Just Plain Wrong

Normally I really like the columnist Thomas L Friedman, I even own a couple of his books. He is usually dead on the money, and even if I disagree with something he is discussing I can understand the validity of his discussion and it makes me think, and develop my own opinions more. Not this time though....

In his latest column published in the NY Times he starts off like normal, making a great deal of sense. But, then towards the end he goes off into almost a tangent that is just plain wrong and down-right incorrect. (NY TIMES) :

The truth is that Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Pakistan are just different fronts in the same war. The core problem is that the Arab-Muslim world in too many places has been failing at modernity, and were it not for $120-a-barrel oil, that failure would be even more obvious. For far too long, this region has been dominated by authoritarian politics, massive youth unemployment, outdated education systems, a religious establishment resisting reform and now a death cult that glorifies young people committing suicide, often against other Muslims.

The humiliation this cocktail produces is the real source of terrorism. Saddam exploited it. Al Qaeda exploits it. Pakistan’s intelligence services exploit it. Hezbollah exploits it. The Taliban exploit it.

The only way to address it is by changing the politics. Producing islands of decent and consensual government in Baghdad or Kabul or Islamabad would be a much more meaningful and lasting contribution to the war on terrorism than even killing bin Laden in his cave. But it needs local partners. The reason the surge helped in Iraq is because Iraqis took the lead in confronting their own extremists — the Shiites in their areas, the Sunnis in theirs. That is very good news — although it is still not clear that they can come together in a single functioning government.

The main reason we are losing in Afghanistan is not because there are too few American soldiers, but because there are not enough Afghans ready to fight and die for the kind of government we want.

Take 20 minutes and read the stunning article in last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine by Thomas Schweich, a former top Bush counternarcotics official focused on Afghanistan, and dwell on his paragraph on Afghan President Hamid Karzai:

“Karzai was playing us like a fiddle: The U.S. would spend billions of dollars on infrastructure improvement; the U.S. and its allies would fight the Taliban; Karzai’s friends could get rich off the drug trade; he could blame the West for his problems; and in 2009, he would be elected to a new term.”

Then read the Afghan expert Rory Stewart’s July 17 Time magazine cover story from Kabul: “A troop increase is likely to inflame Afghan nationalism because Afghans are more anti-foreign than we acknowledge, and the support for our presence in the insurgency areas is declining ... The more responsibility we take in Afghanistan, the more we undermine the credibility and responsibility of the Afghan government and encourage it to act irresponsibly. Our claims that Afghanistan is the ‘front line in the war on terror’ and that ‘failure is not an option’ have convinced the Afghan government that we need it more than it needs us. The worse things become, the more assistance it seems to receive. This is not an incentive to reform.”

First off I cant even begin to comprehend his comment about not enough Afghans wanting to fight and die for their country. I have watched the groups of Afghan Citizens sign up for basic training and advanced training to go off and fight and die for their country. In addition I have also met large numbers of well-to-do Afghans that returned from Europe and the United States to fight and die for their country. So in this area, this is just not a true statement.

Secondly he used Thomas Schweich's article as a reference. I was enormously disappointed to see this. I discussed in great detail the problems with this article in Narco State? What? Thomas Schweich neither understands the problems in Afghanistan, nor did anything about it. He was downright slanderous to both the Afghan People, their Government, and the United States Military. I question his rational thinking, and his motives for publishing this article. So again Mr Friedman your just plain wrong.

I have been from one end of Afghanistan to the other. I have travelled from Kabul, to Helmand Province, Kandahar, Her-at, Shindand, and Mes Ar Sharif. I have never seen the Afghan's resent us for being there. If anything they were hugely thankful that the US and ISAF was there helping them. To make the comment that Afghan Nationalism would flare in the wake of an increased presence is just plain wrong.

Finally the fact that the Afghan Government is basically playing us for fools and trying to use us for all we are worth without doing anything themselves is again false. I have seen more work and blood, sweat, and tears come from their people, then anyone else. In all honesty, I am insulted for them to read this.

Afghanistan is a vital ally of ours. I have seen them give everything in defense for their country and to try to make it better. They deserve better then a major name columnist to attempt to bash them and all that they stand for. Thomas Friedman, you are just plain wrong on this one.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/opinion/30friedman.html?em Sphere: Related Content

Good for Iraq, Bad for Afghanistan

The Washington Post had a very interesting article this morning about the current situation with Al-Qaeda. Here is the key excerpt: (WASH POST) :

The leader of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq and several of his top lieutenants have recently left Iraq for Afghanistan, according to group leaders and Iraqi intelligence officials, a possible further sign of what Iraqi and U.S. officials call growing disarray and weakness in the organization.

U.S. officials say there are indications that al-Qaeda is diverting new recruits from going to Iraq, where its fighters have suffered dramatic setbacks, to going to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they appear to be making gains.

"We do believe al-Qaida is doing some measure of re-assessment regarding the continued viability of its fight in Iraq and whether Iraq should remain the focus of its efforts," Brig. Gen. Brian Keller, senior intelligence officer for Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, wrote in an e-mail. But Keller said that the reliability of indications that recruits have been diverted has "not yet been determined" and that U.S. officials have no evidence that top al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders have gone to Afghanistan.

Abdullah al-Ansari, an al-Qaeda in Iraq leader in Fallujah, said in an interview with a Washington Post special correspondent that Masri had traveled to Afghanistan through Iran and designated Abu Khalil al-Souri, the pseudonym of another top leader of the group who came to Iraq in 2003, to run the organization in his absence.

"We continue to wrestle with the question of whether this represents a strategic shift on the part of al-Qaida," Keller said in the e-mail. "We do know that al-Qaida leaders will never give up entirely on Iraq, but they may in the future see Afghanistan or some other location yet to be determined as a place where their resources may be more effectively employed."

This is great news for Iraq. The Surge Operations have had their desired effect, and the Iraqi Army, Police, and the Awakening Forces have stepped up and retaken their country. This is exactly what had to happen, and now Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated, destroyed, and put on the run. But the implications for Afghanistan are now the issue.

If this is correct, and foreign fighter flow has been shifted by almost 90% to Afghanistan and Pakistan, then we can see their new decisive operation. It becomes apparent very quickly that they want to make a new stand in Afghanistan, and use that area of the world again.

It's a smart move for them to be honest. Within Iraq they have been beaten back. In the Philippines they have been beaten back. In most transit nations they have been seriously degraded. The one area that they have as a safe haven is the Northwest Frontier Provinces and FATA areas of Pakistan. As I have talked about before, insurgencies need an area they can run to, to utilize as a safe haven. It is a place to safely re-arm, re-group, and prepare for the next operation. Right now Al Qaeda sees that area as Pakistan.

The Surge worked in Iraq. It bought the Iraqi Army and Police the time needed complete their training and equipping. Now, with that time, they have taken the fight to all areas of Iraq, and are winning. It is that time for Afghanistan, and a decision we must make soon.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003239_2.html?sid=ST2008073100531&pos= Sphere: Related Content

Interesting News Articles About Pakistan

I want to wait on developing my opinion more, until Jerjes writes back to a couple of the questions I had for him, but I found both of these stories very interesting. I will be talking a lot about this over the coming days.

From Fox News:

The Bush administration suspects rogue elements in Pakistan's spy agency are helping militants stage attacks from the tribal region bordering Afghanistan, a U.S. counterterrorism official said Wednesday.

Top CIA and U.S. military officials recently traveled to the country to press their concerns about the apparent ties with Pakistani officials.

Pakistan Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas denied accusations of any official Pakistan complicity with terrorist groups, calling them "unfounded and baseless," but he confirmed to The Associated Press that CIA Deputy Director Steven R. Kappes and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met earlier this month with Pakistani generals, including Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the army chief. The meeting, first reported by The New York Times, occurred July 12.

U.S. officials have long suspected members of Pakistan's intelligence service support or turn a blind eye to tribal warlords who have built extensive criminal networks in the semiautonomous western border area. They traffic in narcotics, weapons and consumer goods, launch attacks on Pakistani and Afghan targets, and they support terrorist groups like al-Qaida.

The U.S. counterterrorism official said some Pakistani intelligence officers' support for the Jalaluddin Haqqani network — associated with both the Taliban and al-Qaida — is of particular and long-standing concern. He emphasized, however, that it has not been determined that Pakistan officially supports those groups or provides direct succor to al-Qaida.

This next article is from The Australian. I haven't used them much before, but this article is very interesting. The Australian:

A CRISIS meeting of Pakistan's new coalition Government has been warned that it could lose control of the North West Frontier Province, which is believed to hold most of its nuclear arsenal.

The warning came yesterday from the coalition leader, who, although he is part of the new Government, is regarded as having the closest links to al-Qa'ida and Taliban militants sweeping through the region.

Maulana Fazlur Rehman bluntly told his colleagues: "The North West Frontier province is breaking away from Pakistan. That is what is happening. That is the reality."

Yesterday, the army was reported to have abruptly ended an operation in the Hangu district, close to Peshawar, after threats by militant leaders.

Maulana Fazlur Rehman and the ANP members blamed the worsening situation on "President (Pervez) Musharraf's eight-year policy to deal with the issue through the barrel of a gun, and the alliance with America".

Al-Qa'ida's operational commander in Afghanistan, a 53-year-old Egyptian named Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, was interviewed on Pakistani television yesterday and claimed the organisation's strength in Afghanistan was growing so rapidly it would "soon occupy the whole country".

He claimed that "the morale of our fighters in Afghanistan is very high and they are putting up a tough fight against US troops".

He also claimed responsibility in the interview for a terrorist attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad.

The fact of the interview, as much as what he said, is seen as indicating an important new stage in the crisis.

"The bad guys are even popping up and giving television interviews: that's a reflection of what's happening," one foreign diplomat in Islamabad said last night.

A leading think tank warned this week about the Taliban's use of a media strategy to exaggerate their strength and undermine confidence in the Afghanistan Government.

Both of these assessments are dangerous. Especially the opinion that Al Qaeda and the Taliban could be switching gears to attacking more spectacular targets in order to capture the attention of the media. In addition to having their own Information Campaign as we would call it, they are very skilled in executing it.

The other question that this leaves me with; is this further support to the analysis a month ago that Al Qaeda was shifting their tactics to trying to destabilize Europe and the United States by many small attacks everywhere? Making a much more concerted effort to grabbing the media spotlight could definitely be a way to set the conditions for this. Further analysis is needed, but the situation is definitely becoming more dangerous.

Much more to follow on this over the next few days.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24078316-2703,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,394245,00.html

Photo is by the Associated Press and from the FOX News Article. Sphere: Related Content

Iran and the Nuclear Negotiations

Today saw more angry rhetoric out of Iran and more of their negative attitude towards the approaching deadline of the, "Freeze for Freeze Deal." Here is a couple of key excerpts: (NY TIMES ART) :

Speaking just days before a deadline set by world powers for Iran to reply to proposals to curb its nuclear ambitions, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader, said on Wednesday that Iran would “continue with its path” of nuclear work, which includes the enrichment of uranium.

Ayatollah Khamenei’s comments suggest Iran may be preparing to take a hard line on the demands by six nations — United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany — that it stop enriching uranium ahead of a deadline set to expire this weekend. His comments were quoted by state radio, according to news agency reports from Tehran.

The six nations “know that the Iranian nation is after using nuclear energy to provide electricity but they say, Because this work gives you capability, we will not allow it,” Ayatollah Khamenei was quoted as saying by state radio, according to Reuters.

“The Iranian nation by depending on its useful experience and advantages of 30 years of resistance does not pay any attention to such talk and will continue with its path,” he said.

According to separate news agency reports from Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei was also quoted by state television as saying in a sermon: “Taking one step back against arrogant (powers) will lead to them to take one step forward.”

He added: “The idea that any retreat or backing down from righteous positions would change the policies of arrogant world powers is completely wrong and baseless.”

Honestly this is just more of the same bluster that all of the world has become used to. The Iranian Government is posturing themselves to reject the offer, or to make some sort of attempt at postponing the decision. They are also trying to rally support for their cause as we see from this information: (NY TIMES ART W/Reuters) :

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also vowed no shift in policy.

"One should not spoil negotiations by raising unreasonable conditions, since Iranians are not ready to deviate from their rights by one iota," he said, Fars News Agency reported.

The president made his remark to South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, who has joined other ministers from the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in Tehran.

NAM, a group of 118 developing nations, said in a statement Iran's choice to use peaceful nuclear energy "must be respected" and welcomed "continuing cooperation" with the IAEA.

Diplomats said the text was watered down from Iran's initial draft. A NAM diplomat said Iran wanted "clear support from NAM, unconditionally" but said there were amendments "to make it more moderate." An Iranian official said Iran was still satisfied.

Diplomats said the statement omitted a call for sanctions to be lifted swiftly, as proposed by Iran. But it said "any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities" would be illegal, and would endanger people and the environment.

The United States has said Iran's failure to respond positively to the offer would trigger steps toward more U.N. sanctions. Three sets have been imposed since 2006.

Ahmadinejad is trying to bolster support from NAM and paint the United States, NATO, the EU, and the UN as the enemies of the 118 members of NAM. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many of those 118 countries receive a great deal of economic and food assistance from the United States, Europe, and the UN. But, Iran is positioning themselves to reject the offer. They are trying to bolster the support of their own people with the earlier rhetoric, and now trying to lend themselves credibility by using NAM to their advantage.

The true measure is what the Iranian People decide in their own opinions. If Iran does not accept this offer, life is going to get much tougher for them. Iran already has problems economically, and this will only make it worse. The Iranian people must decide if they wish to follow the ravings of a tyrant or throw off that yoke of oppression and establish a government that takes care of them and watches out for their well being.

God Bless America

Bryan



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/world/middleeast/31iran.html?ref=world

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-iran-nuclear.html Sphere: Related Content

A Perspective From Pakistan

There is an ongoing discussion under an older post of mine called Pakistan and the Taliban, with a very intelligent man by the name of Jerjes Talpur. He is from the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan and has the real look on what is going on there currently. I invite you all to take a look at his comments and hopefully we will have many more from him.

God Bless America

Bryan Sphere: Related Content

Iraq Diyala Offensive

Today Iraqi and US Forces kicked off the offensive into Diyala. Here are some of the reports coming out of Iraq currently: (NY TIMES ART) :

U.S.-backed Iraqi troops sealed off Baqouba and staged house-to-house searches Tuesday as they began a new offensive in Diyala province in the latest bid to clear al-Qaida in Iraq from its last major belt near the capital.

Iraqi security forces hope to build on recent security successes elsewhere in a new test of the country's readiness to take over its own security and enable American troops to withdraw eventually.

The U.S. military said the improved abilities of the Iraqi troops have enabled the Americans to play a less high-profile role in operations, helping to lower the number of U.S. casualties so far this year.

Despite numerous military operations, al-Qaida in Iraq has found sanctuary for years in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, and more remote areas of surrounding Diyala province. The terror group's notorious leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in the province in June 2006.

The religiously mixed area contains key supply routes to Baghdad and northern cities. It has been plagued not only by attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces, but also by the kidnappings and sectarian killings.

''The goal of the operation is to seek out and destroy criminal elements and terrorist threats in Diyala and eliminate smuggling corridors in the surrounding area,'' the U.S. military said in a statement, stressing it was an Iraqi-led operation.

The new Diyala operation -- dubbed ''Omens of Prosperity'' -- follows recent gains against Sunni insurgents in the northern city of Mosul and Shiite militiamen in Baghdad and the southern cities of Basra and Amarah.

Many in Baqouba welcomed the effort despite the inconvenience.

Taxi driver Sadiq Hamid, who said he was out of work for the day because of a curfew, said women and children were waving at the Iraqi troops patrolling in the streets.

''I am stuck at home and the children are playing soccer in the streets,'' he said, expressing hope some of his neighbors who had fled to Baghdad would return. ''The residents of Diyala have been waiting this moment for a long time.''

There are two very heartening aspects of this story. The first is again, as we have seen in many of the previous offensives in Basra, Sadr City, and Mosul; the Iraqi Army and Police are leading the way. This is just further proof of how far they have come, and further proof that they are closer and closer everyday to being able to do it themselves.

The second part was the comments from Sadiq Hamid the taxi driver. To see the people embracing the offensive to rid their city of insurgents is a great sign. Many times I remember going into areas, and the people were almost as hostile as the insurgents. But, the fact that they want them gone, tells me that this province is ready to do what needs to be done to keep them out. Hearing about the children playing soccer in the streets also tells me how much of a positive impression this offensive has.

As we have seen since, "The Surge", things are getting better. In fact, better and better everyday. To think it has nothing to do with that, or that it wasn't a good idea is just plain wrong. More so though, this is all about the Iraqi's. They have embraced their new government and with motivation, determination and their sweat and blood are stabilizing their great country. I am so proud of them.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq.html

Photo is by Ashley Gilbertson for the NY Times and from the Article. Sphere: Related Content

Narco State? What? Part Two...

President Karzai had a response for Thomas Schweich, the author of the article this past weekend in the NY Times that I discussed earlier in Narco State? What? : (NY TIMES ART) :

Mr. Karzai brushed off accusations by a former State Department official, Thomas Schweich, that he was obstructing the fight against narcotics in Afghanistan. The accusations came in an article for The New York Times Magazine by Mr. Schweich that was posted on the Web on Wednesday.

“What he said is his own idea,” Mr. Karzai said. “He criticizes the American government, Britain, ISAF forces and the Afghan government.”

“This campaign is a long-term, time-consuming campaign,” he said. “It is not to be done in one or two years. It is related directly to the economy of the country. It is related directly to bringing peace in our country.”

I have always had a great deal of respect for President Karzai. He is a very intelligent, and thoughtful leader, who sees the big picture completely. He shows this yet again in his comments. As he said this is not a short term problem, that a short term fix is called for. This is a long term problem, that is going to take time and a comprehensive and holistic approach to solve. Afghanistan is on track, and under his continued leadership will only continue to get better.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/world/asia/25afghan.html?ref=worldspecial Sphere: Related Content

More Trouble on the Border Part Two

As we saw from yesterdays activity in Afghanistan the problem with the border region is not getting better. The Pakistani Prime Minister was in Washington today, and not much came out of that. What I did find very interesting was what the NATO Secretary General had to offer on his trip to Afghanistan two days ago. (NY TIMES ART) :

The battle came as NATO’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, warned of critical danger to Afghanistan, with foreign fighters and terrorists trying to destabilize the country. He called for greater international attention to the problem.

“Those people — and we see too many of them in recent weeks and months — who are coming into Afghanistan to create mischief and havoc, those people who want to destabilize Afghanistan, and those people are killing NATO forces as well, are the same who are after the destabilizing of Pakistan and the destabilizing of other parts of the world,” he said.

Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said that the situation was unacceptable and that a regional political approach was needed to address the threat. “I cannot imagine anyone who would consider it acceptable that many terrorists from all over the world gather in a certain area and create mischief and havoc there,” he said.

In another sign of Al Qaeda’s growing prominence in the area, the network’s operational leader in Afghanistan, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, an Egyptian, gave an interview to the Pakistani television channel Geo that was broadcast this week. In the interview, he claimed that Al Qaeda was growing in strength in Afghanistan and would soon occupy the entire country.

The Pakistani prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, also said recently that more foreigners were in the lawless tribal areas along Afghanistan’s border and warned that an assault like the Sept. 11 attacks could emanate from there.

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who has frequently complained of terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan causing instability in Afghanistan, said some Afghan provinces close to the border were now under serious threat.

“We will not be secure and safe in Afghanistan unless Afghanistan and the international community address the question of sanctuaries in Pakistan, and the terrorist training camps there, and the motivation they get there,” he said.

I believe that it has become abundantly clear to everyone that the situation has become severe. I completely agree that this must be a regional approach to security also. NATO and the US need to bring in all of the regional countries and determine how we are going to go forward. The most important part is that Pakistan must commit to a much greater amount of assistance on their side of the border. When the Pakistani Prime Minister is warning that another 9-11 terrorist attack might come from his country, isn't that a good sign you should be doing something about it?

Just today we saw another UAV Strike in the Pakistani Tribal Areas. (NY TIMES ART):

The strike, apparently carried out by a remotely piloted drone, killed at least six people in a compound in Pakistan’s tribal regions near the Afghan border Monday, including a senior Al Qaeda operative, residents and officials in the area said.

The missile strike was one of several in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas this year that have been aimed at Al Qaeda members. One Pakistani security official and a resident in the area said the attack might have killed a trainer and weapons expert known as Abu Khabab al-Misri, though there was no confirmation of that. The same expert was reported killed in a similar raid in January 2006.

A spokesman of the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington, Carl Kropf, declined to comment on the missile strike. Another American official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities of attacking targets in Pakistan, said if that Qaeda expert had been killed in the attack — and officials were still awaiting confirmation — it would deal Al Qaeda a significant blow.

“This guy is one of their absolute key specialists in poisons and explosives,” said the official. “He was also a key trainer of people involved in operations inside and outside the tribal areas.”

This is becoming an almost daily occurrence. The United States, NATO, Afghanistan, and Pakistan must sit down and develop a strategy to combat this threat. The fact that our troops are being engaged by foreign fighters and Islamic Extremist Elements and then they are running back across the border into a relative safe haven is unacceptable. The time has come to act, and act we must, before this situation becomes even worse.

I have seen in recent days many people discussing the amount of foreign assistance that Pakistan receives from the United States. If Pakistan is unwilling or unable to secure their country, to assist us in stopping this cross border activity, and unable to stop another 9-11 attack emanating from their territory; why are we giving them so much of our hard earned money? We are giving them assistance, and believing that we are getting something in return for it. The critical question becomes are we getting something in return, and if not, why are we continuing to do so?

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/world/asia/25afghan.html?ref=worldspecial

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/world/29prexy.html?hp

Photo is by Moises Saman for the NY Times, and from the first article. Sphere: Related Content

More Trouble on the Border

I didn't see this in any of the News Broadcasts today, and I found it only by going to look for it. The problems that were so blatantly exemplified two weeks ago in the border outpost fight are still occurring. This is not a situation where anything has lessened. If anything it is increasing. In addition I fear it will only continue to increase as long as the Taliban and Al Qaeda have a safe haven in the tribal regions of Pakistan. (NY TIMES ART):

About 100 insurgents raided a government center Sunday near the border with Pakistan, and more than two dozen of the attackers were killed in the battle, authorities said. Two policemen also died.

American troops and aircraft assisted Afghan forces during the battle in Spera district of eastern Khost province, said provincial governor Arsallah Jamal.

The militants attacked the police guarding the district center from four directions before being pushed back, Jamal said. More than 50 militants died, while the rest fled into Pakistan, he said. Two policemen died and four were wounded.

The troops ''called for air strikes consisting of heavy machine gun fire from helicopters,'' NATO said in a statement.

''Some insurgents attempted to take cover in a nearby building that helicopters then struck with missiles,'' the statement said. ''The number of insurgents killed is in double-digit figures.

Afghanistan faces intensifying militancy nearly seven years after a U.S.-led invasion ousted the hard-line Islamic Taliban movement from power.

The number of militant attacks in eastern Afghanistan has increased by 40 percent over the same period last year.

Afghan and Western officials say Pakistan has not done enough to crack down on militant hideouts on its side of the border, a charge Pakistan rebuffs.

More than 2,700 people -- most of them militants -- have died in insurgency-related violence this year, according to an Associated Press tally of official figures.

The situation has not changed. Taliban and Al Qeada Elements are still using Pakistan as a safe haven. Pakistan must stand up to them and defeat them, and the coalition within Afghanistan must be strengthened to combat this new threat. I believe the threat is growing, we must stop it now.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Afghan-Violence.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin Sphere: Related Content

Stories from the Front

This is an incredible story told by Stars and Stripes written by Cindy Fisher about a Marine Recon Element. The story is one of courage, bravery, and commitment, and one I have seen many times over. This is who our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen are, and what they are doing. I have never been prouder then to be counted as one of them. I have included a small excerpt below but follow the link to the article, it is an outstanding story.

FALLUJAH, Iraq — The five-man reconnaissance team with 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion’s Company A was on a foot patrol in a remote area in the northern part of Anbar province one night this month when disaster struck.

"Boom!"

"An explosion goes off and I can see a cloud of white smoke" and shrapnel flying everywhere, recalled Cpl. Tyler Van Hook, 20, an assistant team leader from Nokesville, Va.

That boom was a land mine.

Van Hook, the farthest from the explosion, was uninjured except for a ringing in his ears. He immediately dropped to a prone position and looked for additional hazards.

Then he heard someone screaming. It was Cpl. John Rice, 24, the team’s reconnaissance scout.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56388 Sphere: Related Content

What We Need For The Future.....

I touched on this subject during my discussion of the Poppy Farming in Afghanistan, but it needs much more of an explanation. I am a firm believer that the US State Department needs a very large increase in funding, but it is a much larger issue then that. We once had a problem with the services operating within a true Joint Construct, that caused severe revamping within the Department of Defense and additional changes with the Goldwater-Nichols Act. But I think we have reached another critical junction where additional change is needed. But first a critical question must be answered.

That question is; Who should be in charge during stability operations? A stability operation is exactly what we are engaged in within Iraq and Afghanistan now. This does not mean that offensive and defensive operations are not still occurring, and that there may be times that there is more offense then stability going on, but as a whole is a stability operation. I have been in both countries when we were doing more offensive actions then humanitarian, and when we were conducting much more humanitarian then offensive actions. This is not just some nice sounding theory, but what I have actually seen from the ground. Within the military we call this Full Spectrum Operations, and it sets the stage for the next 100 years of operations that we will undertake.

My personal belief is that once we are truly conducting stability operations, and major combat operations have been concluded, that the State Department should take the lead. This in no shape or form takes the place of people like the MNCI Commander or the CENTCOM Commander to use Iraq as an example. But the person who is overall in charge, and coordinating the entire effort to rebuild the country should be a senior DOS Official. This is the person who would oversee the truly joint effort to rebuild the country, and would bring in elements from Department of Justice, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Energy to name just a few. This would also serve as a conduit to both our own government, and to other governmental organizations such as the UN and the EU. Helping to bring a coalition effort completely together, whether it is with military forces or with economic aid.

This overarching command and control network would also be in an ideal position to synchronize non-governmental organizations such as the International Red Cross or Red Crescent, and Doctors Without Borders to name but a couple. Who would be better to help a country re-establish its agriculture or to oversee a long term comprehensive operation to reduce Poppy Farming then the Department of Agriculture. Who would be better to synchronize training of police then the Department of Justice, with its DEA, US Marshalls, and FBI pool of expertise to pull from. The only problem beyond money that remains is how would we staff an organization like this?

The follow-up question is; does the US State Department have the personnel to do this? Unfortunately the answer is no. Secretary of State Rice has been heralding this issue since she took the position over, and I agree with her goals. The idea of having a rapid response team that could deploy with a Brigade from the 82nd Airborne or a Marine Expeditionary Unit and head off a crisis before military force is needed is a great asset. As I have said many times, if we can accomplish our nation's goals without resorting to military force I am all for it. But these groups would also serve to be in place if military operations had to occur to rapidly transition and synchronize the turn over to the State Department after major combat operations are concluded.

What is needed first is the money. As with anything, if you want to execute the program you need Congress to give you the money to make it happen. Plans are great, but without money its not going to happen. Secondly the State Department needs to find the right people to man these new organizations. I would recommend starting with the military since combat training is the most difficult part of training someone in my opinion. Finally DOD and DOS with the Executive Branch need to lay out the lines of responsibility, and lines of effort, to synchronize who is lead when, and when that transition should occur. Command relationships are vitally important and this will take much hashing out.

I will be continuing to discuss this topic over the course of the next week. Especially what needs to be funded, and what a rapid response team from DOS should look like; but the important part is that we are seeing some vital lessons learned coming from Iraq and Afghanistan on this very issue. We can not ignore them. To be even more successful next time, and to not make the same mistakes again; we must look at what we have learned and take the steps to rectify them.

God Bless America

Bryan Sphere: Related Content

Narco State? What?

Im going to try to keep this a short article but today's article in the NY Times (Narco State) by Thomas Schweich had me very fired up to say the least. The general premise of the article was that the Afghan's didn't want to do anything but increase the Poppy Farming, that Karzai himself was corrupted by it, that the DOD did not care, and that everything the DEA tried was shot down. In addition that the training of the Afghan Army and Police was ineffective and badly done. I am going to answer each of these individually, but as a bottom line up front, he's dead wrong.

About three months later, after meeting with local officials in Helmand — my helicopter touched down in the middle of a poppy field — I went to the White House to brief Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others on the expanding opium problem. I advocated a policy replicating what had worked in other countries: public education about the evils of heroin and the illegality of cultivating poppies; alternative crops; eradication of poppy fields; interdiction of drug shipments and arrest of traffickers; and improvements to the judicial system.

I emphasized at this and subsequent meetings that crop eradication, although claiming less than a third of the $500 million budgeted for Afghan counternarcotics, was the most controversial part of the program. But because no other crop came even close to the value of poppies, we needed the threat of eradication to force farmers to accept less-lucrative alternatives. (Eradication was an essential component of successful anti-poppy efforts in Guatemala, Southeast Asia and Pakistan.) The most effective method of eradication was the use of herbicides delivered by crop-dusters. But Karzai had long opposed aerial eradication, saying it would be misunderstood as some sort of poison coming from the sky. He claimed to fear that aerial eradication would result in an uprising that would cause him to lose power.

The first problem with this statement is the assumption that farmers in Afghanistan have a choice to grow what they want. They don't. They grow what they have from seed from the year before. So if we want to give them something else to grow we need to educate them in how to grow it, the tools to be used to grow it(they may be different), and how to harvest it. There also may be significant differences in what that new crop wants in water and environment, again demanding education. To date, there has not been a widespread attempt at educating these farmers; a program that must be accomplished before hand. The second part is getting large amounts of this seed into the hands of the Afghan farmers in time for them to grow it. Another large problem that to date has not been tackled.

The third problem is that these farmers live on next years money. They buy things, have weddings, and funerals based upon the money they expect to get. Almost like charging it on the credit card, and paying it off with next years pay check. If you switch out crops in the middle of this cycle, and then only make 10% of what you would have made, you lose everything. Has there ever been a program to assist them in this regard? As far as I know that answer is a no.

The other major issue is for these people poppy plants and the sap that they chew from it are a way of life. The further complication is most do no not read or write. Handing out leaflets explaining why it is bad just doesn't work. If you want to educate them, that is a process that is going to take time. Expecting to see every Afghan decide overnight or even over a one year period to stop growing poppies because he understands the evil of them is just a fallacy. This type of education is part of a much larger endeavor to educate in general, and that will take time.

We financed ground-based eradication instead: police using tractors and weed-whackers to destroy the fields of farmers who refused to plant alternative crops. Ground-based eradication was inefficient, costly, dangerous and more subject to corrupt dealings among local officials than aerial eradication. But it was our only option.

Well let me think about this one for a moment; you probably offered this alternative seed to the farmers after they had run up their debts, and had to get a certain amount of money so they could continue living. Then because they wouldn't plant something else, you went in and eradicated the poppies, in essence making them lose their source of income, and their homes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to explain that you probably just created another generation of insurgents in that move alone. The counter-argument would be they might have been already. But, where I come from, your innocent until proven guilty. At least 90% of these farmers were not active Taliban Supporters, I can guarantee that they are now.

A more logical solution would be to offer an alternative crop when the time is right, and offer a subsidy. No matter what they plant they are not going to get more money then they would for growing poppies. So subsidize them, and make them want to grow something else. These farmers aren't bad people. They are men and women who are trying to provide for their families the only way they know how. If you take that ability away, they will hate you forever.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAid) was also under fire — particularly from Congress — for not providing better alternative crops for farmers. USAid had distributed seed and fertilizer to most of Afghanistan, but more comprehensive agricultural programs were slow to start in parts of the country. The USAid officers in Kabul were competent and committed, but they had already lost several workers to insurgent attacks, and were understandably reluctant to go into Taliban territory to implement their programs.

Well USAID is a great organization, but they are under-funded and under-manned. They rely a great deal on contractors. If I could suggest anything here, it is USAID and its parent organization, the US Department of State need to be expanded greatly and given a much larger budget for these type of operations. Much more then they have currently. I will talk more about this in a later post, but suffice to say the US Department of State, and USAID are essential in the Global War on Terror and need to be funded and manned accordingly.

And then there was the problem of the Afghan National Police. The Pentagon frequently proclaimed that the Afghan National Army (which the Pentagon trained) was performing wonderfully, but that the police (trained mainly by the Germans and the State Department) were not. A respected American general in Afghanistan, however, confided to me that the army was not doing well, either; that the original plan for training the army was flimsy and under financed; and that, consequently, they were using police to fill holes in the army mission. Thrust into a military role, unprepared police lost their lives trying to hold territory in dangerous areas.

Well I cant speak about the year 2006, I wasn't there yet. I can speak about 2007 though. Being that its so close in proximity, I feel safe making some assumptions here. First from everything I saw across four out of the five Regional Commands of ISAF within Afghanistan, military and police operations were going extremely well. I say four because there was one regional command I didn't see that much. But, the Afghan Army was motivated and conducting operations independently. The Police were also growing stronger and stronger and taking over many areas by themselves. Both of these organizations were also highly motivated and wanted to do the right thing for their country. I also saw a great deal of interaction between Department of State Trainers and US Army Trainers. I never saw any evidence of major issues between them. Whenever I visited a friend that was working in a regional police headquarters; him and his DOS counterpart were sitting at a desk planning something interesting and usually very effective.

My general impression of this article is that it is very easy to point the finger, and cast stones. But, as a very wise man once told me: First understand the problem, Second, understand the second and third order effects, and then Third understand the time it will take to fix the problem. I believe that one he never understood the problem completely, two he did not understand the second and third order effects, and third he thought he could accomplish everything in a year. Sorry to say, but that usually doesn't happen. In frustration now, the stones are being cast everywhere. Sadly to say, they are not accurate or valid.

An alternative might go something like this.
1. Begin a long range education and alternative crop program with subsidies.
2. For the farmers who have already planted or have reservations, arrange for their crops to be bought directly by the Pharmaceutical Companies, bypassing the middle man and any insurgent groups.
3. Continue engagement so that when he sees his neighbors making more money growing the alternative crop, he wants to also.

This is a very simplistic plan, and would need a great deal of refinement, but why not? In most counter-insurgency operations we must think outside the box. This is just another example. Instead of complaining, find a way to make things work.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/magazine/27AFGHAN-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
&hp

Photo is from the Article and taken by John Moore / Getty Images Sphere: Related Content

New Program for PTSD

A few weeks ago I was talking about my personal experiences with how the Army is assisting soldiers with PTSD and screening for it. I was just checking the Stars and Stripes and they are instituting another new program that I feel will help dramatically. It is probably an honest assessment that we don't get it right 100% of the time. 99% of the time is probably more accurate, but the Army is trying hard at every opportunity to get it right and do the best they can for their soldiers.

This program also sounds to me like a young soldier's idea; it just has that feel of common sense and brilliance to it. But that is another important part of what the Army has been doing to help soldiers, they are listening to new ideas everyday, and incorporating them. Personally, I believe that a great job is being done, looking out for and taking care of our soldiers.

Excerpts from the Article (Stars and Stripes):

Active-duty soldiers can expect to be asked how they’re doing, and not just physically, the next time they visit Army clinics in Vicenza, Italy, and Vilseck and Schweinfurt, Germany.

The three clinics are phasing in a program called RESPECT-MIL in which primary-care doctors routinely screen patients for post-traumatic stress disorder.

The three communities, along with 12 Army bases in the United States where the program is used, are sites with high concentrations of troops who have been deployed to war zones.

"These are the most likely areas for a high level of referrals for PTSD and depression," said Dr. (Lt. Col.) Raymond L. Gundry, deputy commander of outlying clinics at the Heidelberg, Germany-based Europe Regional Medical Command.

The program — its full name is Re-Engineering Systems for the Primary Care and Treatment of Depression and PTSD in the Military — is expected to go Army-wide in the future, Gundry said.

For now, officials at the RESPECT-MIL headquarters in Fort Bragg, N.C., are holding teleconferences every two weeks with the 15 original sites to evaluate how the program is going so far, Gundry said

Vicenza will soon be receiving several thousand soldiers who are returning from Afghanistan after serving a 15-month tour. Gonzales said about 15 soldiers are currently in Vicenza’s PTSD treatment program, which was launched last month.

Most, she said, were identified during the Army reintegration program immediately upon returning to Vicenza, but several were noticed during routine checkups using RESPECT-MIL techniques.

"A lot of people will deny (symptoms) just because they don’t want to go through behavioral health (offices)," Gonzales said. "But when it’s through primary care and not behavioral health … they’ll say, ‘Yes, I need help.’"

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56303 Sphere: Related Content

Great Post to Check Out

Good friend of mine wrote this, and I though it was absolutely superb. What a telling of this heroic story from Afghanistan. The link is below, and the beginning of the story is also included below. (Unsung Glory)

At 0430, an estimated five hundred fighters from Al Qaeda, Taliban, and the Pakistani extremist factions Hezb-i-Islami and Lashkar-e-Taiba, launched a coordinated three pronged assault. The enemy had infiltrated the village and expelled the residents, using their homes to attack the isolated outpost. Approximately 200 fighters worked their way to the perimeter of the base under an intense barrage of mortars, RPG’s, and heavy machine gun fire. The enemy intended to overrun the base and the US and Afghani soldiers knew it. They fought like hell in a barroom brawl of a firefight.

The first soldiers to be hit were nine paratroopers manning a forward Observation Post sitting on a small hill about 75 yards outside the wire. One of them was Spec. Tyler Stafford, 23, of Parker Colorado. Dozens of RPG rounds slammed into the small OP, so many rounds that soldiers wondered where the enemy had gotten all of them. Spec. Stafford grabbed his M-240 MG off of the north facing wall and moved it to the east facing wall to engage enemy fighters approaching from that direction. It was then that an RPG slammed into the north wall he had just been at, blowing him out of the position and wounding another soldier. Another grenade immediately exploded next to Stafford, knocking him to a lower terrace of the position. His helmet had been blown off and he noticed that he was bleeding profusely. He yelled out for help to Cpl. Matthew Phillips standing close by. Cpl. Phillips had just pulled the pin on a grenade and was ready to throw. He looked at Stafford with a face that said, “Give me a second. I gotta go kill these guys first.”

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nicedoggie.net/2008/?p=1174 Sphere: Related Content

More on Iran and more good indicators from Iraq

Yesterday I talked a great deal about Iran, and it was quite interesting to see this article today. As I was discussing yesterday, Iran was engaged in nothing more then an elaborate delay tactic, hoping to get something for nothing, or just buy more time to continue their nuclear program. This clarified and backed a lot of that up. (NY TIMES):

For the six powers — the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany — the paper’s substance was just as disappointing as its style. Sergei Kisliak, the Russian deputy foreign minister, could not suppress a laugh when he read it, according to one participant.

The talks on Saturday included the participation of a senior American official for the first time. The six powers were hoping that Iran would accept a compromise formula to pave the way to formal negotiations. For six weeks, Iran would not add “any new nuclear activity,” refraining from the new installation of centrifuges that enrich uranium, and the United States and other powers would not seek new United Nations sanctions.

But both in their paper, and throughout the talks, the Iranians did not discuss the formula, called a “freeze for freeze.” As a result, they left the impression that they wanted to lure the parties into an open-ended, cost-free, high-level negotiating process.

“The paper calls for a huge exercise in talking,” said one senior European official. “If you were to try to implement it, it would take a minimum of several years.”

The question becomes what should we be doing? First off, Iran has two weeks to respond now. If they do not comply with all that is asked, then tougher sanctions must be imposed by the UN Security Council. Secondly, we, the United States, and our European Allies must make a concerted effort through information and economic means to convince the Iranian People that enough is enough. The young people within Iran tried to make serious reforms in the late 1990's and were brutally put down for it. Now, an attitude of we would rather work then be thrown in prison has permeated the country. I understand that, but I believe the time has come for them to make meaningful democratic change in their government. That change can only happen if we show them that we are on their side.

This would be a very large effort, but no larger then many of the efforts that we are already engaged in world-wide. In addition, it may very well be an effort that prevents us from being put in a position in the future where we may have to use military means. If we can prevent that now, and accomplish our goals utilizing information and economic means that is the best way forward.

As I said last night, I truly hope that the Iranian People make these changes in their country. They are a great and proud people with a rich heritage, history, and culture. I for one, would very much like to see them rejoin the world community, and it would only help and assist all of us with a strong and free Iran in the Persian Gulf Region.

From Iraq today there was other news, this time good. It is just further proof of how well the Iraqi Army and Police are doing in their operations in the south of Iraq. (CNN Article):

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Tuesday his country will withdraw some of its 4,100 troops stationed in Iraq by the beginning of next year.

Brown -- in comments before the House of Commons and on the prime minister's Web site -- didn't specify the numbers of troops that might be brought home.

But he said Britain "will continue to reduce the number of British troops in Iraq" as progress is made in various areas, such as strides in training and mentoring. British troops in Iraq have been stationed in the southern Basra province.

"Future decisions will be based -- as I have always said -- on advice of our military commanders on the ground," Brown said.

"But I can tell the House today that just as last year we moved from combat to 'over watch,' we would expect a further fundamental change of mission in the first months of 2009 as we make the transition to a long term bilateral partnership with Iraq, similar to the normal relationships which our military forces have with other important countries in the region."

Britain has been working to transition security duties to Iraqis. Britain handed over Basra to provincial control in December and "this allowed us to reduce troop numbers in southern Iraq from 5,500 in September to 4,500."

I read this, and I think back to 2004 when we were just starting to do routine training with Iraqi Army Soldiers and Units. I remember them in the very beginning; always motivated and wanting to learn, always trying hard. Now I see them in 2008 and they are completely operating on their own. Conducting complex operations completely by themselves, to the point that the coalition has been able to drop back into over watch mode as PM Brown put it. I can see no greater proof of our success then when I hear things like this.

The other part of this is, just as we in the United States have been discussing how we will continue drawing down forces in Iraq, we have been talking about increasing in Afghanistan. I can guarantee that as we push more combat forces into Afghanistan to deal with the issues that have been increasing there with the border and Pakistan, that our great friends and allies the British will be doing the same. I have worked with the British many times, and I can truthfully say that we have no greater ally then our friends across the Atlantic. Cheers Mates.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/world/middleeast/22iran-1.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/22/iraq.brown/index.html Sphere: Related Content

Iran.... Again.....

Well there has just been an overload of news on Iran today. Frankly, I am utterly shocked, ok; well I'm not shocked. This is honestly just more of the same from Tehran. From the Fox News Article(FOX NEWS):

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran on Monday of not being serious at weekend talks about its disputed nuclear program despite the presence of a senior U.S. diplomat, and warned it may soon face new sanctions.

In her first public comments since Saturday's meeting in Switzerland, Rice said Iran had given the run-around to envoys from the U.S. and five other world powers. She said all six nations were serious about a two-week deadline to which Iran has to agree to freeze suspect activities and start negotiations or be hit with new penalties.

Rice was briefed on the meeting by the State Department's No. 3 diplomat, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, who attended the session in a shift from Washington's previous insistence that it would not meet with the Iranians unless enrichment of uranium had stopped. Rice arrived in Abu Dhabi Monday and was planning to meet with Burns and Gulf Arab officials.

At the Europe meeting, Iran had been expected to respond to a package of incentives offered in exchange for halting enrichment of uranium, which can be used to fuel atomic weapons. The Bush administration broke with long-standing policy to send a top diplomat to support the offer.

However, Rice said that instead of a coherent answer, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili delivered a "meandering" monologue full of irrelevant "small talk about culture" that appeared to annoy many of the others present at the table in Geneva.

This is honestly just more of the same from Iran. They have attempted to dodge the IAEA and the UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) for the past three years. Is anyone in the world really surprised? My hat is off to Secretary of State Rice for calling it like it is. There was absolutely no political double speak in her comments; she came right out and called Iran on the carpet. Basically; we know your doing it, the world knows your doing it, you weren't serious at these negotiations, and you need to decide what you want to do right now. But is there anything that can be offered to Iran when they make comments like these (CNN Article):

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned that his country would back tougher sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions and denounced Iranian threats against Israel as "abhorrent" in a landmark speech Monday to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in Jerusalem.

"We say with one voice: It is totally abhorrent for the president of Iran (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) to call for Israel to be wiped from the map of the world," Brown said.

"Our country will continue to lead, with the United States and our European partners, in our determination to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons program. We stand ready to lead in taking further sanctions and will ask the whole international community to join us."

President Ahmadinejad has made these types of comments routinely. Many would say that it is just political bluster to maintain his position of power within Iran. That is probably partly true. But it fulfills another more ominous purpose also. Iran has for many years sought to influence its neighbors in the Persian Gulf. They do this by saber rattling, they do it with business investments in their neighbors, and they do it by being the one country to still openly call for Israel to be destroyed and pander to the extremist elements in their neighboring countries. They do not seek to be a regional power by developing themselves and their neighbors, they seek to be a regional power by intimidation and threat of overt and covert force. With this type of an attitude, do we really believe that they will just accept these negotiations immediately. I believe that the answer is a resounding no.

Secretary of State Rice was also dead on the money when she talked about the lead diplomat from Iran talking around the issues, and speaking about culture and why he shouldn't have to make a decision. This is another run of the mill delay tactic that they have used before. When we really don't want to commit to anything, and we want to delay you, then we'll just talk around the issue anyway we can. There is a two week window now though, and Iran has its opportunity to accept the negotiations and come clean to the IAEA, UN, and the world. Will they seize upon this opportunity? I don't believe so. I think they will attempt to delay, and ask for more concessions.

I believe that the only way that this situation is going to change is by the people of Iran saying that enough is enough. The economy in Iran has been hurting for about the last year. Jobs are getting harder to find, and many young businesses are failing. Two signs that do not bode well for an economy. With even more sanctions placed upon them it will only get worse. The Iranian People must decide if they wish to continue living under a tyrannical regime that violates UNSCR's and the IAEA or if they wish to change their government and rejoin the world community. If they choose to rejoin the world community, they would be welcomed with open arms. They are a great people, with a rich history and culture that I would love to see rejoin the rest of us. But that is a decision that only they can make for themselves.

Until then, I fear, we will only see more of this.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,387221,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/21/israel.brown/index.html Sphere: Related Content

Critical Developments in Iraq and Afghanistan Part Three

I apologize, I hate to have multiple posts about the same environment but these articles just keep on coming. This also supplements the entire theory that I put forward about Al-Qaeda about a week ago. (FOX News)

"We do think that there is some assessment ongoing as to the continued viability of Al Qaeda's fight in Iraq," Gen. David Petraeus told The Associated Press in an interview at his office at the U.S. Embassy.

Whatever the result, Petraeus said no one should expect Al Qaeda to give up entirely in Iraq.

"They're not going to abandon Iraq. They're not going to write it off. None of that," he said. "But what they certainly may do is start to provide some of those resources that would have come to Iraq to Pakistan, possibly Afghanistan."

He said there are signs that foreign fighters recruited by Al Qaeda to do battle in Iraq are being diverted to the largely ungoverned areas in Pakistan from which the fighters can cross into Afghanistan. U.S. officials have pressed Pakistan for more than a year to halt the cross-border infiltration. It remains a major worry not only for the war in Afghanistan but also for Pakistan's stability.

Petraeus declined to say what he might recommend to President Bush regarding further U.S. troops reductions. The assessment, he said, is based on a range of factors, including the prospects for Iraqi government approval of legislation required before provincial elections can be held this fall.

He would not talk about specific troop levels later this year. But the enthusiasm of Petraeus's description of security, political and even economic progress in 2008 gave the impression he may be inclined to tell Bush that fewer than the current 15 combat brigades will be needed by year's end.

Petraeus said he was encouraged at the possibility of Al Qaeda reconsidering Iraq as its highest priority war front.

"There is some intelligence that has picked this up," he said, adding, "It's not solid gold intelligence.

This information, while unconfirmed, parallels reports that fewer foreign fighters are joining the insurgency in Iraq.

"We do know the foreign fighter flow into Iraq has been reduced very substantially," he said. From a peak of 80 to 100 foreign fighters entering Iraq each month, the total has dropped as low as 20 per month, he said.

He attributed the decline to a combination of factors. They include the intense U.S. and Iraqi military operations against Al Qaeda in Baghdad, Mosul and elsewhere, and stronger actions by neighboring countries to prevent militants from crossing into Iraqi territory. He mentioned Saudi Arabia as an example.

I have a great deal of respect for GEN Petraeus, and when he talks I listen. The fact that the commander on the ground is seeing the same thing that we are, makes me feel a lot better. Al-Qaeda and the other insurgent groups within Iraq are not completely beaten yet, but they are on the run. That is for sure. The fact that he is seeing serious problems with the Border, Pakistan, and Foreign Fighters also makes me feel a lot better, since I feel these are very important indicators.

I've said it a few times, but I believe the fight in Afghanistan will be our decisive point in the next year. From what I've just read its nice to see that someone who I respect greatly believes the same.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386647,00.html Sphere: Related Content

Critical Developments in Iraq and Afghanistan Part Two

As soon as I posted the first part of the post, this article was posted by the NY Times, and it summed up the situation even better then the first article they had. (NY TIMES)

On the eve of Senator Barack Obama’s visit to Iraq, its prime minister tried to step back Sunday from comments in an interview in which he appeared to support Mr. Obama’s plan for troop withdrawal.

The interview with the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, was published Saturday in the online version of Der Spiegel, a German magazine. It was widely picked up by American newspapers because it appeared to give an unexpected boost to Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who has called for an expedited withdrawal.

The interview prompted immediate concern from the Bush administration, which called to seek clarification from Mr. Maliki’s office, American officials said.

Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments publicly announced an agreement over American troops.

Mr. Obama, who is on the opening leg of a weeklong overseas trip, said in a television interview that the United States needed to send a stronger message to Pakistan about its efforts to fight terrorism along the Afghanistan border.

“I think that the U.S. government provides an awful lot of aid to Pakistan, provides a lot of military support to Pakistan,” Mr. Obama said on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “And to send a clear message to Pakistan that this is important, to them as well as to us, I think that message has not been sent.”


God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html?hp Sphere: Related Content

Great Blog To Pass On

One of my readers posted this link in the comments section to an article and it was way too good to leave in the comments section. Ive only read the first couple of their articles, but its a great resource and site.

http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=50

God Bless America

Bryan Sphere: Related Content

Critical Developments in Iraq and Afghanistan

The past 24 hours have seen some major developments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq we have seen the agreement negotiations going much better and a signed agreement seems to only be a matter of time; in some estimates by the end of the month. Prime Minister Maliki also clarified last night our time that he was mis-quoted by the German Interview and did not approve of a staunch 16 month timetable as suggested by Senator Obama. (CNN Article)

(CNN) -- President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have agreed to include a "general time horizon" for meeting goals such as reducing U.S. combat forces and transferring Iraqi security control across the country, the White House said Friday.

The two men "agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal," the White House said in a statement.

The discussion follows a drop in violence in Iraq, improvements in the performance of the Iraqi security forces, and subsequent calls from Iraqis for the United States to formulate a troop withdrawal timetable.

Prime Minister Maliki has done an absolutely outstanding job. When I saw the initial interview and report I was a bit thrown by him agreeing to 16 months and everyone out. When he clarified his comments shortly afterwards it made much more sense. Both PM Maliki and President Bush have always said that it is subject to conditions on the ground, the Commander on the grounds recommendations, and the Iraqi's recommendations. As I have said before this is the most intelligent way forward.

It also says a great deal about how far the Iraqi Army and Police have come. Under PM Maliki's leadership they have gone on the offensive and devastated many of their opponents with little to no coalition support. PM Maliki has also been shoring up the government. I have never been more proud of them then now for all that they have accomplished.

In Afghanistan we have seen a great deal of emphasis being placed back upon that theater of operations. (NY TIMES)

In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Mr. Obama said: “We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front on our battle against terrorism.

“The people of Afghanistan do support the international presence,” he said to the plan to send more American troops to Afghanistan. The two parties had stressed the need for greater cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the United States and Pakistan, he said. “Terrorism challenges all three countries, all partners,” Mr. Hamidzada said.

Mr. Karzai has long called for the United States to put more pressure on Pakistan to curb militancy in its tribal regions along the border with Afghanistan. Mr. Obama has also pledged to broaden and change the American relationship with Pakistan.

While I do not agree that Afghanistan is the central front, I do believe that in the coming year it will be the decisive operation for us. In this type of war, there is no central front, but we do have a decisive operation. This war is non-linear. It is not always the same, and it rapidly shifts just as the tides and the ocean changes. The key is being responsive to those changes and maintaining the momentum and initiative and striking where we need to. In this way Afghanistan is our decisive operation.

I do agree with the Senator that we must firmly address the issue of Pakistan and the Border. This needs to be a three party talk between the US/Coalition, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. All parties must understand at one time what is at stake, what needs to be done, and how we are going to move forward. If these talks are not productive because certain parties do not want to cooperate then I would assume that they don't want their US Financial aid either. In addition since this is a Coalition with ISAF and NATO that could mean EU Support also. That's quite a lot of money to lose.

I also agree that we need more combat troops in Afghanistan. To do the mission that we are asking of our troops now, would take in my opinion another 2 to 3 Brigades. I think the estimations from the article are dead on. The larger lesson learned though, is that we should never try to conduct an operation with less and rely on firepower so heavily. Operations such as these demand boots on the ground, and we need to do the correct analysis and planning up front, and then source the operation properly.

I'm very happy with the news coming out of both areas this weekend. I think we are truly on the right path to completing our missions in both countries. More to follow as we go forward this week.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/us/politics/21obama.html?hp

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.bomb/index.html Sphere: Related Content

Critical Information from Iraq

I know its late, but this just popped on the News Services and its very important. (CNN Article)

CNN) -- A German magazine quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as saying that he backed a proposal by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months.

Nuri al-Maliki told Der Spiegel that he favors a "limited" tenure for coalition troops in Iraq.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months," he said in an interview with Der Spiegel that was released Saturday."That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," he said.

But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

In the magazine interview, Al-Maliki said his remarks did not indicate that he was endorsing Obama over presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.

More to follow on this tomorrow.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/

Photo is from the CNN Article and taken by Getty Images / AFP Sphere: Related Content

Alive Day by HBO

Some of you may have seen this, but I just did (Alive Day). I haven't watched the series yet but I've read many of the stories and interviews and it looks great. James Gandolfini (Tony Soprano) is the interviewer and producer of the documentary. I had a chance to escort him and a couple other actors from the Sopranos in 2004 in Iraq and they were just an awesome bunch. They truly cared about seeing the soldiers and spending time with them.

Thanks also to Chuck at From My Position On The Way, who showed the link on his blog yesterday. It's also a great site that I love to read everyday. Chuck has his very own Alive Day that he has talked some about on his blog site.

I highly recommend watching the series if you get HBO, or just read the interviews and some of the Soldiers and Marines Blog's. It is an unbelievable perspective on returning home wounded, making it through alive, determination, helping your fellow soldiers, and PTSD. I cant say enough about it.

I have been with my soldiers when they wounded, and then came home and was with them during their recovery. The sheer will power and determination that they show never ceases to amaze me. They also always help their fellow soldiers, even though many times they are in great amounts of pain themselves. Many of them have even fought through injuries that many times would mean them having to leave the Army, but now because of their determination they are still serving on active duty. They truly have taken my breath away on many occasions.

I will always remember one of them. I was with him in the hospital the first day he started to come out of his coma. He looked up, saw me, struggled to say something, and then tried to render a salute. I will be completely honest, I couldn't hold the tears back. We are blessed by men such as these.

God Bless America and God Bless our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen.

Bryan

http://www.tcoverride.blogspot.com/

http://www.hbo.com/aliveday/ Sphere: Related Content

Critical Information about Iraq

This news just came out about 3o minutes ago, and its vitally important. (NY Times Article)

From The Article:

The United States and Iraq have agreed to set a “general time horizon” for the “further reduction of U.S. combat forces in Iraq” following the improvement in security conditions in the country, the White House said Friday.

The breakthrough, which was reached between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in discussions via video link on Thursday, could lead to the successful completion of a long-term security agreement covering American operations in Iraq — from combat missions to detaining Iraqis — by the end of this month, a White House official said.

"We’re converging on an agreement," the official said, referring to ongoing negotiations between Iraq and the United States on the deal.

The long-term agreement had been held up by differences over issues like the extent of Iraqi control over American military operations, the right of American soldiers to detain suspects without the approval of Iraqi authorities and Iraqi demands for a timetable for withdrawal.

But in a statement, the White House said Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki had agreed “that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals — such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.”

This is good news on a number of different levels. One it shows the level of strength that the Government of Iraq and more specifically Prime Minister Maliki have grown to. Two it shows that the "surge operations" were the correct operation to undertake at the time. I would only say we should have had more combat troops on the ground from the very beginning though, negating the need for the surge in the first place. Third it shows the growing strength and ability of the Iraqi Army and Police, and the phenomenal job that they are doing.

There is much talk right now on the news services how this timeline is not specific enough. But unless I am wrong I believe that our current administration has always said that decisions will be made in agreement with the Commander's on the ground and the Iraqi Government. This reflects a very wise way forward since it is responsive to the needs of the moment and listens to the experts. It also begins the process of drawing down troop levels and turning Iraq back over to the Iraqi's. I believe that this is also very similar to what both Presidential Candidates have said. One is a bit more aggressive in his draw down timeline but both have said listening to the commanders on the ground and the Iraqi's themselves is critical.

In addition I believe that while this shows how well Iraq is progressing it also further allows us to shift focus back to Afghanistan; in regards to troops levels, money, and equipment. I believe that with all we have seen in the past two weeks occurring in Afghanistan it is time to see a similar surge operation in that country to further support and help our great allies and friends, the Afghan's.

This is a critical piece of information, and a critical good news story. It not only is news about an agreement, or further troop reductions; it is a confirmation that what our troops have been doing has been correct and successful. I can think of no better sign of our success then Iraq taking over more and more of the security operations, and securing their own country.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?hp Sphere: Related Content

Why I Feel Blogging By Military Members and Families is so Important

Blogging has given people the world over the ability to both stay in touch with family and to post their comments and perspective on current issues in the news. As Soldiers and Family Members of Soldiers I believe we have a very unique perspective on the current situation that we are in within the Global War on Terror. I firmly believe that we have a responsibility to the citizens of the nation to tell our story. To tell the citizens of the United States and also the citizens of the world what is really transpiring and to share all of the good news stories that are not normally reported in the regular media sources.

I have talked about before how counter-insurgency operations demand one critical resource that is always in question. That resource is time. Counter-insurgency operations are not an operation that can be executed and done with-in a month or even a year. It is an operations that demands time to be done correctly. The problem with this is if the American People do not understand all the good that is being done and accomplished overseas then they will not be willing to further support the operation. We see a perfect example of this from Vietnam; where the will of the people at home, when lost, determined when we would begin pulling out. As professional members of the military it is our duty to the nation to explain to the American People why we are there, the good stories and news from the front, and the great deeds that are soldiers have accomplished. Only then are we truly giving them the entire picture.

Many people have commented about the lack of news, or the lack of good news within the main stream media. I have been one of them and it is something that has bothered me greatly. Blogging gives us the opportunity to correct that problem. It is a solution to the problem but only one when we embrace it and utilize it.

Blogging by family members also fulfills a very important part in addition to all of the above items. It gives a voice to the military family for the American People to better understand what life is like for our wives and children. I would say more importantly it provides a sounding board for military wives and children to connect and share feelings, emotions, and support across thousands of miles. We were discussing in the PTSD article how talking is therapy in itself, and if a wife writes about what she is going through, many more are reading that and knowing they are not alone. This is absolutely imperative in a support structure. By no means does this replace the Family Readiness Group (FRG) but it is a great supplement to it, especially to share feelings and support across the miles and between bases.

As with all good things, their is somethings that we need to be careful of. The first is obviously operational security. No ones security or tactics should ever be revealed. In addition we are still professional members of the military services. We must always remember that we can discuss challenges that there may be, but we are not here to point the finger and to take sides amongst our political leaders. We serve the federal government, and we follow lawful orders even if we may disagree. This is not a time to forget that, just because we are doing so in "cyber-space."

Blogging is a very important part of telling our story and describing to the American People and to the World why we are doing what we are doing, the good that has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and why all are safer now. I believe it is vitally important now, and will only become more important as we go forward.

God Bless America

Bryan Sphere: Related Content

News Article About Blogging at Fort Leavenworth

About a week ago I conducted an interview about Military Blogs and more specifically about students at the Army's Command and General Staff College that were blogging. I will be talking more about this tonight, but I wanted to give the link to the article now (Into the Blogosphere) . I think the reporter, Melissa Bower, did an outstanding job. Thank you to her and to the Fort Leavenworth Lamp for writing and carrying this story that I believe is so important.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2008/07/17/news/news2.txt Sphere: Related Content

Why they Re-Enlist, or Why We Serve?

I read this story in the NY Times a couple of days ago, but with all that was going on I wasn't able to get to it; but I think this is very important. The title of the article states, "Why they re-enlist." I believe that the more correct byline would be, "Why They Serve." All of us have different reasons why we came in the military in the first place. Some are more defined after time in the service and time deployed in a combat zone, but I don't think that they change. If anything they become more defined and more important after time served in the military. I know for myself, with every year that has gone by, my reasons for first raising my hand and taking the oath of a commissioned officer have not changed; but rather become stronger and more concreted in my heart.

The quotes that best summed everything up, I think, were from SPC Charlie Harris from Atlanta, GA.

Spc. Charlie Harris is from Atlanta, Ga. He is with the 546th Aerial Support Medical Company.
I’ve been in two years, and I re-enlisted for five more years. I’m proud of the soldiers and what we’ve done over here. It’s beautiful how we’ve helped this country to better itself. We liberated them from a cruel dictator, they have the freedom to vote.
I was 22 when I enlisted. It was something to do. And I was following in the footsteps of a good friend of mine from high school, Pfc. Jonah Smith. He was killed over here last year.
I take courses online, I’m studying for a music education degree. I have a lot of support from home. My family knows this is what I choose to do, what I love to do. I got $7,500 to reenlist, but I don’t do it for the money. If I wanted to make money, I could have done that at home. I come from a rough neighborhood; there were opportunities.
But the army has kept me on a real good path. I plan to make a career of it.

First and foremost we fight for our country, to protect her from all enemies foreign and domestic. We also fight to set a people and a country free, to liberate them, to let them taste freedom. Just as generations of those that have gone before us have done. We serve because we believe. We believe in our country, we believe in doing what is right, even though that could demand the ultimate price.

We serve because sometimes it offers a great opportunity for schooling and training. It allows a young man or women to serve their country, to grow into a man or a women, and to gains skills and training for life and for a career. For some it is the only way to achieve higher education. I know I always pushed my soldiers to take as many courses online or at night school as they could. I had many young men who came from poor backgrounds and this was there way to go to college. Many of them now have Bachelor Degree's and I even have one pursuing a Doctorate now. I am so proud of all of them.

We serve because of the friends that we have here. Friends that come from all over the United States, from every walk of life, every race, every creed, and every political persuasion. None of those differences are important though, what is important is the type of person you are, and that is what matters. I have made friends here that I would cross the world to help. We have spilt blood together, we have cried together, and we have fought together. There is nothing I would not do for them.

These are just some of the reasons we serve. They also are reasons we re-enlist, but I think it is more accurate and important to talk about why soldiers serve. Why do these wonderful and courageous young men and women raise their right hand and put on the uniform during a time of war? They are all heroes, and I count myself lucky that I am privileged to command and lead them.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/why-they-re-enlist/#more-169

Photo is by Ashley Gilbertson for the NY Times and part of the Article. Sphere: Related Content

A Dangerous Situation

I think it is important to take a step away from the situation we have been talking about for the last few days, and look at the larger picture. We have been discussing Pakistan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan and why the Taliban and the safe haven they enjoy there is so important. But I believe we are beginning to see indicators of a much larger problem in that region currently. In today's NY Times this article really hit a nerve with me, and concerned me greatly:

American military and intelligence officials say there has been an increase in recent months in the number of foreign fighters who have traveled to Pakistan’s tribal areas to join with militants there.

The flow may reflect a change that is making Pakistan, not Iraq, the preferred destination for some Sunni extremists from the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia who are seeking to take up arms against the West, these officials say.

The American officials say the influx, which could be in the dozens but could also be higher, shows a further strengthening of the position of the forces of Al Qaeda in the tribal areas, increasingly seen as an important base of support for the Taliban, whose forces in Afghanistan have become more aggressive in their campaign against American-led troops

An influx of foreign fighters marks a couple of different positions for us. The first and the good news story is that foreign fighters have dropped their numbers trying to get into Iraq exponentially. There has not been an increase in their numbers since the surge and they have been decreasing steadily. This shows me that operations are truly successful in Iraq and the Iraqi Army and Police are having very successful operations. But the implications for Afghanistan are much more troubling.

When the Soviets were being fought by the Afghan's and the Taliban were struggling for power, this influx of outside foreign fighters, and the money and equipment that they brought was a significant increase to their forces. It was also the beginning of people like Osama Bin Laden moving from the Sudan to basing operations out of Afghanistan. As this flow increased the group became even more radical and sadly became even more powerful with the assistance of the ISS.

“The ability of the Taliban and other insurgents to cross that border and not being under any pressure from the Pakistani side of the border is clearly a concern,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters two weeks ago in one of his most pointed comments to date on the situation. “That’s the area that needs to be addressed with the Pakistani government.”

The Bush administration is struggling to work with the Afghan and Pakistani governments to find an effective combination of political, diplomatic and military tools to help stem the increasingly entrenched insurgency, but it has faced difficulties dealing with Pakistan’s new coalition government, officials say.

“We’re trying to impress upon the Pakistanis how bad things are,” said one senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities. “Before, we could go to Musharraf,” the official said, speaking of President Pervez Musharraf. “Now it’s more of a power-sharing agreement, and it’s more difficult. There’s no apparent solution at hand. The next six months look like they’ll be a lot like the past six months.”

One of the reasons that many of these foreign fighters were able to enter Afghanistan against the Soviets was the support of Pakistan and the problems even then with the border. But now instead of going into Afghanistan and fighting a tyrannical regime that was whole-sale slaughtering their people; these fighters are coming for no other reason then the call to destroy a non-Islamic government, and to re-institute an extremist Islamic government. An operation being aided again by a safe haven in the border regions of Pakistan.

My largest worry is that the large influx of foreign fighters against the Soviets signalled a severe change in the tactics that were used. They no longer were fighting to try to protect the Afghan people from the Soviets, they were just there to institute their own brutal regime. They were not looking out for people, they were just as brutal themselves. They moved away from fighting combatants and took to suicide bombings that targeted both military and civilian targets. In the end, it was the people that suffered the most.

This increase in foreign fighters signals a dangerous situation that must be dealt with immediately. We can not afford to have a situation where new extremist organizations grow in the safe haven that is now Pakistan. We also can not allow Al-Qaeda the opportunity to regroup from their defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq in Pakistan. These foreign fighters could be a significant increase to Al-Qaeda's and the Taliban's numbers and we can not allow that to happen.

I have no doubt in my mind that the Coalition and the Afghan Government, Army, Police, and People will succeed. This is just an added challenge that must be addressed immediately. There was more news today about further increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, and I could not agree more. We will win this fight, but we must realize all of the complexities, and address each of them. It is time, we must seize it, and end this fight in Afghanistan once and for all.

God Bless America

Bryan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/world/asia/10terror.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1216267200&en=899168b17cc46ce6&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin Sphere: Related Content