This week, the Pentagon is expected to deliver a series of “options” for the US escalation of the 16-year-long war in Afghanistan. Each of these plans involves sending a minimum of 3,000 more US ground troops into the country, with some reportedly seeking as many as 5,000.
The other details, beyond raw numbers, are still coming out, but most recently, the signs are that the plans will follow the escalations in Iraq and Syria, in that they will see President Trump transferring the future decisions on US troop levels in Afghanistan to the Pentagon directly.
President Trump has been eager to delegate decision-making to the military brass wherever possible, though giving the Pentagon control over not just day-to-day operations but broader strategic decisions clearly poses significant risks to the level of civilian control over the US military.
Afghan forces have been losing ground significantly to the Taliban across the country, and the US is keen to put more ground troops in sensitive areas, trying to slow territory losses. It was a foregone conclusion this would involve new deployments of troops, as indeed the US has sent more troops to its other various wars across the world to escalate them.
That this is also including the administration ceding decisions on troop levels to the Pentagon is noteworthy, however, as these moves appear more or less permanent, and the Pentagon has always leaned toward the largest escalations in the past, suggesting that’s being locked in going forward.
Sure, because when something doesn’t work what’s there to do but throw more money and lives at the problem…
It is funny that we still use word “Taliban”, even though after the first invasion of Pakistani youth trained in Saudi madrasas — hence, students, or Taliban — it has been long time that last “student” has been gone. What we had ever since Taliban regime we installed, went down after US invasion. What we had ever since the first few weeks into invasion — just Afghani tribes. Why keep on using the long gone image of Taliban? To tie it to 9/11, even though they had nothing to do with it.
So, the dilemma is — Afghan tribes are controlling more and more of THEIR land, as the land cannot be the ownership of Kabul government. How long are we going to pretend that we are helping Afghani people, while imposing upon them a government in Kabul, a government that is executing our orders, even though such orders only inflame situation.
If the military brass has been given a task to solve a problem, then let them solve it. When it comes to Afghanistan, what is the task? What is the goal, or a mission. For as long as the goal is staying forever — then it must have a finite objective. Finate goal, finite victory, whatever it means. And military is good at that. They will mske goals happen, or not happen. And they will know why something failed or suceeded. Unlike politicians that in spite of every possible failure — keep their jobs, and keep on repeating same mistakes, and take tax dollars to hapilly make muddle after muddle. And nobody ever knows who is responsible, who made what decision, and how did it work out. We just lose our memory, and keep on having more wars. Why not then try approach in which military decides what to do, provided they are given their orders. It cannot be worse then what politicians did last quarter of a century.
Trump eager to delegate decision-making to the military brass
wherever possible…
Trump is nothing but a stooge, bought out by a warmongering
Pentagon, whose solution to every ‘problem’ is waste more
tax dollars and slaughter more civilians in the so-called sham
to ‘Make America Great Again’.
I’m pretty sure Trump received a lucrative ‘deal’ from his
MIC puppet masters. And, he’s also in a great position to ‘claim’
ignorance when the Pentagon commits another atrocity.
I do not think that Trump is a stooge but is a modern-day crusader.
I thought Dubya was the ‘Crusader’…
At least that’s what he claimed he was when his posse
charged into Iraq. We see what a disaster that turned
out to be.
Pakistan is making ties with Russia to counter this escalation. Russia will not tolerate more ABM’s and bases surrounding her country. This one really has potential to blow up into the next major regional war, with Pakistan, Iran and Russia finally forcing the U.S. out of Afghanistan once and for all.
I think of the poor American soldiers leaving their families to die for
someone else’s selfish ambitions. That is their choice.
This is prob not a surprise since neo con petraeus has been advocating for more and more troops to keep US interventions alive and burning money and lives.
Patraeus and mc Master are tight and go back a ways so when petraeus advocates in the WashPost, mcmaster goes winging off to afghan and comes back with the “proper solution.”
It is impossible for anyone IMHO to justify this expenditure and effort but some say it is all about China-whatever, the neo cons continue to roll and rule-tragic.
The institutional imperatives of the MIC are not served well by wars that have a resolution, ie those that the US either wins or loses. Conflicts most beneficial to the MIC are stalemates. Losses at least provide justification for weapons and doctrinal development. Wins are the worst way to resolve a war, from the point of view of the institutional imperatives:
1) profits for arms manufacturers and other military contractors, 2) career enhancement for military brass, civilian employees of the CIA, Pentagon, State Department, and militarist thinktanks, 3) attendant high paying jobs guaranteed by ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) for “US persons” that keep those employees loyal to the system, 4) pork for politicians and 5) blockbuster movies and sensational headlines to sell media (and also to contribute to the necessary fear and jingoism).
Gotta keep the CIA busy, rolling them poppy seeds onto U.S. shores