Intelligence Doesn’t Support Obama's Upbeat View of Afghanistan

cyberhog

The Taliban insurgency is intact, undefeated and receiving comprehensive support from Pakistan a classified Nato report says, sharply contradicting coalition claims the militants' momentum has been broken.

Many Afghans are preparing for a return to power by the militant movement which is unbeaten despite ten years of foreign military intervention and a recent surge of troops and money into the conflict

The stark analysis based on thousands of interrogations with Taliban prisoners stands at odds with upbeat public statements from coalition commanders that the movement has been hammered on the battlefield.

...

Barack Obama last week told America during his State of the Union address that "The Taliban's momentum has been broken".

However the report compiled for senior commanders instead found: "Though the Taliban suffered severely in 2011, its strength, motivation, funding and tactical proficiency remains intact."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9053516/Taliban-intact-and-getting-Pakistan-backing-Nato-report-reveals.html

The momentum is anything but broken. Either Obama is purposefully misleading the American public or he is just grossly incompetent. Either way, he is not fit to be Commander-In-Chief.

Overheal

So who is? Any accounting for the Taliban here? Two presidents two political parties three terms and several generals thousands of marines airmen and soldiers and a few navy boys and trillions of dollars. Nope. There still there. So you tell me who or what is at this point competent enough to disable the Taliban?

opinionated3

Never thought Obama was the man for the job in the first place. John McCain would have been better commander in chief but maybe not so on the economy. The Taliban are a hit and run guerilla movement. Very hard to fight a 'war' against that in the traditional sense ie ww2. Word now is that top Taliban commanders are being released from gitmo a part of a deal. Very embarrassing for the democrat movement as a whole....the US military apparently are not fans of democrat presidents....too weak in times of conflict.....eg Clinton running from Somalia after the black hawk down incident.

Jonny7

There is no upbeat view of Afghanistan. Only attempts at; i.e. the patching of a sinking ship.

There was the slim vague possibility that the country may have had a window for change open for a brief period .. but that opportunity shut the country was abandoned for the jaunt into Iraq and the Taliban seeped back over the border.

Yes there's been _some_ positive change, but only as long as they can "hold" the ground. As soon as they leave the wolves (read Taliban) are back in the area.

In fairness they are making a genuine effort now (too little too late) and obviously have to use positive language, but as long as the Taliban are in existence and the fountain of religious extremism and hate that is NW Pakistan continues to flow - then Afghanistan will perpetually exist in the dark ages.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

In fairness they are making a genuine effort now (too little too late) and obviously have to use positive language,

Didn't candidate Obama ridicule Cheney for using positive language about Iraq when the situation on the ground was far from positive.

"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."

When Obama says the Taliban's momentum is broken and the intelligence says otherwise that's a BIG problem!

Manic Moran

Problem is that it's the wrong question. It doesn't matter if the Taliban is as strong now as it was back when the Soviets left Afghanistan: There was a power void so was nearly a walkover. What is far more important is if the Afghan government is strong enough to withstand the inevitable Taliban offensive. The NATO report does not address that question: Intel, by its nature, focuses on the enemy. I suspect that the Taliban would find 2014 to be substantially more difficult than 1988.

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

Problem is that it's the wrong question. It doesn't matter if the Taliban is as strong now as it was back when the Soviets left Afghanistan: There was a power void so was nearly a walkover. What is far more important is if the Afghan government is strong enough to withstand the inevitable Taliban offensive. The NATO report does not address that question: Intel, by its nature, focuses on the enemy. I suspect that the Taliban would find 2014 to be substantially more difficult than 1988.

I think it bears repeating here: Never underestimate the enemy. Especially when it is the Taliban. The Afghan government is very fragile and the Taliban have proven by outsmarting the best military minds the US has to offer that they are as formidable as ever. If the Taliban are determined to retake control I wouldn't bet against them and I don't think many Afghans would either.

Manic Moran

Only one way to find out, but I don't know if I'd say they've outsmarted anyone. They've just avoided being destroyed, which given the limitations imposed upon the US isn't a massive military feat.

jackiebaron

opinionated3 wrote: »

Never thought Obama was the man for the job in the first place. John McCain would have been better commander in chief but maybe not so on the economy. The Taliban are a hit and run guerilla movement. Very hard to fight a 'war' against that in the traditional sense ie ww2. Word now is that top Taliban commanders are being released from gitmo a part of a deal. Very embarrassing for the democrat movement as a whole....the US military apparently are not fans of democrat presidents....too weak in times of conflict.....eg Clinton running from Somalia after the black hawk down incident.

How do you know McCain would have been a better Commander in Chief? Because he's a nasty ignorant bastard who got shot down over Nam and spilled his guts to the Viet Cong? I'm not going to get into any Republican versus Democrat comparisons here as they're all equally worthless but if you want to delude yourself with these meaningless mindgames then you might want to also note that it was an Democratic US president who steered the US through the biggest war in the history of the world, WW2, i.e F.D. Roosevelt. It was a Democrat who steered America through the biggest war prior to that as well, WW1, i.e. Woodrow Wilson. It was also Democratic presidents who presided over the Vietnam catastrophe before a Republican bagman, RM Nixon pulled the plug. And while you're banging on about Democratic leaders running from a scrap you might want to think about Reagan running from Lebanon after a Marine Barracks was bombed.

But he vindicated himself by distracting the public with an invasion of the postage-stamp sized island of Grenada. F-16s against pea-shooters. Another great hard won victory.

jackiebaron

Anyway, this guy, Colonel Davis seems to have it on good authority that the place is a debacle and the whole war effort is a massive failure:

http://www.truthout.org/army-officer-turned-whistleblower-how-many-more-must-die/1328552914

http://armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030

Dotsie~tmp

When one side fights with $millions and the other with $billions its only a matter of time.

Overheal

Agreed. Perhaps we've forgotten one of our own lessons about the cold war?

wingsnfire

The problem is politicians don't listen to HUMINT Grunts or even the Directors of Agency's they live and decide on policies from one news cycle to another.

Before the invasion there was an analysis carried out for the UN about the possible effects of invading any Afghan areas and what would happen in relation to the spread of AQ.

The report said that the moment troops went into Afghanistan then AQ et al would act like bugs that live under a stone. They would run away as soon as the stone was turned over destabilizing the whole region and becoming more active in Pakistan with their new base being Muzzafrabad and Islamabad areas of Azad Kashmir there was a 68 – 70% accuracy rate attached to the assesment. We were proved right that was exactly what happened. It was also warned that those who left Afghanistan would go to the West fund-raising and they did, there were also warnings that the Northern Alliance who were feted by the west were the drugs producers and that drug supplies to Europe and the US would increase because the Taliban are bad news but at least they kept the drugs production in check, the Northern Alliance need the drugs trade to keep Afghanistan afloat and to keep Iran happy as that is now a major drugs route along with the Karakoram Pass which not only carries drugs produced in Afghanistan through Pakistan into China but brings back the other way fissionable nuclear materials.

There have been a lot of conspiracy theories about why Afghanistan was invaded. I'll say one reason I know for a fact and that is the UK government were having higher and higher number of people claiming to be from Afghanistan being trafficked into the UK and claiming asylum. The UK public were starting to put pressure on the government during it's election campaign in May/June 2001 and cutting asylum and immigration as one of their pledges. If Afghanistan were 'stabilised' then the Afghani's who had been given asylum under could be sent back to Afghanistan once the country was 'stabilised' because these asylum seekers had not been given indefinite leave to remain. Also there are very valuable and rare mineral deposits in Afghanistan which are mainly untapped.