Just What ARE We Doing?

Now that the hoopla over Michael Jackson and Teddy Kennedy is dying down maybe the media can get back to reporting the news. Like explaining the mess in Afghanistan. The corrupt Karzi is likely to bully himself back into the Presidency. One wonders what will happen when the war lords he bought, with our money no doubt, decide they want more of a payback for making their people vote for him!

Now we learn the American commander thinks the U.S. and NATO need a new strategy to defeat the Taliban. Whoa. Wait a minute. It hasn't even been a month since a new strategy was heralded. Persuading the farmers to switch from planting poppies to far less profitable, even if more healthy, crops like wheat. The Americans and British were scheduled to pour millions into this new tactic!

Meanwhile, back at the war ! It's winnable so says the General. Eight years we've been slogging through that wretched excuse of a country. What do we have to show for it? More pipe dreams?

The war in Iraq was always winnable too. Afghanistan needs more troops. Iraq still needs more troops though we're leaving them to fend miserably for themselves.

The Taliban's "tactical prowess" is improving. Sound familiar?

Nine in ten casualties are caused by IED's. Sound familiar?

Meanwhile the body count continues to rise. I don't know about you but I'm getting pretty tired of hearing how we have little appetite for expanding the war while we continue to do so.

I'm not even sure who the enemy is any more. Are we fighting a drug war on the opium producers? Are we fighting a religious war against the Taliban?

What ever happened to al Qaeda? And bin Laden? Do we have a direction at all? Are they one and the same?

I don't see that we have a clear direction at all. Then when I read that Obama has not even read an assessment of the Afghan situation, I could do no more than shake my head in dismay. Not because I'm worried the war is going to reach our shores but because the President doesn't seem to have a handle on anything.

Who does? Anyone?

Is It Always OUR Job?

A Presidential election is scheduled in Afghanistan for August 20. The country is currently without one since Karzai's term expired in May. We are engaged in war with the Taliban who are trying to regain power. Most of what we've heard from Karzai of late is complaints about how many civilians we've been killing in fighting a battle he cannot or will not. I think most people familiar with the situation would agree Afghanistan needs new leadership.

I watched Fareed Zakarias interview all the candidates over the past several months and find the challengers worthy of a good look. Especially Ashraf Ghani who, again, articulated his vision along with his past accomplishments in today's Wall Street Journal.

In light of the fact he has had success in reshaping various aspects of Afghan society through his positions as a government official, I wonder if it may be prudent to await the election results before moving forward with our new tactic for eliminating the opium trade. According to an article by the Washington Post's Karen DeYoung, we, along with the British, plan on spending millions over the next two months trying to persuade farmers not to plant poppies.

I think the plan is flawed from the get go. The Taliban provides the seed for the farmers and the money is good.They get loans, if needed, from the drug traffickers who buy their harvests and repay them at that time. Our intention is to get them to buy wheat seeds and fruit saplings by selling them cheap and offering low interest credit. On top of that they want to entice the farm workers to shift their labor to building roads and irrigation ditches.

While the intent is noble I don't see it being accomplished within a couple of months. We're dealing with a practice that has been their livelihood for generations. They know and are comfortable with the players. It is so much a part of their culture, any change would most likely take years to incorporate.

That being said, Mr. Ghani has similar goals for his people. I'm wondering if such effort would be better coming from their own government rather than the Americans and the British?

We can't do it all. I have no problem with our forces, since they are already in country, trying to keep the Taliban and the drug traffickers at bay while Afghan security forces are being trained, but this additional effort is big brotherism much like we tried and failed at in Iraq. Resentment built rather than being quelled.

I'm just skeptical that we can win the hearts and minds of the people while waging a war no matter how many seeds and sapling we offer up at bargain basement prices. Some efforts are more easily embraced when they come from their own government rather than outsiders.

August 20 isn't that far off. Might Karzai lose? If he does there is a chance of success. If he wins all bets are off for he is little more than "mayor" of Kabul running one of the world's most corrupt and failed regimes. The end result will be another quagmire from which the US will have difficulty extracting itself and too many more of our military will die.

Meanwhile our own domestic problems are bogged down in a quagmire of their own. What is our priority?

How About "Bailing Out" Of This War?

Have you noticed the press is beginning to print an Afghanistan war casualty count? Deja Vu?

It would seem that July was the deadliest month for troops thus far. Seventy perished including 42 Americans.

The General in charge is requesting more troops and Obama is seeking $83.4 billion in a supplemental funding war bill. This is in addition to the $172 billion it has already cost us. When all is said and done the tally is expected to reach the $1 trillion mark. Does that figure sound familiar? Health care overhaul anyone?

I'm curious as to where this money is to come from? We're already over our heads in debt. How much more can we take on?

The Huff Post had an interesting breakdown as to just what $83.4 billion would get when broken down to the state level of obligation. Z.P. Heller, who wrote the piece, used his home state of Pennsylvania as an example. It could provide

- 725,689 people with health care for one year.
- 460,546 Head Start places for children for one year.
- 46,575 Elementary school teachers for one year,

and the list goes on.

As was true in Iraq, this is a different type of "war". I don't see even a hint that we can be more successful where others have failed. I see no more of a strategy to extricate ourselves from this one than Bush had for Iraq.

I'm just suggesting that we need to be aware that while a multitude of domestic overhauls are draining us dry, Obama's war is a contributing factor.

It's costing us money we don't have and men who are becoming more and more in short supply. Something is going to have to give. I wonder what it will be. Just what are our priorities? The Afghanistan people or the American people? Or re-election in 2012.

How Do You Plan An "Exit" Strategy?

I read with interest where a group of anti-war Democrats are frustrated due to the lack of an exit strategy for the war in Afghanistan. It seems to me since we've just changed commanders and have yet to figure out how to actually fight the war, their frustration may prove misplaced. They might rather be frustrated by the nature of the war.

Wars aren't like they used to be. We fight an enemy without uniforms and really without a country. They fight a guerrilla war. We're not particularly good at it. To say it's "unconventional" warfare is an understatement. What else would you call it when we have to bribe war lords to side with us! We did it in Iraq; we're trying it in Afghanistan. This does not lend itself to a strategy, nor an ally, I would count on!

Congress was always demanding an exit strategy from the Bush administration on Iraq. None was forthcoming. We still don't have one set in stone. How many times since Obama took office have the end date and function of the troops that will remain been changed?

Afghanistan presents the same problems plus a few new wrinkles. Like the front is moving into an entirely different country - Pakistan. At least the Pakistani army is more capable than the Afghans or the Iraqis, whose army we disbanded!

One thing that needs to be remembered is the Afghanistan segment of the "war against terror", redubbed as the "Overseas Contingency Operation" by the administration, is extremely complex. There are goals, like subduing the opium trade, education, the teaching of modern agricultural techniques, etc. that best be left to civilian agencies and certainly not ours alone. Our military is there to root out Al-Qaeda, the Pakistanis want to beat back the Taliban and President Karzai wants to hold on to power. Do the goals mesh or is everyone tripping over one another?

One Congressman commented he was concerned about "mission creep". That is a valid concern; it's already happening. Al-Qaeda has free range in two countries now. How we contain them and how long it might take is a question that cannot be answered. Ask the Russians. I'm sure their exit strategy, if they had one, was the defeat they suffered. It's another conflict that most likely cannot be won.

Those Democrats looking for an exit strategy need look no further than Iraq to understand it's unlikely to happen.

I see the situation escalating before it starts to diminish. Not a pleasant thought. In looking back, do remember that after 9/11 the then ruling Taliban told us we could have Bin Laden, who was known to be in Afghanistan, if we could show proof he was the mastermind behind the attack. The Bush administration in essence told them they didn't "need no stinkin' proof". The rest is history.

Perhaps none of this would be happening if we had provided that proof. There is a lesson there.

What Do We Do In Afghanistan Now?

It is getting more and more difficult to find news to comment on with the all Obama all the time syndrome that the media seems determined to perpetuate. When I do, however, it's likely to be a doozie!

Such is the case today when I found that Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, running for re-election, has chosen a warlord to be the senior of his two running mates.

Do you see a pattern here? When Lebanon had free elections they chose Hezbollah. The Palestinians chose Hamas. After a few tries we settled with Iraq's choice of al-Maliki. Do you get the idea that maybe the people of those countries, such as they are, don't give a care as to who we think they should elect?

According to The National Post there are a lot of very upset people over this choice. One could hope Karzai's theory is to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" but I fear it's more an indicator of who really runs Afghanistan.

I decided to see what I could find about Mohammed Qasim Fahim and came across a website tiltled Warlords of Afghanistan . It was not a comfortable read.

As a general reference it tells us of an Afghan saying, "What you do to your enemies today, you will do to your friends tomorrow." That's not a pleasant insight to their character!

It goes on to tell us Fahim is an "awkward looking and personally unlikeable man with a temper problem. At present he is a threat to the U.S. plan for Afghanistan."

Karzai is weak and holds sway over little more than Kabul yet often scolds us for the manner in which we are helping him in his fight against the Taliban. Though Fahim was Karzai's defense minister, there is little trust between the men. That the U.S. backed Karzai over Fahim for the presidency in 2002 doesn't help.

This is one of those "I don't envy Hillary" moments I have quite often. It's also a "does Obama have clue what he's doing here" moment!

We know Karzai wants to be re-elected. If he is, what plans might Fahim have for him? These two are strange, but expedient, bedfellows. The larger problem is that we're in bed with them. This is truly the stuff of nightmares!