Whack-a Mole

[bigtree]

So, they say they've captured the Taliban's #2 leader (again) in Pakistan.

What's significant about this is that NOTHING about the U.S. military posture will change as a result of this reported capture; and it's not just because the #1, bin-Laden, is still at-large. The U.S. military posture in the Middle East is a transparent power grab intended to project the shocking and awesome force of our military in a ploy to intimidate nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and others into accepting U.S. dominance and control over the management of their governments and commerce.

In Afghanistan, for instance, the pretext behind the escalated, offensive occupation is to provide a buffer against elements and supporters of fugitive 9-11 suspects next-door in Pakistan. The reality of the military offensives, however, is an intense focus on eliminating, stifling, or mollifying what amounts to run-of-the-mill resistance to the U.S. enabled Afghan regime. In that effort, the U.S. military and government represent any and all resistance to their opportunistic defense of the Karzai regime as part and parcel of their 'terror war' against 'al-Qaeda.

The result of the escalated effort has been an escalation of that militarized resistance which the U.S. military uses as a self-perpetuating justification for pressing forward across Afghan territory and imposing our own demands on the population; directed by way of pressure exerted on the supposedly sovereign Karzai regime. The overwhelming demand or aim of our military is to draw the Afghans who are subject to the imposition of our military presence into taking up arms and fighting our 'terror war' for us. That's the ultimate goal and that's the primary persuasion our military and our government is busy lording over the Afghans with every plot of land seized and every casualty inflicted.

Before the latest assault on the Afghan town of Marjah, Afghan President Karzai convinced the American forces to delay their assault for one more day so that he could try and convince recalcitrant and dug-in resistance fighters to lay down their weapons and allow the American-led forces to take over their homeland; install a government acceptable to the invaders; and adopt the U.S. grudge match as a price for their ultimate (dubious) freedom from American boots on their throats.

What's happened, initially, has been a predictable consequence of the heavy-hand of the American military in it's opportunistic zeal to bomb and destroy those in Marjah they deliberately or arbitrarily determine are 'enemies' to their self-interested advance across Afghanistan. Two separate cases of collateral killings of civilians - the U.S.-led, NATO massacre of as many as 15 Afghan civilians almost immediately occurring in the first phase of the attempt to seize the Afghan territory - have made a mockery of the rhetoric about 'winning residents' hearts and minds' and the pretense of the NATO assault as some kind of rescue mission in which the U.S. hopes to find the local Afghans grateful for the deadly expressions of tough-love delivered with cruise missiles and air strikes into their neighborhoods and homes.

So while the military may well have captured and neutralized another #2 enemy of the (Afghan/Pakistan) state, our aggravating forces are busy generating more resistance - creating even more individuals compelled to violent expressions of self-determination and self-preservation which our invading and occupying forces regard as mere obstacles to their opportunistic advance across the Afghan homeland. Does anyone really doubt that yet another #2 will soon appear at the head of the U.S. terror list?

A lot is made of the role 'al-Qaeda' in Pakistan and elsewhere plays in influencing individuals to violence. There seems to be no doubt that some groups there who have identified their insurgent cause with our al-Qaeda nemesis are inspired by the anti-American mission of the terror organization in projecting their own threats and violence in the country and the region. But, the American mission in Afghanistan is clearly the most influential and deliberately aggravating element in motivating the violent resistance to war against our invading forces.

So, the reported 'capture' changes NOTHING about our military posture, because our military posture in Afghanistan is not the prurient defense of our national security that the administration has defined as their primary mission. Our military posture and activity in Afghanistan is to try and bend that nation and others in the region to America's own opportunistic battle against any and all who would resist our military forces' strident advance across their sovereign territory. It's an exercise of U.S. military imperialism; pure and simple. Bush wrote the script for the U.S. in the region; cast the antagonists in his kabuki play - erected Potemkins of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan to defend in contrived protection schemes where we create the 'enemies' we then claim to protect and defend against.

The Taliban's #2 is an imposture in our government's terror war. Our own invading and occupying military forces are the most aggravating element in the perpetual violence in Afghanistan and the region. Deliberately so.

[tekisui]

1. The only significance is a trophy for the US military.

They will parade this capture as a win. 'Mission Accomplished', but nothing will change. This is a bone to try and keep people on board this phony waronterra.

Unfortunately, it does show the steady softening of the US public--get used to the idea of US operating inside Pakistan. The drones have stepped up, three US soldiers were killed in Pakistan and now this joint CIA/ISI operation.

As we get more accepting of the idea, we will increase our presence--or at least be more open about it. Until we are so intertwined we will not be able to easily untangle ourselves. At some point we face the serious risk of a significant attack within Pakistan that 'requires' an even greater military response.

We are at war inside Pakistan, and I don't think that is a good thing.

[bigtree]

4. The American public will shrug it off like they did the capture and execution of Saddam

. . . because the militarism and U.S. military aggression continues to escalate as if nothing occurred; by all appearances, far out of proportion to any 'threat' or U.S. national security interest.

You are correct that our militarism in Pakistan goes beyond the pursuit of 9-11 related fugitive suspects. We're hopelessly bogged down fighting specters of al-Qaeda and violent blowback from the very military presence and activity which is supposed to be a defense against the random or orchestrated attacks. It's a self-perpetuated cycle of attacks and reprisals which is being stoked by the zeal of our politicians to 'win' something there (or not 'lose'), and by anti-American elements satisfied to use our presence and activity as a target and recruiting tool.

[piratefish08]

2. How many fucking times can we possibly catch the "number 2" guy?

It must be getting hard to fill that position by now.......

[MarcoS]

3. They're joking, right?

#2? Are they kidding? What about Mullah Omar? And al-Zawahiri?

Call us when UBL is captured or killed, along with the other two named above.

[Richard Steele]

5. K&R

[grantcart]

6. The problem with saying that its just the same old story is that you actually have to be on top of

the facts to make the charge.

You almost certainly will want to continue your opposition to the Nato/Afghan War but the facts are that a lot has changed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x16713

The most significant problem with your premise that "that NOTHING about the U.S. military posture will change as a result of this reported capture" is that the capture itself IS a major change in the strategic and tactical geography of the area.

The simple fact that the Pakistanis have captured Mullah Baradar rather than the US using a drone to wipe him out show that a) the Pakistanis have made a strategic and monumental change in their desire to eliminate the Taliban as a military force. Pakistan's strategy of using the Taliban as part of an asymetrical threat to Kashmir and India in general has now been abandonded. The US has also become more patient and rather than launching a cruise missle waited to capture Baradar when it would cost the maximum amount of operation confusion during the largest offensive of the War.

Other major changes in strategy lie in the fact that the basic strategy for the campaign came from the ANA and not NATO forces and include the following;

1) Informing the Taliban and the civilian population in advance of the offensive rather than use a blunt 'schock and awe' attack from the air.

2) Obtain support from elders in the area by convening a 'Shura'.

3) Better command and control restraint on attacking Taliban fighters that are using civilian shields.


The slower ground approach seems to have already borne results with reports that Talibans foreign fighters already fleeing the valley.

You can argue that the war is not in our strategic interests, or that it is futile, etc., but the argument that it is unchanged is not based on facts on the ground.

Your charachterization of Baradar as a #2 is also beside the point. Baradar is the number one operational commander of the Taliban army and his capture has much more substantive value than Mullah Omar.

Sweeping statements like


The U.S. military posture in the Middle East is a transparent power grab intended to project the shocking and awesome force of our military in a ploy to intimidate nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and others into accepting U.S. dominance and control over the management of their governments and commerce.


maybe cathartic at some level but only reinforce the jingoistic tenor of your article.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are not "Middle Eastern" countries and their security interests lie in developing harmony in their region, specifically with India, something that the US would like to develop and something that Al Queda and the Taliban want to destroy.

The Obama administration has gone out of its way to signal to Iran away to reverse its lies to the IAEA and develop its nuclear industry for peaceful purposes. Iran continues to generate hostility as a tried and true strategy to maintian power in government after you have lost the political will of the people.

The withdrawal of US troops and the complete autonomy of the Iraqi government to award oil contracts (which they did publicly on TV, and which US oil companies did not fare well) show that the US interests in the region NOW are focused on reducing American military involvement and working with the Iraqi government on basis of mutual respect.

But here is the bottom line;

Closing Guantanamo, leaving Iraq, opening a dialogue with the Muslim world has radically changed the political geography of the Middle East. It is no coincidence that parents of suspected terrorists are encouraging their children to cooperate and at the same time Pakistan is taking real steps to eliminate the Taliban's military capability. As my Muslim BIL says "These dots are so close together even Americans should be able to connect them."

Whatever else you may wish to argue about the offensive in Afghanistan the one thing that does not hold water is that its 'the same ole same ole'.

[bigtree]

7. all of what you wrote is fine for a point of view

. . . but the results so far are escalated military aggression in Afghanistan resulting in escalated resistance. The players that our government and military insist are integral to the resistance have changed repeatedly over the years and it's just not as clear as our government represents that all of the resistant violence is directed by fugitive suspects in Pakistan. Certainly they have some influence and control over some fighters, but if the vast majority of Taliban in Afghanistan are not associated with al-Qaeda, as the Obama administration has admitted, then what we are facing in Afghanistan is mostly resistance to our presence and activity and resistance to the U.S. enabled regime.

The effect of our military activity in Afghanistan has been said by Pakistanis to be a threat to stability in their country. They do appear to be stepping up their cooperation in our terror war, but they are also concerned with the blowback from their adoption of America's fight against al-Qaeda. Pakistani government officials have said so repeatedly, calling it 'America's war'. That's the bottom line, as far as this capture is concerned. What effect will their cooperation with the U.S. have on their own security interests? Also, there is the concern that the nation-building efforts in Afghanistan behind our military forces is antithetical to any 'stability' promised.

And the business about Iran's 'lies' is an amazing comment since there has been ZERO public evidence presented of any 'weapons program' which would justify all of the hyped concern about a nuclear 'threat' from the regime. The IAEA certainly hasn't produced any.

You must remember that after we killed Saddam's sons and after the Iraqis killed Saddam, the violence escalated unabated until Sadr went to Iran and managed a ceasefire among his supporters in Iraq with Iran's urging and guidance. The two nations have made several security and economic agreements which belie all of the sinister concern about Iran's intentions.

The U.S. posture in the Middle East has been transformed under this new administration in the rhetoric more than in the reality. We are still opportunistic occupiers there - and in Asia as well.

And . . . Taliban fighters fleeing? You must recognize that there's is a tactical retreat. The problem of the animosity which is at the heart of the resistance isn't reasonably addressed by an invasion and takeover of an Afghan village by foreign forces. This mission is an American pipe dream based on our western notion of what is prudent or acceptable there. The mission is bound to follow all similar pursuits.

Whack-a-mole . . . it's really that simple. The fighters are displaced elsewhere to wait us out. Look at the civil struggle now escalating in 'liberated' Iraq as we withdraw. This is all folly. You can paint the results any way you want. It's just more killing, more animosity generated, more resistance to our presence, allies and interests.


(btw, how about posting your article claiming 'Increasingly good news from Afghanistan' outside of the 'Barack Obama' group where it can stand to the scrutiny of critics? :))

[grantcart]

10. your first paragraph shows that you approach the subject with a

preconceived point of view.

There is no evidence that there is increased resistence in the last few months and in the case of the offensive in Helmand Province it is clear that resistence is declining, especially with the continued exodus of foreign Taliban fighters.

I am sorry but your comments about Pakistani security are just laughable. The greatest threat to Pakistani security has been actions by radical jihadists including the assassination of Prime Minister Bhutto and the attack on Mubai.

I have spent time in Pakistan and have resettled more than 10,000 Afghan refugees. I find your charachatures of Pakistanis and Afghans to be cartoonish.

Pakistanis are by and large secular, much like us. The reason that the national security forces of Pakistan supported the Taliban had nothing to do with religious sympathies. The Pakistanis wanted to use the Taliba to keep India worried and preoccupied.

The assassination of Prime Minister Bhutto is a seminal event in India and Pakistan history. Everyone who has any experience in Pakistan knows that on Dec 27 2007 all of Pakistan's security calculus changed. Pakistan no longer considers maintaining hegemony in Afghanistan as a prime goal anymore. Finding an avenue to create trust with India is. Taliban and Al Queda will do anything to destroy that reapproachment. All peace loving people in the world have to hope that the tragic events including the assassination of Bhutto and the attacks in Mubai will give birth to fraternal and peaceful relations between Pakistan and India.

The evidence of Iran's interest in building a 'weapons' programme is the fact that they refuse to cooperate with the IAEA.



The IAEA confirms that there has been no diversion of military grade material but Iran continues to comply with IAEA protocol

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2009/ebsp2009n002.html

The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, including all declared low enriched uranium. As the Report states, contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, or its work on heavy water related projects. Nor has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol, which, as with other countries with comprehensive safeguards agreements, is a prerequisite for the Agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. Iran has not permitted the Agency to perform the required design information verification at the IR-40 reactor currently under construction, and it has not implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part on the early provision of design information.

The Agency regrettably was unable to make any progress on the remaining issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions of Iran´s nuclear programme because of lack of cooperation by Iran. For the Agency to be able to make progress, Iran needs to provide substantive information and access to relevant documentation, locations and individuals in connection with all of the outstanding issues.

Unless Iran implements the transparency measures and the Additional Protocol, as required by the Security Council, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. I again urge Iran to implement all measures required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme at the earliest possible date and to unblock this stalemated situation. At the same time, I urge the Member States which have provided information to the Agency to agree to the Agency´s sharing of this information with Iran.

I believe that Iran has no interest in developing a nuclear weapon - at this time - and is creating a conflict for internal consumption to prop up support domestically.

But in any case it is important that Iran comply with the IAEA, an organization that I believe has done an outstanding job in showing how multilateral cooperation among govenments can help improve international security.



The reason that I don't bother posting much about the issue in GD and GD P is that issues related to Afghan have reached a level of conviction at DU and not conversation.

I did post this thread about outlining the changes in the offensive in Helmand Province in GDP. I will be happy to respond to any informed comment on it, but cheap shots like calling the ANA the 'Hashish Army' are not what I am intersted in, and the reason that I have found posting substantive threads on the issue a waste of time.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x184215



People have preconceived ideas about what is happening and are not interested in learning, especially encountering facts that do not fit with their preconceived ideas.

The facts are that this offensive was planned by the ANA and uses completely different strategy and tactics. But you are stuck on "whack a mole" so any evidence to the contrary is dismissed.

You may be right that this effort is not successful (how disappointed you will be if the Taliban is significantly reduced as a military force) but on the issue that nothing has changed and this is just a rerun is completely wrong. The situation in Afghan has changed and the situation in Pakistan has changed. The capture of Baradar is proof of that.

On a couple of other points, today marks the lowest level of troop involvement in Iraq in 7 years so the change there is not merely rhetoric.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwK_CSpBxsNuVUEaDuOwmSSCiqGwD9DTDLUO0

BAGHDAD — The number of American soldiers in Iraq has dropped below 100,000 for the first time since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion in a clear signal the U.S. is wrapping up its nearly seven-year war to meet a deadline for leaving the country, the U.S. military said Tuesday.

The troop reduction comes at a critical time in Iraq as Washington questions the shaky democracy's ability to maintain security in the tense period surrounding March 7 parliamentary elections. Those concerns have only grown with a decision by a vetting committee to bar hundreds of candidates from running because of suspected ties to Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath Party.

If the US is still trying to be "opportunistic occupiers" they certainly aren't doing a very good job of it. Again the facts are that Iraq has has 100% control of its oil industry and that recent bids were opened up on TV and American firms did not fare very well. Those again are facts.

Another strange statement, "We are still opportunistic occupiers there - and in Asia as well". I have no idea what country you are accusing us of occupying, apparently vast areas of entire continents. But having lived in Asia for over 20 years I can tell you without hesitation that Asians find such comments absolutely patronizing and have no trouble dealing with the US on a bilateral way and feel absolutley no need for you to assist them in the matter.


I have the highest opinion of much of what you write. I find this OP to be below your standard.
I have no misconception that we are likely to agree on what should be done in Afghanistan but I think you would be more persuasive in your arguments if you were less committed to seeing everything that is happening through a preconceived paradigm.


edited to fix IAEA link

[bigtree]

11. the resistance increased with the troop escalation. That was well documented.

The 'resistance' which is the most pernicious now is the increase in the use of roadside bombs and ieds. The method of operation of the insurgency (most insurgencies for that matter) is to blend into the background and wait out the U.S. forces. If direct fighting has dropped off (I'd ask the Canadians and the French troops about that) it's because the fighters are staging a tactical retreat. It's not rocket science.

More pernicious to the president's goals there is the animosity that the U.S. presence and activity has generated among the Afghan public. Despite the rosy polls that were trumpeted in the past months, The protests against the overreach and collateral effects of the stepped-up U.S. presence and activity can't have gone unnoticed by you. Yet I see that you've become invested in the military leadership's narrative about 'success'.

For the U.S. to 'succeed' in Afghanistan behind the force of our military, it will have to transition their offensive mission, almost immediately after their deadly, opportunistic assaults among the population, to a diplomatic one. That effort is always predictably staged, with friendlies lined up behind the line we draw with our advancing forces and everyone on the other side considered 'insurgent' or 'militant' in their resistance. Yet you represent the advance of our forces as some sort of benevolence.

Now, you are just wrong about my impression of what threatens Pakistanis. There is a marked difference between what threatens the citizens of Pakistan and what threatens their government. There is more danger among those in Pakistan than our military forces. The most pernicious to date, however, has been the threat of blowback from our Afghanistan occupation. That doesn't mean that the political conflicts which led to the assassination of Bhutto have ended or been replaced. As with every country which has found their citizens in the way of the U.S. war on terror. Pakistan's own internal struggles have been aggravated by the resistance to the U.S. military advance. We have made the political and security situations in both Pakistan and Afghanistan worse with our unbridled and opportunistic militarism; seemingly arbitrary if you are an Afghan or Pakistani caught in the way.

I've acknowledged that we're leaving Iraq, but that hasn't ended the civil conflict which our invasion and occupation unleashed and exacerbated. This notion you have of 'working with the U.S. enabled Maliki regime is laughable. Tell me again how relevant that propped government is to the people of Iraq when the U.S. actually leaves Iraq to Iraqis. Right now, they are still under occupation.

It's telling that the civil strife is increasing as we pull away . . . Completely predictable and underscoring the folly of the entire enterprise which you seem to be calling a success just because we've just about stopped. Full credit to this administration for ending the occupation, but there is no praise to be afforded the U.S. for our bungling, blustering militarism there. It was all folly and much of the occupation criminal, despite the fact that we're able to exit with our backs straight and our hands where Iraqis can see them.

We are still occupiers in Iraq. That is a fact. Hard for U.S. hopefuls to deal with, but we still have our boot on Iraq's throat. After we opened Iraq to foreign investment under Bush, most of Iraq's resources were parceled out of their citizen's benefit. I don't believe that there is an equitable benefit afforded the Iraqi people by the central government which receives most of the benefit of U.S. largess. But, you go on believing that we've tied all of the military imperialism all up in a pretty bow just because we've finally found the sense to leave.

You make a cute point about U.S. occupiers in Asia by claiming I meant ALL of Asia. Cute. We are still an aggravating, occupying force in Afghanistan/Pak border. Is that presence and activity really as welcome as you present? I certainly don't see that. Tolerated, yes. Welcome, no.

You posted that fluff piece of military propaganda in the Obama group because it's an echo chamber. I have a 'high opinion' of what you write as well (not so much the personalizations you make along the way). Again, you should try posting that piece where it can be subject to critical review.

Oh, and the crack you made that I'll be 'disappointed if the Taliban is significantly reduced as a military force' is an outrageous accusation and worthy of the rhetoric we're used to hearing from the Bush administration's defenses against their anti-war critics.

Preconceived ideas? As if you don't have a pov? Try again to debate this issue in an open forum without the personalizations. You just might find yourself open to, and aware of, some very cogent arguments which contradict your own beliefs in this matter.

[bigtree]

8. .

[uberllama42]

9. Bin Laden is not the leader of the Taliban

He is the leader of Al Qaida. They're two different things.

Like how the president and the Fed chairman are not the same person.

[bigtree]

12. you make a good point

Curious, then, that we're invested in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

[bertman]

13. Part of me wants to believe that we are making progress when we see the Pakistanis join

the U.S. in a raid that captures the #2 Taliban leader. The other part of me says "Whoa now, this seems to be a pattern that the propaganda arm uses to show that there's Progress being made", because recent history has shown that despite a #2 or #3 being captured in other insurgent/terrorist groups, the hostilities continue, more Americans and NATO soldiers die, and the war drags on.

The celebration of these captures is the perfect way of helping us Americans heave a sigh of relief because of how well things are going in those unfortunate conflicts half way around the globe. I'd really like to hear the real story of what is happening in Iraq--yes, Iraq--right now. IMO, it would take the lid blowing off for the pro-MIC corporate media to take notice of anything but the "progress" that is being made.

I wish I could believe this latest news is an indicator of a positive turning point in ending this war. I don't believe it, but soon enough we will know how much difference #2's capture has made. Or whether #3 is just as capable, or more capable, than #2.

[bigtree]

14. the American force deployment in these occupations is an awesome, weighty enterprise

What hasn't escaped my notice is how little has changed in the pattern of attacks and reprisals; we're still seeing the same type of killings which sparked this entire conflict in 2001 in NY (beginning in NY, if you look at this from the U.S. perspective). Our forces are now engaged in fighting an altogether new 'enemy' in Afghanistan which has been generated from a predictable resistance to our escalated occupation.

What's really changed is the level at which the U.S. has sought to impose our own notion of government and commerce behind what was arguably, initially a defensive effort in Afghanistan and the opportunistic imposition of our military forces in the invasion of Iraq. The conflicts which have evolved around that military presence and nation-building activity are the main enterprise for our forces and the militarized resistance alike. We provide the catalyst for the insurgency and our politicians provide the American targets and the recruiting poster for the resistance forces. We are the most aggravating element in this self-perpetuated cycle of attacks and counterattacks. Where do we get off?

[bigtree]

15. .

[Mari333]

16. as I read those articles this morning all I could think of was VIETNAM

VIETNAM

so soon we forget the lies we heard over and over about the progress we made, the people we killed, the routing of the villagers, the killing of the vietcong, over and over, the progress the napalm the slaughter

and 58,000 plus dead soldiers and who knows how many civilians later we stopped, finally


and we never learned!!! we never fucking learned!!!!

and here we are again, and people dont SEE whats going on, on the ground...they dont SEE the carnage, the children being blown to bits, the soldiers lying in rubble or being brought back in their coffins to their parents

we are in a fucking Pravda blackout!!


this goddamned occupation is on obama's head now. he owns it lock stock and barrel

he kept those fucking Bush generals in there and is contiuing the same goddamed path that they wanted


this is BIG money for the war profiteers and the propaganda is fast and furious

god forgive us for our ignorance and murderous ways