US will be defeated in Afghanistan: Former CIA official(Sheuer barf)

Zee News ^

[Bernard Marx]

We can only stabilize it as long as we have the political will to stay there.

Scheur's right and so are you. Remember Korea, the Yalu River and MacCarthur? Remember Vietnam and the anti-war paralysis that forced our pull-out? Remember the horrific blood bath that followed, about which the anti-war Left said or cared nothing? The U.S. hasn't had the political will to win a long poker game since WWII.

Unless we have the balls and the political determination to root out the mess along the Afghani border and into Pakistani areas protecting Al Quaeda and fomenting anti-Musharaf unrest, both the Kharzai and Musharaf governments will collapse. Remember: the Pakis have the "Islamic Bomb" and the will to use it.

[Steel Wolf]

ANd as I recall, you were holding these same quagmire defeatist opinions last year when I talked with you. At least you are consistent.

Consistent, and correct. We've been cleaning up Afghanistan for longer than 9 months. We'll be doing the same at the 9 year mark, unless we get smarter about how we operate.

Cheerleading is a popular occupation around here, but pretending our problems away isn't getting us closer to victory. What brings us closer to victory should be the objective, not attacking those who point out where we're failing. Since when did covering for failed policies become a virtue?

[shrinkermd]

Well, who and how will they pick Osama's successor. It won't be easy to pick and it will be harder to enforce. He began this with his cash and publicity. Recruiting, money and support came to him as a person as much as the movement.

Despotic crowds have problems with leadership change.

[nathanbedford]

You have been so shockingly, so grand grand eloquently, so self righteously wrong about Iraq that one is left flabbergasted that you even have the guts to publish the same preposterous blather on these threads concerning Afghanistan. You have told us from the beginning that the mainstream press does not know what it's talking about concerning the war in Iraq, that we were winning,. In the beginning of that war and against my better judgment, I listened to the likes of you and I was deceived and held my tongue. Now you want to shop the same bilge about Afghanistan but this time, no sale.

The days when you can intimidate honest critics into silence by calling them "defeatist" died forever with the Republican majority at the last election.

[anglian]

NATO request for German jets in Afghanistan strains coalition in Berlin http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1758726/posts

[Wuli]

I am sure that one or more of the top guys around Osama have already decided that they, themself or someone they want will become the primary public face of Al Queda when Osama dies, and in a matter of days a change will take place either by consenus or assasination of the rivals - without anyone in Al Queda drastically upset with the either the result or the method.

Their loyalty is more to the movement and the radical fundamentalist Islamic political philosophy behind it, than the persons who step forward among them as leaders. Osama did not invent his role or decide that he is the one who the Saudi backers should fund most - they chose him and they just as easily could have backed any number of others instead; which they will continue to do when Osama dies.

Behind the public view there are number of Al Queda leaders who are revered every bit as much as Osama. He is not as unique as both he and the west have mytholigized him as, for very different reasons. He has achieved his goal in the myth by getting the west to take the focus off of everything said to be under and around him, particularly the Islamic political philosphy of the networks of movements based on that philosphy, as if he is more important than all of that. The west has achieved their goal for the myth by making their actions directed specifically against him personally appear as really huge achievements, which they have not been.

The abilities, motivations, base, fundamental elements, fundamental goals, nature of relationships and ability to survive under constant renewed leadership did change within the international communist agenda with the death of Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, or any of the others - because none of them were ever greater or more important than what they stood for, what they represented and neither is Osama.

[Wuli]

"The abilities, motivations, base, fundamental elements, fundamental goals, nature of relationships and ability to survive under constant renewed leadership did change within the international communist agenda with the death of Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, or any of the others - because none of them were ever greater or more important than what they stood for, what they represented and neither is Osama."

Should have been:

The abilities, motivations, base, fundamental elements, fundamental goals, nature of relationships and ability to survive under constant renewed leadership did NOT change within the international communist agenda with the death of Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, or any of the others - because none of them were ever greater or more important than what they stood for, what they represented and neither is Osama.

[LiveFree99]

It's the New Year and all the junior Nostradamuses come out with their predictions.

[CJ Wolf]

"Even the old Soviet Union was unable to pacify this country despite its proximity to it."

Uh, that was only because of the CIA, the USA and Pakistan.

[Gone_Postal]

[pissant]

Oh Geez, where to start. I shouldn’t have to inform you of what is happening on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even sifting the MSM you can catch glimpses of the real battles taking place and progress being made. I’ll start with the battlefield associated with this thread.

Afghanistan:

Bush told the Taliban we would remove them from power. Our military just that in record time
. The mighty mujahadeen fell quickly when they fought, and many decided to high tail it to safe havens in Pakistan or Iran and fight another day. A royal Jirga was called. A constitution was constructed. It was voted and approved with 60+ % of voters participating. In 2004, despite the naysaying, Karzai’s government was re-elected. In the meantime, we used the “wild” parts of Afghanistan for valuable training, hunting down Taliban and terrorists. We brought NATO in and let them rotate command of the operations (some countries are performing very well, namely Canada and Great Britain, of course). So the critics, seeing this success, decided to move the goalposts: “Gee, Karzai may have been re-elected, they may have a fledgling democracy, but there are still border regions and southern provinces that are sympathetic to the Taliban” or “Opium is still as popular as ever”, or even more common, “the Taliban are regrouping in the South and are planning a massive spring 2006 offensive”. This latter theory was being breathlessly reported on by the NY Times as fact, and “proof” that whatever Bush, Rummy and NATO were doing was failing. So lets examine that vaunted Taliban “spring offensive” that Chris Matthews and Co. used to quagmire (yes a verb) this mission.

So lets see what the last few weeks have brought us:

U.S. MILITARY CONFIRMS IDENITITY OF DEAD TALIBAN COMMANDER (Dec 24, 2006 – Fox News)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238598,00.html

12 Taliban fighters killed (Dec 30, 2006 – Canada.com)

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=6fd4d6b6-346b-49b2-9b7f-d856b0335e99

50 Taliban killed in Afghan offensive: NATO (ABC Australia – Dec 21, 2006)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1816009.htm

Latest Offensive in Southern Afghanistan Disrupting Taliban: Canadian General (Jan 2, 2007 – Yahoo)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070102/world/afghan_cda_baaz_tsuka_14

70 to 80 Taliban Killed in Afghanistan (Dec 4, 2006 – CBS)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/04/ap/world/mainD8LQ05IO0.shtml


Well, maybe we were just getting lucky against that steely opponent and caught them off guard. So lets check back a little further into the vaunted Taliban Spring/Summer 2006 offensive, shall we:

OVER 600 SUSPECTED TALIBAN KILLED IN SOUTHERN AFGHANISTAN (JULY 26, 2006 – FOX NEWS)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205414,00.html

Hundreds of Suspected Taliban Killed (ABC News – Sept 3, 2006)
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2389833&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

ISAF: Hundreds of Taliban Fighters Killed (March 9, 2006 - Afgha.com)
http://www.afgha.com/?q=node/995

Heck, even when the tali-scum manage to get an ambush on coalition forces, it’s sucks to be them:

Taliban Killed After Convoy Ambush (June 9, 2006 – CBS)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/09/terror/main1697174.shtml

Granted, the MSM is reporting the slaughter of the Taliban as a “spike” in violence, or the “bloodiest year since 2002” or some such shit. The bottom line is we have been handing the insurgents/terrorists/Taliban/jihadis their asses on a pike since the NY Times breathless reports of Taliban on the Move first appeared last winter.

Your choice as a thinking citizen, is this: Do you choose to digest this factual information the way the MSM does, namely “dead Taliban = quagmire” or do you think our military is doing a stellar job of taking few casualties while routing these goat-f*****s whenever they congregate. I report, you decide.

If you want even more details of the whoop ass job we are doing, I’ll be glad to direct to some stellar blogs that are keeping track of things.

[pissant]

BTW, I'm not a Republican.

[nathanbedford]

Here is a different take from the former CIA analyst Scheuer who has a much more pessimistic view not grounded in anecdotal incidents but from a historical perspective which says in essence that the situation is strategically hopeless no matter how many tactical successes one can anecdotally report.

Incidentally, Scheuer is not a reflexively pro Clinton or some left wing analyst as some posters have insinuated, he's an equal opportunity basher who has flatly called Clinton a liar for denying his failures to strike at bin Laden.

Our grand strategic weaknesses is becoming apparent, we can conquer virtually any Third World or Muslim country we choose (providing we are not sucked into the Iraq quagmire) and we can actually hold the ground upon which we stand after we conquer it, but we cannot pacify it, tame it, democratize it, or make it an allied power. Once we leave, it will be as though we were never there. This reality is becoming apparent to the whole world which includes the Muslim world.

Here is Scheuer's view:

5. Things seemed to have turned for the worse in Afghanistan too. What's your take on the situation there?

The President was sold a bill of goods by George Tenet and the CIA—that a few dozen intel guys, a few hundred Special Forces, and truckloads of money could win the day. What happened is what's happened ever since Alexander the Great, three centuries before Christ: the cities fell quickly, which we mistook for victory. Three years later, the Taliban has regrouped, and there's a strong insurgency. We paid a great price for demonizing the Taliban. We saw them as evil because they didn't let women work, but that's largely irrelevant in Afghanistan. They provided nationwide law and order for the first time in 25 years; we destroyed that and haven't replaced it. They're remembered in Afghanistan for their harsh, theocratic rule, but remembered more for the security they provided. In the end, we'll lose and leave. The idea that we can control Afghanistan with 22,000 soldiers, most of whom are indifferent to the task, is far-fetched. The Soviets couldn't do it with 150,000 soldiers and utter brutality. Before the invasion of Afghanistan, [the military historian] John Keegan said the only way to go there was as a punitive mission, to destroy your enemy and get out. That was prescient; our only real mission there should have been to kill bin Laden and Zawahiri and as many Al Qaeda fighters as possible, and we didn't do it. (emphasis supplied)

http://www.harpers.org/sb-seven-michael-scheuer-1156277744.html

[SandRat]

Michael Sheuer's status as a former CIA employee has shown that at least in his case CIA stands for Cowardly Incompetent A**!

[Eternal_Bear]

So how many more years before total victory? Just a friendly question.