Mediaboss Marketing

Carl von Clausewitz observed, There is nothing more common than to find considerations of supply affecting the strategic lines of a campaign and a war. As Secretary of Defense James Mattis prepares to dispatch more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, the Trump administration needs to consider how, as military scholars have written, Logistical considerations will account for the feasibility of entrenching on a given piece of ground. What policies will enable those troops and their supplies to get there and allow Afghanistan to develop the resources to entrench its own forces?

Military and economic access to landlocked Afghanistan depend on transit through Pakistan, Iran, or Russia all of which some in the Trump administration and Congress seem bent on confronting simultaneously. The only alternative, a path that snakes from northwest Afghanistan to Turkey through Central Asia and the Caucasus via the Caspian Sea, lacks capacity and is vulnerable to both Russian and Iranian pressure. Afghanistans forbidding location poses obstacles to overextended U.S. ambitions. No matter how great President Donald Trump makes America, he cannot win the war on geography.

On June 14 Mattis told the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, At noon yesterday, President Trump delegated to me the authority to manage troop numbers in Afghanistan. An anonymous official told The Washington Post Mattis would deploy an additional four thousand troops to reinforce the militarys mission to train, advise, and assist Afghanistans security forces. According to The Wall Street Journal, however, a few days later National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster sent out a secret memo to limited distribution, capping the Pentagons discretion at 3,900 troops. Any deployments above that modest number would require fresh authorization from the White House, as in previous administrations.

The White House has neither denied the change nor provided a reason for it. The very same day Mattis announced his soon-to-be-withdrawn delegated authority, however, the Trump administration hinted it might adopt Pakistan policies that could preclude more massive deployments. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told the House Foreign Affairs Committee the administration was beginning an inter-agency policy review towards Pakistan, which hosts the leadership and rear bases of the Taliban. Members of Congress have called on the administration to eliminate aid to Pakistan, revoke its status as a major non-NATO ally, and designate it as a state sponsor of terrorism. The administration is also considering expanding drone strikes against Afghan Taliban targets in Pakistan. These policies, aimed at pressing Pakistan to cease support for the Afghan Taliban, including the Haqqani Network, would remove the incentives put in place by the Bush and Obama administrations for Islamabad to play its other role in the Afghan war: permitting transit through its airspace and territory for U.S. personnel and supplies.

That military transit has proven vulnerable to political tensions. Pakistan suspended U.S. military ground (but not air) transit for eight months straddling 2011 and 2012 after an incident in which U.S. troops killed 28 Pakistani soldiers at two posts on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. If the United States escalates cross-border attacks on Taliban sanctuaries, such incidents could recur and escalate.

Transit through Pakistan is also essential to the Afghan economy: Until recently, Pakistan has been the countrys major trading partner. An intermittently implemented transit agreement has provided Afghanistan with its only access to maritime trade, through the port of Karachi. Bilateral tensions have led Pakistan to close the border several times, even resulting in the fall of the Afghan government in 1962. Reciprocal accusations of support for terrorism in the past few years have led to repeated border closures. Afghan trade with Pakistan has fallen by half since 2014.

Geography, if not politics, would enable the United States to supply Afghanistan through Russia via Central Asia or by way of Iran. These countries provided indispensable logistical, intelligence, and diplomatic support to the United States during the 2001 campaign against al-Qaeda and the Taliban and have benefited from U.S. efforts there. When Pakistan closed the border to U.S. military supplies in 2011, Moscow facilitated U.S. military air and ground transit to Afghanistan through what Washington called the Northern Distribution Network. This network relied on the U.S. Transit Center on Kyrgyzstans Manas Air Base (closed under Russian pressure in 2014) for air transit, and on Russian and Central Asian railroads for ground transit.

On June 15, however, the Senate passed a bill that would step up sanctions on both Russia and Iran. The bill would for the first time impose sanctions on the Russian railroads that formed part of the Northern Distribution Network. Both Russia and Iran have supported the Afghan government, but they have also established some cooperation with the Taliban. Their interests and the Talibans converge in preventing the United States from establishing a long-term military presence in Afghanistan and in fighting Islamic State. However improbable it sounds to American ears, some in Moscow and Tehran also believe Washington seeks to use the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Afghanistan to pressure Russia and Iran over Syria and other issues.

Some of those issues are existential. The day before the Senate voted to impose more sanctions on Iran, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee asked Tillerson whether the United States supported a philosophy of regime change there. Tillerson seemed to say yes: U.S. policy, he said, is to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. Direct security and intelligence cooperation between the United States and Iran in Afghanistan ended when President George W. Bush placed Iran on the axis of evil in February 2002, effectively granting Pakistan a monopoly as the U.S. regional partner. The United States and Iran have nonetheless avoided confrontation in Afghanistan and engaged in some indirect coordination. As Afghanistans commerce has shifted away from Pakistan, Iran has become the countrys leading commercial partner, with an estimated 25 percent of total trade volume. U.S. promotion of even peaceful regime change in Iran risks escalation with dire consequences for Afghanistan. Iran recently repeated its previous warning to the Afghan government that it reserves the right to respond to U.S. actions against Iran anywhere, including in Afghanistan.

Cooperation with Iran is essential not only to reduce Afghanistans dependence on Pakistan for maritime trade, but also to provide India with reliable sea and ground routes to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Japan, concerned about Chinese naval expansion into the Indian Ocean, is supporting and financing efforts by India, Iran, and Afghanistan to develop the Iranian port of Chabahar. Unlike Iranian ports in the Persian Gulf, Chabahar, on the Gulf of Oman, is safely outside the choke point of the Strait of Hormuz. India, Iran, and Afghanistan are connecting the port to Afghanistan and Central Asia by road and rail and have concluded an agreement for duty-free transit. A Delhi-Kabul commercial air corridor established on June 19 complements Chabahar but cannot substitute for it. It depends for its operation on access to Pakistans airspace.

Encouraged by the lifting of sanctions resulting from the nuclear agreement, India and Iran agreed on a major expansion of Chabahar in May 2016. Since Trumps inauguration, however, concern about the escalation of U.S. sanctions on Iran has caused Chabahar construction to grind to a halt. Companies have declined to bid on tenders, and banks will not commit to financing. Sanctions against Iran thus risk repeating the axis of evil precedent, perpetuating U.S. and Afghan dependence on Pakistan.

Despite Trumps apparent sympathies for Russia, there is no prospect of Congress relaxing sanctions on Moscow as long as the issues of Ukraine and interference in the U.S. election remain unaddressed. Presidential recalcitrance may instead lead Congress to insulate legislative sanctions against national security waivers. U.S. relations with Iran seem headed toward confrontation, which would likely lead to escalation of tensions between Iran and Afghanistan. Simultaneous increase of pressure on Pakistan could lead Islamabad to block transit again, perhaps including overflight rights. The United States risks provoking a blockade of its own forces.

As long as the additional U.S. troop deployment does not much exceed the cap of 3,900, Pentagon planners think they have an alternative in the Lapis Lazuli Corridor. This recently established transport corridor runs from northwestern Afghanistan through Turkmenistan across the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and then through Georgia to Turkey. The route is mainly meant for trade, but it is also open for military overflights. Its overland capacity is limited by both the poor quality of the physical infrastructure and Turkmenistans neutrality, which does not permit ground transit of military supplies and personnel.

That route is a slender tightrope for thousands of troops to cross. In June 2016 Russia showed its influence over Turkmenistan by practically forcing the country to accept a visit by Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu, who proposed defense cooperation on the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan border, which he called the border of the Commonwealth of Independent States. That border has been subject to repeated Taliban incursions. American use of Turkmenistan for military transit could risk more such incidents and provoke further Russian pressure to insulate Central Asia from the Afghan conflict. The Russian Navy has also built a well-armed Caspian Fleet, which drew international attention when it fired cruise missiles targeting Syria. Iran likewise has a Caspian naval presence.

Georgia, whose Abkhazia and South Ossetia autonomous regions Russia invaded and occupied in August 2008, also remains vulnerable to Russian pressure. Russia has recognized Abkhazia as an independent state and retains de facto control of South Ossetia. There is a constant risk of hostilities between Russian or Russian-backed forces and the Georgian state. U.S.-Turkey relations, strained by both the July 2016 coup attempt and conflicts of interest in Syria, are volatile, to say the least. It requires considerable optimism, verging on wishful thinking, to posit that Washington could both overcome the obstacles to military transit on this route and also retain it undisturbed for the many years that the U.S. military proposes to maintain its counter-terrorism platform in Afghanistan.

Perhaps Trump will so restore American might and prestige that Washington can compel Pakistans military to change its perception of existential threats; spark the Iranian masses to overthrow the Islamic Republic and replace it with a pro-American democracy; persuade Vladimir Putin that Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria are not worth sacrificing rapprochement with the United States; and leave the Taliban with no choice but to abandon their principal objective, the expulsion of foreign troops from Afghanistan. Barring such good fortune, what Clausewitz called considerations of supply dictate more modest objectives. The United States cannot both stabilize Afghanistan and establish a long-term military presence there. It can fight a forever war against varying permutations of adversaries, or it can use its military presence as leverage to negotiate a settlement between Afghanistan, its neighbors, and the Taliban. Such a settlement would provide for the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. forces while preserving safeguards against terrorism through international partnerships, not military expansion. That settlement will be sloppy and unstable, but hardly more so than the conflicts the United States will perpetuate by seeking to entrench a permanent military presence in a landlocked country whose neighbors do not want it there.

Image: U.S. Army

Visit link:
Afghanistan and Considerations of Supply - War on the Rocks

MCC v Afghanistan, Lord's July 12, 2017

They lit up their country's first match at the home of cricket, against MCC, with blaring music, echoing chants and vibrant outfits

When Afghanistan joined Ireland as the 11th and 12th teams to receive Full Member status last month at the ICC annual conference in London, the most commonly used phrase to characterise proceedings was that a glass ceiling had been broken. The old, traditional corridors of ICC boardrooms had welcomed new blood; the motion approved on the backdrop of one of cricket's great symbols of tradition, Lord's.

For the Afghanistan administrators, breaking that glass ceiling on June 22 had been a very delicate process. Tuesday, though, was for the Afghanistan fans, and they left no doubt about the state of that glass ceiling, stampeding their way through the Lord's turnstiles to make sure it was reduced to itty bitty granules.

"We don't ever get this for other games," one of the Lord's stewards said through a cacophony of Afghan fan excitement building at 9am, two hours before the start of play, on Wellington Place outside the North Gate. "This is brilliant, though I doubt the neighbours living in NW8 will be too thrilled with all the noise."

Noise. The theme of the day. Fans singing, music blasting, chants echoing. Every bit of it pure and loud. And so were the outfits. The richest, most vibrant shades of red and green: printed on shirts, painted on faces, rippling on flags in the wind. It was a sensory assault.

"This means everything to Afghanistan," Massom Shirzad, a father of two, now living in Birmingham, said. Shirzad has been living in the UK for more than 15 years and today was the first time his two Birmingham-born daughters, Nabeela and Saima, 11 and eight, were getting the chance to see the heroes of their ancestral home for the first time. They had left at 6am for the drive down and along with two cousins were five of the first group of fans that began gathering from 8:30am outside the entrance gates.

The story was repeated throughout the day. Members of the Afghan diaspora living in Coventry, Manchester, Wales, Germany, France, Norway and beyond. Almost every single one interviewed had never seen Afghanistan play in person, and had never been to Lord's. In a pocket of the Compton Stand sat a hoard of 100 men clad in blue polo shirts with "BIRMINGHAM" printed in white block letters on the back and "AFG" in black, red and green on the front.

"We support Afghans, we support cricket," Jan Shinwari, originally from Kabul but now based in Birmingham, said. He helped organise the two coaches chartered to drive everyone in this particular fan group down from the West Midlands, beginning 7:45am. "This is a new game in Afghanistan after only 13 or 14 years because of the war in Afghanistan. We want to show peace to the world and that we can do anything."

Peace. A recurring theme throughout the last decade of Afghanistan's cricket journey. During the early years of Afghanistan's pathway to Test status and a day at Lord's, Hamid Hassan used to cross the rope onto the battlefield, his face painted like Rambo. He was Afghanistan's most photogenic warrior, a warrior of peace. Each stump uprooted, every bail dislodged with one of his heat-seeking yorkers was another strategic victory to thwart the stereotype of Taliban terror.

"They are our peace ambassadors," Qudratullah Ibrahimkhil, another member of Shinwari's traveling band, who grew up in Maidan Wardak province before migrating to Birmingham, said. "Recently they got the Full Membership and every Afghan is very proud because in Afghanistan for the last four decades there has been war, conflicts and everything. The Afghan national cricket team brings happiness, optimism to people in Afghanistan and around the world.

"They unite Afghans in Afghanistan and around the world. In here, the atmosphere is amazing. There are people who have come from all over the world. They have come here to support their team. We are very proud of our national heroes for their remarkable achievements and accomplishments in a very short period of time. With very limited resources, they have achieved so much and made history."

History. Today was not just for Afghan fans, but for the genuine cricket lover who has seen his fair share of cricket over the years and has an appreciation for what Afghanistan has acquired in status and skill.

"Listen to that, this is what it's all about isn't it?" shouted 69-year-old Bob Blake over the roar of the crowd from his seat in the Mound Stand after the fall of the fourth MCC wicket. A Trinidad native, Blake came to London in his teens before settling in Luton. He has been coming to Lord's for nearly 50 years, ever since his beloved West Indies, led by Clive Lloyd, claimed their first World Cup at Lord's in 1975.

They might not be on par with Lloyd's feared pace quartet, but Afghanistan's pace attack has been the envy of the Associate world and left-armer Shapoor Zadran bared his teeth with the new ball for Brendon McCullum and Misbah-ul-Haq to see.

"I'm very impressed with the opening bowler, Shapoor," Blake said. "It's great to see Afghanistan today. They're a Full Test Member. I've never seen them live but they look pretty useful. I was aware they were a decent team over the years especially in one-day cricket. You can't take them lightly. If Ireland got Test status and Ireland's a good team, they're a better team than Ireland."

It was only last month that Afghanistan had drawn an ODI series in their maiden tour of the Caribbean thanks to Rashid Khan's destructive seven-wicket haul in the first game. It was a match that further dented the West Indies dwindling reputation and Blake said he hasn't decided if he wants to buy tickets to see the West Indies when they tour the UK later in the summer. The old calypso magic may have faded but remnants of it were evident in the Afghanistan side that was on the park in front of him.

"There are definitely similarities because the West Indian supporters really were noisy as well," Blake said. "We would back our boys to the hilt. We loved it when something went right so it's very very similar really. The enthusiasm is virtually the same.

"They're noisy, they're enthusiastic. They obviously love their players. They're behind them all the way and they're showing it. The atmosphere is pretty terrific really, especially at Lord's you're not accustomed to this atmosphere. It's more of an Edgbaston atmosphere here today. This is not a Lord's atmosphere, which is great. Lord's is too quiet."

Atmosphere. It was one-of-a-kind for Lord's on Tuesday, in part because, as Blake said, it was the antithesis of a typical Lord's crowd. Compared to the measured responses emoted by England fans during the Test match over the weekend, Tuesday was symbolised by the raw spontaneity from the Afghanistan fans.

"I think it's exciting because we're getting to see the Afghan team play," British-Afghan Sadaf Nader, 31, from Richmond, said. "I mean it's a pretty standard answer, but it is exciting."

Nader's husband Jawed, 34, was taken aback not just by the size of the crowd, which hovered near 8000, but by the off-the-wall antics of fans from their vantage point in the Edrich Stand.

"It's also overwhelming to see so many Afghan youths here," Jawed said. "I've seen Afghans at our own gatherings, but not in this number. It is such a big number and they're really enjoying themselves and breaking all the MCC rules!"

"Breaking every rule!" chimed in Sadaf.

The slippery slope began well before the start of play at the entrance gates. Afghan fans are renowned for their flag-waving enthusiasm and perhaps uninitiated to the Lord's protocol, scores showed up with flags in tow, fashionably draped around their necks. The Lord's stewards who greeted them at the North Gate repeatedly asked: "Is this a scarf or a flag? Because flags are not allowed inside Lord's." Every streetwise Afghan duly assured: "Scarf! Scarf!" in reply. Initially they were shy about stretching out their "scarves" but they couldn't help themselves once Shapoor starting taking wickets, unabashedly heaving the tri-colour flag with merry abandon.

The ubiquitous flag infringements were relatively minor compared with what was to come in the 25th over of MCC's innings. When Dawlat Zadran pinged Shiv Chanderpaul on the left arm off the first ball of the over, a lengthy delay ensued as the batsman pondered whether to retire hurt. The fans were beginning to grow somewhat restless after having sat through a 105-minute rain delay following the 18th over.

In an attempt to placate his growing legion of worshippers, Rashid walked over to the railing of the Mound Stand to sign autographs and pose for selfies. Within 30 seconds an overly exuberant supporter leapt over the fence to hug Rashid. A dozen more imitators followed as the under-manned stewards were overwhelmed. Afghanistan's fans have a long-held reputation for storming the field after a landmark win, but charging the pitch for this mid-match show of affection may have been a first for them.

"It's just a good thing they had their clothes on," quipped Sadaf Nader.

When one fire was put out, another started as a couple of fans jumped the Tavern Stand railing. One headed for fine leg where Gulbadin Naib was casually standing, while the other made haste with a flag-turned superman cape towards a crowd of seven players gathered near Dawlat Zadran's run-up mark. When one steward finally caught up, the fan hid behind statuesque captain Asghar Stanikzai, shuffling back and forth in an absurdly impromptu game of hide and seek that had the fans - then Asghar and Dawlat - cackling with uncontrollable laughter.

By the time Chanderpaul walked off five minutes later to be replaced by Samit Patel, order had been restored. As has been the case at other events where there is a large Afghanistan turnout at odds with established etiquette, Afghanistan team manager Hamkar Shiraha got a hold of a microphone and diplomatically gave an announcement in Pashto over the Lord's tannoy. The gist of it, according to the Naders, was that the fans need to show they are good and respectful cricket fans by obeying the MCC rules, which drew thunderous applause. As ever, Hamkar ended his speech on a positive note, rallying the fans by shouting, "Afghanistan Zindabad!"

The rain could hardly dampen the mood of the day, but if there was one blemish it had to be those who were absent from the squad to take part in the day's festivities. Nawroz Mangal got the red-carpet treatment in January at the Desert T20 Final. Mangal received a fitting send-off for his services to Afghanistan cricket, but the real star of that day was Mohammad Shahzad, who became the first player to score two T20I fifties in a day. Countless fans at Lord's were pining for Shahzad, disappointed he could not entertain them with some holding signs pleading with the ICC to "forgive" him for testing positive earlier this year for performance-enhancing drugs.

Jan Shinwari (front) helped organise more 100 fans to come down together from Birmingham Peter Della Penna

The other forgotten soul was Hamid Hassan. Rashid may be the box-office drawcard of the moment but for those who were around to see Afghanistan first surface on the ICC's major tournament stage, Hamid was the original Afghanistan rock star. Hamid floated through the team hotel, training sessions, warm-ups and fiery 145kph reverse-swing bowling spells like a Greek god. But now it's as if those spells held a Prometheus trait. Injuries continue to ravage his body.

Chants of "Shah-POOR! "Rah-SHEED!" and "Nah-BEE!" were heard ringing around the Lord's stands early and often throughout Afghanistan's time in the field, but there were no such shouts for "Hah-MEED!" It's a cruel fate that someone who played such an instrumental role in Afghanistan's early fortunes has not been able to reap the adulation and rewards of his peers on days like this. Not only was Hamid not in uniform at Lord's, but it's unknown when or if the 30-year-old will ever suit up again.

Still, there was far too much to be joyous about. Who would have predicted after decades of war and devastation at home that there would come a day when peace and salvation would be ever-present in the happy and carefree smiles of the thousands of Afghanistan faithful who made their way to northwest London. Following a lengthy nomadic existence, they have worked to establish their roots once again. The seeds planted through a bat-and-ball sport over the last decade had sprouted up and were on full view on Tuesday at the Home of Cricket.

"It's a proud moment," Jawed said. "Afghanistan is often associated with all the bad superlatives, like the poorest, worst corruption, worst in opium production, but to see Afghanistan being one of the best in sports, that is unique and good.

"It's an extraordinary positive story about Afghanistan. When we have victories it unites the nation as a whole and that's very good. I hope that we have more sportsmen like Rashid Khan, like Mohammad Nabi at international level so that they also are inspirations for youngsters back in the country."

Peter Della Penna is ESPNcricinfo's USA correspondent. @PeterDellaPenna

ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

More:
Afghanistan take over the Home of Cricket - ESPNcricinfo.com

The generals asked President Trump for a surge of 5,000 troops for Afghanistan, Americas 16-year-long lost war. But the buck doesnt stop at the Trump White House. Trump told the generals, "You decide." The White House gave the go-ahead for another surge.

"Only" 5,000 troops, supposedly to help the peace process. Kill and bomb more people to encourage people to negotiate for peace. Do you believe it?

We Americans are persistent. But when it comes to wars, we exhibit perseveration, defined as the inappropriate persistence or repetition of a thought or action.

Repetition of thoughts. Example: War is the answer to all diplomatic problems. Repetition of actions. Example: We accept lie after lie from our presidents, pushing us into wars.

In Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, tens of thousands of Americans have died, along with millions of Asian and Middle Eastern people. One lying president after another tells us the sky is falling. Its the commies, the horrible dictators, the treacherous religious terrorists.

By late 1967, when the surge of American troops was really building in Vietnam, President Lyndon Johnson knew the war was a loser, as did Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, but both continued to lie and lie. And people continued to die and die.

These politicians arent really interested in communists or terrorists. Politicians want the oil, gas, copper, tin, titanium, or markets for their 1 percenter corporate friends. They know war is good for their political careers. And they will be rewarded by a grateful military-industrial complex. Walmart, GM and so many others do hundreds of billions worth of business with the commies in China and Vietnam without a blink of the eye.

The oil-soaked Middle East dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund the schooling, training and operations of religious terrorists, yet these dictators are our buddies buying billions in American weapons systems. Simultaneously, we send our youth to fight the religious terrorists that our CIA with President Jimmy Carters approval started funding, training and equipping in Afghanistan (Mujahideen and Osama bin Laden). We and the Saudis created and funded religious terrorists to fight the Russians there in 1979 and since 2001 our soldiers have been trying to defeat them for 16 years. And our military-industrial complex makes money providing weapons to both sides.

We have bled our soldiers and other peoples of their blood. We have bled our nation of trillions of dollars that should have been spent building a better life for all Americans. War profiteers, CEOs and share owners make hundreds of billions while the under-funded Veterans Affairs hospitals try to take care of all our physically, mentally and morally crushed soldiers. And military families pay the highest price of all: dead and damaged loved ones.

These are illegal wars of aggression illegal. Our Constitution requires the Congress to declare war on a nation. That has not been done for any of the wars since 2001. The United Nations Charter permits a nation to respond to an attack by another nation. The USA has not been attacked by any nation. 9/11 was a criminal gang attack not an attack upon us by Afghanistan. Under treaties signed by the USA, illegal war is the greatest crime, because all other crimes will then be committed: murder, torture, rape, starvation, theft, religious, political or sexual persecution, genocide, repression. Everything imaginable takes place during war.

Today, after 16 years of destroying Afghanistan, we need to get out, not send more troops!

We must admit that in the current wars, we are on the side of the gangsters, drug kings, murderous militias, dictators, torturers and power-hungry religious fanatics.

What weve done in these countries has not worked. Our wars and weapons have pushed these countries from bad to worse. Millions are homeless and refugees. Their hatred will last decades or centuries.

We need to admit our failures to the United Nations and ask the UN to conduct peace negotiations in each nation. We must support those negotiations, pay the costs, withdraw all our troops and military equipment, stop the bombings and drone attacks, and stop the surveillance and training assistance.

Citizens, we must support the rule of law rather than the rule of empire or whim. We must not accept more lying and corruption.

We must impeach those presidents and generals who have led these illegal wars, and make them examples of what America will do when elected leaders and generals forsake their oaths to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and when they betray the American people.

We must stop creating wars, and stop supplying weapons to all sides. We must request the UN take leadership in trying to peacefully resolve the quagmire we have helped create.

Buzz Davis, formerly of Stoughton now of Tucson, was trained as an infantry officer during the Vietnam War and served in South Korea. Hes a longtime progressive activist, a member of Veterans for Peace, a former VISTA volunteer, elected official, union organizer, impeachment organizer, a former VP of WI Alliance for Retired Americans and a retired state government planner. dbuzzdavis@aol.com

Share your opinion on this topic by sending a letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.

Go here to read the rest:
Buzz Davis: Admit defeat in Afghanistan and engage the United Nations - Madison.com

Sen. John McCain said Wednesday he is working on an amendment that would add an Afghanistan strategy to the annual defense policy bill, after complaining that the Trump administration has yet to develop any new approaches to America's longest running conflict.

The Arizona Republican has criticized the administration for weeks over its lack of a new strategy and threatened to force one on the Pentagon. He said he will now propose a strategy created by his Armed Services Committee as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which is now awaiting a floor vote.

"I told them months ago, unless you give us a strategy, we'll give you a strategy," McCain said.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis admitted the U.S. is not winning in Afghanistan during testimony in June, and promised McCain and the committee a new strategy was coming by mid-July.

When asked about troop numbers in Afghanistan Tuesday, Mattis said, "I'm still putting together my ideas on that." Mattis has said he is working to put together a more regional strategy and is consulting with the president.

President Trump has delegated more authority to Mattis to decide how many additional troops should be added to the 8,400 currently deployed to Afghanistan.

The administration is reportedly considering an increase of 3,000 to 5,000 troops, though Mattis has declined to confirm any range of new deployments.

Read the original here:
John McCain pushing to include Afghanistan strategy in defense bill - Washington Examiner

Updated July 12, 2017 15:50:30

The photographs, the documents, the whistleblower testimony are all there the brutal details of our diggers' conduct brought forward into the harsh light of day.

A blow has been dealt to the prestige of Australia's special forces with in-kind damages likely to follow for the reputation of the Australian Army as a whole.

At first, it might seem tempting to think of these kinds of events as isolated incidents that do not speak to a more widespread problem within the Army's special operations community. But misconduct on the battlefield also speaks to a wayward shift in a military force's broader operating culture.

Along with the Maywand District murders and the Panjywai massacre, what these new allegations levelled against Australian soldiers in Uruzgan will come to symbolise is the ultimate failure of Western militaries to adapt to a fight where the decisive battle was the human terrain.

According to our military leaders, the reason for Australia's presence in Uruzgan province between 2001 and 2014 was to "clear, hold and build" a Taliban-free Afghanistan. Per counterinsurgency doctrine, by providing an enduring sense of physical security to local Afghans, the "hearts and minds" as well as the rifles and trigger-fingers of fighting-aged males in Uruzgan would eventually be won over.

At some point it seems that this strategic guidance either failed or was wholly ignored.

While Special Operations soldiers had earlier played a kind of "guardian angel" role in support of their regular counterparts in the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force, as the Afghan war dragged on, that role became increasingly aggressive.

An upsurge in "direct action" operations began to distract from efforts to secure the population. By 2010, much of the task group was solely focused on so-called "high-value targeting" the coalition's effort to kill or capture an ever-growing list of local Taliban "commanders".

As a former Special Operations Task Group member drily put it to me, the new penchant for fly-in fly-out missions conducted out the side of a Black Hawk saw the entire concept of operations switch from "clear, hold and build" to "land, kill and leave".

Of course, operating in this manner was never going to defeat the Taliban. Insurgencies are complex adaptive systems capable of surviving the deaths of leaders. As David Kilcullen writes in Counterinsurgency: "decapitation has rarely succeeded [and] with good reason efforts to kill or capture insurgent leaders inject energy into the system by generating grievances and causing disparate groups to coalesce".

All this considered then, by channelling an apparent "shoot first, never ask questions at all" ethos, there's a good argument to be madethat much of SOTG's workin the final years of the Afghan War was counter-productive.

In many ways, the sunset years of operations in Afghanistan marked a transitional moment in the Australian way of war one which saw our special forces transformed into the hyper-conventional juggernaut it has become today.

In other Western forces, the over-emphasis on "conventionalised" operations that is heavy-hitting operations which deviate from the subtle and indirect approach of yesteryear has had similar results on the ground.

The New Zealand SAS is currently reeling from allegations that its members carried out "revenge raids" against civilians. US Navy SEAL Teams have now been linked to extra-judicial killings and corpse desecration on the battlefield. In Britain too, the story is much the same. Reports of "rogue" SAS troopers and battlefield executions. Civilian casualties. A Ministry of Defence probe into war crimes allegations.

Incident by incident, this is how the war in Afghanistan was lost.

Despite more than a decade and a half of sustained military effort, today Taliban and other extremist groups cover as much as 40 per cent of the country.

Certainly, where our own efforts are concerned, the data is clear. Australia's war in Afghanistan was a failure. According to the Institute for the Study of War, districts like Shah Wali Kot (where Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith's VC-winning charge took place) are now categorised as "high confidence Taliban support zones".

Elsewhere, the observable metrics on the ground speak for themselves. In 2002, US intelligence estimated the Taliban's strength at 7,000 fighters. As of 2016, that number has increased to 25,000. As this year's spring fighting season begins, the Taliban still control roughly a quarter of Afghanistan.

More than anything, what these new revelations demonstrate is that somewhere along the way our military, and our special forces in particular, simply lost the ability to effectively counter an insurgency.

Once upon a time, "the best of the best" were trained to operate like "phantoms" treading lightly and prudently alongside their local partners.

Today, however, the legacy they will leave behind in the minds of Afghans will be a brutal one. The civilian cost of the Special Operations Task Group's operations in Afghanistan is now apparent for all to see.

C August Elliott is a former soldier and writer.

Topics: unrest-conflict-and-war, defence-and-national-security, defence-forces, army, afghanistan, australia

First posted July 12, 2017 12:48:00

See the original post here:
'Land, kill and leave': How Australian special forces helped lose the war in Afghanistan - ABC Online