Ex-Jihadists Speak

[Winstonm]

"There really isn't that much of a difference any more. I had a Taliban commander tell me exactly that recently. They both have the same goals."

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/ms...e_b_315663.html

 

 

 

-----------------------

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33329950/ns/wo...d_central_asia/

 

"That suggested a conscious decision by al-Qaida to embed within the Taliban organization, helping the Afghan allies with expertise and training while at the same time putting an Afghan face on the war."

According to GEN James Jones, the National Security Advisor:

 

http://www.washingtonti...ernment-must-do-better/#

 

"I don't foresee the return of the Taliban. Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling," Gen. Jones said. "The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

 

We can play post-a-quote until we are blue in the face but I doubt it will change any minds - especially considering the sources you quote: reporters and un-named intelligent sources?

[blackshoe]

It is fairly ridiculous to focus on "unnamed intelligence (I'm sure that's what you meant) sources" as being somehow tainted because they're unnamed. First, "intelligence sources" generally prefer (rightly, IMO) to remain anonymous, lest general knowledge compromise their ability to do their job, second, even if that's not the case, "sources" in Washington, particularly where classified information is involved, will right wish to remain anonymous in order to avoid prosecution for their illegal disclosure of that classified information or, if that's not seen as a potential problem, they don't want to get on the bad side of their boss. None of that affects the validity of the information. Of course, you could postulate some "agenda" somewhere that requires giving us false information, but if you go that route, I predict you'll end up gibbering on the floor.

 

The question, it seems to me, is whether any putative Al-Qaeda infiltrators of the Taliban are included in this estimate of 100 AQ operatives in Afghanistan, or whether the infiltrators, if counted, would increase that number (and if so, by how much). A followup question would be "what is the likelihood that, left alone, Afghanistan would again become a training ground for new Al-Qaeda operatives, and how many such operatives are we likely to see over the next several years?" I'm sure I don't know the answers to those questions, and I suspect even an expert in the field might have problems with the second one.

[cherdanno]

It is fairly ridiculous to focus on "unnamed intelligence (I'm sure that's what you meant) sources" as being somehow tainted because they're unnamed. First, "intelligence sources" generally prefer (rightly, IMO) to remain anonymous, lest general knowledge compromise their ability to do their job, second, even if that's not the case, "sources" in Washington, particularly where classified information is involved, will right wish to remain anonymous in order to avoid prosecution for their illegal disclosure of that classified information or, if that's not seen as a potential problem, they don't want to get on the bad side of their boss. None of that affects the validity of the information. Of course, you could postulate some "agenda" somewhere that requires giving us false information, but if you go that route, I predict you'll end up gibbering on the floor.

Do you really think the "intelligence sources" reporters in DC are talking to on one day work as undercover agents the other day?

And yes in most cases such anonymous sources do have an agenda, isn't that obvious? Who would do something unethical (I doubt they are formally releasing classified information, then it would even be illegal.) unless they had some intention in mind? Pretending otherwise strikes me as incredibly naive.

 

I am not saying such information is completely useless. E.g. in the days before the Iraq war, the German press would regularly double-check the new "information" coming from the US administration about Iraq's WMDs, and "usually well-informed intelligence sources" from the German BND would explain why that information was questionable. I guess in retrospect they weren't doing this anonymously because they were afraid of crossing their boss, but their bosses let them do this because , say, the head of the BND publicly announcing he didn't believe this information would have a bigger diplomatic fallout.

But nevertheless, it should be taken with a big grain of salt.

[blackshoe]

It's not just "undercover agents" in intelligence work who need to protect their identity.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "formally releasing classified information". If I know, for example, the rated yield in equivalent megatons of tnt of a particular type of nuclear weapon, and I know that information is classified, then if I tell anyone who I do not know to be authorized to have access to that information what that yield is, I have committed a federal felony. The reason I have done this (I have an agenda, my boss has an agenda, my boss told me to do it, whatever) is irrelevant. Whether I have told the person that the information is classified is also irrelevant.

 

But nevertheless, it should be taken with a big grain of salt.

Not sure what the antecedent of "it" is here. B)

[mike777]

I wonder why Gen. Jones wants 100,000 troops or more in Afghanistan.

 

We arent going to build anything in 18 months. I doubt we can even get 30,000 troops and all their equipment in country in 8 months. We still dont have all the equipment in country for the last 21,000.

 

I mean the Taliban live there, we arent going to kill them or move them out.

 

 

Lets call it Mission Accomplished and send our kids home.

[Winstonm]

It's not just "undercover agents" in intelligence work who need to protect their identity.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "formally releasing classified information". If I know, for example, the rated yield in equivalent megatons of tnt of a particular type of nuclear weapon, and I know that information is classified, then if I tell anyone who I do not know to be authorized to have access to that information what that yield is, I have committed a federal felony. The reason I have done this (I have an agenda, my boss has an agenda, my boss told me to do it, whatever) is irrelevant. Whether I have told the person that the information is classified is also irrelevant.

 

But nevertheless, it should be taken with a big grain of salt.

Not sure what the antecedent of "it" is here. :)

The problem for me is not the "unnamed intelligence sources" but the perpetual use of such sources as a substitution for actual news gathering and reporting.

 

And it becomes even more curious when the "unnamed" sources directly contradict the "named" sources.

 

General Jones said....

Unnamed phantoms contradicted.....

[blackshoe]

Journalism died about twenty years ago, unfortunately. All that's left is talking heads and sensationalism.

 

And you forgot the ubiquitous "so-and-so failed to immediately respond to phone calls (or questions or whatever)", implying that ignoring the talking heads (or more likely their gofer minions) is some kind of heinous crime.

[Winstonm]

The problem with the death of real journalism is that urban legends are passed along as fact and become part of the nation's consciousness.

 

Andrew Bacevich points out the end result:

According to the first illusion, 9/11 occurred because Americans ignored Afghanistan. By implication, fixing the place is essential to preventing the recurrence of terrorist attacks on the U.S. In Washington, the appeal of this explanation is twofold. It distracts attention from the manifest incompetence of the government agencies that failed on 9/11, while also making it unnecessary to consider how U.S. policy toward the Middle East during the several preceding decades contributed to the emergence of violent anti-Western jihadism.

[PassedOut]

Speaking of journalism, I enjoyed this long piece by Peter Baker in today's New York Times: How Obama Came to Plan for ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan

 

The three-month review that led to the escalate-then-exit strategy is a case study in decision making in the Obama White House — intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating for nearly all involved. It was a virtual seminar in Afghanistan and Pakistan, led by a president described by one participant as something “between a college professor and a gentle cross-examiner.”

 

Mr. Obama peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable demand for information, taxing analysts who prepared three dozen intelligence reports for him and Pentagon staff members who churned out thousands of pages of documents.

 

This account of how the president reached his decision is based on dozens of interviews with participants as well as a review of notes some of them took during Mr. Obama’s 10 meetings with his national security team. Most of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, but their accounts have been matched against those of other participants wherever possible.

 

Mr. Obama devoted so much time to the Afghan issue — nearly 11 hours on the day after Thanksgiving alone — that he joked, “I’ve got more deeply in the weeds than a president should, and now you guys need to solve this.” He invited competing voices to debate in front of him, while guarding his own thoughts. Even David Axelrod, arguably his closest adviser, did not know where Mr. Obama would come out until just before Thanksgiving.

While folks of the "real men don't think things through" persuasion found the process grating, I most emphatically want my president to act this way in matters of crucial importance. And committing troops militarily sits right at the top of the list of matters of crucial importance. I particularly like the way Obama questioned all participants at end of the November 29 meeting.

 

On the following Sunday, Nov. 29, he summoned his national security team to the Oval Office. He had made his decision. He would send 30,000 troops as quickly as possible, then begin the withdrawal in July 2011. In deference to Mr. Gates’s concerns, the pace and endpoint of the withdrawal would be determined by conditions at the time.

 

“I’m not asking you to change what you believe,” the president told his advisers. “But if you do not agree with me, say so now.” There was a pause and no one said anything.

 

“Tell me now,” he repeated.

 

Mr. Biden asked only if this constituted a presidential order. Mr. Gates and others signaled agreement.

 

“Fully support, sir,” Admiral Mullen said.

 

“Ditto,” General Petraeus said.

Obama's Afghanistan decision has plenty of detractors, particularly in his own political party. And it may yet turn out to be a colossal failure.

 

But Obama did not send soldiers to war thoughtlessly. I wish the best for him, for the soldiers he is sending, and for the people of Afghanistan.

[Winstonm]

But Obama did not send soldiers to war thoughtlessly. I wish the best for him, for the soldiers he is sending, and for the people of Afghanistan.

 

I never thought Obama made his decision thoughtlessly - but I am unconvinced of the reliability of the advisers who have his ear. I am afraid the influences of warmongers like Kristol and Kagan have crept into the discussion via Gates, Patraeus, Mullen, et al.

[PassedOut]

I never thought Obama made his decision thoughtlessly - but I am unconvinced of the reliability of the advisers who have his ear.  I am afraid the influences of warmongers like Kristol and Kagan have crept into the discussion via Gates, Patraeus, Mullen, et al.

You've been clear about that and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

 

Some folks are sure that Obama is under the influence of radicals and socialists. Others that he is under the influence of warmongers. I think he's quite capable of finding his own direction, and has a good process for determining what that direction will be.

 

Obama certainly encourages folks with dissenting views to speak up and make their cases strongly. Perhaps the people you consider "warmongers" simply made the stronger case. I consider that the more plausible explanation for his decision.

[Winstonm]

I never thought Obama made his decision thoughtlessly - but I am unconvinced of the reliability of the advisers who have his ear.  I am afraid the influences of warmongers like Kristol and Kagan have crept into the discussion via Gates, Patraeus, Mullen, et al.

You've been clear about that and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

 

Some folks are sure that Obama is under the influence of radicals and socialists. Others that he is under the influence of warmongers. I think he's quite capable of finding his own direction, and has a good process for determining what that direction will be.

 

Obama certainly encourages folks with dissenting views to speak up and make their cases strongly. Perhaps the people you consider "warmongers" simply made the stronger case. I consider that the more plausible explanation for his decision.

I believe Obama understands now the mistake he made when he said Afghanistan was the war of necessity - and I think he was influenced even when he said it by elements of...what shall we call them...the war party?

 

 

War is a profit center that drives corporations which in turn sponsor politicians. It doesn't matter if you are a Dem or a Don't, both parties are under the umbrella of the war party, which is what makes warring so difficult to stop because it has the appearance of being bipartisan agreement when in truth it is only a single war party that makes those decisions.

[blackshoe]

Just out of curiosity, Winston, who is the hidden power behind the throne that makes all these warmongering decisions for this "war party" — and presumably for the President and the country?

 

Maybe we should sic Jack Bauer on him. Or Jason Bourne.

[Winstonm]

Just out of curiosity, Winston, who is the hidden power behind the throne that makes all these warmongering decisions for this "war party" — and presumably for the President and the country?

 

Maybe we should sic Jack Bauer on him. Or Jason Bourne.

What makes you think this is in any way hidden or that a single person or entity is pulling the strings?

 

Myself, I never believed in the "lone-king-of-warmongering-nut" theory. I always thought President Eisenhower had it right when he spoke of unwarranted influence of the military-industrial-complex.

 

Or maybe you might better believe 2-time Medal of Honor winner Major General Butler.

 

Maybe this will help you understand. From Wikipedia:

War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor, in which Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests have commercially benefited from warfare.

 

In War Is A Racket, Butler points to a variety of examples, mostly from World War I, where industrialists whose operations were subsidised by public funding were able to generate substantial profits essentially from mass human suffering.

 

The war party includes everyone who profits from and receives power either directly or indirectly from the defense industry. There is nothing hidden about it and there are no thrones.

[blackshoe]

You don't understand. Whenever there is a conspriracy, there must be an Evil Genius behind it. It's a rule.

 

There's no conspiracy? Oh, well, then. Everything must be okay.

 

:ph34r:

 

Hm. Maybe the solution is to say to business "it's war. Therefore, you are not permitted to make a profit". Will that work?

[PassedOut]

Myself, I never believed in the "lone-king-of-warmongering-nut" theory. I always thought President Eisenhower had it right when he spoke of unwarranted influence of the military-industrial-complex.

Winston, I agree with you about the military-industrial complex. Blackshoe even questions the need for a standing army, so he's hardly a voice for unwarranted invasions.

 

But we have a specific situation here, albeit one that should never have arisen, and the US has had a big hand in creating it. To have the US military act to protect people in Afghanistan for a limited time in order to give them a shot at creating a stable society inhospitable to terrorists seems justifiable to me.

 

The plan may indeed fail, and Obama will take a big hit politically if it does fail. And it's also too bad that undeserving people might profit from the continuing war. Perhaps the US will finally learn a lesson from all this, but I've thought that before.

[Winstonm]

To have the US military act to protect people in Afghanistan for a limited time in order to give them a shot at creating a stable society inhospitable to terrorists seems justifiable to me.

 

I think you are confusing Afghanistan with a real country. This might actually work in say France or Gernamy, where they have a real government, but then, in countries with real governments you are not faced with insurgencies, are you?

 

Catch-22 1/2.

 

I think we all tend to do this - project our values and understandings onto another country and people and expect that country and those people to act and react as we would. Simple fact is we don't understand tribal societies and have never been real good converting them into mini-me nations.

 

 

And it's also too bad that undeserving people might profit from the continuing war

.

 

The problem is that the beginning and continuation of wars is sponsored by the group that profits from government spending - and when I say sponsored I mean editorialize in newspapers and magazines, talked in favor of as experts on television news shows, engage the ear of politics and lobby for war, and then vote for funding.

 

And none of it is done purposefully with the understanding that it is for selfish reasons - the mixture of war profit and war power has long

meshed into a single ideology that determines U.S. foreign policy.

 

This is just one example of how the war party operates. Recapping Bill Kristol's comments in The Weekly Standard:

 

"By mid-2010, Obama will have more than doubled the number of American troops in Afghanistan since he became president; he will have empowered his general, Stanley McChrystal, to fight the war pretty much as he thinks necessary to in order to win; and he will have retroactively, as it were, acknowledged that he and his party were wrong about the Iraq surge in 2007 – after all, the rationale for this surge is identical to Bush’s, and the hope is for a similar success. He will also have embraced the use of military force as a key instrument of national power," wrote Kristol.

 

That last line in bold - exactly the type of mis-thinking that Andrew J. Badevich argued against in his book The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, in which he concludes that there are boundaries on what military intervention can accomplish and the continued use of military for missions it cannot accomplish continues to lead to us into unsustainable quagmires.

[Winstonm]

"There really isn't that much of a difference any more. I had a Taliban commander tell me exactly that recently. They both have the same goals."

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/ms...e_b_315663.html

 

 

 

-----------------------

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33329950/ns/wo...d_central_asia/

 

"That suggested a conscious decision by al-Qaida to embed within the Taliban organization, helping the Afghan allies with expertise and training while at the same time putting an Afghan face on the war."

Only this morning I read something that totally contradicts these quotes, and it is a named source, btw:

Veteran specialist on counterterrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan Rick "Ozzie" Nelson agreed that the relationship between al Qaeda and the Taliban that has evolved in recent years is very different from the one they had up to 2001.

 

"The Taliban is a nationalist organization, which wants to govern Afghanistan under Sharia law, not attack the United States," said Nelson, who was on the inaugural staff of the National Counter-Terrorism Center’s Directorate of Strategic Operational Planning in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from 2005 to 2007.

 

Nelson directed a Joint Task Force in Afghanistan until early 2009 and is now in the International Security Program of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

 

"The Red Mosque was a big deal," Nelson recalled. The al Qaeda-directed assault on the mosque and subsequent Taliban reaction to its jihadist campaign in Pakistan were what convinced officials that "their goals have become more divergent," he said.

[Winstonm]

And if this represents liberal Democratic thinking then liberal Democratic thinking deserves to die:

 

Jerome Slater:

 

"Since the international, strategic, moral, and even the ultimate economic consequences of whatever we do are unknowable, we might just as well make the relatively more knowable domestic political consequences in the United States the decisive consideration. And that leads – at least for me – to one conclusion: the best thing for Obama, and for the Democratic Party, and indeed for the cause of liberalism in this country, would be to give the military what it wants (within reason), if the new troop commitments prove to be insufficient to turn the tide in Afghanistan.

 

"If the military gets what it wants and the tide turns in Afghanistan, Obama will get some of the credit; if it doesn’t, at least Obama and the Democrats can say they gave the armed forces what they said it needed. But if the military is denied and then we lose, Obama and the Democrats will get the blame, with electoral consequences likely to reverberate for many years. In the worse case, a Taliban-al-Qaeda victory followed by a massive attack on the United States, for years to come we can kiss good-bye to liberalism in this country, and maybe even to minimally rational foreign and domestic policies."

 

Yes, the only things that matter are Obama getting re-elected, Democrats holding power, and liberals having a voice.

 

Sheesh. If these are our leading Progressive thinkers, it is no wonder we are in such trouble.

[PassedOut]

Unity on Afghan Strategy

 

WASHINGTON — The two ranking Americans in Afghanistan, a soldier and a diplomat, publicly put aside their differences and told Congress on Tuesday that they fully supported President Obama’s new strategy to add 30,000 troops there to reverse Taliban gains and prepare Afghans to better control their own country.

 

The officials, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in the country, and Karl W. Eikenberry, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, began a full day of hearings before the House and Senate cautioning lawmakers of the high costs — in lives as well as dollars — still to come in a war already eight years old, but expressed faith in the new battle plan that Mr. Obama announced last week after a three month review.

 

“The decisions that came from that process reflect a realistic and effective approach,” General McChrystal said in his prepared remarks. “The mission is not only important; it is also achievable. We can and will accomplish this mission.”

 

Ambassador Eikenberry, a retired three-star Army general and former commander in Afghanistan himself, said that that administration for the first time was providing adequate resources and attention to non-military goals — governance and development — that ultimately would gauge the mission’s success.

 

“Our overarching goal is to encourage good governance, free from corruption, so Afghans see the benefits of supporting the legitimate government, and the insurgency loses support,” Ambassador Eikenberry said in his prepared remarks.

So the US has a goal and a plan and leaders who expect to succeed. They might be wrong -- the people in Afghanistan might not take advantage of the window of opportunity. Still, it seems to me that we probably owe them this opportunity, given what has already transpired there.

[Winstonm]

Unity on Afghan Strategy

 

WASHINGTON — The two ranking Americans in Afghanistan, a soldier and a diplomat, publicly put aside their differences and told Congress on Tuesday that they fully supported President Obama’s new strategy to add 30,000 troops there to reverse Taliban gains and prepare Afghans to better control their own country.

 

The officials, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in the country, and Karl W. Eikenberry, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, began a full day of hearings before the House and Senate cautioning lawmakers of the high costs — in lives as well as dollars — still to come in a war already eight years old, but expressed faith in the new battle plan that Mr. Obama announced last week after a three month review.

 

“The decisions that came from that process reflect a realistic and effective approach,” General McChrystal said in his prepared remarks. “The mission is not only important; it is also achievable. We can and will accomplish this mission.”

 

Ambassador Eikenberry, a retired three-star Army general and former commander in Afghanistan himself, said that that administration for the first time was providing adequate resources and attention to non-military goals — governance and development — that ultimately would gauge the mission’s success.

 

“Our overarching goal is to encourage good governance, free from corruption, so Afghans see the benefits of supporting the legitimate government, and the insurgency loses support,” Ambassador Eikenberry said in his prepared remarks.

So the US has a goal and a plan and leaders who expect to succeed. They might be wrong -- the people in Afghanistan might not take advantage of the window of opportunity. Still, it seems to me that we probably owe them this opportunity, given what has already transpired there.

As much as I empathize with the Afghanistan people having to put up with a U.S. occupation, this description from the dynamic duo in front of Congress is simple nation-building rhetoric.

 

We tried this good-governance approach in corrupt South Vietnam - it didn't work there and it won't work in even bigger and more corrupt Afghanistan.