued engagement around the elections with national and international partners. And we likewise support UNAMAs call for transparency, impartiality and independence as the results of process. It was good to see that the Independent Electoral Commission will be able to move forward with recounts in the remaining provinces. We hope this process can move forward expeditiously and transparently and we look forward to preliminary results.

My last point, Madam President, is on Afghanistans economic development needs, regardless of what happens in the months ahead. Afghanistan will continue to have considerable economic development and humanitarian needs, as the Indonesian representative so clearly set out. Financial commitments made at the Brussels Summit in 2016 will run out next year. The UK supports the holding of a pledging conference in 2020 to address the financing gap and identify development priorities for the remainder of the transformation decade. And we therefore welcome, Madam President, the work that UNAMA is doing with the Afghan government in preparation for the 2020 Ministerial Conference on Afghanistan and the initiation of discussions with potential hosts for that event.

Thank you.

Read the original post:
Welcoming the progress made by UNAMA in Afghanistan - GOV.UK