US Sent Thousands Of Troops To Wrong Afghan Province: Book

[webfact]

US sent thousands of troops to wrong Afghan province: book

Anwar Iqbal

Dawn

WASHINGTON: -- The Pentagon sent thousands of US troops to the wrong province in Afghanistan and “squandered more than a year of the war”, claims a book released yesterday.

The book — “Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan” — also shows how the White House national security staff blocked the late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke from negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban.

After reading the revelations, Congressman Frank Wolf wrote a letter to President Barack Obama, urging him to remove retired Lt-Gen Douglas Lute from his post on the National Security Council for blocking Holbrooke’s peace plans.

In February 2009, President Obama agreed to send 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and another 30,000 later the same year.

But more than 50 per cent of the initial 17,000 ended up in Helmand instead of the Taliban nerve-centre of Kandahar.

“Can someone tell me why the Marines were sent to Helmand?” Gen Stanley McChrystal, the then US commander in Afghanistan, reportedly asked upon his arrival in Kabul in June 2009.

Gen McChrystal regarded Helmand to be of “far lower strategic significance” than Kandahar.

If the first batch of surge troops had been deployed to Kandahar, it could have obviated the need for a full 30,000 surge later that year, US military officials who served in Afghanistan told the author, Rajiv Chandrasekaran of The Washington Post.

A deployment in Kandahar could also have granted US commanders “the flexibility to combat insurgent havens in eastern Afghanistan much sooner”, the book states.

Gen McChrystal’s 34-year career ended in June 2010 when a Rolling Stone magazine article quoted his subordinates ridiculing President Obama.

The book details how the infighting between Holbrooke and Gen Lute — and then-National Security Adviser James Jones — thwarted efforts to seek a negotiated settlement to the Afghan war.

At one stage, Gen Jones tried getting President Obama to fire Holbrooke but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prevented it.

NSC officials would schedule key meetings when Holbrooke was out of town, refused to allow him to use a military aeroplane and tried, unsuccessfully, to exclude him from President Obama’s Oval Office meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

President Obama “could have ordered a stop to the infighting” because, he too favoured a negotiated end to the war, like Holbrooke, but “his sympathies lay with his NSC staffers”, the book notes.

The president did not like Holbrooke’s “frenetic behaviour”, which was the antithesis of Obama’s "no-drama" rule, Chandrasekaran writes.

“The president never granted Holbrooke a one-on-one session in the Oval Office, and when he travelled to Afghanistan in March 2010, he took more than a dozen people” except Holbrooke.

In July 2009, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia sent a personal message to President Obama asking him to dispatch someone to meet Taliban emissaries who were communicating with the Saudi intelligence service.

Holbrooke figured the overture was worth pursuing but the NSC showed little interest.

In the spring of 2010, the NSC eventually expressed support for reconciliation but with a twist: Gen Lute suggested that a UN envoy, former Algerian foreign minister Lakhdar Brahimi, should negotiate with the Taliban.

Gen Lute’s plan relegated Holbrooke to a support role.

This infuriated Secretary Clinton who thought the NSC was asking a UN envoy to run America’s foreign policy.

When Gen David Petraeus replaced Gen McChrystal in Afghanistan, he shelved peace moves and tried to subdue the Taliban in the battlefield, as he had done in Iraq.

In a letter to President Obama, Congressman Wolf, notes: “Ignoring policy suggestions simply because of personal differences prevented the full consideration of all ideas for achieving success in the region.”

Wolf, who is a member of the House Appropriations Defence subcommittee, urges Obama to act now.

“Since you chose not to quash this petty squabbling while it was occurring, I believe the only solution now is to remove Gen Lute,” he writes.

Such behaviour, he says, is “unacceptable, especially when the lives of America service members are on the line”.

-- ANN 2012-06-27

[Exsexyman]

The blind leading the blind comes to mind. All this infighting and squabbling between The President, Secretary of State, Ambassadors, Generals etc, protecting their own interests and positions. Meanwhile the poor bloody infantry at the sharp end have to try and sort out this mess, many of them paying the ultimate price for this incompetence. Lions led by donkeys is the appropriate expression i believe!

[kerryk]

Not enough anti American news today so we are posting books in addition to news paper articles. Good idea.

[Steely Dan]

I've had my mail from the U.S sent to Taiwan instead of Thailand, but not 17,000 parcels of it.

[folium]

This just goes to show what nonsense publishers come up with in order to sell a book. Helmand as even the most obtuse Afghan observer would recognize that Helmand is not only one of Afghan's largest provinces in terms of size and opium production but has been one of the key ISAF battlegrounds due to the lack of major urban centres and a concentration of insurgent activity in the "green zone". Hence it represented relatively low hanging fruit compared to the far harder task of subduing Kandahar.

[doggie888888]

Not enough anti American news today so we are posting books in addition to news paper articles. Good idea.

Not every book or article that purports to present an alternate view of the war is anti-American. Similarly, not every action of the Americans is righteous or even morally acceptable.

Edited June 27, 2012 by doggie888888

[kerryk]

Not enough anti American news today so we are posting books in addition to news paper articles. Good idea.

Not every book or article that purports to present an alternate view of the war is anti-American. Similarly, not every action of the Americans is righteous or even morally acceptable.

Well it was new to me. I am not used to books being reviewed in this forum. I think it is a good idea. It shows a better class of American bashing. In this particular instance I even agree with it. Maybe it is not the first book that has been reviewed in the news forum. Has anyone seen any others? What subjects are covered? Like I said I think it is a good idea and a refreshing change.

[thaibeachlovers]

This just goes to show what nonsense publishers come up with in order to sell a book. Helmand as even the most obtuse Afghan observer would recognize that Helmand is not only one of Afghan's largest provinces in terms of size and opium production but has been one of the key ISAF battlegrounds due to the lack of major urban centres and a concentration of insurgent activity in the "green zone". Hence it represented relatively low hanging fruit compared to the far harder task of subduing Kandahar.

Your mention of "opium production" is, IMO, one of the factors preventing the US "winning" ( which is impossible anyway ) this war. Till the US stops trying to "nation build", prevent opium production, and having an objective of sending girls to school, there will be no success in the military field. They need to decide just what they want to achieve and commit to a long term plan, and if they can't do that, they might as well leave now.

Once the allied forces pull out in 2014, whatever limited success has been achieved so far will be eliminated as the taliban over runs the government, just as they did after the Russians stopped supporting the regime they left behind.

[folium]

The blind leading the blind comes to mind. All this infighting and squabbling between The President, Secretary of State, Ambassadors, Generals etc, protecting their own interests and positions. Meanwhile the poor bloody infantry at the sharp end have to try and sort out this mess, many of them paying the ultimate price for this incompetence. Lions led by donkeys is the appropriate expression i believe!

Just the nature of the beast. Soldiers don't start wars and in the long run can't end them, both are the function of politicians. Both politicians and soldiers are human and thus mistakes are made often with tragic consequences, again part of the nature of warfare.

Lions? Most soldiers in any military are young people from the lower end of the social/educational scale doing what's asked of them and doing it well when they are well-led, well-trained and well-equipped. Every generation doubts the next generation, spend some time with those currently serving to see things differently.

Ridiculing politicians and demonizing the military may sell books or make people feel better, but so miss the point.

[folium]

This just goes to show what nonsense publishers come up with in order to sell a book. Helmand as even the most obtuse Afghan observer would recognize that Helmand is not only one of Afghan's largest provinces in terms of size and opium production but has been one of the key ISAF

battlegrounds due to the lack of major urban centres and a concentration of

insurgent activity in the "green zone". Hence it represented relatively low

hanging fruit compared to the far harder task of subduing Kandahar.

Your mention of "opium production" is, IMO, one of the factors preventing

the US "winning" ( which is impossible anyway ) this war. Till the US stops

trying to "nation build", prevent opium production, and having an objective

of sending girls to school, there will be no success in the military field.

They need to decide just what they want to achieve and commit to a long

term plan, and if they can't do that, they might as well leave now.

Once the allied forces pull out in 2014, whatever limited success has been

achieved so far will be eliminated as the taliban over runs the government,

just as they did after the Russians stopped supporting the regime they left

behind.

Plenty to think about in your post!

To start with the most controversial. Heroin addicts in Europe & N. America

largely fund the Taliban (plus warlords in Myanmar), much as cocaine

users boost the coffers of gangsters throughout central and southern

America. Legalization removes this source of funding and gives the local

population a vital economic interest in stability and a legal boost to their

development.

Afghanistan is a classic example of the old dilemma; "no development

without security, no security without development".

Basically the military on it's own cannot win a war and the "peace" that

follows the end of regular conflict. Again Afghan highlights the crucial need

as you point out for proper long term, coordinated planning. Instead we

have seen classic mission creep with the objective constantly morphing but

fatally without being properly equipped or at the right commitment level to

achieve the objective. The initial objective of rooting out Al Qaida relied far

too heavily on the bravery and skills of too few SF troops plus the unreliable Northern Alliance and so on.

All the focus now is on trying to leave something durable behind to have some form of police and military in Afghan that is up for the task. While it is easy to be cynical and point to the pitfalls of green on blue incidents, at least the present efforts stand some chance of leaving something tangibly better behind once ISAF withdraws.

PS the Taliban didn't take over on the Soviet withdrawal, the warlords did once Najibullah's regime collapsed 3 years later and the Taliban were created by Pakistan's ISI in the midst of the brutal civil war that broke out post Najibullah.

Edited June 28, 2012 by folium

[kerryk]

Who the heck is Rajiv Chandrasekaran and how does he get his book on Thai Visa? Isn't that spam? The above book is for sale on Amazon.

[Morch]

Who the heck is Rajiv Chandrasekaran and how does he get his book on Thai Visa? Isn't that spam? The above book is for sale on Amazon.

Rajiv Chandrasekaran is a journalist (or is it editor, nowadays?) for the Washington Post. Spent some time as their man in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mind that the OP itself comes from Dawn, which is a major English language news outlet in Pakistan.

As the book focuses on political intrigue and infighting on the USA side, the headline of the OP isn't exactly the main issue. Seriously doubt there has EVER been a war which didn't have its own share of the same political BS.

[kerryk]

Who the heck is Rajiv Chandrasekaran and how does he get his book on Thai Visa? Isn't that spam? The above book is for sale on Amazon.

Rajiv Chandrasekaran is a journalist (or is it editor, nowadays?) for the Washington Post. Spent some time as their man in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mind that the OP itself comes from Dawn, which is a major English language news outlet in Pakistan.

As the book focuses on political intrigue and infighting on the USA side, the headline of the OP isn't exactly the main issue. Seriously doubt there has EVER been a war which didn't have its own share of the same political BS.

I think it is a good idea. I just didn't know Thai Visa was promoting authors from Pakistan now.

[thaibeachlovers]

This just goes to show what nonsense publishers come up with in order to sell a book. Helmand as even the most obtuse Afghan observer would recognize that Helmand is not only one of Afghan's largest provinces in terms of size and opium production but has been one of the key ISAF

battlegrounds due to the lack of major urban centres and a concentration of

insurgent activity in the "green zone". Hence it represented relatively low

hanging fruit compared to the far harder task of subduing Kandahar.

Your mention of "opium production" is, IMO, one of the factors preventing

the US "winning" ( which is impossible anyway ) this war. Till the US stops

trying to "nation build", prevent opium production, and having an objective

of sending girls to school, there will be no success in the military field.

They need to decide just what they want to achieve and commit to a long

term plan, and if they can't do that, they might as well leave now.

Once the allied forces pull out in 2014, whatever limited success has been

achieved so far will be eliminated as the taliban over runs the government,

just as they did after the Russians stopped supporting the regime they left

behind.

Plenty to think about in your post!

To start with the most controversial. Heroin addicts in Europe & N. America

largely fund the Taliban (plus warlords in Myanmar), much as cocaine

users boost the coffers of gangsters throughout central and southern

America. Legalization removes this source of funding and gives the local

population a vital economic interest in stability and a legal boost to their

development.

Afghanistan is a classic example of the old dilemma; "no development

without security, no security without development".

Basically the military on it's own cannot win a war and the "peace" that

follows the end of regular conflict. Again Afghan highlights the crucial need

as you point out for proper long term, coordinated planning. Instead we

have seen classic mission creep with the objective constantly morphing but

fatally without being properly equipped or at the right commitment level to

achieve the objective. The initial objective of rooting out Al Qaida relied far

too heavily on the bravery and skills of too few SF troops plus the unreliable Northern Alliance and so on.

All the focus now is on trying to leave something durable behind to have some form of police and military in Afghan that is up for the task. While it is easy to be cynical and point to the pitfalls of green on blue incidents, at least the present efforts stand some chance of leaving something tangibly better behind once ISAF withdraws.

PS the Taliban didn't take over on the Soviet withdrawal, the warlords did once Najibullah's regime collapsed 3 years later and the Taliban were created by Pakistan's ISI in the midst of the brutal civil war that broke out post Najibullah.

Yes, you are correct about the timeline from Russia pulling out to the taliban taking over. I just omitted the warlord phase for simplicity. However, this time it will probably be just direct from Nato leaving to the taliban taking over.

Unfortunately, I have no faith in the west having the commitment, militarily or financially, to seeing this through to a successful conclusion, so IMO they might as well leave now, though it would be morally responsible for the countries that have contributed to the disaster to allow those at risk under the taliban to emmigrate to their countries..

[maidu]

a book written by a reporter. He wasn't privy to many key conversations. Plus, it's a one-sided commentary, with the principles not having a say in their defense. Essentially hear-say and conjecture. Not news.

[tzthib]

The title seems somewhat misleading. I thought the soliders were sent to a province other than the one they were assigned to. It turns out, it was just a disagreement about troop positioning. No news there.

Also, it isnt news that the Obama administration is quite adept at bickering and petty influence games. Anyone who read "Obama's Wars" knew all of this a long time ago. This is my biggest problem with Obama; at times he comes across as a weak or inept manager. He seems to do a mediocre job of keeping his staff in line. Political considerations are always most important. Sometimes I wonder why he even wants a second term, for his first term was notable only for the lack of the catastrophic failure that was so common during the days of Bush.

Even if I sometimes feel Obama is weak and nowhere near as capable as people believed in 2008, I still will not vote for Romney.

[sauvagecheri]

The title seems somewhat misleading. I thought the soliders were sent to a province other than the one they were assigned to. It turns out, it was just a disagreement about troop positioning. No news there.

Also, it isnt news that the Obama administration is quite adept at bickering and petty influence games. Anyone who read "Obama's Wars" knew all of this a long time ago. This is my biggest problem with Obama; at times he comes across as a weak or inept manager. He seems to do a mediocre job of keeping his staff in line. Political considerations are always most important. Sometimes I wonder why he even wants a second term, for his first term was notable only for the lack of the catastrophic failure that was so common during the days of Bush.

Even if I sometimes feel Obama is weak and nowhere near as capable as people believed in 2008, I still will not vote for Romney.

It is a sad day that we have to make those kinds of choices ,and all America can produce is those two pathetic excuses for a leader ,not counting our fearless past president Mr Bush ,not only once but twice ,looks like we are going to be stuck with Mr Obama for a second term ..,America used to be a beacon of hope for the entire planet ..Look at it now ! What a pitiful mess ,It has been said that a country gets the leader it deserves ,I have to shake my head in unbelief when I see this disgusting saga unfolding ..so unbelievably corrupt .!.Too bad !.We are going to pay for this for a very long time .Wake up America !

Edited July 3, 2012 by sauvagecheri

[Ulysses G.]

looks like we are going to be stuck with Mr Obama for a second term

Not very likely. More bad job numbers coming soon.

[johna]

a book written by a reporter. He wasn't privy to many key conversations. Plus, it's a one-sided commentary, with the principles not having a say in their defense. Essentially hear-say and conjecture. Not news.

Oh well I guess maidu's reveiw of the book closes the disscussion!

eh.. you did read the book right?

[dressedingreen]

Perhaps we should applaud the fact that they managed to find Afghanistan. No small feat for a country whose presidents are not known for they geographical prowess.

DIG

[kerryk]

Maybe there aren't enough anti US threads running now? I am sure we can find another couple of anti US books to post in the news forum. How about some books on Iraq or the American Indian wars?