ya it's true half money is coming that's way but mostly coming through donation and drugs money which is growing in afghanistan with the blessing of USA and Nato forces.

it really does drive me crazy how for so many people the suspicion is their truth and that they can believe anything they are told if it looks like it could confirm their suspicions.

Real evidence please. I'm not closed but can we have something more than just "sources say" in some shadowy office, if claims are going to be made here?
Thanks.

This is what you get with nation building, you can't fight war to win because there wasn't a threat that warranted decimating the country and letting them rebuild.

Yes, that sounds very much as if you will find a way to deliver the message. I can only see one very tiny, unimportant problem.

What is the message? Does anybody know that?

.Let's not forget why we ended up here in the first place.

That's an easy one. In the 1970s an Afghan government attempted to break the power of the mullahs and the feudal landlords with land reform and a secular education programme. A foreign government (can you guess which one?) attempted to foment an insurgency and failed miserably because the reforms were popular.

Plan B was to import jihadists from throughout the Islamic World to engage in a campaign of terrorism (what was that about countries which support terrorists?) which was to make government impossible and goad the Soviet Union into invading and ultimately bringing about their own downfall. This project succeeded miserably.

The resultant "stirred up Moslems" (Brzezinsky) or "Freedom Fighters"(Ronald Reagan) flew aeroplanes into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon. That's how we got here in the first place.

Yeah.

I knew that would bring some people out of hiding. :-)

We can argue the history all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that neither of you have answered the question posed...what is the message?

If don't agree with the message, then come up with your own. So far, I'm the only one offering one.

If you (the Taliban) harbor terrorists (Al Queda) that attack our countries (the west), be prepared to deal with the consequences--social and political turmoil, death, destruction, economic disruption, etc.

Do a cost-benefit analysis and decide the value of sheltering terrorism. Can you say Afghanistan has NOT paid a price for sheltering terrorism?

We have not achieved all our objectives (yet--but we still have a President full of hope and change) and few (except those in Momoland) can argue there have been no consequences to the Taliban and those who support them.

It doesn’t look as if this war is doing them much harm, in the contrary, they seem to be stronger than ever.

Let's see. They are dying in droves. They've been reduced to living in caves and prosecuting a guerilla war, instead of engaging in their favorite past time of happily loping off body parts, subjugating women, and enforcing medieval Sharia law. That's not "stronger than ever."

“If you (the Taliban) harbor terrorists (Al Queda) that attack our countries (the west), be prepared to deal with the consequences--social and political turmoil, death, destruction, economic disruption, etc.
Do a cost-benefit analysis and decide the value of sheltering terrorism. Can you say Afghanistan has NOT paid a price for sheltering terrorism?”

Don’t you notice what you are saying? It’s exactly the point: The Taliban harboured terrorists, Afghanistan is subjected to social and political turmoil, death, destruction, economic disruption, etc. Afghanistan’s civilians are paying the price, not the Taliban. Although many Afghans felt liberated when the Taliban were overthrown at the beginning of the war, these times are past. Now they will say that things have become even worse. The Taliban have no problem to recruit people. That’s what I meant with their being stronger than ever. Even if their fighters are dying in droves (I doubt that), they are recruiting more new fighters than they have lost. As long as there are foreign troops in the country the Afghans are driven into the Talibans' arms.

“…happily loping off body parts, subjugating women, and enforcing medieval Sharia law.”

Who wanted the Taliban and Sharia law?

I suspect you don’t know what laws Afghanistan had before your creatures the Taliban were in power. They gave women equal rights and 50% of university students had to be women, although these laws weren’t enforced (or even known) in rural areas. In the 50ies and 60ies urban women in Afghanistan had rights most women in the west could only dream of (or rather: still had to fight for). Don’t mention women’s rights, Mike, you preferred the Taliban! For you they were freedom fighters against the Soviet Union. Either you admit that this policy was criminal shit or you must shut up where women’s rights are concerned. What else than Sharia law is the present regime installing with western help?

There is only one message that makes sense. It’s "bye bye".

What is it about Lefties that inspires them to keep looking so far left they can only see what's behind and have no vision for the future?

What is the message?

BC offers none.

Momo's message is "Bye, Bye"

Despite a rather inisightful question, even Momo leaves us disappointed. She would have us pull chocks on Afghanistan and leave Pakistan with its nuclear arsenal equallly vulnerable to Taliban extremists. Talk about beyond the pale!

Where Taliban Rules Again: The fundamentalist fighters have regrouped to spread fear in one south Afghan province mired in poverty and the drug trade.

In "night letters," leaflets posted on doors or scattered along pathways in the darkness, the Taliban threatens to kill anyone who works for, or cooperates with, the government. The Islamist militia has executed numerous people who didn't listen.

Despite coalition claims that several insurgents have been killed in recent weeks, most in airstrikes, the Taliban and its allies continue to recruit new fighters with a deft combination of intimidation and persuasion, said Gen. Zahir Azemi, spokesman for the Defense Ministry.

Just two hours' drive from the capital, Kabul, villagers in the desert surrounding the city of Ghazni say insurgents launch regular attacks on police checkpoints, plant roadside bombs, kill government workers and burn schools. A year ago, security was good, they say.

The Taliban recruits by striking fear into villagers with the ruthless attacks, then offering salvation to surviving family members and neighbors, Azemi said.

"First they create an atmosphere of fear by killing people, slaughtering people," he said. "They cut people's heads off with a sword or knife, then they persuade people, and tell them, 'Let's go to paradise together.' "

What is the message?

BC's answer? Silence

Momo's answer? "Bye, Bye"

Obama's answer? Leave his hand-picked commander's request for troops to gather dust on his desk for over two month and still no decision.

“…even Momo leaves us disappointed”

Don’t cry. Need a hankie?

You linked to a nice bit of propaganda. You forget that you needn’t convince me that the Taliban are cruel, I’ve already known that when they were your allies.

Your article can be summed up to: the enemy is a monolithic block of incredibly cruel people. Only the presence of colonialist troops (feel free to replace “colonialist” by “freedom and democracy exporting” or something like that) prevents massacres and chaos. The same things have been said whenever a colonialist power was forced to leave a country. It’s never been true.

Just curious: do you really think that 40000 more troops make a difference?

Momo: What is the message?

"Afghans do not want a message from you. They want to see a dust cloud as you and all your satellite buddies disappear over the Pakistan border. "

Momo: What is the message?

So you join Momo and agree the message should be, "Bye bye."

Even if I accepted your thesis that the US is responsible for the Taliban (which I don't), what does the "Bye, bye" message accomplish?

Momo: What is the message?

You would be happy leaving the Afghan people to their fate under the Taliban and their "join us or die" recruiting strategy?

Momo: What is the message?

Your decision leaves the Taliban to extend their influence and destabilize a nuclear Pakistan. No worries?

Momo: What is the message?

Your decision facilitates the Taliban support of Al Queda, providing financial and material support to their agenda of international terrorism. You're okay with that, right?

The problem I have with the "bye, bye" message is it so short-sighted. Demonizing the US and encouraging withdrawl in defeat may make you feel better, but it will not make you safer. I do recall that public transportation was the target of choice in the UK. You might want to double down on your life insurance.

"It doesn't matter if you pour in another 40,000 troops or 400,000. You have already been beaten just like he [Westmoreland] was."

That sounds remarkably like your comments before the surge in Iraq. You were just as wrong about Iraq then as you are about Afghanistan today.

It is the strategy, not resources that are now issue. Troops are merely a tool to execute strategy. It was the strategy with which Obama concurred when he handpicked his commanding general and the tools to execute the strategy which he now withholds. It won't be long before Obama is picking targets in the White House Rose Garden like LBJ did in Vietnam and leave his generals just as hamstrung. At THAT point, you will be right that no amount of troops will make a difference in the outcome and once again, it will be a failure of presidential leadership. We are not at THAT point yet, but the longer Obama dithers, the closer it gets.

"And no I would not be "happy" to leave Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban but I doubt if it would survive for long without outside support and that could be easily choked off if the will was there."

And yet, despite your unhappiness, you agree the best message is, "bye, bye" and your strategy is somehow "outside support" could easily be cut off if the will was there.

Now that intrigues me. Since support could so "easily be choked off" you will have no problem outlining a strategy for doing so. And whose "will" is required? Certainly don't mean the US since our message in your scenario is, "bye, bye."

Mike the Taliban is a direct result of US interference in Afghan affairs (I note that you dodged that one) .

Not a dodge. I just choose the higher priority for engagement, which should not be to re-hash your version of the past, but your bold, but completely unsupported assertion for the future.

"And no I would not be "happy" to leave Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban but I doubt if it would survive for long without outside support and that could be easily choked off if the will was there."

Please! Enlighten us. I suggest your strategy is far from easy and creates as many if not more problems than it solves. But I could be wrong. After all, you have yet to explain it.

"In this situation we needn’t talk much about a strategy. It’s either a few hundred thousands more troops, or it’s bye bye."

No strategy required, huh? Just throw a few hundred thousand troops at the problem or it's bye bye. Nice.

I guess that's why I'm the military professional here and you are not.

Sure, I read the whole post. I'm not sure why you think I've taken one sentence out of context. I just only saw one sentence worth commenting upon and did so.

The rest was merely your opinion that allied presence is more damaging than Taliban oppression. While you previously acknowledged their brutality and cruelty, you now seem to find some skepticism as to the degree and perhaps it's all reactionary to allied presence, right? Feel free to ignore the mountain of evidence of Taliban oppression BEFORE the allied intervention.

"I doubt very much that the Taliban always need the violent methods of recruitment that your article described (but I don’t think any Afghan would be stupid enough to tell an embedded journalist about volunteering)."

So yes, I get it. But it's not that I've run out of counter arguments. Your posting reached a point of absurdity to be unworthy of comment. If you believe the allies are more dangerous than the Taliban, then your position defies evidence or logic. It brought to mind the following quote.

“Absurdity refutes itself” ~ Thomas Bartholin

And your English has really been quite good and not worthy of criticism; only your logic is deficient.

What matters is the opinion of a (overwhelming) majority of Afghans, will you ever get that?

I absolutely agree! Where I take issue is you appointing yourself their spokesperson since you've provided absolutely no evidence that your opinion refelects the wishes of the Afghan people.

Here's a brilliant example.

Probably most Afghans haven’t forgotten either, but just now many of them are prepared to take sides with the Taliban or Mickey Mouse or the Man in the Moon or simply anything, if it only helps against these foreign invaders.

Where is your evidence to suggest this represents an "overwhelming majority" Afghan opinion?

Leaving would allow an Al Qaeda friendly group to retake Afghanistan. Why would it be in US's best interest to do that?

Candace,

This is the problem with finger-pointers who place more emphasis on blame than solutions. You are absolutely right--the Taliban will reassert control and provide safe harbor for Al Queda making the entire west less safe.

Momo's solution is a "bye, bye" message to the people of Afghanistan and a "good luck" message to the West. I ask Momo to answer her own question.

"How many “collateral” deaths, in other words killed civilians in the West are acceptable in your eyes? I mean not only your sense of ethics, think about the hatred these deaths create"

Al Queda is not going away. They will continue their war whether or not we decide to resist. The Taliban is not going away and extending their influence in Pakistan. People will die. The only question is whose people will be the casualties? Obviously, you prefer the casualities to be in the west and the people of Afghanistan can fend for themselves, since you clearly offer no alternative. You should think of running for office. You fit right in.

Meanwhile, People die and Obama dithers.

"The answer is easy, Mike. None."

Except that's not a legitimate choice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Somebody is going to die, even if you choose to do nothing or run and hide. You just refuse to take a stand. Principled or gutless? I'd say the latter.

BTW, cheeky or not the questions of yours that I do not answer are the ones I find either rhetorical or nonsensical or both.

"Terrorism isn’t fought by war. Freedom isn’t defended by turning our states into something Orwellian. Both is exactly what terrorists want."

No. What they want is you and I subjugated or dead. What terrorists really want is "power" and terrorism is merely their tactic of choice. They stop wanting power when they stop breathing. Then the terror stops. I'm flippant about those whose ignorance is unable to distinguish between terrorism and what it takes to end it.

"If you claim that everything but the military option is “gutless” or the same as “run and hide”, you have left the level of a discussion."

Of course, I never claimed the military option is the ONLY option. Remember that I am the one that advocated a strategy...something you dismissed as unnecessary. What do you think strategy is anyway? It is the synergistic use of the full range of national instruments of power to create a desired end state. Military force is merely one of those instruments of national power and applied alone solves very few long-term political problems.

It is only when you adopt a message of, "bye, bye" that you have truly "left the discussion" and put your head in the sand if you think it leaves you safer. It is that attitude which disgusts me.

"You used the word “strategy” not in the broad sense, but when you accused Obama of dithering over the question of 40 000 more troops, remember?"

I do remember AND I have been using strategy in the same context consistently. Perhaps its your understanding of my use of the word which has been inconsistent.

Obama approved the strategy put forward by his commanding general and then dithered over the resources to execute the strategy he'd approved. What you seem to be missing is the troop request is PART of a strategy...it is not THE strategy. The commanding general is responsible for much more than the fighting force pieces of the strategy. In fact, he commands entire military reserve units whose sole mission is infrastructure and support, not killing the enemy. Those portions are dependant upon political, economic and diplomatic pieces of the strategy. All of that is "strategy" and it is the political leadership, not the military leadership who is responsible for approving the strategy generated with the assistance of all the representatives of national instruments of power. Got it?

And yes, while I think life sucks in Afghanistan, I think it sucked a whole lot more under the Taliban.

I sugggest the Afghans have trust issues with us because our support of the people and effectiveness against the Taliban is inconsistent. Trusting us could get them killed if promises we make are not kept. And they are not kept when the President dithers over the resources necessary to keep those promises.

But then, with a message of bye-bye, you left the discussion a long time ago.

"...your idea of punishing a nation for a regime that’s long disposed of is outrageous"

What's outrageous is your misunderstanding. I did not advocate "punishing a nation." I asserted that national punishment (bearing the scars of war) was consequence of war brought on by the Taliban, not a military objective. They have only the Taliban to blame for us being there.

"So you want to win a war that has no clear aim, and with less troops than the Russians had when they were kicked out of Afghanistan."

If the "aim" is unclear, it's because of Obama's dithering. He needs to either support the strategy he approved, or come up with a new one. Indecision is a decision and one that has consequences.

The only thing worse than your message of abandonment is Obama's message of indecision.

"By the way, it’s a bit cheeky that you expect I answer my own questions to Candace, while you don’t answer my questions to you."

I'll be responding here. I am currently experiencing technical difficulties. Be back either this weekend, or if I suddenly become ridiculously patient, sooner.

"Can you please give a thought to the fact that the Afghans are worse off now than under the Taliban..."

As you pointed out earlier, it's not what you or I think, but about what the Afghans think. You are a bit "cheeky" speaking on their behalf since you offer no evidence THEY believe they are worse off now than under the Taliban.

I suggest its a foolish argument to pursue to figure which situation is worse, instead of what will make it better. It's eaqually naive to believe as you and BC seem to believe, that abandoning the Afghans will somehow result in the the situation "re-setting" to a state that includes neither Taliban or foreigners. The fact is, a bye-bye message of abandonment leaves the end state to whomever is strongest internally to impose their will upon the Afghan people. The odds favor the Taliban, as you have pointed out.

"Do you want some links that support my opinion?"

Yes. Bring it on! Show me some Afghan public opinion polls that support your opinion. I'd like to see that your opinion is based on more than just Leftist ideology.

But keep in mind that I will reject any source that is merely some outsider's opinion. I want to see that your opinion of what the Afghan people think is based on what they actually said in a no-kidding objective poll.

So what you're saying is you have absolutely no objective data to support your opinion of what the Afghan people actually think about their situation. While you search for sources, let me be the first to share NGO survey data that will knock you out of your stilettos.

Afghanistan in 2009: A Survey of the Afghan People

Key Findings

• In 2009, 42 percent of respondents say that the country is moving in the right direction. This figure is higher than in 2008 (38%). Similarly, 29 percent feel that the country is moving in the wrong direction compared to 32 percent in 2008, signaling a check on the trend of declining optimism that had been evident since 2006.

• The main reason for optimism continues to be good security which has been mentioned by an increasing proportion of respondents each year, from 31 percent in 2006 to 44 percent in 2009. More respondents in 2009 also mention reconstruction and rebuilding (36%) and opening of schools for girls (21%) as reasons for optimism than in previous years.

• Insecurity also remains the most important reason for pessimism, cited by 42 percent of respondents. However, the proportion of respondents that highlight insecurity in 2009 has fallen since 2008 when half of respondents (50%) emphasized this factor.

• Insecurity (including attacks, violence and terrorism) is identified as the biggest problem in Afghanistan by over a third of respondents (36%), particularly in the South East (48%), West (44%) and South West (41%). However, concern about other issues such as unemployment (35%), poor economy (20%), corruption (17%), poverty (11%) and education (11%) has increased in 2009 compared to 2008.

• A slightly higher proportion of respondents give a positive assessment of the security situation in their local area in 2009 (64%) than in 2008 (62%). Although improvements were reported in almost all regions of the country, it is to be considered that there were greater restrictions on the movement of survey researchers due to security concerns and other reasons in 2009 compared to previous years (refer to Appendix 2: Methodology for details).

• Just over half of respondents (51%) say they fear for their personal safety in their local area. However, much higher proportions of respondents report at least sometimes having fears for their safety in the South East (65%), South West (62%) and West (62%), than in other parts of the country. There has also been a
significant rise in the incidence of crime and violence experienced by respondents in these regions since 2008.

• Seventeen percent of respondents report that they or someone in their family have been victims of violence or crime in the past year. Nearly one in ten victims of violence report that this was due to the actions of militias and insurgents (9%) or foreign forces (9%). The incidence of victimization from military type actions has been rising steadily since 2007. Violence resulting from militant/insurgent actions is mentioned most often in the Central/Hazarajat (24%), East (17%), Central/Kabul (11%), South East (9%) and South West (8%). Whereas violence due to the actions of foreign forces is most commonly reported in the South West (22%), South East (11%) and East (10%).

• The proportion of respondents who express fear to vote in a national election rose significantly between 2008 and 2009 (from 45% to 51%). This is now true for the majority of respondents in the South West (79%), South East (68%), West (61%) and East (56%) of the country.

• In 2009, Afghans give a more positive assessment of their economic situation than in previous years, although this prosperity is not evenly shared. Considerably more urban respondents (63%) than rural residents (52%) say they are more prosperous today than they were under the Taliban.

• Unemployment continues to feature amongst the most important problems at both national (35%) and local (26%) levels. Other major problems at the local level concern basic infrastructure and services such as electricity (26%), roads (24%), water (22%) and lack of health care/clinics/hospitals (20%), as in previous years.

• In terms of local amenities and services, respondents continue to report the greatest satisfaction with the availability of education for children (67%), water for drinking (63%) and irrigation (53%) and clinics and hospitals (49%).

• Around two-thirds of respondents (65%) say that the supply of electricity in their local areas is bad and a third of respondents (33%) report having no access to any kind of electricity. This is significantly lower than in previous years.

• Assessments of the performance of the national government have risen slightly from 67 percent in 2008 to 71 percent in 2009. The most commonly mentioned achievements of the current government are reconstruction (32%), establishing peace and security (27%) and a better education system (26%). The most commonly mentioned government failings are insecurity (31%), administrative corruption (29%), lack of job opportunities (20%), weak economy (15%) and weak government (13%).

• The majority of respondents (71%) support the government’s attempts to address the security situation through negotiation and reconciliation with armed anti-government elements. The high level of support for this approach is likely to be influenced by the fact that a majority of respondents (56%) say they have some level of sympathy with the motivations of armed opposition groups.

• Confidence in representative bodies and their responsiveness to addressing issues of local concern remains relatively high. Sixty-eight percent of respondents say parliament is addressing the major problems of people in Afghanistan and 58 percent say that their MP is addressing the major problems of their constituency in the Parliament. Satisfaction with the performance of MPs in this regards shows a small improvement in 2009 compared to 2008.

• At the local level respondents give the most positive assessment of the performance of Provincial Councils (75%), followed by district authorities (69%) and municipalities (58%). However, in 2009 satisfaction with the performance of municipal authorities has increased while satisfaction with Provincial Councils and district authorities has remained stable.

• In 2009, a significantly higher proportion of respondents than in previous years mention freedom (50%) and peace (41%) as the greatest personal benefits they expect from democracy. This year respondents give greater importance to core democratic values such as rights and law (24%), women’s right (21%), government of the people (19%) and Islamic democracy (23%). However, they show less confidence in the likelihood of democracy delivering more tangible benefits such as less corruption (17%) or prosperity (15%).

• The proportion of respondents who say that democracy is the best form of government available continues to fall, from 84 percent in 2006 to 78 percent in 2009. However, since 2008 there has been no change in the level of satisfaction with the way democracy is working in Afghanistan (68%).

• Agreement with the principle of equal rights continues to fall over time, from 90 percent in 2006 and 2007 to 84 percent in 2008 and to 80 percent in 2009. The same is true of support for the principle of peaceful political opposition which has fallen from 84 percent in 2006 to 77 percent in 2009. There is also a decline in the acceptance of differences in political allegiances between individuals, from 54 percent in 2006 to 40 percent in 2009. However, support for allowing opposition parties to hold local meetings rose significantly from 44 percent in 2008 to 54 percent in 2009.

• 2009 sees a certain renewed confidence in the electoral process. Seventy percent of respondents say they believe that voting can lead to improvement, reversing the trend of the last two years. This is accompanied by a steady rise in the proportion of respondents who say they can have some degree of influence over government decisions from 36 percent in 2006 to 42 percent in 2009.

Pardon me while I pause here to gloat a bit over the good news in the survey.

There is a long way to go, but this is hardly a time for dithering or messages of bye-bye.

No problem. You didn't interrupt it; you completely validate my gloating because you completely mischaracterized the team 2 results that you claim got 100% approval because they were accompanied by US troops.

Momo: "The second batch relied on the protection of the US army and found out that 100% of the population are grateful for being bombed..."

Sound familiar? But if you had looked at the 2008 survey, you would have been happy to note a steady decline in satisfaction since 2006. With 3 straight years of worsening news, it's not the 100% satisfaction you claimed and I would have thought you would have accepted team 2's data at face value because the trend was negative. Although, at it's worst in 2008 Afghans were evenly split whether they were more or less prosperous under the Taliban. Certainly, no majority claimed to be better off under the Taliban, which you falsely asserted to justify your bye-bye policy.

The bottom line is you dismiss Team 2's 2009 poll because you don't like the data when it contradicts your opinion. You have been unmasked as an ideologue who will make up data to support your opinion.

Momo: "Can you please give a thought to the fact that the Afghans are worse off now than under the Taliban, don’t want any foreign troops in their country, and are prepared to take the consequences. They have made quite clear that they don’t like to be bombed and I don’t find that hard to understand.

Completely debunked by this study!

Momo: "Ever heard of Clausewitz?"

Yes. Even better than "hearing" of him, is "studying and applying" his principles.

"After we have thought out everything carefully in advance and have sought and found without prejudice the most plausible plan, we must not be ready to abandon it at the slightest provocation. Should this certainty be lacking, we must tell ourselves that nothing is accomplished in warfare without daring; that the nature of war certainly does not let us see at all times where we are going; that what is probable will always be probable though at the moment it may not seem so; and finally, that we cannot be readily ruined by a single error, if we have made reasonable preparations." - Karl von Clausewitz

And that is your strategy lesson for today. I will now resume my gloating.

"They tried to get a representative sample, but couldn’t, mainly for security reasons (and for lack of infrastructure). It’s not my interpretation, it’s in the poll you linked to!

Then perhaps you will quote where the study says they were unable to get a representative sample. Perhaps you missed this part?

"A number of districts in the country could not be surveyed because of inaccessibility due to logistical problems, natural disasters, and security. Overall, 208 of the 882 sampling points had to be replaced. The replacements were made by selecting other sampling points in the same region."

So roughly 75% of sampling points were the same as 2008 and the replacements were "within the same region" which was used to control for the inability to return to the same sampling points.

I find your selective reading of the study methodology to be quite revealing, but consistent with your unwillingness to admit you were wrong.

You offer opinion and proclaim it fact. But because you call it fact does not make it so.

That is exactly what you do Mike except you also throw in careffully spun government propaganda for good measure. You also use bad evidence: misusing statistics like a tabloid editor. No statistician would call changes of 4% and 3% a trend. Even in normal circumstances this would be regarded as within the bounds of sampling error. In Afganistan it is impossible to collect one set of reliable statistics, let alone repeat for comparison purposes so your conclusion of a "a check on the trend of declining optimism that had been evident since 2006" is pure nonsense.

And it is Obama's strategy, not the general's strategy. It is the military's job to employ military resources to implement the strategy approved by the political leadership. I keep repeating this because you and Momo either do not understand or are unwilling to accept it. This IS Obama's war.

No. Politicians do aims. Senior officers do strategy to achieve those aims. Middle ranking and junior officers do tactics in line with that strategy. NCOs and ordinary soldiers do fighting and dying. The generals have to agree their strategy with Obama but it is their strategy. It is Bush's war. Stupidly Obama claimed it as his own so he wouldn't appear weak because of his (slightly) more sensible handling of the defeat in Iraq. It makes no never mind anyway. Neither Momo nor I are supporters of Obama so I don't understand why you consider it a point.

At least you postulate that "somehow or other" the Afghans will eventually sort it out to a pre-western state of Nirvana.

No I don't say that. What I DO say is that nobody but they can do it.

For some reason you seem to discount the scenario the Taliban wins, the people lose, and the world has to deal with Al Queda launching attacks from a safe Afghan base.

I'm curious why you believe that Afghanistan will NOT become a Taliban state.

I don't discount that scenario. If Pakistan (along with allies like Saudi Arabia) supports the Taliban as they did before and India supports the alliance of bandits and drug dealers we once referred to as the Northern League as they did before then such a scenario would come about: the status quo ante 2001. Effectively the local powers would, if allowed to, turn the "great game" into their own little game. The international community has an interest, a moral duty and the capability to prevent that from happening. With external military aid denied and their drug dealing choked off the Afghans would have more than an even chance of denying power to these gangsters.

“BTW, a different trend of 5% in last years election would have made John McCain the current president. Don't discount the power of small percentages.”

Ouch.

So far we have been talking about polls. Representative samples. Trends.

Elections are something else, Mike.

But I’m actually more interested in something completely different: What is the aim of this war?

The War of a community--of whole Nations, and particularly of civilised Nations--always starts from a political condition, and is called forth by a political motive ... if we reflect that War has its root in a political object, then naturally this original motive which called it into existence should also continue the first and highest consideration in its conduct. Still, the political object is no despotic lawgiver on that account; it must accommodate itself to the nature of the means, and though changes in these means may involve modification in the political objective, the latter always retains a prior right to consideration.

Policy, therefore, is interwoven with the whole action of War, and must exercise a continuous influence upon it, as far as the nature of the forces liberated by it will permit.

24. WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.

We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. … the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.

Carl von Clausewitz, On War

You claimed you knew Clausewitz, but obviously not this book. There is absolutely no book that we both have read, I suppose. This is what I meant, not a strategy.

“Once again, you both demonstrate a layman's grasp of strategy. The strategy IS the aim.”

No, the strategy is NOT the aim. And what’s more, the strategy is completely uninteresting as long as we don’t know what the aim is, you expert. What is the political motive, political object, original motive, in short the AIM of this war?

We have been told all kinds of nonsense about this aim:

Topple the Taliban-government. That has been achieved quickly. What are we still doing there?

Catch Osama Bin Laden. But not risking too many casualties, that’s why his cave was left alone after a while. It wasn’t so important, obviously.

Bring freedom to Afghan women. In that case it has failed completely.

Democracy in Afghanistan. Karzai, yes. Need we say more? Again a complete failure.

We have been told that the aim of this war is not geostrategical. Good to know (but difficult to believe).

What else? What is the aim of this bloody war?

Momo,

It is not enough for you to read Clausewitz. You have to understand him.

"We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. … the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception." - Carl von Clausewitz, On War

"What do you think strategy is anyway? It is the synergistic use of the full range of national instruments of power to create a desired end state. Military force is merely one of those instruments of national power and applied alone solves very few long-term political problems." - Iron Mike, On Momo

Nothing I've written conflicts with Clausewitz. In fact, he and I agree about the relationship between military force as an instrument of power as a means of achieving political end state. I went beyond him to note it is not the only instrument of power and ALL should be employed to execute strategy.

Instead of knee-jerk responding to the above. Perhaps you should actually READ the link I provided earlier (and again below) to the March 2009 white house announcement of the strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in which the political goals (aims) of the war are embedded in the white house strategy.

ALL of your rhetorical questions of "aims" of the war are answered there! Be sure to click on the white house white paper for details and bullet summary of the political aims and the recommendations for achieving them (AKA, "the strategy")

"Good morning," began the President today. "Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce [Reidel], that I ordered as soon as I took office."

That's the teaser. Now go read the freakin' article.

A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

You would be much less frustrated ("driven crazy") here if you exercised a bit of initiative and did some research. You asked for government aim and I provided a government source. What more do you want? I can't make it any easier unless I flew to Hamburg and read it to you verbatim over a few litres of Germany's finest beer.

Nothing I've written conflicts with Clausewitz. In fact, he and I agree about the relationship between military force as an instrument of power as a means of achieving political end state.

That's a bit worrying when you consider where Clausewitz's thinking got Prussia in the long term.

An aim is what you want to achieve Mike but strategy is literally "art of a general" : the means of achieving that aim. That your president doesn't understand the distinction is not only unsurprising but also may well be part of the problem. He seems to think that removing Al Qaeda from Iraq and Afghanistan (assuming that would be possible) is a goal in itself.

Surely the aim should be to remove from American citizens (and everyone else perhaps?) the fear that their lives or those of their loved ones should suddenly and arbitrarily be snuffed out by strangers with whom they have no quarrel. Removing Al Qaeda from Afghanistan is not going to do that - especially if in doing so you are visiting on others what you purport to be defending yourselves from.

“I think that's really where the discussion here should focus. Is the endstate envisioned in the strategy realistic? Is it attainable and if so, at what cost? Does the cost-benefit analysis justify the strategy? What are the alternatives?”

At last. That’s what I have been trying to get at. It depends on an answer to the question “What is the endstate envisioned in the strategy” (I will avoid the word aim from now on, you seem to dislike it immensely).

If this “endstate” (ugly word btw.) is really to get rid of the few Al Qaeda fighters who are in Afghanistan (either killing them or expelling them and thus destabilising Pakistan), I can only say: it’s not attainable and the costs are completely out of proportion.

Just now there are about 100 000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, plus an unknown number of mercenaries. There are huge political costs (not only the Afghan public opinion), financial costs, and, most important, “costs” in the form of an increasing number of human lives. And what for?

"That's a bit worrying when you consider where Clausewitz's thinking got Prussia in the long term.”

It wasn’t Clausewitz’s thinking that got Prussia there (he was only a late-comer). At the root of the problem there was the idea to achieve economical progress without political freedom. Sounds familiar somehow …

I quoted Clausewitz to point out the interplay between political aim and the methods to achieve it. He was right there. That’s why I want to know what the aim of this war is before I waste a thought on the means of it (such as strategy).