White House ‘pessimistic’ about Afghanistan war.
White House ‘pessimistic’ about Afghanistan war.
The Washington Post reports that the National Security Council “has concluded that wide-ranging strategic goals that the Bush administration set for 2007 have not been met, even as U.S. and NATO forces have scored significant combat successes against resurgent Taliban fighters”:
Intelligence analysts acknowledge the battlefield victories, but they highlight the Taliban’s unchallenged expansion into new territory, an increase in opium poppy cultivation and the weakness of the government of President Hamid Karzai as signs that the war effort is deteriorating. [...]
Overall, “there doesn’t seem to be a lot of progress being made. … I would think that from [the Taliban] standpoint, things are looking decent,” the intelligence official said.
Senior White House officials privately express pessimism about Afghanistan. There is anxiety over the current upheaval in neighboring Pakistan, where both the Taliban and al-Qaeda maintain headquarters, logistical support and training camps along the Afghan border.
A recent report from the Senlis Council found that the Taliban now controls 54 percent of Afghanistan.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
First President to lose two wars. I’m betting Bush is going to lose three before it is over. Sadly, when Bush the Wrecker loses, we all lose.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:46 amWell, that’s what happens when you take your eye off the ball. I think that Bush is running out of money he can use to bribe Sheiks so things are going to get much worse in both Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s one reason why he is so desperate to get Congress to pass new funding for the “war on terror” (really the Occupation of Iraq).
November 25th, 2007 at 11:55 amMisstah Bush and all your nimconpoops that you have to give breathe some life into your alcholized body!
You all, cant choose the place and time for the war.
Cept maybe Iraq, and you folks didn’t work so well there either.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:05 pmThus the results of electing a wet-brained, dry-drunk legacy hack that the power elite wanted to do their bidding.
-GSD
November 25th, 2007 at 12:06 pmComment by bilbobaggins — November 25, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Ya got that right BB. It’s kind of like feeding the bears in Yellowstone. They are big, cute, furry animals while taking morsels from your fingers. Then, when the supply dries up, they lean in the car window and bite your head off. Plus, we are not just “feeding the bears”, we are giving them extra teeth and stronger jaws by supplying arms.
BTW, I still haven’t seen any figures for the percentage of casualties, in Afghanistan or Iraq, inflicted with weapons supplied by us. My guess is it’s a considerable number.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:09 pmOnly Pravda on Potomac could tout significant combat successes while the Taliban have managed to invad almost half of Afghanistan.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:10 pmmission accomplished
heckova a job their bushie.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:14 pm.
What? Them worry?
Heckuva job Alfred E!
November 25th, 2007 at 12:40 pmWhat’s important here is that Hamid Karzai continues to look Omar Sharif-ish.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:45 pmApparently, the proud Afghani people do not particularly care for imperial occupiers, be they the current Bush crime family, the communist Russians in the 1980s or the British colonials back in the 19th century.
We, of the United States, newly organized in 1770s, tossed out the British Royal Tory imperial occupiers. Why should we be surprised if the Afgnanis resist imperial occupation some two hundred and thirty years later?
USofA, its troops and mercenaries and CIA should be totally and immediately removed from Afghanistan, Iraq and any other Middle Eastern locale now.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:03 pmOur military has been making some political mistakes. Granted they have the weapons for constant tactical success but their political blunders are resulting in strategic failure. Nowhere did that show itself more clearly than when they called the increased Taliban attacks acts of desperation. From a political or public relations point of view one understands why they might label it acts of desperation but from an analysis point of view it is simple denial. That denial will continue to lead to strategic failure in spite of tactical sucess.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:15 pmOne thing thats strange in this war is America drops bombs on the taliban and 100 die are there no wounded ????? are they left to die ????? does America even clean up after bombing a town ?????
No
November 25th, 2007 at 1:27 pmnever any wounded these days
November 25th, 2007 at 1:33 pmThe classic outcome.
We provided the best possible ‘live fire exercise’ experience for the Mujahideen which we funded, armed and otherwise supported in their efforts to drive back the Soviet ‘invaders.’
Then, we failed to enter Afghanistan with sufficient forces to insure security, capture or kill the opposition and end the cooperative ‘reign’ of the Taliban and those allied with Osama bin Laden. We compounded that idiocy by diverting critical assets to the unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq.
We have continued to fail in Afghanistan, by failing to insure security and tranquility, win the hearts and minds of those wary of the Taliban, and by failing to provide an economically attractive alternative to the cultivation of poppies and the production of heroin.
We continue to support the government of General Musharraf in Pakistan, a military dictator whose secretive security forces—and, even units of its regular military—provided logistical support, arms and financial resources which resulted in the installation of the Taliban in the first place. A government who almost single handedly boosted the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. Until we invaded Afghanistan, we failed to provide sufficient support to elements of the Northern Alliance, who fought the Taliban and its Pakistani benefactors.
Is there anyone—not still drinking the cool-aid—who actually wonders how things have turned out this way?
November 25th, 2007 at 1:44 pmthat is what you get for starting oil corporate ilegal wars! F…CK THE USA!
November 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pmYa mean freedom is not on the march ?
November 25th, 2007 at 2:48 pmSo …
- The Iraq war costs are a trillion bucks.
- The population of Iraq is 27 million.27 million
We could, instead of killing lots of people, have given $45,000 to every human in Iraq, where the annual per capita income is $144
Dunno, seems like a better use of our national blood and treasure.
Cheers,
November 25th, 2007 at 3:35 pm–raw
Comment by raw — November 25, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
The neocons are only willing to spend taxpayer’s money killing people. helping people? Not so much.
November 25th, 2007 at 4:00 pmWait, Wait, Wait a moment here.
I thought that when Iraq was criticised, that Afghanistan was help up as the example of the war on terror that was working.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:35 pmI thought this one was the war we got right. Guess not.
Have to say “I told you so” on this one, when I was among a ten percent minority insisting this ‘war’ would not work, consistently providing evidence to back it up, including common sense arguments like: You can’t bring democracy to any country by invading and forcing it on them. By bombing and killing thousands of them, from the outside. By not ridding the country of the enemy army. By ignoring the reconstruction and invading ANOTHER country.
And the final reason you can’t force a country to accept democracy should be self-evident: If they all vote for a theocracy, that democracy is long-gone.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:59 pm