You win for comment of the day, sir.

This discussion also reminds me of Gen. Dempsey's recent talk at Duke:

"What I found in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the best information I had available to me didn’t come from the top down. Well, hell, I was at the top and I knew I wasn’t producing it. But rather, it came from the bottom up.

"And so what I came to realize was that what’s happened over the last decade is that this very hierarchical organization, this very centralized organization, had become – had adapted, in some cases consciously, in some cases because junior leaders at the lower level knew they had to do it – it had become decentralized, distributed, networked, syndicated, and a lot of capability had been pushed to the edge to the point where now the best information comes from the bottom up.

"But what I also realized was that we hadn’t changed the way we developed these leaders, so they were kind of doing it on their own. And when I was the chief of the Army I said, OK, look, the environment has changed. We are no longer centralized hierarchical. We are very much now – we’re global and we’re networked and we’re decentralized, and we’ve got to figure out, what are the new set of leader attributes that are necessary in this environment to take advantage of that?"

http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1673

Has best answer.

while it is heartening and wonderful IO to see a 4-star say "the best info comes from the guy on the ground," I'm reminded every day how much senior leaders totally fail to uphold this principle in practice and in fact enforce an entire philosophical/normative rule of command and bureaucracy to suppress this.

the rule: always go through your chain of command. this way, if it's good info everyone can take the credit as it moves up; if it's bad, you can spin/shape/revise the info to blunt it. nobody ever gets blindsided, has time to sandbag and/or prepare their defense/excuse, plan and implement reprisals, and in rare instances resolve the problem at the lowest level.

more telling is the admission that the system did not produce the initiative, so the people on their own decided to implement things on the ground that would work for them. but the system is never fixed and lessons rarely learned. there is tremendous capability at the "edges" but very little discretion left to those at the edges wielding that capability because of it. i doubt most senior army leadership (GOs/CSMs) are, as a general rule, comfortable with this kind independent initiative by those at the bottom (in their heart of micro-managing and promotion-preserving hearts). i mean, if what the CJCS commended was really embraced, would the Army really care that a Soldier trying to improve his fitness was wearing five-toed shoes?

KUNINO, I am surprise at your naiveté on this issue. This is a condition I do not normally associate with you. Here is a simple rule to help you: When good things happen it is ‘American’ when bad things happen it is ‘NATO’.

Some U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan are under ISAF, some are under a U.S. command. There's no mystery and no conspiracy. Try learning something for a change.

LIEBER, this kind of reporting is an old game. It is not dishonest in itself it is merely the normal spin of military organizations who are prideful and sensitive about reputations. As far back as WW1, WW2 and Korea bad news was frequently pared with the terms allied or UN while good news was just as frequently described as American. The campaign in North Africa was rift with such reporting by both the British and American information officers. The reverses of the 24th division on the retreat to Pusan were invariably UN while Inchon was gleefully American. Shocking isn't it?

Whether someone is wearing an ISAF patch is not something which is determined after they fricking die!

Juliet, Foxtrot, Charlie! It's not that I dispute your larger point, but there is no conspiracy behind whether someone is identified as an ISAF or an American soldier. There simply isn't.

As for your question, I don't know anyone who now thinks Iraq was a good idea (especially as implemented); but I don't comprehend why you think we shouldn't have intervened in Afghanistan after 9/11. The fact that we probably should have left already and that we jacked it up is a separate matter from the counterfactual of simply ignoring some smoking ruins and 3000 dead Americans.

LIEBER, with respect my family lost someone close on the 107th floor of the WTN at Cantor Fitzgerald. In no way did I then or would I now oppose locating, attacking and destroying al Qaeda (or anyone like them) anywhere I found them whether it be Hamburg, Germany or the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan. We have a right and duty to protect the lives of Americans and our friends from such attacks by going anywhere at anytime to accomplish that mission.

However, re-running a 21st century version of the war in Vietnam in Afghanistan in order to combat terrorists was and is so stupid a decision as to beggar belief. We have the intelligence, special operations forces, mobility and reconnaissance means to perform that mission independent of invasion and a long-term occupation. Besides, while we are excellent in the former military skills department we demonstrably stink in the latter occupation and nation-building department and should know better than to try.

Three weeks ago my Navy SEAL kid just came back from eleven months in Afghanistan chasing ghosts about the countryside of that battered country. From what I can tell his small unit did very well in killing a couple of hundred Taliban. However, that success I dare say hasn’t advanced us one millimeter towards a ‘new and improved Afghanistan’ partly because the center of gravity of that calamity is not there but in Pakistan. But most importantly it is sad to say that for a decades worth of killing and hundred of billons of dollars and most importantly the sacrifice of our people we are not a better country for it. And I see no reason not note that fact and say so.

I think we mostly agree. As I noted, we jacked up Afghanistan (and should have left already).

Where I disagreed was with your comment as to two ISAF casualties being listed as ISAF. That's just how it's done. The patch that you're wearing determines it.

that was Kunino's question. I didn't mean to respond to it.

I have a firm rule to try and ignore Kunion, cmyergo, donbacon and admiral.

Again, nobody speaking up to justify the Afghanistan invasion. And explaining bullshit by saying the military always try to get awaye with bullshit explains little, while displaying complaisance. Pehaps it's naive to wonder why the military want to fool the citizenry. I wish it weren't.

You mentioned the truth in passing. The epicenter is Pakistan and not Afghanistan. It is Pakistan that gives sanctuary to Taliban and Al Qaeda. These terrorists travel overnight from Pakistan, kill the American soldiers and then return back. All of them receive regular salaries from ISI. The Taliban are the children of ISI and are controlled by ISI. As long as Pentagon and the US govt. are in courtship with the Pak army expect some more deaths in your and neighbors' families. Tragic.
Secondly, the boss of ISI, Gen Pasha is now being made in charge of the nuclear assets of Pakistan. So instead of 747s and WTC, expect some dirty bombs in Manhattan.

Mr Nandi, Pakistan has been victim of terrorism since 9/11, we have had more casualties than any other nation participating in the WoT. You put your words through your Indian mindset to blame all on the ISI. Talibans are menace for our country too and we curse the day when our leadership and US gave birth to this phenomenon in the region to cater the Russian affair.

I agree. Pakistan have had more casualties than any other nation. I may be speaking with a Indian mindset. However can you explain what I have read in the Pakistani papers: When 24 Pak soldiers were killed by US there was a lot of hullabaloo by the govt, parliament, TV and all kinds of people in Pakistan. But later when 14 FC persons were lined up and shot dead by Taliban we did not hear anything; not from the govt. parliament, TV or any political party. This was even filmed and shown by Taliban. It is from events like this we conclude that whole of Pakistan / army / ISI is sympathetic to the fundamentalist Taliban. Many of them are actively helping the Taliban. Without the help of Pakistanis Taliban could not have killed so many people.

>However, re-running a 21st century version of the war in Vietnam in Afghanistan in order to combat terrorists was and is so stupid a decision as to beggar belief. We have the intelligence, special operations forces, mobility and reconnaissance means to perform that mission independent of invasion and a long-term occupation. Besides, while we are excellent in the former military skills department we demonstrably stink in the latter occupation and nation-building department and should know better than to try.

Amen brother.

Death by Taliban is taken as 'killed by the enemy', which is not unusual in course of war, but being bombarded by your own ally for more than an hour is a shocker. Actions like these cause resentment and make fool out of the govt which is aligned with the 'allies'

And some 370 foreign nationals from some 90 other countries (Wikipedia gives conflicting estimates even within a single page, so I won't hazard an exact number). They tend to get left out of offhand assessments of the cost of 9/11.

It amazes me the nonchalance with which a SOF team on mules with air support is conflated with an occupation of 130,000 soldiers as if it was even necessary to be in Afghanistan in 2003 when we "took our eyes off the ball" because we weren't getting enough revenge.

We're now at around 1745 US military fatalities and 2907 ISAF fatalities in Afghanistan (icas.org), which means we'll soon surpass the point at which more people lost their lives "preventing another 9/11" than lost their lives in the actual 9/11. It will be interesting to see how people rationalize that statistical coincidence. Are we safe yet?

But the real reason has to do with the fact that estimates of just those Afghan civilian casualties directly attributable to what UNAMA has taken to calling "Pro-Government Forces" are around 9,400 on the lower end (wiki). So why shouldn't we have "intervened" in Afghanistan and "just ignored" the smoking rubble of 9/11? Because the deaths of many more innocent people were a predictable (especially when we act like special operations and occupation can be logically rolled into one) outcome, we're not special, and we don't deserve to be able to trade their lives for our own in preventing Al Qaeda from launching another attack from GermanyImean Afghanistan. That's why.

There's almost never any evidence in any of these attacks of sleepers, or infiltrators, or soldiers being turned at all. Invariably, it turns out to be a member of the ANSF who is exasperated either with their own life, and/or slights by Westerners.

but 7 such deaths in a year is one bad day on I-35.

Some of the people who are doing the attacks are infiltrators, some have had family members taken hostage and forced to do the attacks (rare) and some have done the attacks out of frustration with the people training them (US & NATO). Vetting is not always the best at the ALP and ANA level as it is at the Commando and other Special Units, this is being looked at.
Also, has Lieber says, it's not a lot of guys and since this is a war that is what is going to happen-people are going to die.

ESIII: B.S. It is a lot of guys. 2 more were just killed. Including the 4 French troops killed that makes 10 since late January. You probably have access to the figures, how many deaths is that as a total % of ISAF killed in that period and, importantly, what % of ISAF troops killed in actions not associated with IEDs is that? In the report I cited the %s were 16% and 33% respectively from Nov 29, 2010 to May 12, 2011.

Blithely dismissing these murders by saying this is war and people die is nonsense. Regular murders of allies by allies is not the normal course of coalition warfare. This is a catastrophe unfolding before our eyes and to say "this is being looked at" is willful blindness.

What is BS? We have been at war for over ten years in Afghanistan and suffered very few fatalities. I don't care what percentage it is, it's a war, we have over 150k people in country with NATO and US forces, we have been pretty lucky for numbers, if 10 or even 20 is an outrage to you then I suggest you continue to get used to it. If it's something we can control then we should be outraged and fix it but unless the military is going to give real cultural training to the guys and make them understand that we are in an alien culture then good luck. That people are snapping here and there either due to a cultural difference or perceived slights is not shocking with regard to the Afghans, they settle things like that, not like we do, it's a totally different mindset.

As for turning a blind eye, they are looking at the vetting process and hoping to do a better job of it and that includes looking for problems that are also mental and cultural. So please Carl, enlighten me as to what your solution is? Fill me in or are you going to do what you always do, give another critiques or offer another question? Pony up and fill us in on what you would do to counter these incidents? You read a lot, I am sure you are informed so maybe some fresh eyes can help us out. Pony up a solution for once Carl or is to easier to just to act outraged?

ESIII: Well let's see. Where to start? Hmm. How about we start with your statement that "it's not a lot of guys and since this is a war that is what is going to happen-people are going to die."

Saying that is "not a lot of guys" is B.S. It is a lot guys especially when you consider the percentages involved. The report I cited said that, in the period cited, 33% of non-IED related combat deaths were from ANSF people murdering ISAF people. 33%! For you to say that isn't so bad is B.S.

People are indeed going to die in war. That is the normal nature of war (the previous statement is evidence that I can sling obvious points too.) But it is not normal that such a high percentage of your losses are at the murdering hands of allied troops. For you to imply that is just the way things are is B.S.

Oh by the way. Do you know what the relative percentages I asked you about are? I would be interested in knowing. But then you did say you didn't care what the percentage was so maybe an answer isn't forthcoming. I will ask you then, is there an actual number say, 200, 300, 400 ISAF troops murdered by ANSF people that will cause you to concede that this is a catastrophic problem?

For you to say this is something we can't control is B.S. No...it's not. It probably can't be controlled now, too many years have gone by. It is the mostly the result of ISAF actions over more than a decade. So your right, ANSF people murdering scores of ISAF people is something we probably can't control. But that that situation was allowed to develop is B.S.

One of the reasons that situation was allowed to develop is that the military I am constantly being told is the best doesn't "give real cultural training to the guys and make them understand that we are in an alien culture". That is military incompetence plain and simple.

Afghans are a bit touchy I am told. Perhaps. I'd say given our lethally bumptious behavior over the past decade they may not be touchy so much as long suffering.

Your statement "they are looking at the vetting process and hoping to do a better job of it and that includes looking for problems that are also mental and cultural." is not only B.S.; it is kind of touching, kind of like a kid who hasn't a clue looking up through his eyebrows with big eyes and being really sincere about wanting to fix it. Unless "they" are willing to put quality ahead of quantity and put thoroughness ahead of quickly making big numbers, "looking at the vetting process" is a B.S. nostrum that will look really good on a power point slide.

My solution? It is kind of fundamental. Look at what is in front of our face and see. See that ANSF people regularly murdering ISAF people isn't just one of those things that the real pros can live with, it is something that threatens what little chance of success we have left in Afghanistan. Then I would "give real cultural training to the guys and make them understand that we are in an alien culture" fast, emergency fast and boot out troops who don't get it and especially leaders whose troops don't get it. How is that for a start?

But to reiterate, it is B.S. to say a. this isn't much of a problem, b. we should just get used to it because c. there isn't anything we can do about it because d. it is just one of those things. B.S.

ESIII: Well let's see. Where to start? Hmm. How about we start with your statement that "it's not a lot of guys and since this is a war that is what is going to happen-people are going to die."

"Saying that is "not a lot of guys" is B.S. It is a lot guys especially when you consider the percentages involved. The report I cited said that, in the period cited, 33% of non-IED related combat deaths were from ANSF people murdering ISAF people. 33%! For you to say that isn't so bad is B.S."-

If you think that is a lot of guys then you think that is a lot of guys, would hate to see your reaction in WWI or WWII to numbers there or even looking at in relation to the number of guys we have in country. Not a lot of guys in simple terms, you may not like it and you might be "outraged" by it but it does not change the fact.

"People are indeed going to die in war. That is the normal nature of war (the previous statement is evidence that I can sling obvious points too.) But it is not normal that such a high percentage of your losses are at the murdering hands of allied troops. For you to imply that is just the way things are is B.S."-

high percentage of losses for one year? Yup, so what? It's done, all you can do is react to it, save the moral indignation.

"Oh by the way. Do you know what the relative percentages I asked you about are? I would be interested in knowing. But then you did say you didn't care what the percentage was so maybe an answer isn't forthcoming. I will ask you then, is there an actual number say, 200, 300, 400 ISAF troops murdered by ANSF people that will cause you to concede that this is a catastrophic problem?"-

Ahh....you ask questions again when they are already answered. It's not 200, 300 or 400 and hence it is not catastrophic.

"For you to say this is something we can't control is B.S. No...it's not. It probably can't be controlled now, too many years have gone by. It is the mostly the result of ISAF actions over more than a decade. So your right, ANSF people murdering scores of ISAF people is something we probably can't control. But that that situation was allowed to develop is B.S."-

Scores of ISAF people? Must have missed that and I am guessing you think this has no relation to the burnings of the Koran/Quaran's either? No correlation?

"One of the reasons that situation was allowed to develop is that the military I am constantly being told is the best doesn't "give real cultural training to the guys and make them understand that we are in an alien culture". That is military incompetence plain and simple."-

Yeah, not on the guys at the tactical level, we ask and ask, go bitch at the GO's, good luck though, you will only be more outraged. Don't think I have ever been a big supporter of many of their "solutions" though, so not sure about why you are preaching this one.

"Afghans are a bit touchy I am told. Perhaps. I'd say given our lethally bumptious behavior over the past decade they may not be touchy so much as long suffering."-

Really? Hmm...the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths are caused by insurgents, the long suffering? So, in your view then the killings are justified or is it something else you are saying?

"Your statement "they are looking at the vetting process and hoping to do a better job of it and that includes looking for problems that are also mental and cultural." is not only B.S.; it is kind of touching, kind of like a kid who hasn't a clue looking up through his eyebrows with big eyes and being really sincere about wanting to fix it. Unless "they" are willing to put quality ahead of quantity and put thoroughness ahead of quickly making big numbers, "looking at the vetting process" is a B.S. nostrum that will look really good on a power point slide."-

Ha!! Love it! So, you think that the vetting process is a power point? It is one of the few things they can change without a major involvement of higher ups, so, while it may not stop these things it will help.

"My solution? It is kind of fundamental. Look at what is in front of our face and see. See that ANSF people regularly murdering ISAF people isn't just one of those things that the real pros can live with, it is something that threatens what little chance of success we have left in Afghanistan. Then I would "give real cultural training to the guys and make them understand that we are in an alien culture" fast, emergency fast and boot out troops who don't get it and especially leaders whose troops don't get it. How is that for a start?"-

It's a start but what else Carl? If you read and retain what people say on here then you know this is not the first time that has been taken up. So, give us something that has not been tried? Give us something that is new? That you think will stop these incidents and really work.

"But to reiterate, it is B.S. to say a. this isn't much of a problem, b. we should just get used to it because c. there isn't anything we can do about it because d. it is just one of those things. B.S"

Naw, A.-it isn't, at least not yet but as soon as they get to those magical 400 numbers it will be and then you will see change. B. We should, it's gonna happen, to say it is not or that we can eliminate it totally is something a naive person would say or to use your own words "it is kind of touching, kind of like a kid who hasn't a clue looking up through his eyebrows with big eyes and being really sincere about wanting to fix it." C. There are some things I am sure we can do about it, better vetting (that means backgrounds, poly's, etc... they already do it for some) better cultural understanding, etc....but again, good luck tiger. D. It is just one of those things, no matter what you will still get some infiltrators or someone that has a blood debt to pay or whatever, you will never totally eliminate it 100%. So yeah, it's just one of those things. You can put it in an ORM if you want though, might make the Matrix a bit different but it is there at least. Think I will go make a power point about that.

ESIII: Just out of curiosity, did you read the report I referenced?

"If you think that is a lot of guys then you think that is a lot of guys, would hate to see your reaction in WWI or WWII to numbers there or even looking at in relation to the number of guys we have in country. Not a lot of guys in simple terms, you may not like it and you might be "outraged" by it but it does not change the fact."

I actually have read an article of two about the World Wars and a few paragraphs in those articles dealt with casualty numbers and percentages. I don't recall reading in those few paragraphs anything like 16% of casualties being caused by Brits or Chinese going off on GIs. If I had, my reaction would have been one of great surprise and shock, as it is in this case.

It is a lot of guys in my view. Your view is different I guess. I would note that whenever an airliner crashed in the US in the past, the people killed as a % of US population was very small, tiny. But we reacted with great energy to make it even smaller. We didn't say no big deal.

Speaking of percentages, most of the 150,000 you mention never have any or extremely minimal contact with ANSF forces. So if you were to figure the number of ISAF forces who are accessible to ANSF forces, the percentage murdered would go up, rather a lot I think.

"high percentage of losses for one year? Yup, so what? It's done, all you can do is react to it, save the moral indignation."

Well I'm am heartened to hear you say we must react to it for that indicates that you actually think there is something there to be reacted to. I am not so heartened to hear you say "so what?" about such a high percentage loss. I would think a professional military man would care about something like that. Sort of along the lines of "a high percentage of our ships are being sunk by U-boats. Maybe we should do something about that." But maybe not.

"Ahh....you ask questions again when they are already answered. It's not 200, 300 or 400 and hence it is not catastrophic."

Good to see you fleshing out your position. 198, 199 murdered, not a catastrophe. 200, whoa ring the bells boys, we have a problem.

Someone who is very smart said to me a big problem with this is force pro. Given our proclivities, we will tighten things up so much that any true cooperation with the Afhans will be impossible. We will still pretend we are doing it, but the practical effect will be even more complete separation. Since this whole thing depends upon working with the ANSF to build their capability, it appears to me there is catastrophe there. But if you object to that word, fair enough. We can use really really bad instead.

"Scores of ISAF people? Must have missed that and I am guessing you think this has no relation to the burnings of the Koran/Quaran's either? No correlation?"

I guess you did, miss it I mean. The report I referenced states that between mid-Sept 2009 and May 12, 2011, 50 ISAF people and 1 UNAMA person were killed by by ANSF and ASG people. Add that to the 10 killed since late January and that makes 60. Three score, and that does not include those killed before mid-Sept 2009 and between May 2011 and late January 2012. So yep, scores.

Oh no, I do think there is a relation, one more straw on the broken back.

"Yeah, not on the guys at the tactical level, we ask and ask, go bitch at the GO's, good luck though, you will only be more outraged. Don't think I have ever been a big supporter of many of their "solutions" though, so not sure about why you are preaching this one."

We agree on the guys at the tactical level. I try though this forum and others to bitch at the GOs as best I can. It is plain what I am saying, the big military, represented by the GOs, doesn't know what it is doing.

"Really? Hmm...the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths are caused by insurgents, the long suffering? So, in your view then the killings are justified or is it something else you are saying?"

It is something else I am saying. It is somewhat understandable given our behavior over the last decade. I tried to convey that with the words "lethally bumptious behavior", but I failed.

I don't understand why you bring up civilian deaths caused by insurgents. I always understood it to be a truism that gov forces and their allies were held to greater account than insurgents for civilian deaths, not fair but not going away either.

"Ha!! Love it! So, you think that the vetting process is a power point? It is one of the few things they can change without a major involvement of higher ups, so, while it may not stop these things it will help."

But that is the point isn't it, unless there is an involvement of higher ups, it is ultimately a power point slide. That the higher ups won't involve themselves in this is evidence of their incompetence. Trying to improve the vetting process is a good intention...and credit for that.

"It's a start but what else Carl? If you read and retain what people say on here then you know this is not the first time that has been taken up. So, give us something that has not been tried? Give us something that is new? That you think will stop these incidents and really work."

Why give something new? If you have a lot of people drowning when they must go into the water, the solution is to teach them to swim. If this solution isn't tried, it is any less viable when it is offered repeatedly as a solution. Same thing here.

I was going to go through your A. B. C.s one by one but I think I will just comment upon A.

"Naw, A.-it isn't, at least not yet but as soon as they get to those magical 400 numbers it will be and then you will see change."

It is cold comfort that only another 200 or 300 ISAF people have to be murdered by ANSF people before it is seen as a big problem, one worthy of changes being made.

P.S.-I am skeptical, to say the least, that lie detector tests given to the next 50,000 or so ANP recruits will be of any use at all. Operator to interpreter "Ask him how old he is?" Interpreter to recruit "When were you born?" Recruit to interpreter "I don't know." Interpreter to operator "He says he doesn't know." Operator to interpreter "What do you mean he doesn't know?" etc, etc, etc.

I am going to keep this short and sweet, I think talking with you about things at times is a bit like talking to someone who can never see the forest for the trees no matter how much your point it out over time.

Couple of things, one-glad you approve that I think we will react to this but if that is the point you got not much I can do for ya to get you to understand much of anything. Two-if you think that you are going to influence GO's choices by posting on a blog, especially with your background you are mistaken. Very mistaken. Cheers Carl, use the posts to either vent or discuss and learn but don't ever think you will influence the folks who make the calls.

ESIII: Sorry about that, but I just think you are wrong. Or maybe, it is a matter of when skiing down a wooded slope, you better be looking at the trees rather than the forest or you are going crush your face when you hit one.

I wondered if you were going say something along the lines of "you mere civilian". And you finally did with the "especially with your background" line. I am a bit disappointed to hear that, but maybe not surprised.

However I am not disappointed that somebody with my "background" can't influence the multi-stars with some blog posts. I never expected much to come of them, but I like to try even it is for naught. I am a bit concerned about your attitude toward someone with my "background" though. It seems a bit militaristic or even feudal to me, as if you feel only the anointed are capable of understanding; and the role of people with my "background" is just to cough up those taxes and listen carefully when the anointed deign to talk to us. (Warning! Warning! Warning! The preceding paragraph contains exaggeration for effect, but only a little.)

ESIII: Oh, I forgot. Did you read the report?

Oye, dude, get the chip off your shoulder with regard to the no service thing, it actually was not about that, your background is that you are essentially joe civilian, not a military sociologist like a Charlie Moskos, a reporter/book writer like Ricks, etc.....but you could be a Medal of Honor winner and it would not do any good. Your a guy who reads a lot, is well informed and who comments on blogs, why in the Good Lords' name would they listen to you via those posts when they won't listen to their 05's or 4's who are telling them directly the problems that are going on at times. Stop taking everything as a personal insult Carl, it was not meant that way and sorry you took it to heart, I will try word my posts more carefully next time.

As for the rest, dude, ya just don't get it and if you cannot tell that I am jaded and cynical then I can't help ya.

ESIII: Fair enough. I took offense where none was intended. I was wrong to do so and will try to be less sensitive in the future. However in feeble defense of me, if you go back and read through this thing I never suggested that I could influence mutli-stars (God can't do that and he's probably tried). You said to go bitch at the GOs and I said I try to bitch at them thru blog posts. From that you somehow got that I thought had influence. But...

Who cares about that?

The primary point of disagreement is that you think scores of ISAF people being being murdered by ANSF people isn't that important or remarkable and I think it hugely important. Not to put to fine point on it, I think you're dead wrong about that.

Have you read the report?

And hope we don't go the way of that poor Danish cartoonist.

My e-mail address is on the right side of the blog, near my postage stamp photo.

Thanks,
Tom

Proving to be smarter than the Americans something akin to being damned by faint praise. It is helpful when confronting the boobs from Jonathanland but the wily Generals from Pindi should avoid viewing their accomplishment as a portent for future success when confronting people smarter than us, which should include just about everybody.

I could not agree more. You have said it so well. Far better than I have on this blog in the past. It really is obvious and I do not understand why our generals and the White House seek to stay there one more day. Surely they can see the future that we do.

Failing that, they could always look back in time and see the future in the mirror of the Vietnam experience.

Marty Martel & RVN SF VET: Do you think it will make any difference that Afghanistan is not all alone in the world like South Vietnam was? Back then nobody at all cared what happened after we left, including us. This time we won't care once we leave but there are a lot of other countries that will, many because they are close by and others because they might be concerned about export Jihadi fascism. What do you think?

Or just like the US did after 1989, when it gave up all interest in and commitment to Afghanistan when the Soviets pulled out. In that vacuum flourished the warlords and the Taliban, most of whom were anti-Soviet insurgents whom the US itself had supported and supplied. (I believe the folks in the intelligence world call this "blowback"). Fast forward to 2001 and after, and we see the US re-entering Afghanistan and trying to remake local society. 10 years too late! What incredible stupidity!

My otherwise cryptic comment above was intended to follow Marty Martel's comment that the US future withdrawal from Afghanistan is going to be just like its withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975.

I think that it will just further complicate things. The brokered peace will be greatly influenced by Pakistan which will look forward to their clients, the Taliban, to takeover within 2 years, if not before. Iran and India will seek to buy influence, although they are both physically more distant from Afghanistan's interior. China will want stability because they have obtained the contracts tp Afghanistan mineral deposits and they can complete their road through Pakistan to the port of Karachi. That would mean an interest in Pakistan's stability as well.

Our pursuit of a role would be a waste of time. Contrary to what some say, I cannot see "other" terrorist groups seeking Afghanistan as a base, Surely there are better places with better lines of communication. Don't even bother to shut the door on the way out.

BTW, the latest leaks on the Koran burning make it sloppier, but not sinister. It just won't matter. Some Afghan maintenance workers (including one who entered the fire!)tried to save the Korans from the fire and partially succeeded. A Muslim cleric on the joint investigating team outlined the preferable methods of disposal for Korans and Islamic texts. Afghan-American translators thought that 1625 books in the prison library contained prisoner communications. Now it appears they might not have been inter-prisoner communications at all. Had they been; wouldn't you have called-in the intel folks? Idiots!

I've got an idea! No library. No Playstations. No computers.

Tell the boyze not to give up their day jobs. Letterman will not be calling.