The battle of Marja, in Afghanistan’s southern poppy belt has been going on for a couple of weeks now. Some 11,000 U.S. and Afghan troops fighting to defeat a few hundred Taliban fighters won’t really change much in Afghanistan. The greater significance of the battle appears to be in how it is perceived in the rest of Afghanistan and in America.

The operation’s true goals are to convince Americans that a new era has arrived in the eight-year-long war and also to show Afghans that U.S. forces and the Afghan government can protect them from the Taliban.

Marja is indeed a Taliban stronghold and despite the fact that the Talib fighters are seriously outnumbered and even more seriously outgunned, at least nine coalition soldiers have died so far and dozens have been wounded. It is a serious, hard, no holds barred battle on the most basic level.

It is being hoped that a swift victory over the Taliban in Marja, followed by a robust development effort, could sway some Afghan fence sitters.

The important thing to realize is that Marja is not a place of any meaningful strategic, or even tactical importance, that even the quickest of victories there – although that doesn’t appear to be possible any longer – will not really influence the outcome of the war, except that the symbolism of a victory might somewhat help the coalition politically.

What might be more meaningful is actually straightening out the situation in Kandahar, with its tangled political rivalries. Among the local power brokers is Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Ahmed Karzai has been accused of being a drug kingpin and, also, a paid CIA asset. He has of course denied both allegations.

So, it seems to us, that the battle of Marja is really just an excuse not to tangle with a much more difficult situation in Kandahar as yet. Too bad, that its cost in dead and wounded is as high as it is.

Technorati Tags: afghanistan, battle of Marja, corruption, Kandahar, Karzai, politics, Taliban

The  Republican gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia, along with Scott Brown taking over Ted Kennedy’s seat in the U.S. Senate have sprouted all kinds of suppositions, ” I told yous” and even a bit of a reshuttle at the White House.

There is no doubt that the Democrats have screwed up on many fronts. Having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate should have given them the opportunity to take care of many, long-overdue issues, but considering the fact that too many of them – Christopher Dodd comes to mind among others – were really taking care of somebody else’s business, things simply didn’t get done and the American electorate, including a whole slew of liberal Democrats felt downright betrayed.

There is the definite possibility that the Obama voters were really under the impression that the movement created around the candidate actually represented the man. Surprisingly, the man was and is different from what the voters imagined him to be. Just look at the bailouts of the messed up financial mills, which were ostensibly “too big to fail”. Now the biggies are paying multi-million-dollar bonuses, possible only because of the taxpayer-funded bailout.

Let’s not forget that in 2009 the U.S. has reportedly printed more money than in the entire 20th century…successfully bailing out the Wall Street shysters, called by some bonus-happy executives  “their best people”. Wouldn’t these “best people” be more appropriately employed producing our license plates for the next 20 years in some federal penitentiary?

In any case, practically exit Tim Geithner and finally re-enter Paul Volcker, who seems to have saner ideas. We also welcome the return of David Plouffe,  Obama’s campaign manager. As expected Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod says that there is no major White House shakeup in the works. Why not, we wonder?

In closing, enjoy another excellent cartoon by Washington Post’s Tom Toles. If one picture is worth 1,000 words, these two combined must be worth quite a bit more

Technorati Tags: democrats, Health Care reform, obama, politics, republicans

As we get deeper and deeper into the Afghan quagmire, ostensibly to defeat al-Qaida, along with its ever-mysterious Osama bin Laden and to defeat the Taliban, in order to prop up the Karzai government, it appears that the Taliban is always a step, or two ahead.

At this point, nearly every Afghan province has two governors – one belonging to the Karzai regime and the other to the Taliban one.

At the same time, it appears that many Afghans prefer a decisive rule to the disarray of the Karzai government.

The Taliban has established an elaborate shadow government of governors, police chiefs, district administrators and judges that in many cases already has more bearing on the lives of Afghans than the real government.

U.S. military officials say that getting rid of the Taliban’s shadow government and establishing the authority of the Karzai administration over the next 18 months will be critical to the success of President Obama’s surge strategy. But this has been complicated by the fact that in many areas, Afghans prefer the severe but decisive authority of the Taliban to the corruption and inefficiency of Karzai’s appointees.

For many Afghans, there is little, or no choice. Across broad areas of the country, especially Afghanistan’s vast rural areas, the government has little to no presence, leaving the Taliban as the only authority.

After been forced underground or into exile in 2001, the Taliban has returned not just to wage war but also to demonstrate that it is capable of delivering a different model of governance from the one offered by Karzai and his allies. Afghans who live under Taliban control say the group’s weaknesses remain the same as during the movement’s previous five-year rule. The Taliban provides virtually no social services, leaving Afghans on their own when it comes to health care, education and development.

Most Afghans celebrated Taliban’s ouster on 2001, but after eight years of Karzai’s government, many say they would happily welcome the Taliban’s return.

It appears then that whatever is defined as a “victory” in Afghanistan will not be a military one, but rather a very strong push to improve the efficiency of the central government, while cleaning out the ever-present corruption. In addition, the Afghan government forces will have to actually establish a strong, viable presence even in areas presently considered to be Taliban strongholds.

Whether the U.S. and NATO will be able to achieve that within the next 18 to 24 months remains to be seen, but the prospects do not look promising at all at this point.

Maybe if we finally gave up the search for the mythical Osama bin Laden, more resources could be channeled into actually fighting for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and to offer them a viable future, which for so many decades has seemed to slip almost out of reach?

Technorati Tags: afghanistan, government, politics, shadow, Taliban

While everybody is awaiting President Obama’s Tuesday evening speech on Afghanistan strategy to be broadcast out of the United Military Academy at West Point, we are still awaiting some definition of what it is that we are trying to achieve there. To the best of our knowledge nobody has defined either the Iraqi, nor the Afghan war’s mission objectives – not Bush and not Obama.

At least, the president is reportedly going to address his planned exit strategy. That’s better than nothing, but are we waiting for a few more ministers of the Karzai government to be indicted for corruption, before we withdraw the troops which – at a cost of $1 million per year, per soldier – are propping up his regime?

The mission objectives should of course be the absolute first thing to be addressed and that’s why we have decided to re-post this article, originally published here on November 3, 2009.

Since the original article was posted there have been some overtures by the Karzai government to engage “moderate elements” of the Taliban, so we stand corrected on that point.

______________________________________________________________________________________

While the Obama administration ponders whether to send tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, as General Stanley McChrystal proposed and as everybody is trying to figure out what impact the Afghan run-off election, which has never taken place will have on the overall situation there, we still haven’t really figured out what it is that we are trying to achieve there.

“A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency; the insurgency in Afghanistan requires an Afghan solution,” wrote General McChrystal. In view of that probably sound assessment, why would we need an additional 40,000 U.S. troops?

Lets first of all decide what is it that we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan. Is it hunting down the remains of al-Qaida and maybe finally catching up with Osama bin-Laden? Or maybe something that sells in Washington, DC, but it doesn’t sell in Afghanistan – a stable Karzai government? Or maybe we are trying to defeat the resurgent Taliban? Or are we trying to transform the Afghan society? Are we including Pakistan in our grand plan?

Speaking of the Taliban, we haven’t heard any proposals to include this group in possible talks about forming a coalition government. No doubt that this omission is a really big mistake.

As things stand, eight years into an occupation of Afghanistan even the military are saying that we have not achieved anything, but that the situation on the ground has in fact deteriorated. What in fact appears to be the main problem is not the remains of al-Qaida, or the Taliban itself, or even the rampant corruption among the ruling clique, but rather the militarization of the Afghan conflict.

The military “solution” is obviously not working in an environment as complex as the one in Afghanistan and Pakistan for that matter.

One cannot expect the average U.S. serviceman to understand the very complicated tribal, ethnic, or language problems of the country he, or she has been shipped to.

The actual solution to the problem staring us in the eye appears to be getting the foreigners out of Afghanistan, rather than increasing their number.

When in 2001-2003 troops were truly needed in Afghanistan, they got diverted to the insane invasion and occupation of Iraq.

To make a long story short: we don’t even know what problem, or problems that we are trying to solve in Afghanistan are and we are still talking about changing our military strategy and increasing the number of troops. What are those troops supposed to do there? What do we expect from them? What is their mission? Nobody seems to have an answer to any of these questions.

Our advice to the White House team is to first come up with a mission statement, to nail down what it is that we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan and whether getting involved in that country is really in the U.S., or the world’s interest.

Throwing more troops into the Afghan quagmire, without even having a clear objective is clearly not the way to proceed.

Technorati Tags: Afghan, al-qaida, election, mission, obama, objectives, Pakistan, politics, Taliban, war

President Obama has hit the TV shows in a big way this Sunday. Almost all of the big Sunday political talk shows, on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and Univision were covered.

No Fox, of course, because what would be the point, anyway? The viewers of that network have their own, well-entrenched, seemingly unmovable opinions and their minds do not appear to be open to anything new – certainly not to anything that Barack Obama might propose.

The president taped the interviews in advance, so he would not have to rush from studio to studio all morning.  Nevertheless, he is the first president to appear on five major networks in a single day.

Whenever there are big-time interviews of this sort, broadcasters go into a more, or less controlled frenzy. Executives meet with producers and presenters and brainstorm to no end. What approach should we take? Do we have any clever lines to use here? Are there any left-field questions that might make headlines?

It is most often a question of what to leave out: there are many subjects that beg to be asked, but only so much time to ask them and get the responses.  It wasn’t a surprise that  health-care was a big topic and also the issue of economic recovery, the probe into the CIA interrogations during the Bush era and the war in Afghanistan

Even the most seasoned anchors will have butterflies in their stomachs when facing a president, and agonize about the tone and the phrasing of his questions. “Should I be hostile, or friendly? Would pushing one big question appear more noble in the viewers’ eye than trying to hit all the bases?”

But what is the president trying to sell? He must have a big international message ahead of the U.N. General Assembly and the Pittsburgh G20 meeting next week. Something that will create big headlines in newspapers around the Middle East, Europe and in Iran on Monday morning, and on the main U.S. broadcasts Sunday evening.

The coming week is certainly a very big deal for his relations with the rest of the world.

Troublesome people, such as Libya’s President Muammar Gaddhafi and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in New York for the United Nations General Assembly gathering. Mr Obama will chair the U.N. Security Council, and as far as we know, it will be the first time a U.S. president has done so.

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama will meet on the sidelines of the U.N. gathering with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is hard to imagine a more difficult endeavor then that. The Israeli side, which is not interested at all it seems in a two-state solution, but rather in the creation of a “Greater Israel” in the West Bank, which is already covered with hundreds of Jewish settlements and the Palestinians, who of course insist on stopping the settlement activity and in creating a capital of their new state in Arab East Jerusalem. We wish President Obama all kinds of luck in this quest, as this is probably the single most divisive issue, not just in the Middle East, but in most of the world.

The next step will be Pittsburgh for the G20. The leaders of China, Russia, Japan, India, France, Germany, the UK and other countries will be all smiles, of course, especially during the unavoidable group photos, but you can be certain that they will be watching Obama’s every move and latching on to his every word.

Therefore, Sunday’s TV interviews will without a question be very important in setting the tone for the whole upcoming week and beyond and there is no doubt that the political news will be coming in an endless, if not necessarily meaningful stream for the next several days.

Technorati Tags: G20, Health care, obama, politics, tv, UN