Military official: ‘Frankly, we don’t have’ an end game in Afghanistan.
Military official: ‘Frankly, we don’t have’ an end game in Afghanistan.
President Obama is finalizing a plan to send tens of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan as “part of a push to beat back the resurgent Taliban and secure regions of Afghanistan that are beyond the reach of the weak central government in Kabul.” NBC’s military correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reports that Pentagon officials haven’t been able to provide an answer to Obama’s concern about having an “end game” strategy in place:
According to military officials during last week’s meeting with Defense Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon’s “tank,” the president specifically asked, “What is the end game?” in the U.S. military’s strategy for Afghanistan. When asked what the answer was, one military official told NBC News, “Frankly, we don’t have one.” But they’re working on it.
The New York Times reported recently, “Even as Mr. Obama’s military planners prepare for the first wave of the new Afghanistan ’surge,’ there is growing debate, including among those who agree with the plan to send more troops, about whether — or how — the troops can accomplish their mission, and just what the mission is.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“End game? Whasthat? One-a-them-there table games like, like Tiddly-Winks, or-or Boggle, or sumthin, that you, you know, play at the end of your vacation?”
February 4th, 2009 at 12:36 pm-Der Chimperor, The Deciderer, el Dumbya, le shrub
The Soviets finally found their end game… maybe they could offer some suggestions.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:38 pmduh, you didn’t have a beginning game either.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:40 pmIsn’t sending more humans into a situation where the mission is not yet established kinda like throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at the financial sector with not clear vision, or safeguards/accountability, on how it is to be used? Only deadly?
PEACE
February 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pmHow about catching Osama Bin Laden? The real mastermind of the 9/11 horror? Remember him, the one W said he wanted dead or alive? Now, that was a grand success wasn’t it?
February 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pmWhatever you do President Obama, no nation building. You’ll be in-and-out faster with a defined objective, and our troops could finally come home with a net gain to America’s national security.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pmYay, we finally have a President in place who asks the right questions. If we’d kept it up chimpy-style, we could have had a huge network of wars that never ended because it never occurred to us to end them.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pmwe don’t have an end game.
JUST like Vietnam.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:43 pmthe more things change, the more they remain the same.
Ummm…here’s an end game for ya: leave Afghanistan now. I mean, even the Russkies could figure that one out…
February 4th, 2009 at 12:43 pmMcWars Says:
Whatever you do President Obama, no nation building.
That’s what Bush and Cheney said waaaay back in 2003. That nation building wasn’t worth the bother. And then they wondered why they couldn’t get out without it looking like they “lost.”
February 4th, 2009 at 12:44 pmNevar Says:
The Soviets finally found their end game… maybe they could offer some suggestions.
Yep.
¶ AIO
February 4th, 2009 at 12:46 pm‘Frankly, we don’t have’ an end game in Afghanistan.
This sounds eerily familiar. Iraq anyone?
February 4th, 2009 at 12:46 pmI say send the Bush Crime Family over there and let them take some lead and see where that gets us before we have a surge with real human beings, our soldiers.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:48 pmAs George Harrison said in one of his last songs: “if you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there”.
“What is the end game?” is THE most important question. It defines “victory” and the criteria for getting out again. But it also acts as the vision behind the tactical and strategic moves that the military would need to take to meet the overall goal. Thank you, President Obama for asking this question.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:49 pmIf you don’t know what your mission is — much less the end game for the series of missions you presumably envision — you have absolutely NO BUSINESS sending US troops into foreign countries. Period.
And with 7 years to think of what the end game should be in Afghanistan — we’ve been there since 2002 — you’d think they’d have thought of one. At least one, no?
February 4th, 2009 at 12:49 pmIraq and Afghanistan, two simultaneous open-ended time and money consuming wars that have crippled and weakened the military forces to the breaking point. Billions wasted every month on these wars designed to bring economic ruin to the US and the rest of the world. It is so obvious. Israel pounding the hell out of the Palestinians in Gaza on the other end. A Zionist’s wet dream come true!
February 4th, 2009 at 12:54 pmAfghanistan may end up out of our hands if we can’t keep the supply routes through Pakistan open. Armies have a hard time fighting without bullets and food.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:03 pmHey, since Bush and Cheney put our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, let’s ask them what their end game was and how they hoped to get there? They both avoided those questions for the majority of their tenure int he WH. Cheney seems fond of talking these days, ask him.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:05 pmMcWars Says:
Whatever you do President Obama, no nation building. You’ll be in-and-out faster with a defined objective, and our troops could finally come home with a net gain to America’s national security.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
____________
Isn’t that exactly how we got into this mess in the first place? We used Afghanistan’s mujaheddin for our proxy war with the Soviets, then once they did our bidding we abandoned the country to civil war, chaos, and theocratic dictatorship.
While we have some important lessons to learn from the Soviet invasion about a military occupation of Afghanistan, we also have some important lessons to learn from ourselves.
I believe the problem with nation-building is not what we do, but who we use to do it. The Pentagon should not be in the business of building schools and hospitals and roads. Their role should be security and stability, and training an Afghan Army so the country can protect itself.
However, what we also need is a diplomatic and development surge to give the Afghan Army a country worth protecting, or else all our security efforts are pointless.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:09 pmThe endgame in Afghanistan was YEARS ago, when bin Laden was trapped in the caves at Tora Bora. That was the ONE job Bush had there. “Smoke him out, dead or alive!” And he screwed it up. And yeah, so now we ARE sitting there with our thumbs up our asses, taking fire from Taliban fighters every day, while OBL parties with his virgins in Waziristan.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:12 pmAs prior military, I wonder what our troops think of this. A high percentage are neocon supporters, and think that the war is righteous, they don’t want to leave without “winning” because it would mean their buddies have died in vain, they have been wounded in vain, and their lives have been totally disrupted in vain. One of the unfortunate, and maybe unforeseen consequence of the all-volunteer Army is that continual war becomes important to the professional soldier. Where are the draftees when we need them?
I have faith that Obama will correct the lack of vision after getting input from commanders on the ground. He has already indicated that his prime objective is to defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Then get out. Not easy, but doable. Takes more than two weeks, considering that the CentCom commander is not very cooperative.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:14 pmAll throughout history, invaders tried to subdue Afghanistan – none of them succeeded. They all brought in the best weapons to kill and maim, still the Afghans are there. They assasinated Afghan leaders, still the Afghans are there. They raped and pillaged the entire countryside, still the Afghans are there.
Why are we in Afghanistan? To simply add our name to the failed invaders? I guess so. Killing is wrong, ya know.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:16 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
I believe the problem with nation-building is not what we do, but who we use to do it. The Pentagon should not be in the business of building schools and hospitals and roads. Their role should be security and stability, and training an Afghan Army so the country can protect itself.
I was speaking in that context, HTH. Routine humanitary spending is fine. It’s part of any good national foreign policy. I thought it was assumed under the conduct in Iraq that anti-nation building meant no money grab for military contractors claiming multiple specialties. We have to rebuild what we destroy, but we can’t necessarily change what we don’t like about a country. (I’m not insinuating that’s what you meant, only what I meant.)
I’m having a difficult time assuming how we could pick up where we left off in Afghanistan/Pakistan. I guess I’ll just wait for military planners to do their jobs and for the president to accept their best judgment.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:21 pmpo says;
Sorry, but I wouldn’t ask chimpy or dickhead for the time of day. The NICEST thing I could say to them face-to-face is what Cheney said to Leahy on the Senate floor. you know the one, Go f*#k yourself!
February 4th, 2009 at 1:21 pmI watched a report last week on SBS (Australia) which
pointed out the three biggest problems for Afghans;
poverty, unemployment, and government corruption. The
men would stand out in the cold all day erery day hoping for
any kind of work. Women were at the scene of an overturned
truck trying to salvage spilled fuel out of the snow.
The people now in power are the same corrupt warlords
the Afghans were glad the Taliban surpressed.
I’ve also heard Amercan commanders in Afghanistan state that
February 4th, 2009 at 1:35 pmthe problems will never be solved militarily.
“Military official: ‘Frankly, we don’t have’ an end game in Afghanistan.”
Of course not!!! You are there to build an Oil Pipeline, illegally occupying a country that does not want to have you there. Be prepare, you are a legitimate target until the moment you get out of a land that does not belong to you!
February 4th, 2009 at 1:41 pmPart of the “change” we voted for was an end to these mindless excursions. The only people who insist on this kind of behavior are the military and hawks whose finances are greatly enhanced by this. Most intelligent people realize terrorists are a small part of the muslim population. Our policies under Bush where the equivalent of removing a tumor with a blowtorch The answer, the scalpel not the bunker buster
February 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pmEndless US imperial aggression, colonialism and imperialism. End game? When the Bush recession becomes a giant, deep and long Bush depression, we won’t be able to afford to be imperial occupying pigs any longer.
O/T: three ways to end the Bush recession:
1. get all US contractors and military out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now.
2. double the minimum wage to $14/hour. This will put enough new money in the hands of the poorest workers to increase consumer demand and thus put people back to work.
3. cap all US individual corporate salaries, bonuses, stock option gimmicks to 400,000 per year and tax all the rest. Our financial, real estate, and oil price bubbles are caused by the ruling class having too much money and no place to “invest it” to make even more money.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:32 pmStratRat Says:
All throughout history, invaders tried to subdue Afghanistan – none of them succeeded.
There is only one exception to this statement, and it is a qualified one. Alexander the Great.
Afghanistan is really the only place Alexander was not completely victorious, because no matter how many times he beat the Afghans, they refused to surrender.
They resorted to guerilla tactics. With his usual military genius, Alexander retrofitted the phanlanxs with better equipment for that mission, brought in fresh troops who didn’t have a standard battlefield mindset and exercised the utter ruthlessness that he was totally capable of and we never could be. After 3 years of this, large parts of the country had become desert, but still the Afghans refused to give in.
Finally, he offered to marry Roxanne, a local princess, marry his men to Afghan women, declare mutual friendship, accept a token submission and get back to conquering lands further East.
So – not a win, but not a loss. And there is a lesson here. It is famously said of the Afghans that you can’t buy their loyalty, but you can rent it.
Our endgame, I predict, will look like this. A surge of troops will bring about enhanced security, but only so long as we are willing to keep them there. In the meantime, a diplomatic surge will have to identify those elements of the Taliban that we can make peace with. Obama will be willing to do this.
Sometime in the next decade, we will be able to leave, just as Alexander did, with an incomplete victory. But we won’t leave like the Soviets did, with utter chaos in our wake. After all that has happened, I don’t think any President could do that and survive politically. There will be some kind of Afghan democracy that is a nominal ally.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:30 pm“There will be some kind of Afghan democracy that is a nominal ally.”
Sure. Each village elects it’s own headman. That’s about as far as democracy will get.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:43 pmThe hot commodity at the moment for buying Afghan loyalty is Viagra. A handful of blue pills to the village patriarch, and you’ve got their support.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:45 pmNevar Says:
The hot commodity at the moment for buying Afghan loyalty is Viagra. A handful of blue pills to the village patriarch, and you’ve got their support.
Seriously? Can’t tell if you are kidding.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:50 pmI’m not kidding.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pmSeriously, it was a news bit a few weeks ago.
“Coalition forces” in border and tribal zones passing out Viagra. The old geezers snarfed them up, asked for more.
Nevar Says:
I’m not kidding.
Seriously, it was a news bit a few weeks ago.
“Coalition forces” in border and tribal zones passing out Viagra. The old geezers snarfed them up, asked for more.
Wow. Gives a whole new meaning to Robust Diplomacy.
As far as Democracy never getting past the village level, it will take years to know whether that is true or not. I suspect it is not….I hope not, because I don’t see us leaving there if the Taliban or AQ are poised to takeover once we are gone.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:54 pmHere’s a link, Keltoi, if you want more, ‘oogle “tribal viagra”
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/cia_bribing_afghani_tribal_leaders_with_viagra/
February 4th, 2009 at 3:56 pmEnd game?
February 4th, 2009 at 4:33 pmGee, they never got that question before invading Iraq.
Well, I guess they’ll have to formulate one.
However politically inconvenient it may be, it’s a simple fact that the best route for a pipeline from the Caspian Sea to a major port is through Iran. Get out of Afghanistan. Get real with Iran. Iran can even build it with no help from Bechtel. It’s past time to stop using our military to support oil companies.
February 4th, 2009 at 5:49 pmThat’s just great. Obama doesn’t have a plan for victory. This has been a bad week for President Obama. His cabinet is a mess, he’s arbitrarily determining what an executive is worth and now we find out he has no plan for Afghanistan. He had better have a plan for Iraq. We cannot afford to lose Iraq.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:36 pmthis HAS to be a completely Military Industrial Complex driven war. IMHO There is NO strategic objective out there in the hills/mountain/ravines. No roads. No governing capability. Nothing. We won’t be putting the sattelite campus of Hahvahd U over there. Nor starbux/mcD. Heck our “ally” Pakistan is about to fall to the Taliban WITHIN their own country…so we sell them more arms…arm Pakis to the teeth.
Can we guarantee Saudi money is stopped flowing there? No.
Remember the clinton administration…when Taliban took kabul officially, clinton state department sent congratulations and emissary. then hushed it up. OOPS.
And EXACTLY WHO are we fighting: Alqada…no…Taliban…no…Alqada…no Taliban…oh well Mission Accomplished.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:44 pmThe longer we stay in Afghanistan, the more people we kill, the more enemies we make in the only country in the Mideast where radical jihadists feel safe from their countrymen.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:59 pmI have spent 10 months of the last 4 years of my life in that heap if a country. There is no endgame…..
February 5th, 2009 at 12:15 amPoor Obama. If he is not careful, this will be his Vietnam. We will fare no better then the Russians and they spent ten years there. Obama is making a mistake. He is listening too much to the military. And the military is doing what it always does, it thinks in terms of winning a war. Not a bad end, if you have tried diplomacy first.
If someone could tell me please, why are we in Afganistan? I don’t know. In fact there are a lot of people that don’t know.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:19 amI would like to encourage Congress to increase funding for fighting global poverty. The Borgen Project (www.borgenproject.org) has some great facts and ideas to help global poverty.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pm$30 billion to eliminate global poverty.
$522 billion on the U.S. defense budget.
There are 800 million people that go to sleep hungry every day, 300 million are children.
Hey cougar, we’ve spent 11 trillion trying to end poverty here in America. Take your 30 billion number with a grain of salt. The internet is not the best place for that kind of statistic.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:00 pmYour numbers add up to $37.50 per person. That may end hunger for a month if they are all in third world countries. That won’t end world hunger indefinitely. Over 1 year this idea would cost 360 billion. That’s almost 2/3 of the entire 8 year war on terror. In fact, 8 years would put the price tag at 2.88 Trillion, or roughly one year of our entire budget at present. Sorry, I’m a statistics geek. Couldn’t help myself.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:05 pm