Farewell. The Flying Pig Has Left The Building.

Steve Hynd, August 16, 2012

After four years on the Typepad site, eight years total blogging, Newshoggers is closing it's doors today. We've been coasting the last year or so, with many of us moving on to bigger projects (Hey, Eric!) or simply running out of blogging enthusiasm, and it's time to give the old flying pig a rest.

We've done okay over those eight years, although never being quite PC enough to gain wider acceptance from the partisan "party right or wrong" crowds. We like to think we moved political conversations a little, on the ever-present wish to rush to war with Iran, on the need for a real Left that isn't licking corporatist Dem boots every cycle, on America's foreign misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. We like to think we made a small difference while writing under that flying pig banner. We did pretty good for a bunch with no ties to big-party apparatuses or think tanks.

Those eight years of blogging will still exist. Because we're ending this typepad account, we've been archiving the typepad blog here. And the original blogger archive is still here. There will still be new content from the old 'hoggers crew too. Ron writes for The Moderate Voice, I post at The Agonist and Eric Martin's lucid foreign policy thoughts can be read at Democracy Arsenal.

I'd like to thank all our regular commenters, readers and the other bloggers who regularly linked to our posts over the years to agree or disagree. You all made writing for 'hoggers an amazingly fun and stimulating experience.

Thank you very much.

Note: This is an archive copy of Newshoggers. Most of the pictures are gone but the words are all here. There may be some occasional new content, John may do some posts and Ron will cross post some of his contributions to The Moderate Voice so check back.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Showing posts with label Robert Gates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Gates. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Turning in Circles in Afghanistan

By Robert Greenwald and Derrick Crowe



Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters late last week that he thinks we may turn the corner at the end of this year in Afghanistan. Again. Turning the corner, or the tide, or the momentum, or what have you, has become a semi-annual ritual in the failing U.S. war in Afghanistan. While all these turned corners make for great soundbites, the reality is that we're just turning in circles in Afghanistan.





Here's what Gates said:



"We have driven the Taliban out of areas they have controlled for years, including their heartland. They clearly intend to try and take that back. If we can prevent them this year from retaking the areas that we have taken away from them and we can continue to expand the security bubble, I think it's possible that by the end of this year we will have turned a corner, just because of the Taliban being driven out and, more importantly, kept out."


First of all, let's not fail to notice that this is the latest a continual string of promises about "turning a corner." Joshua Foust and Win Without War over the past months have compiled fairly extensive lists of the embarrassment of "turned corners" claimed by U.S. officials. Here's Foust's list, just to give you an idea:



  • February 20, 2010: "Western officials believe that a turning point has been reached in the war against the Taliban, with a series of breakthroughs suggesting that the insurgents are on the back foot for the first time since their resurgence four years ago."


  • August 31, 2009: "Monday marks the end of August, a month with both good and bad news out of Afghanistan -- and the approach of a key turning point."


  • February 6, 2008: "But the ties that bind NATO are fraying badly - and publicly - over just how much each member state wants to commit to turning Afghanistan around. 'It's starting to get to a turning point about what is this alliance about,' says Michael Williams, director of the transatlan- tic program at the Royal United Services Institute in London."


  • July 23, 2007: "Taken together these may reflect a turning point in how the war in Afghanistan is to be waged."


  • September 12, 2006: "The Afghan front is at a critical turning point that imperils many of the hard-fought successes of the early phase of the conflict and the prospects for snaring bin Laden."


  • September 22, 2005: "Abdullah Abdullah, Afghanistan's foreign minister, called the recent parliamentary elections 'a major turning point' on his country's path to democracy."


  • January 27, 2004: "A statement from U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad called the enactment of the constitution a 'turning point for the Afghan nation.'"


  • February 26, 2003: "The growing aggressiveness by guerrillas is a relief for US forces, who greet the possibility of a real engagement with the Taliban as a possible turning point in the war. 'We want them to attack us, so we can engage them and destroy them,' says one Special Forces soldier from the US firebase at Spin Boldak, who took part in the initial firefight that led to Operation Mongoose.


  • December 2, 2002: "But in 'Bush at War' there's a glaring omission. Woodward misses the turning point in the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda forces. It's as though the most important scene had been left out of a movie, say, where Clark Kent turns into Superman."


It's almost a yearly tradition for some ebullient U.S. official to come to some microphone and claim we're ready to hang a left or a right onto the road to glorious victory. It's silly, and it insults our intelligence.



Gates' comments imply a growing level of security in Afghanistan. That is a patent falsehood.



  • Insurgent attacks are at an all-time high in Afghanistan. March 2011 saw 68 percent more insurgent-initiated attacks than March 2010.


  • In fact, every March since at least 2006 has been more violent than the last. The same is true for every February, and it looks like attacks are on track to make that true for every April as well, according to the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office's (ANSO) figures.


  • Looking at the entire first quarter of the year, insurgent attacks have skyrocketed by a horrendous 51 percent compared to the prior year. ANSO reports that in the first quarter of this year, insurgent attacks averaged "35 per day, surpassing even the August 2009 summer peak during Presidenial elections."


  • The number of insurgent-initiated attacks in the first quarter of 2011 was more than twice the level of insurgent-initiated attacks in the first quarter of 2009, when President Obama took office and started launching his repeated escalations of the military campaign. That strategy has obviously failed.


Insurgent-Initiated Attacks in Afghanistan through Q1 2011



Rolling into places like Marjah with lots of troops and TV cameras hasn't done a thing to increase security nation-wide for Afghans or blunt the growth in insurgent-initiated attacks. We're not "turning a corner." We're turning in circles. It's time to make a U-turn and get those troops home.



If you're fed up with a war that's making us less safe and that's not worth the cost, join Rethink Afghanistan on Facebook and Twitter, and share our latest video with your friends.



Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Secretary Gates, Backpedaling

By Derrick Crowe


Defense Secretary Gates wants to extricate himself and the president from the impending P.R. disaster shaping up around the flailing Kandahar operation set for this Summer Fall.



"I think it's important to remember that Kandahar is not Afghanistan," Gates said in comments that appeared to play down a U.S.-led operation for control of the area, known as the birthplace of the Taliban.



...



"Kandahar and Helmand are important but they are not the only provinces in Afghanistan that matter in terms of the outcome of this struggle," he said.



From the Pentagon's most recent Afghanistan report to Congress, here's a chart showing how optional Kandahar and Helmand are for the success of the counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy being pursued by U.S. and allied forces.



Kandahar and Helmand....meh.



From p. 126 of the Report on Progress Towards Security and Stability in Afghanistan (April 2010), emphasis mine:


8.1: ISAF Strategy



Under the ISAF concept of operations, the main effort is to conduct decisive clearing operations concentrated on the most threatened population in the southern part of the country to establish population security and implement measures that diminish insurgent influence over the people. As described in Figure 23 - ISAF Concept of Operations, the main effort in RC-South, by province, is in Helmand and Kandahar, where efforts are focused on clearing districts most threatened by insurgents.



No reporter should let Secretary Gates, General McChrystal, or President Obama off the hook in the coming months regarding the make-or-break nature of the Kandahar operation for their (poorly) chosen COIN strategy in Afghanistan. As described in the report to Congress, Kandahar/Helmand is the main effort, and everything else is either a "shaping," "supporting," or "economy of force (read: leftovers)" operation. Kandahar/Helmand is the COIN strategy. If ISAF fails there, it fails, period.



Members of Congress considering funding the ongoing Kandahar/Helmand/escalation strategy should read these comments from Secretary Gates with alarm. He's hedging and trying to set expectations because he knows the COIN effort is in serious, "bleeding ulcer" trouble. Congress should save us all a whole lot of trouble and vote against the $33 billion war spending supplemental under consideration. As Daniel Ellsberg says in the most recent Rethink Afghanistan video, this war can be infinitely prolonged, but "winning" through military force is a pipe dream that's killing people.



UPDATE: ISAF and the Pentagon are now comically denying that they ever planned an "offensive" in Kandahar, emphasis mine:



The commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, insisted that there never was a planned offensive. �The media have chosen to use the term offensive,� he said. Instead, he said, �we have certainly talked about a military uplift, but there has been no military use of the term offensive.�



Sure, the media chose the word "offensive." Specifically, the American Forces Press Service (in a story cross posted on the Pentagon website and the ISAF website!), quoting one Maj. Gen. Nick Carter:



The general stressed that the planning and execution of an offensive in Kandahar are Afghan-led initiatives directed by President Hamid Karzai. The provincial governor is reaching out to his city and district mayors to engage the population and build relationships with the population, he said.



Carter said he expects the offensive to begin in the "next month or two," and that by Ramadan, which begins in August, security improvements will begin to be apparent. It will take some three months before a strong, credible government is formed in Marja, he said, leading him to believe that it could take just as long, if not longer, to sway public support and perception in Kandahar.



For more use of the word "offensive" in posts on ISAF's website, see here and here.