Marjah, Afghanistan assault mostly about influencing U.S. public opinion, WaPost says

[bigtree]

Gareth Porter: Marja Offensive Aimed to Shape U.S. Opinion on War

WASHINGTON, Feb 23, 2010 (IPS) - Senior military officials decided to launch the current U.S.-British military campaign to seize Marja in large part to influence domestic U.S. opinion on the war in Afghanistan, the Washington Post reported Monday.

The Post report, by Greg Jaffe and Craig Whitlock, both of whom cover military affairs, said the town of Marja would not have been chosen as a target for a U.S. military operation had the criterion been military significance instead of impact on domestic public opinion.

The primary goal of the offensive, they write, is to "convince Americans that a new era has arrived in the eight-year long war…." U.S. military officials in Afghanistan "hope a large and loud victory in Marja will convince the American public that they deserve more time to demonstrate that extra troops and new tactics can yield better results on the battlefield," according to Jaffe and Whitlock.

A second aim is said to be to demonstrate to Afghans that U.S. forces can protect them from the Taliban.

Despite the far-reaching political implications of the story, the Post buried it on page A9, suggesting that it was not viewed by editors as a major revelation.

read more: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50434


from the WaPo article:

. . . in purely military terms, sending 11,000 U.S. and Afghan troops to defeat a few hundred Taliban fighters in Marja won't change much in Afghanistan. The greater significance of the battle is in how it is perceived in the rest of Afghanistan and in America.

The campaign's goals are to convince Americans that a new era has arrived in the eight-year-long war and to show Afghans that U.S. forces and the Afghan government can protect them from the Taliban. It allows Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander, who months earlier described conditions in the country as "grave and deteriorating," to make a clean break from past failures.

"You want to be able to define your narrative, and we've had trouble doing that in the past," said Mark Moyar, who has served as a civilian adviser to U.S. commanders in Afghanistan. McChrystal is under pressure to show progress fast: President Obama has directed that U.S. troops begin to withdraw in July 2011.

In recent days, U.S. commanders in Kabul and Washington have gone to great pains to describe the Marja offensive as a new beginning. "This is the start point of a new strategy," one senior military official told reporters on Thursday. "This is our first salvo."

Such declarations aren't new in military history . . .

read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022104201_pf.html


WaPo article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022104201_pf.html

[NJmaverick]

1. This is NOTHING but opinion and speculation by two writers

there were no facts or official quotes to back up their self made story.

[bigtree]

2. you should listen more closely to the generals you so vigorously defend

"The information domain is a battlespace," Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal wrote in an assessment made public on Monday, adding that the allies need to "take aggressive actions to win the important battle of perception."

As an initial step, McChrystal wants to change the goal of public relations efforts in Afghanistan from a "struggle for the 'hearts and minds' of the Afghan population to one of giving them 'trust and confidence' " in themselves and their government. At the same time, he said, more effort should be made to "discredit and diminish insurgents and their extremist allies' capability to influence attitudes and behavior in Afghanistan."

In addition, McChrystal lists as a goal making public relations efforts beyond Afghanistan more effective. There has already been a step-up in press material sent to U.S. journalists. On Friday, seven releases were sent to The Washington Post, including one with four photos. The caption of one photo reads: "An Afghan commando team advances toward practice targets at a Kandahar training facility Sept. 24. Afghan National Army and police training is overseen by ISAF military mentors, with a goal that the Afghans will one day independently foster peace and stability in Afghanistan."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/26/AR2009092601748.html
_____________________________

U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan “are not winning yet, but we are going to win,” Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, told Stars and Stripes in an interview Friday.

But the general said it was not possible to say how long it will take to achieve victory, which he defined as a situation where “the insurgency is not an existential threat to the government or the people” of Afghanistan. He added that protecting civilians remains the goal of the allied counterinsurgency strategy.

“There’s no way to put an exact timeline on it, because as I’ve said, the Afghan people will decide ,” McChrystal said, speaking by phone from Kabul. “But I believe that over the next year to 18 months that we’re going to be able to decisively change the perception of momentum and gains by the insurgents.”

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=66983
__________________________

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, senior commander of American and allied forces in Afghanistan, and defense secretary Gates, spoke to NATO officials at a meeting Feb. 4:

“If they (Taliban) want to fight, then obviously that will have to be an outcome,” General McChrystal said. “But if they don’t want to fight, that’s fine, too, if they want to integrate into the government.” Even so, the decision could give insurgents time to flee — and to set booby traps in advance of their departure.

“The biggest thing is in convincing the Afghan people,” General McChrystal said during a briefing for correspondents traveling with Mr. Gates. “This is all a war of perceptions. This is not a physical war in terms of how many people you kill or how much ground you capture, how many bridges you blow up. This is all in the minds of the participants,” he says.

[NJmaverick]

5. You should take the time and read what you posted with a critical eye

looking for fact and official quotes and you will find nothing that supports the assertions of the writers. You bolded statements are goals in any war and are not new or news. The key is critical thinking combined with an understanding of asymmetrical warfare.

[arcadian]

13. It's all a conspiracy against YOU.

and your belief system. I love how you don't pick apart news articles that you perceive as being pro-administration.

[NJmaverick]

14. You assertions are both inaccurate and far afield of the truth

Understandable though. Instead of admitting the short comings of the writers you like you attack the one pointing out the short comings. I think I have seen that tactic before.

[bigtree]

16. you can't make this skunk smell any better by throwing around silly military doctrine

I know it must be hard for you to find ways to justify the killing as you promote this blundering U.S. aggression. You're so busy thinking 'critically' that these Afghan lives are just an abstraction to you. This is asymmetrical folly, asymmetrical slaughter. The goals are dubious and the action counterproductive to even the most basic of the president's stated justifications. The proof is right in front of you. To cheer on this type of opportunistic warfare is sick. Your response to the developments so far is telling. It really doesn't matter how many Afghan civilians die, so long as the administration, the Pentagon leadership, and their supporters can claim 'progress' or 'success'. Yet, this is a monumental FAILURE staring you right in the face.

[NJmaverick]

17. What skink? This is a text book example of bad reporting

The only thing that stinks is the lack of journalistic ethics displayed by the two reporters.

[bigtree]

19. you're in denial

. . . the folly is right in front of you. There is NOTHING even remotely related to our national security to be defended against in Marjah. These reporters are right on the mark. It's about time our press begins to tell the whole story behind this blunder. The mission's a transparent attempt to create the 'perception' of progress in their escalated occupation. It's ridiculous to deny it.

You want to know what's a farce? It's the blather from the generals about 'progress' in their Marjah assault. They didn't provide at all for the fleeing residents; no place to find shelter, no food. All they were told was either to flee or stay in their homes. The U.S. ends up bombing homes and vehicles seeking refuge from the fighting. But, you and the generals say press on.

[NJmaverick]

21. Show me the FACTS and the official quotes that directly support the main assertions

YOU CAN'T. So it's clear you are the one in denial.

[bigtree]

22. don't pretend that you have 'facts' that support your own contentions

. . . about the prospects for the Afghanistan occupation. You've made judgments based on whatever information you've gathered and what knowledge you have. As Mr. Porter stated, these men who wrote the article have based their assertions on conversations with* the military leadership and put those accounts together with the knowledge they've gained from covering this conflict and others. I daresay, I believe they have more of a line on what's happening in Afghanistan than you.

[NJmaverick]

23. I don't have to pretend about anything, which is what separates me

from your fiction writers posing as reporters

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Well said. The dehumanizing of "the enemy" is part of military doctrine.

People are reduced to targets rather than actual people. Progress is measured in body counts. "Truth is the first casualty in war" as Senator Johnson said in 1918 and nothing is so onerous as our military and politicians dismissing deaths as "necessary".

[Arctic Dave]

3. Why do you think they projected the mission so much, they wanted most of them to vanish.

This does mess well with the new name for the illegal Iraqi occupation, "Operation New Dawn".

We are now the kinder, gentler occupation and killing machine.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The whole goddam war has been about PR since it started. K&R

First Bush, with his "smoke 'em out" bluster, and now Obama with his "New Dawn" advertising.

It's not just stupid and immoral, it's pathetic.

[gratuitous]

6. There's certainly something offensive going on in Afghanistan

Whether there's a strategic military objective behind it is up for debate, but there's no doubt whatsoever that it's being sold to the people who pay the bills that this is a success, a turning point, a light at the end of the tunnel, and a whole new day dawning in the Graveyard of Empires.

Let those who have ears to hear attend to the whistling.

[Autumn]

7. Well they certainly have influenced me,

I now realize how pathetic all of our "leaders" are. Same shit. different names.

[amborin]

8. K&R

[Mari333]

9. anyone who falls for another bullshit line of propaganda is insane

these occupations have always been a sell job.

WAR IS A RACKET.
YOUR CHILDREN DIE FOR CORPORATE PROFIT. THATS ALL.

[kenny blankenship]

10. I'm shocked, SHOCKED! To learn that the CINC and his Generals are engaged in PsyOps

against the American people.

[wuushew]

11. The Pentagon's PR stunt is failing

if you read between the lines the generals are pushing back the goals of the Obama escalation further and further into the future.

IEDs are much more numerous, sniping more pronounced, casualites greater and air strikes more counter productive than was budgeted for in desired marketing campaign. Identical news stories will be running in two or three months describing American "progress" in Marja.

[tekisui]

12. Of course. It is all PR. Another Taliban leader captured or killed.

We are winning. Rah!

[Hawkowl]

15. Politics as usual by the MIC

"War is simply politics continued by other means." ---Bismarck

The military industrial complex can't afford for the wars on the goat herders and poppy growers to stop. Simply too much money in war profiteering. I know! let's tax "Cadillac health plans!"

[KonaKane]

20. I wonder if WaPo said the same about the assault of Fallujah?

I would wager they did not.