Wednesday, March 11, 2020

Happy Afghanistan Surrender Day!

There are few countries less consequential than Afghanistan and there is nothing more silly than attempting to suggest their mineral resources justify a thing. The country demands a massive investment in trees and hydrology and has always done so. Without that it has remained pure bandit country and a haven for criminals fleeing their neighbors. 

The day we have either a thriving Iran or a thriving Pakistan, the country will depopulate as the best and brightest leave.. 

This treaty establishes that the Taliban will deal. Now they will negotiate for years until someone accepts the existence of Pathanistan. That is when all those troops really get to go home. At least we now have some negotiating space. Or we can simply leave and why the hell not.  It is a loser war and always has been. 

Happy Afghanistan Surrender Day! 

Posted on March 02, 2020 

 Happy Afghan War surrender day, fellas! So began my flippant group text yesterday – which was actually regarding a whole other topic – with the nine lieutenants who worked "for" me when I commanded a cavalry troop in Southern Afghanistan. Now these guys, some still in the army, most long out, run the political gamut from centrist conservative to libertarian (very common among military officers) to mainstream liberal. None are as radical, or full-throated antiwar, as me. Nonetheless, instructively, most responded with some – albeit often sarcastic – level of tacit support for any and all plans to (eventually, and hopefully) get the troops out of Afghanistan. Furthermore, the fact that nearly all of them lost soldiers directly under their command in one of the war’s most dangerous years, within one of the most dangerous provinces of the country, hasn’t diminished this pro-withdrawal sentiment.

My artillery officer – who I profiled a couple years back in the American Conservative – responded first, with: "Victory or loss, thank Allah we’re out of that quagmire." Then my first executive officer (XO, my second in command) made a joke about the artilleryman’s use of the word "quagmire," asking "What would Rumsfeld say?" (Bush’s former Secretary of Defense famously eschewed this descriptor for the Iraq War) That XO’s thoughtful successor then wrote: "I’m really glad we are getting out. I hate that it will take 14 months, but I’m thrilled…". That former lieutenant of mine raised an important point. Much of the critical (and fair) response to my cautious social media support for Trump’s "peace" "deal” centers around either the rather protracted withdraw timeline or skepticism about the sincerity of the U.S. position more generally.

To the first point, as Adam Wunische at the Quincy Institute accurately noted:

President Trump will likely sell the U.S.-Taliban deal as a peace agreement and a US military withdrawal. It is neither. The deal only reduces troop strength to 8,600 from 13,000 [for now], and Trump has said even minor complications will serve as justification to halt or reverse this reduction. 

As to the second matter, the probity of the American commitment to meaningfully "leave" Afghanistan, there are other valid concerns. Not least of which are the "secret annexes” that appear to imply the US will keep special forces soldiers, and, one assumes, CIA-backed militias, on the ground long after the "combat" troops are all out. Added to the questionable mix is the minor fact that the president of the ostensibly sovereign, Kabul-based state of Afghanistan wasn’t even present at the deal’s signing, and has already reneged (an early, if predictable, first snag on peace) on releasing some 5,000 Taliban prisoners – as the U.S.-negotiated agreement called for. 

What’s more, given the linguistic gymnastics that Barack Obama seemingly perfected regarding what, precisely, constitute "combat" troops – or, even what counts as a "boot," or as "ground" – it’s increasingly difficult these days to believe much of what his successor, or the national security state in general, pronounces. Finally, given the reportedly vast, and coveted, mineral resources under Afghanistan’s undeveloped soil, its importance as a thoroughfare for key natural gas pipelines, and general, historic, position of geopolitical import, many (rightfully) doubt whether Washington is really prepared to walk away from the region. All of that is fair, and crucial to parse out.

Also worrying is the likelihood that in this age of Trump-worship, Trump-hatred, and/or Trump-derangement syndrome, the situation in Afghanistan – where American men and women are still being killed, mind you – will revert to just another public referendum on the competence and character of the president himself. That’d be a huge mistake. To wit, let me plea: please, MSNBC-Obama-squad liberals, don’t make this critical moment all about bashing The Donald and thereby reflexively default to a stay-forever, status quo position. Odds are they will, of course. 

The really salient questions are twofold: could/would a different president (say Hillary "the hawk," or "Iraq War-cheerleader” Joe B.) do any better with such a decidedly weak military hand? And, what other option, besides eventual withdrawal does Mr. Trump have with respect to this inherited war? 

I’d submit the discomfiting answers are "no" and "none," respectively. 

Truth be told, I, like the crew over at Quincy, think the US ought to have ditched the Afghan debacle decades ago, and that a more rapid – immediate, even – comprehensive withdrawal is in order. Never trust the hyper-interventionist establishment when it whines about the inefficacy and supposed danger of a sudden troop exodus from a failed war. That’s never anything more than a sleight-of-hand canard for indefinite occupation. 

Count me sympathetic to the plain, earthy logic of Ron Paul, when he asked, "Why the dilemma? [regarding Iraq]" and asserted, "We just marched in, and we can just march out." And that was back in 2007! As in Iraq, so in Afghanistan, and as always: that’s unlikely. Uncle Sam rarely, if ever, leaves a purportedly conquered country of its own volition. That just ain’t Sammy’s style. More often than not, the US military requires an insurgent bouncer to toss it to the proverbially curb…you know, like the Vietcong, for instance.

Like it or not, this is where matters stand: Look, one way or the other, folks, the Afghan War is over, and has been for a long time. We lost, for all intents in purposes, by not achieving the government’s (always fantastical) stated goals. As a nation, but especially so for the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, we’ve just been in deep denial about that inconvenient truth. Bottom line: there’s little left that the US can accomplish in Afghanistan, and that’s been the cases for at least a decade.

So, sure, there’s lots to criticize about the world’s “greatest” dealmaker’s deal. Some will say it doesn’t go far enough (it doesn’t). The interventionist hawks on the other side will counter that it amounts to surrender (it kind of does). Still, there’s scant alternative available other than for Uncle Sam to tuck his tail between the ole legs and beat feet out of the Afghan "graveyard of empires.”

To channel Ron Paul: why all the dramatic hoopla about this? After all, rumor has it, that in war, the losers don’t get to dictate the peace terms. It’s time to "deal" with it…

Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and contributing editor at His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book, Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available for pre-order. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet. Check out his professional website for contact info, scheduling speeches, and/or access to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.

Copyright 2020 Danny Sjursen

Cracks start to show in Taliban peace deal

Less than 24 hours after the agreement was signed, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani rejected the Taliban’s demand.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. | Rahmat Gul/AP Photo 

03/02/2020 10:17 AM EST

Updated: 03/02/2020 12:27 PM EST

Signs began to show Monday that key pillars of the agreement to negotiate an end to the Afghanistan war were starting to buckle, just hours after the United States signed what was billed as a historic agreement with the Taliban.

Reports emerged Monday that fighting had resumed between the Taliban and the Afghan security forces, marking an end to the reduction in violence that paved the way for the agreement that was signed Saturday by U.S. and Taliban officials.

Also on Monday, the Taliban refused to take part in intra-Afghan talks, one of the conditions of a full withdrawal of U.S. troops, until the Afghan government releases roughly 5,000 Taliban prisoners. The agreement calls for the prisoners to be released in exchange for up to 1,000 Afghan government captives by March 10.

Less than 24 hours after the agreement was signed, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, whose government was not involved in the U.S.-Taliban deal, rejected the Taliban’s demand.

"The reduction in violence will continue with a goal to reach a full ceasefire,” he told reporters in Kabul. "There is no commitment to releasing 5,000 prisoners."

Senior Pentagon officials cautioned against jumping to conclusions just two days after the agreement was signed. Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters that officials are still working to get more information about the attack reported in Khost province on Monday that killed at least three people and wounded 11, even as the Taliban said Monday it was resuming its offensive against Afghan security forces.

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that multiple terrorist organizations are operating in Afghanistan — such as al Qaeda and ISIS — and it is not yet clear that the Taliban were responsible for the attack.

Milley also cautioned that there won't be “an absolute cessation” of violence in the country.

“It’s probably not going to go to zero,” he said.

Under the agreement, U.S. troops will begin withdrawing within 10 days, with the goal of reducing the footprint to 8,600 within 135 days. Esper said he did not know whether the drawdown has “actually, physically begun” —although President Donald Trump said on Saturday that U.S. troops will start withdrawing “today” — but noted that he gave Gen. Scott Miller, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the authority to begin “at his pace.”

“This is going to be a long, windy, bumpy road, there will be ups and downs and we will stop and start, that’s gonna be the nature of this over the next days, weeks and months,” Esper said. “So I’m not going to get too excited about what happens in the moment.”

The deal, which would result in all U.S. troops withdrawing from the country in 14 months, is facing some pushback on the homefront from one of President Donald Trump's closest allies.

"Let's don't do in Afghanistan what Obama did in Iraq: pull the plug on the place and allow radical Islam to come roaring back," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday on "Fox & Friends". "We got a chance to end this Afghanistan war smartly and well but we're gonna need a residual U.S. force, a counterterrorism presence for years to come because I don't trust the Taliban to police al Qaeda and ISIS."

Rep. Mac Thornberry, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said he too has worries about the deal.

"t is not clear to me what the conditions are that would lead to our complete withdrawal in 14 months," he said at the Brookings Institution. "Who decides whether those conditions have been met, what the metrics are and so forth?”

On the most recent attacks, Afghan ambassador to the U.S. Roya Rahmani, who has just returned from Kabul, pointed to Esper’s comments in Kabul on Saturday promising a U.S. response if the Taliban do not abide by their commitments to maintain the reduction in violence.

“I have been told that the U.S. forces are ready, that if there is a violation they have full preparedness to react to that, “ Rahmani said at the embassy in Washington on Monday. “If Taliban want peace they should stop killing Afghans,” Rahmani said.

Rahmani noted that the one-week reduction in violence, which Esper said on Saturday marked the lowest level in years, has given the Afghan people “a glimmer of hope” for an enduring peace. But at the same time, officials in Kabul are concerned about the continued differences between the Taliban and Afghan government on key issues such as protecting women’s rights and other democratic values.

“We are hoping that we will arrive to a political settlement, that instead of meeting on the battlefield we will see them in a political arena,” she said.

Connor O'Brien contributed to this report.

No comments: