Posted on 10/11/2009 6:59:10 AM PDT by Saije
As the Obama administration reconsiders its Afghanistan policy, White House officials are minimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department about the risks of adopting a limited strategy focused on al-Qaida, U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and military officials told McClatchy Newspapers.
Recent U.S. intelligence assessments have found that the Taliban and other Pakistan-based groups that are fighting U.S.-led forces have much closer ties to al-Qaida now than they did before Sept. 11, 2001, which would allow the terrorist network to re-establish bases in Afghanistan and would help Osama bin Laden export his radical brand of Islam to Afghanistan's neighbors and beyond, the officials said.
McClatchy Newspapers interviewed more than 15 senior and mid-level U.S. intelligence, military and diplomatic officials, all of whom said they concurred with the assessments...
The officials said the White House is searching for an alternative to the broader counterinsurgency strategy favored by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, and Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command.
White House officials, they said, have concluded that McChrystal's approach could be doomed by election fraud, corruption and other problems in Afghanistan; by continued Pakistani covert support for the insurgency; by the strains on the Army, Marine Corps and the federal budget; and by a lack of political and public support at home, which they fear could also undermine the president's domestic priorities.
One phrase that always comes up in the administration's strategy sessions is "public opinion," one participant told McClatchy Newspapers.
However, the officials said, in their effort to muster domestic support for a more limited counterterrorism strategy that would concentrate on disrupting and dismantling al-Qaida, White House officials are neglecting warnings from their own experts about the dangers of a more modest approach.
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
A U.S. withdrawal or failure could permit al-Qaida and other groups export their violence from Afghanistan into Pakistan's heartland, the Indian-controlled side of the disputed Kashmir region and former Soviet republics in Central Asia whose autocrats have been repressing Islam for decades, the U.S. officials said.
Allowing the Taliban to prevail, the officials said, could reignite Afghanistan's civil war, which was fought largely on ethnic lines, and draw nuclear-armed India and Pakistan into backing opposing sides of the conflict.
"It is our belief that the primary focus of the Taliban is regional - that is, Afghanistan and Pakistan," one senior U.S. intelligence official said. "At the same time, there is no reason to believe that the Taliban are abandoning their connections to al Qaida, which has its sights set beyond the region."
"The two groups ... maintain the kind of close relationship that - if the Taliban were able to take effective control over parts of Afghanistan - would probably give al-Qaida expanded room to operate," the official added.
Pakistan has long patronized Afghanistan's dominant Pashtun ethnic group, which constitutes the Taliban. India - whose Kabul, Afghanistan, embassy was hit Oct. 8 by a car bomb for the second time in 16 months - supports the U.S.-backed Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai. India backed the ethnic minorities who fought the Taliban before the 2001 U.S. invasion.
"The region right now is as volatile as I have ever seen it. The tension is not waning; it is on the rise," another senior U.S. intelligence official said. "The Indo-Pakistan issue looms like a dark cloud on a horizon that might look clear blue, but it is actually a tidal wave that is rushing in."
Finally, failure in Afghanistan would deal a massive blow to U.S. international standing to the benefit of Iran, Russia and China, and undermine the NATO alliance, the U.S. officials said.
The intelligence assessments and the U.S. officials' views are in stark contrast to briefings and statements made last week by administration officials who downplayed the threat al-Qaida that could pose if the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan.
The administration officials said the Taliban are focused on Afghanistan and don't share al-Qaida's goals of striking the U.S. and forcing its brand of extreme Islam on the Muslim world.
"There simply is a difference in intent among these groups," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday. "Our primary focus is to protect our homeland and ... help to protect our allies."
"Anyone who ... believes what the Taliban says today is fooling themselves," countered one senior U.S. intelligence official, referring to an Internet statement in which the Islamic militia claimed that its sole goal is driving foreign forces from Afghanistan.
The official said he's worried that the Afghanistan strategy debate isn't focused on "the rise of Islamist extremism in a way that would shadow what we saw building up prior to 9/11."
afghanistan = new vietnam.
What Advisor’s??? Axle Butt? Or one of those Sandal wearing numskulls he has hanging out Smoking Crack and drinking beer there?
” Obama advisers are downplaying Afghan dangers”
Seeing that the most conflict the Obamaloon friends have seen is kindergarden sand fights and - of course - bombing the Pentagon, this seems logical.
They’ve never had a real man or woman fight back - and wouldn’t know what to do if they did.
Areas that the administration is familar with.
They do have experience with “conflict” and danger on the mean streets of Chicago. LOL.
One of the dumbest and most dangerous words uttered by this most incompetent and totally inept, ignorant, and stupid administration.
Well, maybe. But remember the Vietnam War lasted for forty years, and twenty for us. We made mistakes at critical times. Eisenhower made a mistake in not providing air support for the French at Dienbienphu. We know now that the VietMinh was at the limit of its resources at the time. Kennedy made a mistake in not sending troops into Laos, relying instead on diplomatic contacts with the Russians. If we had held that ground, the North Vietnam would not have been able to supply the anti-Diem insurgency in the South along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Then there was the coup against Diem that we supported. Looking back we had lost our best chance to save South Vietnam with minimal forces by November, 1963. We probably should have cut our losses in 1964 . Johnson made it an American War for all the wrong reasons. He could not let it go down in 1964 because it would have cost him the election. He could not let it go down in 1965 because it would have cost him the next Congressional election. Johnson simply was not cut out to be a war president. Despite his size and intimidating manner, he was Wimpy, not Popeye. Plus Tet coincided with a liquidity crisis. Obama finds himself in a similar situation today. So pick your parallel: Chamberlain in 1938 or Johnson in 1968. I would not like to be in the shoes of any of these men.
The purpose of striking in Afghanistan and in Iraq was to deny Al Qaeda a territorial base. So just let that go for naught?
Did we miss President Bush and his great leadership on the war? I certainly did miss him a lot. However our enemies are so happy that they do not have President Bush to kick their terrorist asses anymore.
Did we miss President Bush and his great leadership on the war? I certainly did miss him a lot. However our enemies are so happy that they do not have President Bush to kick their terrorist asses anymore.
Wonder what they are planning for the US? I worry about our open borders...
Hey, Barak Baby -
You and me - Afghanistan road trip
We go visit the Tally Ban (near Pakaki Stan) and interview some a their victims....
Go over there without any protection to prove our intent is peaceful !
Wana Go?
No?
Got a date?
Don’t like the climate?
No nice restaurants in the area to have lunch?
Can’t take your friends? Doubt they would really want to go either.....
The West does not believe, does not want to believe that radical Islam is an existential threat to our civilization. Even Bush kept talking about Islam as a “religion of peace” when the whole history of this faith shows its aggressive and intolerant nature. It is peaceful only when and where it is weak. But since 1970, it has grown stronger and stronger, and less and less tolerant, owing to huge revenues from oil. much of it being received by a regime that espouses the most intolerant form of Islam. But even in a place like Indonesia Islam has demonstrated a ferocity of the kind that liberals associate with the Spanish Conquistadores. They swallow the Black legend hook-line-and-sinker, but refuse to believe the plain facts of history that tell us that no other faith can co-exist on an equal basis when true=believer Muslims are in power. and unchecked by countervailing force.
Yes, I missed President Bush very much so.
So do I
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.