Western involvement in Afghanistan

Odon

Now the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a well known a neo-conservative think tank. Here are prominent member that were in Bush admin.

Elliot Abram - served as Deputy Assistant to President George W. Bush and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy.

Richard L. Armitage, - served as Deputy Secretary of State

John Robert Bolton, appointed as ambassador to the UN by Bush

Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney – Vice President

Paula J. Dobriansky appointed as Under Secretary, Global Affairs, by Bush

Zalmay Khalilzad - · US Ambassador to Afghanistan (2003-2005) · US Special Presidential Envoy and Ambassador at Large for the Free Iraqis 2002. · US special envoy to Afghanistan 2001 · Senior Director for Islamic Outreach and Southwest Asia Initiatives at the National Security Council · Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Southwest Asia, Near East, and North African Affairs at the National Security Council under Bush

Richard Norman Perle – Chairman of the Defence Policy Board Advisory Committee

Peter W. Rodman, - Assistant Secretary of Defence for international security

Donald Henry Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defence

William Schneider, Jr. chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board

Paul Dundes Wolfowitz – Deputy Secretary of Defence

Robert B. Zoellick U.S. trade representative

(Sourcewatch)

That is just PNAC member but there were numerous others of a Neo-con frame of mind in the Admin (like Ashcroft at Justice) and of course they were just the tip of the iceberg since they in turn appointed others of a similar viewpoint to positions of power (like I Lewis Libby).

I’d disagree and much of the history of the world would seem to disagree (Athenian Democracy, the Roman Republic, Revolutionary France, Revolutionary America, etc etc) all had factions within there ruling bodies. Sometimes these form themselves into new political parties sometimes they rise and fall in influence while remaining a part of a party. In fact there seem to be factions within all political groups or governments sometimes revolving around one person sometimes around an ideology (One Nation Tory v Thatcherism, Blairite v Brownite)

If a faction is strong it can have a great amount of influence over events.

I’d say the neo-con faction’s influence was greatest from just after 9/11 to just after the fall of Baghdad, then things started to unravel. Perle resigned early 03, Wolfowitz left 05, Rumsfeld resigned 06 as did Bolton.

As neo-con influence waned within the Bush Admin so policy changed. In Iraq, the ideological approach of the neo-cons (read Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran) was replaced by one that was much more pragmatic and in my view realistic.

And as to my view being ‘hindsight’ well no, it was widely commented at the time and there has been more confirmation since and I think more will come out in the future.

 

Balbus, I've looked at the exact troop levels for Iraq and Afghanistan:
http://tiny.cc/OWRNB

This is what I can agree with you on (with the luxury of hindsight).

"They didn’t give Afghanistan the attention it deserved."
"Corrupt warlords solidified their control of the regions, thwarting any attempt by the central government to rein them in."
"The limited ‘reconstruction’ stagnated."

This doesn't seem to pan out:
"Once they and Nato garrison troops were in place the neo-con pulled out men and resources to use in Iraq."
...because the troop levels didn't go down only upwards (in both arenas).
Unless you removed: "they and"...even that doesn't seem likely.

I re-read your comments and while looking into what you have said, what you have said does feel strangely familiar...especially from the anti-war sites I have read.
I presume you are apposed to both wars so are viewing things with particular skepticism and use the same paradigm as many on the left use...hence my reluctance to buy into some of your narrative (It's the old: "You would say that wouldn't you.)

I do understand the neo-con faction narrative is a powerful argument.
It has been developed over many years...and is almost entrenched into the history of both conflicts.
However, nowhere have I seen direct cause and effect.
I have not seen the so-called neo-conservatives voting or making vociferous comments about strategy, troop levels etc.
It always seems to be out of context and not backed up with hard evidence.
It does feel like a vast left wing conspiracy.
It's ok, though...I can still accept your version has some merit if I ignore any mention of neo-conservatives.
I still gain some insight into the events over the last 7 years.

Personally I'm not in the politico Westminster/Washington bubble some people are in...and it feels like you are in.
Where everything has to be so conspiratorial and have exact notions of deep factions guiding everything.
It seems to have to be that way because otherwise it is all a sloppy mess...and you don't have a sophisticated enough approach otherwise.
However, I feel that is just what it is, a sloppy mess.
You talk about Blairites and Brownites...who talks of them? Politicos.
The irony is most politicians speak in the same partisan way you do.
Perhaps I'm just naive and a bit stupid...and you are totally right.

 

‘They’ refers to the warlords, which I’d just mentioned – so it goes ‘Once the warlords and Nato garrison troops were in place the neo-con pulled out men and resources to use in Iraq.’


Try reading
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/asia/31history.html

About how resources that were withheld or diverted could have made such a difference.

*

I was in favour of intervention in both Afghanistan and Iraq as I am for many other places in the world, like Burma (Myanmar).

Afghanistan had been badly treated or ignored by the west and especially the US in the past. It really needed outside help (but not the kind Pakistan intelligence was giving it).

The big problem was I (and others) didn’t think US policies of the time were any good, in fact at times I thought them damn right foolhardy, and to some extend you seem to agree only you see it now only in hindsight while I and many others suspected or saw it at the time.

I thought the military option that was jumped at by the US was the wrong course because the Americans are not that good at doing what is sometimes referred to as ‘nation building’ They prefer having an ‘enemy’ to pummel into submission, which has a tendency to alienate populations rather than winning hearts and minds. And many though using (bribing) the ‘Northern Alliance’ warlords was a big mistake that would have seriously negative long term consequences.

And I thought the country needed aid above all else and worried that these would get disrupted and diverted if the military option was undertaken. Governments are unwilling to give funds to places that are still at war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/22/afghanistan.comment

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/316/rumsfeld.shtml

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=154

*

I think that it could have been very different if a long term strategy had been developed for Afghanistan.

But that would have meant not having the Iraq invasion, and I don’t thing that was acceptable to the neo-con faction that were in control of operations at the time.

*

Regarding ‘political factions’ that seems like a bit of a tangent from the subject of this thread , BUT it is an interesting subject and I’d like to try and convince you that factions do exist, so i’ll open another thread and hope to see you there.
Yours Balbus

 

Before you start that thread...
I appreciate they exist.
I was questioning if a neo-con faction were steering so much policy in Washington...especially regarding the issues we're speaking of here.
You might want to make a stronger case for what they have been doing regarding troop levels, and which arenas troops concerned themselves with etc.

 

I can accept resources were diverted.
In a round about way I agreed with you by accepting:
"They didn’t give Afghanistan the attention it deserved."
(Ok, you might have had to have a leap of faith on that one)
But, yeah, I can see that Afghanistan wasn't resourced properly.
I'd question why and if your reasons why had much merit to them.
I'm not really convinced with taking negative events and just prefixing them with "neo-con"...to a certain degree, why bother?
...why not just say "The Bush admin"? Isn't that sexy enough?
I think It's too generalised...and not quite nuanced enough. Sorry.

The question of troop levels remains the same, though
Nowhere in your article does it mention "neo-cons pulled out men"...or even "The DOD pulled out men".
The troop levels in Afghanistan do not appear to have gone down, only stagnated or upwardly, never reduced.

TBC.

 

Odon

I think we are getting sidetracked by semantic mistake on my part that I think is all down to me smashing out replies and my own inability to express myself properly.

I think we see two differing meanings - Just before this I’d said that they didn’t give Afghanistan the attention it deserved what I was trying to say was that men and resources that many people presumed (including many allies) would be forthcoming for Afghanistan were ‘pulled’ in favour of Iraq. The meaning was in my head but I can see were it might lead to confusion and can only apologise.

For example –

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/asia/31history.html?_r=1

(my bold)

The neo-con agenda was to move on to Iraq so Afghanistan was sidelined. The kind of commitment that allies and even US military on the ground thought would be necessary was not fore coming because attention was switched to Iraq.

*

As I said ‘My take is that it was tragically set up to fail’ because the neo-cons didn’t see it as the priority. It was staved of men and resources so they could feed the Iraqi invasion and occupation.

The point being that the neo-con agenda that was fixated on Iraq, destroyed any hope of Afghanistan getting the men, recourses and general attention it needed.

And you don’t seem to disagree with that.

*

 

Oh and I just had one written, might post it anyway as a general topic.

*

So you know political factions exist and how they operate.

And presumably you’re not claiming there wasn’t a neo-con faction?

So are you saying that you agree that there was a neo-con faction - but that it somehow had little power or influence even though neo-con’s were definitely in positions of great power and influence?

That even though nearly all the signatories of the letter to Clinton from PNAC urging regime change in Iraq, later got positions in the Bush Admin, they had little influence? And others connected to the PNAC position for the take over of Iraq at the earliest opportunity and in the Bush Admin also had little influence?

*

Here is the entrance for the political philosophy of the Bush Presidency according to wiki

*
I mean numerous people (such as Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson and Paul O'Neill) have testified to the influence of certain neo-conservatives and there policies within the Bush Admin.

So people in and out of the circle have commented on it.
*
It seems to me that the neo-cons had great influence especially in the Department of Defence (war).
This might be of interest –
Scorned general's tactics proved right

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/29/iraq.usa
*

 

Balbus, I was remarking on this: "...the neo-con pulled out men and resources to use in Iraq."
You seemed to be differentiating the two: resources and boots on the ground.

I can agree that: "...Iraq was drawing away resources."
I would imagine that included troops too.
Why was that? Iraq was a hell whole and needed the resources and troops more than Afghanistan.
Who's fault was that? The insurgency was more active in Iraq.
No conspiracy, no neo-con agenda...just, imho, a fact.

I don't disagree that Afghanistan was under resourced of everything (including feet on the ground.)
I'd agree the focus was on Iraq, yes.
I wouldn't charaterise it as a "fixation"...because that implies there was nefarious reasons for that fixation, not simply that Iraq needed more attention than Afghanistan.

Afghanistan should have had more (not equal) attention, but I feel that the US had x amount of resources and soldiers they could use, and that other nations failed to step up to the plate...or/and had the same limitations too.
If there was more resources and soldiers supplied (or/and available) by others, perhaps the US' "policy" may have been more open to add more resources and troops (if they could.)

Perhaps the US' policy was the same as the UK's apparently was: "At any point, commanders were able to ask for equipment that they needed" (I would imagine that included troops too.)

I would like to get to the heart of why you think Iraq was more important (to the neo-cons) than Afghanistan, in your opinion.
Clearly, as far back as 1997, they could not know the situation in Iraq would be...and I can't quite fathom why after invasion their priority would remain in Iraq.

I do know they exist.

I wouldn't lie and say I knew exactly how they operate.
I would say, to a certain degree, they are mischaraterised (about their motivations etc) and over-blown (to how much power they have) by their critics.
...and like you have seemingly done, applied too rigidly their apparent doctrines.

I guess there was. Ok, yes there was.

If we presume every single "neo-con" wanted: The removal of Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power.
Wow, that isn't a unique position, though.
Even you said: "I was in favour of intervention in both Afghanistan and Iraq."...how would that be done?... through "diplomatic, political and military power" by any chance?

Imho, clearly Iraq and Afghanistan were two very different propositions, and required different levels of troops and resources.
It is not unheard of for there to be a disagreement in priorities...
I imagine every nation involved struggled with where best resources should be.

I'm sorry I can't get too worked up about neo-cons.




Yet.

 

You have been stating that resources/troops were being funneled more into Iraq...but then post something that states:

It appears a leading neo-con wanted LESS troops in Iraq.

Odd.

 

balbus you are wasting your time with odon/ "matthew"

in a few years time when he's still talking up the war he'll just morph into some other identity and you'll be trying to explain to him all over again.

when i see him on these forums i just reach for a can of metaphorical bug spray.

 

Guy, balbus and I are pretty much agreeing with each other. You silly sausage.

The only part I'm not agreeing with him on (yet) is the neo-con element.

 

odon

you can't be bothered travelling to find out information.

you don't seem to have enough money to buy an aircraft ticket.

you don't know if you have ever travelled anywhere.

you can't be bothered fighting for the wars you promote

you can't be bothered doing much except ceaslessly promote your wars and shout down any dissent.

maybe you could invite more of your friends and multiple identities to this site?

that said i have already warned balbus about the problem about allowing pernicious interest groups hell bent on silencing dissent onto the hip forums.

the only reason we seem to have western involvement in afghanistan is because people such as yourself promote it endlessly - ever thought of going there yourself? (ahhh no you have always refused to do so)

 

I.e., anyone who doesn't agree with your obviously flawless logic.

 

don't you get tired of promoting genocide??

 

but of course for you that is logic

 

Guy, please look at my profile...then head to my previous posts.
You'll see I have lots of interests and thoughts about a lot of subjects.
Heck, I even have some fun.

I already have lots of friends here...over 30, infact.
How many friends do you have here?
What else do you talk about here?
Er, war and smoking.
Come over to the RT forum and have some fun with us.
Chillax.

I only have one "identity" here, guy, btw.
How many do you have?

I think balbus is big enough to make his own mind up, he doesn't need you to make his mind up for him.
Like I said, balbus and I are pretty much agreeing with each other here...and I know for a fact he has spoken about Iraq and Afghanistan a lot more than I.
Obviously, you can't go around bleating on about balbus ceaselessly promoting his wars etc, and him trying to close this forum, can you?
You would look even madder than you do now.

Endlessly? Don't think so, guy.
But, yeah, it must be all my fault.

Why don't you ask, balbus? Scared?

 

Did you see his post where he couldn't even get his words in the right order...lol.

 

Nah, I've been too busy promoting genocide man.

also

Withdrawl from Afghanistan = genocide for the Afghanis.

Well not genocide in the technical sense, so I guess let's just say mass death

 

You swine...or should that be *hive five*, bro?

 

I wouldn't say that.
I think there is enough political momentum for things to work out for the better. Look at Iraq now. Not the most safest place in the world but they managed to have elections (recently) with a minimal amount of deaths occurring.