McCHRYSTAL IN TROUBLE !

[no_name]

Might reach some sort of agreement on both sides whereby the general can claim stress of job for the loose remarks and decide on a normal retirement

 

[waraich66]

It's his war

Jun 22nd 2010, 20:20 by M.S.

IT'S actually not that hard to apologise well, and people in the military seem to be trained in how to do it. I agree with my colleague that Stanley McChrystal's apology for the insubordinate attitude towards the president revealed in that Rolling Stone article is thorough and appropriate. But I also think there's something else going on here: a failure to take responsibility for his own military strategy.

Mr McChrystal does not appear to be achieving his own targets in Afghanistan. The strategy he is pursuing is his own. He has been given the resources he asked for. They are, frankly, pretty astounding resources. The comments cited in the article by Mr McChrystal and his staff give the impression that he blames the disappointments of the past year in Afghanistan on the failure of others to display sufficient will. The disdain evinced towards Joe Biden is particularly misplaced at a time when events on the ground are making Mr Biden's preference for a more limited war look more and more clear-headed, and Mr McChrystal's promises look more and more optimistic.

Mr McChrystal is an advocate of full-spectrum counterinsurgency (COIN) warfare, a sophisticated approach that embraces politics and economic development as part of the war effort. To make my own standpoint clear, I agree with most everything I've ever read of Mr McChrystal's writings on this subject. Insurgencies are basically political, not military. A meeting with a local tribal leader to ask what development projects he wants is a form of offensive operations. "Hard-earned credibility and face-to-face relationships, rather than close combat, will achieve success." And so forth. But the question facing COIN advocates in Afghanistan today isn't whether they are, in principle, right about how to fight insurgencies. The question is whether this approach—which demands such sophistication and expertise, so many soldiers who are also social workers, agriculture experts and police trainers, so many USAID consultants who need to be protected by soldiers, and such an effective development aid effort in a world that has rarely seen effective development aid anywhere, let alone in the middle of a jihadist insurgency—is possible in practice. And, if so, is it possible in Afghanistan? Is it achievable by the actually existing American military and aid bureaucracy in Afghanistan? And can it be done at a price that Americans are willing or even able to pay?

The answer we're seeing so far isn't yes. And the response of Mr McChrystal and his staff can't be to blame the civilians. Barack Obama asked Mr McChrystal last summer to outline the mission, how he intended to achieve success, what resources he needed to do so, and whether he could accomplish it by July 2011. Mr McChrystal said he could. If he manages to survive his gaffe and remain in command, he will either achieve his objectives, or he won't. If he fails, America will probably not give him another chance.

 

[gambit]

^^ So in US no one say no to his boss??? this is new to me!
I know boss has different image in underdevelop states but you are first American thinking like a south asian!!

I will never accept a job where i'm fully responsible but not incharge of affairs.
Such patchup is destined ot fail, from begining.

US has said many things against Pakistan in the process... did we suspended our co-operation?

You do NOT criticize your boss in PUBLIC. If you have a problem with him you take it up face to face with him. If he did not like his job he could always resign..no one is forcing him to stay.

He said that NOT because he has any understanding about respect inside an organization, especially to your superior, but because he just want to take an opportunistic poke the US in the eye. ANYONE who spent ANYTIME in a hierarchy, let alone the military, understand the need for public unity despite private disagreements.

 

[ejaz007]

Mocking Obama, his advisers in article Wednesday, June 23, 2010
White House summons top US general in Afghanistan Gen McChrystal issues apology, future in question; Gates says ‘poor judgment’


WASHINGTON: The top US general in Afghanistan faced possible removal on Tuesday after he and his aides were quoted in a magazine article mocking President Barack Obama and his top advisers.

General Stanley McChrystal, the US and Nato commander in Afghanistan and the architect of Obama’s war strategy, was summoned to Washington to explain his “enormous mistake in judgment” directly to the president, Obama’s spokesman said.

Asked whether Obama was considering ousting the general, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters, “I would say all options are on the table.”

McChrystal has apologised for the article, due to be published in Rolling Stone magazine on Friday. It quotes McChrystal’s aides calling one top Obama official a “clown” and another a “wounded animal.” The general himself made belittling remarks about Vice President Joe Biden and the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke.

The Pentagon blasted McChrystal over his comments and stopped short of expressing confidence in his ability to continue leading the nearly nine-year-old war, seen by many analysts as in a stalemate with the Taliban.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates said McChrystal had “made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment.” Admiral Mike Mullen, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the top US military officer, expressed his “deep disappointment.”

“Gen McChrystal has apologised to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologise to them as well,” Gates said in a statement. But Gates offered no clue as to whether McChrystal would stay in his job.

McChrystal himself offered his “sincerest apology for this profile” before flying to Washington, where he will also meet with Gates on Wednesday. “It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened,” McChrystal said in a statement.

Senior US officials did not rule out that McChrystal could offer his resignation, but said it was still unclear whether Obama would accept it.

Still, other officials expressed guarded optimism that McChrystal would survive in his job because his comments — while embarrassing — did not challenge Obama’s policies. “There’s only one person who can answer that question —the commander-in-chief,” a defence official said.

An Obama administration official said McChrystal had been directed to appear in person at Wednesday’s Afghanistan meeting at the White House “to explain to the Pentagon and the commander-in-chief his quotes in the piece about his colleagues.”

US Senator John Kerry pleaded on Tuesday for a “cool and calm” reaction to scathing comments from the US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, citing the urgency of the war effort.

“The top priority is our mission in Afghanistan and our ability to proceed forward competently,” Kerry said, adding that it would be up to President Barack Obama to decide whether to replace the commander.

Kerry, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he had spoken to the general by telephone and “emphasised to him that I think, obviously, those are comments that he’s going to have to deal with.”

“My impression is that all of us would be best served by backing off, staying cool and calm,” in response to the general’s sharp, personal criticisms of national security officials in Washington from Obama on down, he said.

The US ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, is “fully committed” to working with General Stanley McChrystal despite scathing criticism in a magazine article, a spokeswoman said on Tuesday.

In Brussels, Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen indicated support for the US commander, expressing full confidence in McChystal and his strategy, according to a spokesman.

Further turmoil emerged as Britain announced its special envoy to Afghanistan was taking “extended leave”, amid reports he clashed with military officials over strategy just a month ahead of a crucial international conference in Kabul. Britain’s Foreign Office confirmed that Sherard Cowper-Coles was on leave from his post, which also covers Pakistan.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai fully backed the US general and “believes he is the best commander the United States has sent to Afghanistan over the last nine years,” a spokesman said.

Just six months ago, Obama backed McChrystal’s request for more troops, escalating an unpopular conflict in which costs and casualties are soaring. The Rolling Stone article portrays a split between the US military and Obama’s advisers at an extremely sensitive moment for the Pentagon, which is fending off criticism of its strategy to turn around the Afghanistan war.

Mocking Obama, his advisers in article

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

McChrystal likely to resign over magazine comments, source says
By the CNN Wire Staff

Washington (CNN) -- America's top military commander in Afghanistan is unlikely to survive the fallout from remarks he made about colleagues in a magazine profile to be published Friday, according to a Pentagon source who has ongoing contacts with the general.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal will likely resign Wednesday, the source said. McChrystal's fate is expected to hinge on a meeting scheduled Wednesday with President Obama, who was "angry" after reading the general's remarks in Rolling Stone.

The "magnitude and graveness" of McChrystal's mistake in conducting the interview for the article were "profound," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said McChrystal had "made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment."

McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which he and his staff appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. Two defense officials said the general fired a press aide over the article, set to appear in Friday's edition of Rolling Stone.

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said in a Pentagon statement. "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard."
McChrystal has been recalled to Washington to explain his actions to the president. He is expected to meet with Obama in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Gibbs said. Gibbs refused to speculate about McChrystal's fate, but told reporters "all options are on the table."

Obama, questioned about McChrystal before a Cabinet meeting Tuesday afternoon, said he had not made a decision.

"I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment, but I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make that final decision," he said.

McChrystal is prepared to resign if the president has lost confidence in him, a national security official told CNN. Most of the Pentagon brass, the official said, hopes he will be upbraided by the commander-in-chief but sent back to continue the mission.

The White House will have more to say after Wednesday's meeting, Gibbs said. He noted, however, that McChrystal did not take part in a teleconference Obama had with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other top officials on Tuesday.

Several elected officials have strongly criticized McChrystal but deferred to the president on the politically sensitive question of whether the general should keep his position. A couple of key congressmen, however, have openly called for McChrystal's removal.

In the profile, writer Michael Hastings writes that McChrystal and his staff had imagined ways of dismissing Vice President Joe Biden with a one-liner as they prepared for a question-and-answer session in Paris, France, in April. The general had grown tired of questions about Biden since earlier dismissing a counterterrorism strategy the vice president had offered.

"'Are you asking about Vice President Biden,' McChrystal says with a laugh. 'Who's that?'"

"'Biden?' suggests a top adviser. 'Did you say: Bite Me?'"

McChrystal does not directly criticize Obama in the article, but Hastings writes that the general and Obama "failed to connect" from the outset. Sources familiar with the meeting said McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the room full of top military officials, according to the article.

Later, McChrystal's first one-on-one meeting with Obama "was a 10-minute photo op," Hastings writes, quoting an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f---ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss (McChrystal) was disappointed."

The article goes on to paint McChrystal as a man who "has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict," including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, special representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and national security adviser Jim Jones.

Of Eikenberry, who railed against McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan in a cable leaked to The New York Times in January, the general is quoted as saying, "'Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, "I told you so.'"

Hastings writes in the profile that McChrystal has a "special skepticism" for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating Taliban members into Afghan society and the administration's point man for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry, according to the article. 'Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,' he groans. 'I don't even want to open it.' He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

"'Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg,' an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail."

Both Democrats and Republicans have been strongly critical of McChrystal in the wake of the story. House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, called McChrystal the latest in a "long list of reckless, renegade generals who haven't seemed to understand that their role is to implement policy, not design it."

McChrystal is "contemptuous" of civilian authority and has demonstrated "a bullheaded refusal to take other people's judgments into consideration."

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, became the first member of the Senate Democratic leadership to call for McChrystal to step down, saying that the remarks were "unbelievably inappropriate and just can't be allowed to stand."

Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, deferred to Obama on the question of a possible McChrystal resignation. He said the controversy was sending a message of "confusion" to troops in the field. I think it has "a negative effect" on the war effort, he said.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, urged a cooling off period before a final decision is rendered on the general. My "impression is that all of us would be best served by just backing off and staying cool and calm and not sort of succumbing to the normal Washington twitter about this for the next 24 hours."

Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Jim Webb of Virginia -- also key senators on defense and foreign policy issues -- were each strongly critical of McChrystal's remarks, but noted that the general's future is a decision for Obama to make.

Karzai weighed in from abroad,urging Obama to keep McChrystal as the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. The government in Kabul believes McChrystal is a man of strong integrity who has a strong understanding of the Afghan people and their culture, Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said.

A U.S. military official said Tuesday that McChrystal has spoken to Biden, Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and other officials referenced in the story, including Holbrooke, Eikenberry and Jones.

An official at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul said Eikenberry and McChrystal "are both fully committed" to Obama's Afghan strategy and are working together to implement the plan. "We have seen the article and General McChrystal has already spoken to it," according to a statement from an embassy official, making reference to McChrystal's apology.

"I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war, and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome," McChrystal said in the closing to his apology.

Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates, however, struck a less optimistic tone during an interview with CNN on Tuesday.

The comments made by McChrystal and other top military aides during the interview were "not off-the-cuff remarks," he said. They "knew what they were doing when they granted the access." The story shows "a deep division" and "war within the administration" over strategy in Afghanistan, he contended.

McChrystal and his staff "became aware" that the Rolling Stone article would be controversial before it was published, Hastings said Tuesday. He said he "got word from (McChrystal's) staff ... that there was some concern" about possible fallout from the story.

Obama tapped McChrystal to head the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan in the spring of 2009 shortly after dismissing Gen. David McKiernan.

McChrystal likely to resign over magazine comments, source says - CNN.com

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

McChrystal under fire as strategy questioned

ByMatthew Green in Marjah

Published: June 23 2010 10:52 | Last updated: June 23 2010 10:52

Stanley McChrystal, the American general who risks losing his job as commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan on Wednesday, was the architect of the strategy that prompted Barack Obama, the US president, to gamble that a massive force build-up could change the direction of the war.

But the anger triggered in the White House by a magazine article quoting Gen McChrystal’s aides mocking senior Obama officials will sharpen a perception in Washington and Europe that the general’s campaign is dangerously adrift.

Gen McChrystal convinced Mr Obama that a big increase in US forces could rescue the west from the risk of defeat by the Taliban, provided it adopted a strategy focused on protecting the population rather than killing insurgents.

A decision to replace Gen McChrystal, the prime advocate of a time-consuming counter-insurgency strategy that is taking a growing toll in civilian and military lives, would bolster the argument that his plan was never feasible.

The general was forced on Tuesday to apologise for the insulting remarks and summoned to Washington for a meeting on Wednesday with Mr Obama and other national security officials criticised in the Rolling Stone article, amid speculation that he could be forced to resign.

But any moves to replace him might also spark a debate over whether US forces should withdraw rapidly, regardless of conditions on the ground, when Mr Obama’s self-imposed deadline for the start of the US draw-down arrives in July 2011. The outcome could have far-reaching implications, not just for Afghanistan and the status of the US as a military superpower, but for strategic calculations by Pakistan, India and China.

Gen McChrystal’s embrace of counter-insurgency doctrine represented a shift for a man who had spent years heading secretive special operations, notching up some of his greatest successes in hunting down and killing insurgent leaders in Iraq. He was what military officers call a “total package” – bright, fit and focused.

Gen McChrystal took over as commander of Nato and US forces in Afghanistan in May last year, running into trouble with the White House a few months later after his request for 40,000 additional troops was leaked to the press, a move that seemed to put pressure on civilian officials locked in a painstaking strategy review

Gen McChrystal’s embrace of a make-or-break troop build-up in Afghanistan was characteristic of a general regarded as one of the most brilliant and determined commanders of his generation – an image burnished by media profiles detailing his habit of eating one meal a day, sleeping four hours a night and taking punishing runs.

Yet in the six months since Mr Obama ordered an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, the flaws in Gen McChrystal’s strategy have become increasingly apparent. Accusations that he exercised poor judgment in allowing a reporter writing for Rolling Stone unfettered access to his inner circle echoed broader concerns about the wisdom of attempting a campaign that assumed Afghanistan’s weak and ineffective government was capable of meeting US expectations of reform.

Gen McChrystal has encountered his most obvious challenges in southern Afghanistan, the heartland of the Taliban, where much of his troop surge has been deployed. The difficulties have led to increasing doubts not just in the US, but among Nato allies, about what the end-state of his Afghan campaign will look like.

David Cameron, the UK prime minister, said on a trip to Afghanistan this month that he wanted British forces to withdraw as soon as possible. The UK contingent suffered its 300th fatality on Monday. The news came as London confirmed that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, a fierce critic of Gen McChrystal’s strategy, was taking extended leave from his post as special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

John Faulkner, the Australian defence minister, said on Wednesday that his government would begin to draw down its 1,500-man Afghan force in two to four years, according to Reuters.

Slow progress in securing the town of Marjah in Helmand province after Gen McChrystal launched a massive assault to drive out insurgents in February has underscored the sheer length of time successful counter-insurgency operations can take. Mixed messages from the US administration on the timing and significance of an even more difficult mission later this year to secure the southern city of Kandahar, the cradle of the Taliban, has also fed doubts about the general’s approach.

In Kabul, frequent public displays of tensions between Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s president, and his western allies have been a constant reminder that Gen McChrystal’s campaign is hostage to a large extent to the actions of the graft-ridden Afghan government. Mr Karzai’s decision to force his interior minister and the head of the intelligence service to resign this month robbed Washington of two of its most effective interlocutors in his government and exposed splits within his administration.

The dramas in Kabul have seemed to vindicate concerns raised by Karl Eikenberry, the US ambassador to Afghanistan, about Mr Karzai’s suitability as a partner in diplomatic cables leaked late last year. Gen McChrystal’s comment to Rolling Stone that he felt “betrayed” by Mr Eikenberry seems likely only to deepen the rift between the two men, fuelling a perception that US policy on Afghanistan is mired in multiple personality clashes across civilian and military lines.

In interviews, Gen McChrystal seemed immune to doubt, displaying an iron confidence that his soldiers and Marines would be capable of providing the security needed to allow US civilian advisers to nurture a renaissance in local government.

Yet the sheer scale and complexity of the task of forging a new social contract between Afghans and their government after 30 years of war is in the estimate of many experts, simply too much for the US military to handle.A campaign of Taliban intimidation and assassination of Afghan officials has spurred doubts over whether the Obama administration’s “civilian surge” of several hundred advisers can spur the process of institution-building fast enough to allow a dignified exit for US troops.

As the most important single voice on US policy in Afghanistan, Gen McChrystal will enter history as the man most responsible for the results, regardless of whether he stays in his post.

FT.com / US / Politics & Foreign policy - McChrystal under fire as strategy questioned

 

[ajpirzada]

Afghanistan: skip to the part where we make peace
35 comments

ARON PAUL

The resignation of Britain's former special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan this week throws a critical light on NATO operations in the region.

Sir Cowper-Coles served as ambassador to Afghanistan in 2007-9 before taking his most recent role. Unlike politicians and generals who are so heavily invested in military victory, the veteran diplomat can see that the publicly declared goals of a military victory in the country are unrealistic and has controversially called for peace negotiations with the Taliban.

Afghanistan has earned its title as the Graveyard of Empires by frustrating both the British and the Russians. Realists know that America and her allies can never fully conquer or control the territory in the face of determined resistance. An end to conflict in the country will thus only come through the conclusion of a negotiated peace.

The goal of the current surge in Afghanistan is not, as our governments' rhetoric suggests, about defeating the Taliban once and for all. Rather, its goal is to strengthen NATO's bargaining position in those final talks. There is no other way that President Obama can deliver his promised withdrawal from the country by July 2011.

Those who have attacked Copwer-Coles for suggesting negotiation with 'terrorists' are simply ignoring that negotiation is precisely what NATO will be doing at the close of the current offensive. The former envoy's crime was thus to suggest that we save lives and resources and get straight to talking now rather than after both sides have shed more blood.

Instead of making a decision to stay or leave now, the current 'surge' is a kind of belated halfway house between the two. The military option required a wholesale commitment of resources and soldiers that the United States cannot afford either financially or politically. For George W. Bush, Afghanistan was always a sideshow and a stepping stone to Baghdad. Obama signaled his desire to turn this around, but the political reality, and that on the ground in Afghanistan have proven irreconcilable. This is the cause of military frustration with President Obama that has exploded with the recall of Gen. Stanley McChrystal to Washington following his embarrassing interviews with Rolling Stone magazine where he expresses 'disappointment' with the Administration.

Yet the story by Michael Hastings strikes deeper - it shows generals like McChrystal pushing their own intellectual agendas and quests for glory at a president who has placed too much trust in them. The generals think Obama is weak for not giving them what they want, but the real damage is in portraying a president who has been conned by his generals to give them anything at all. The Rolling Stone story is a stark portrait of colliding and alternate realities. Ultimately it presents a damning picture of frustration and despair among the infantry companies who regard McChrystal with the same disbelief as he holds for Obama, as they wonder aloud "what are we doing here?"

This is a genuine debate that all the countries involved, including Australia, need to have more than ever in the light of all these recent revelations and grim milestones. Such a debate is separate from the justification for the invasion in the first place. Given the attacks launched by Osama bin Laden on the United States and indeed the world in 2001, and the strong backing of the international community, the initial overthrow of the Taliban enjoyed strong moral as well as legal justification. Australia's involvement alongside many other allies made strategic sense as well. Yet nine years later, Australia, like America, finds itself being expected by its government to sacrifice more lives and resources for no more specific a goal than to place NATO and the recalcitrant Hamid Karzai's faction in a potentially stronger bargaining position ahead of the inevitable retreat next year.

Where is Osama bin Laden? Is he even alive? Does fighting in Afghanistan still make sense in the broader cultural and strategic effort to combat Al-Qaeda and terrorism? Why are we supporting Hamid Karzai's regime - one that has continued the corruption of Warlordism, the oppression of women and stolen elections with impunity? These are just a few of the questions that Australia and its allies need to debate urgently and honestly.

Osama bin Laden, whose presence justified the original invasion, has disappeared from the debate. He is probably dead. The terrorist network he led has long since evolved and moved on. We need to do so too.

The imminent release by Wikileaks of military footage of an attack at Garani showing "so many children being killed" in a botched air-raid that reportedly killed 140 civilians will provide yet further proof that military operations in Afghanistan may start doing more damage than good when it comes to counter-terrorism. Prevention is the best cure, and the last thing we need is for mistakes and massacres in the war theatre to reinvigorate anti-American sentiment in the same way as the Iraq fiasco.

Hamid Karzai meanwhile, has proven time and again to be a fickle friend not only of his allies but of the broader cause of democracy in Afghanistan. Karzai is not the only potential leader in Afghanistan, and has already rigged one election to stay in power. By propping up his regime, we are not only backing a loser in the country's civil war, but a regime that cannot even legitimately win an election. Karzai cannot even organise a "peace jirga" that includes his democratic rivals in the Northern Alliance. He can only afford to do this because he continues to enjoy outside military backing.

At some point there will have to be a reckoning in which the Afghan people themselves reclaim their country's destiny. If, as the former British envoy argues, the military campaign will not defeat the Taliban, then we are entitled to ask why it should continue. After so much war and devastation over the last half century, the time for peace in Afghanistan must be sooner rather than later.

Aron Paul is Melbourne-based writer and historian, and an editor of the Australian Journal of Peace Studies.

ABC The Drum Unleashed - Afghanistan: skip to the part where we make peace

 

[ajpirzada]

honestly there was and there is no hope from NATO. in last 9 years all they have done is only added fuel to the fire. wat % of afghanistan does govt control? laughable. those who are in the parliament, who are they? warlords. forget all this. can you imagine paying militants for providing safe route to your supplies? whom are they protecting the supplies from?? themselves obviously. today there is peace in only those regions where NATO has no presence. Helmand became worse they day British forces stepped in. similar for many other regions.

NATO should handover each region to whichever power group in belongs to and leave. this is exactly wat they have done in Iraq.

 

[GUNNER]

The imminent release by Wikileaks of military footage of an attack at Garani showing "so many children being killed" in a botched air-raid that reportedly killed 140 civilians will provide yet further proof that military operations in Afghanistan may start doing more damage than good when it comes to counter-terrorism. Prevention is the best cure, and the last thing we need is for mistakes and massacres in the war theatre to reinvigorate anti-American sentiment in the same way as the Iraq fiasco.


At some point there will have to be a reckoning in which the Afghan people themselves reclaim their country's destiny. If, as the former British envoy argues, the military campaign will not defeat the Taliban, then we are entitled to ask why it should continue. After so much war and devastation over the last half century, the time for peace in Afghanistan must be sooner rather than later.

Some sane words finally !

 

[GUNNER]

NATO should handover each region to whichever power group in belongs to and leave. this is exactly wat they have done in Iraq.

It will be a return to 90's with internal fighting between power groups of warlords for control of Kabul. While there won't be froeign troop on ground, each group will be seeking and getting backing from some foreign country, just like the past.

 

[ajpirzada]

It will be a return to 90's with internal fighting between power groups of warlords for control of Kabul. While there won't be froeign troop on ground, each group will be seeking and getting backing from some foreign country, just like the past.

well watever it may be, in the end this tribal structure of afghanistan will have to come to harmony with itself. NATO or for that matter no one can change it.

each tribe rules itself with its own rules. this is wat afghanistan is. the only way you can influence the long term direction of the country is by investing in youth. no military might seems to be the right solution.

 

[laracamouflage]

As always its about proper channels of communication. People need to discuss their problems and anger, and use words to resolve their issues rather than the more immediate bomb or firearm. When you are dealing with passionate people each person is responsible for themselves to stay calm and try to get to some kind of understanding.

 

[GUNNER]

WASHINGTON, June 23, 2010 (AFP) - General Stanley McChrystal arrived Wednesday at the White House to meet President Barack Obama and explain a damaging interview that could see the US commander in Afghanistan sacked.

The general earlier held a 30-minute meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and top military officer Admiral Mike Mullen at the Pentagon, press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters.

Let's see what happens !

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

well watever it may be, in the end this tribal structure of afghanistan will have to come to harmony with itself. NATO or for that matter no one can change it.

each tribe rules itself with its own rules. this is wat afghanistan is. the only way you can influence the long term direction of the country is by investing in youth. no military might seems to be the right solution.

Idealy you are right, but you cant educate people where religious zealots are in control because you can only teach what they want taught. A good example is the probition of education for females.

 

[ajpirzada]

Idealy you are right, but you cant educate people where religious zealots are in control because you can only teach what they want taught. A good example is the probition of education for females.

well u dont have to be fully here or fully there. there is always a middle course. it wont be of any harm if some of the element is added to keep the rulers satisfied while keeping your emphasis on other subjects.

problem comes when you leave the country in tatters and then expect it to take the shape of your choice. this is wat happened after soviets left afghanistan.