Posts tagged afghanistan

From Sunday’s NYT. They’ve been doing this for years. Take a moment to reflect.  A Year in Iraq and Afghanistan By IAN LIVINGSTON, ALICIA CHENG and SARAH GEPHART IN 2010, the United States and its allies continued to shift the military focus from Iraq and to Afghanistan. American troop levels in Iraq fell by half, from more than 100,000 troops in January to under 50,000. In Afghanistan, a surge of mainly United States troops brought numbers to roughly 140,000, from near 100,000 at the beginning of the year. As shown in the chart (based on data from the Pentagon, icasualties.organd American allies), in 2010 there were 696 fatalities in Afghanistan and 56 in Iraq. The death total in Iraq was the lowest of any year in the war by a significant margin, down by 85 from 2009. Nearly two-thirds of the deaths there were not related to combat, and most of the hostile deaths occurred in isolated incidents. Though overall violence levels in Iraq have not improved markedly over the last year, they at least seem fairly stable as Iraqi security forces take on more of the burden. The fighting in parts of Afghanistan was intense, and 198 more allied troops died there than in 2009. Many of the fatalities occurred in Helmand Province, where some 15,000 American and NATO troops began a major offensive in February; homemade bombs and small-arms fire caused the vast majority of the casualties. While 2010 finished as the deadliest year of the war effort thus far, there is no question that Afghan and Western troops have made great strides in stabilizing the insecure provinces in the south and east of the country. Ian Livingston is a senior research assistant at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Alicia Cheng and Sarah Gephart are partners at mgmt. design in Brooklyn.

From Sunday’s NYT. They’ve been doing this for years. Take a moment to reflect. 

A Year in Iraq and Afghanistan

By IAN LIVINGSTON, ALICIA CHENG and SARAH GEPHART

IN 2010, the United States and its allies continued to shift the military focus from Iraq and to Afghanistan. American troop levels in Iraq fell by half, from more than 100,000 troops in January to under 50,000. In Afghanistan, a surge of mainly United States troops brought numbers to roughly 140,000, from near 100,000 at the beginning of the year. As shown in the chart (based on data from the Pentagon, icasualties.organd American allies), in 2010 there were 696 fatalities in Afghanistan and 56 in Iraq.

The death total in Iraq was the lowest of any year in the war by a significant margin, down by 85 from 2009. Nearly two-thirds of the deaths there were not related to combat, and most of the hostile deaths occurred in isolated incidents. Though overall violence levels in Iraq have not improved markedly over the last year, they at least seem fairly stable as Iraqi security forces take on more of the burden.

The fighting in parts of Afghanistan was intense, and 198 more allied troops died there than in 2009. Many of the fatalities occurred in Helmand Province, where some 15,000 American and NATO troops began a major offensive in February; homemade bombs and small-arms fire caused the vast majority of the casualties. While 2010 finished as the deadliest year of the war effort thus far, there is no question that Afghan and Western troops have made great strides in stabilizing the insecure provinces in the south and east of the country.

Ian Livingston is a senior research assistant at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Alicia Cheng and Sarah Gephart are partners at mgmt. design in Brooklyn.

nyti.ms

Your Friday afternoon whimsy/cool photos. These are pretty powerful. Some are pretty graphic. This past month, much of the attention focused on Afghanistan centered on the release of thousands of classified documents from the war effort by WikiLeaks. While the consensus appears to be that nothing significantly new was revealed by the release, the picture painted by the documents remains rather bleak. NATO and the United States now have 143,000 troops in Afghanistan, set to peak at 150,000 in coming weeks as they take a counter-insurgency offensive into the insurgents’ southern strongholds. Taliban control remains difficult to dislodge, and once removed from an area, Taliban forces often return once larger forces leave a region, especially in rural areas where local government presence remains small. Collected here are images of the country and conflict over the past month, part of an ongoing monthly series on Afghanistan. (47 photos total)

Your Friday afternoon whimsy/cool photos. These are pretty powerful. Some are pretty graphic.

This past month, much of the attention focused on Afghanistan centered on the release of thousands of classified documents from the war effort by WikiLeaks. While the consensus appears to be that nothing significantly new was revealed by the release, the picture painted by the documents remains rather bleak. NATO and the United States now have 143,000 troops in Afghanistan, set to peak at 150,000 in coming weeks as they take a counter-insurgency offensive into the insurgents’ southern strongholds. Taliban control remains difficult to dislodge, and once removed from an area, Taliban forces often return once larger forces leave a region, especially in rural areas where local government presence remains small. Collected here are images of the country and conflict over the past month, part of an ongoing monthly series on Afghanistan. (47 photos total)

The New Yorker: Wikileaks and the War

Amy Davidson on Wikileaks and the War:

“…a leak informing us that our tax dollars may be being used as seed money for a protection racket associated with a narcotics-trafficking enterprise is a good leak to have. And the checkpoint incident is, again, only one report, from one day…

…

One…

newyorker

Afghanistan WikiLeaks @ NYT, The Guardian

Is this the Tet moment for Afghanistan?

TDB:

WikiLeaks published a government document earlier this year in which the United States government said it wanted to destroy the website’s “center of gravity” by attacking its credibility. Based on the website’s disclosure of nearly 92,000 classified documents in conjunction with The New York Times, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel, we think it’s safe to say the government’s effort failed. The big scoops appear to be that Pakistan’s spy services are aiding the Afghan insurgency; the Taliban has obtained heat-seeking missiles for shooting down aircraft; and secret U.S. commandos are working with a “capture/kill” list of 70 Taliban leaders. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange also said there appears to be evidence of war crimes in the documents. The leaks are believed to have come from Pfc. Bradley Manning, who was arrested in conjunction with an earlier leak. The New York Times says “Investigators now believe that Private Manning exploited a loophole in Defense Department security to copy thousands of files onto compact discs over a six-month period.” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange then made the documents accessible to the newspapers by giving them access to a password-protected tranche online. National Security Adviser James Jones has called the publication of the documents “irresponsible.”

Allow me to re-introduce myself…. My name is David (Petraeus). Vanit Fair has a great piece explaining how this guy ticks. Since he’s running the show now after Stanley McShutTheHellUp got the axe yesterday, you might be interested. As we said then…. So for your leisurely weekend reads, here are a couple great pieces from this month’s edition. The first is a lengthy profile on General David Petraeus. He’s basically revolutionized US military strategy, developing the counterinsurgency techniques that will decide our success or failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s also a beast. GI Joe meets Rhodes Scholar. It’s long (took me 30 minutes this morning), but that’s what the weekend is for.

Allow me to re-introduce myself….

My name is David (Petraeus).

Vanit Fair has a great piece explaining how this guy ticks. Since he’s running the show now after Stanley McShutTheHellUp got the axe yesterday, you might be interested.

As we said then….

So for your leisurely weekend reads, here are a couple great pieces from this month’s edition. The first is a lengthy profile on General David Petraeus. He’s basically revolutionized US military strategy, developing the counterinsurgency techniques that will decide our success or failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s also a beast. GI Joe meets Rhodes Scholar. It’s long (took me 30 minutes this morning), but that’s what the weekend is for.

BREAKING: MCCHRYSTAL OUT. PETRAEUS IN.

We don’t need to wait for President Obama’s Rose Garden statement: NBC is reporting that at their face-to-face meeting this morning, Obama relieved General Stanley McChrystal of his command in Afghanistan, and replaced him with General David Petraeus. From a political standpoint, the decision to install Petraeus as the commander in Afghanistan will prevent criticism that Obama put his ego or pride before the war effort by firing McChrystal, since Petraeus is generally unassailable.

http://bit.ly/adaMeQ

The Runaway General - The Rolling Stone Article

This is the McChrystal article that’s caused the firestorm of the last 36 hours. Read at your leisure.

FYI, Here is Article 88 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice):

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Thx to Altman for the link.

McChrystal’s Fate Unclear After Brief Meeting w/Obama

NYT:

WASHINGTON — Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal left the White House after meeting with President Obama for about 20 minutes, departing ahead of a meeting on the war in Afghanistan scheduled for later Wednesday morning, but there was no immediate word on whether he would keep his job as the top American commander there.

Mike Allen’s Politico Playbook breaks it down pretty well:

-WHAT PUNDITS WILL SAY IF McCHRYSTAL GETS THE BOOT: Obama needs to be feared at home and abroad, and ‘The Runaway General’ handed him a golden opportunity. It’s also a way to tweak the policy at a time when all lights are blinking red.

—WHAT PUNDITS WILL SAY IF McCHRYSTAL GETS GRACE: Obama had the courage and discipline to act in the long-term interest of himself and the country. The better Afghanistan goes, the better off he is, politically and legacy-wise. He’s the bigger man.

—NEXT STEPS: If McChrystal saves his job, Washington is going to take a close look at how he’s staffed, and there’ll be changes.

—THE FACTS OF LIFE: If you actually read the article, it’s the general’s blowhard staff, who obviously thought they were off the record, who did him in. There’s not that much in McChrystal’s mouth that is all that bad. And rather than insubordinately undermining the policy, he is supporting Obama’s position (which is, after all, McChrystal’s blueprint!) against the hostile views of the Rolling Stone author.

—REASONS TO KEEP HIM: We hired him to fight wars, not be a P.R. guy. He has a unique relationship with Karzai. The timeline for showing progress in Afghanistan (to appease Congress and reassure the public) is short, and we can’t afford to acclimate a new team. After his ritual humiliation today, pat him on the back and send him back in. Plus there’s no clear replacement. Gen. Ray Odierno would be most obvious, but sending him straight from Iraq to Afghanistan seems a bit much to ask.

—REASONS TO SACK HIM: This was too much bluster from a guy who has yet to deliver. It’s the shoot-a-prisoner-in-the-yard theory: Obama needs to show his commanders that he’s in charge, and would look weak to accept such daft insubordination. It would also send an important message to those below McChrystal. Our conversations show that even people who like him and want him to stay will understand if he gets fired for an obviously fire-able offense.

Ezra Klein muses about how to punish McLoudmouth:

And that seems to me to be where this gets complicated. Absent the furor, I’d guess that Obama would force McChrystal to grovel and twist but then he’d let this go: He’s got other things on his plate and doesn’t think the mission in Afghanistan will be improved by a controversial firing of the top commander. But there actually is a furor. So the question seems to be whether there’s any humiliation short of termination that will make it seem like Obama dealt with this firmly enough. Stocks on the White House lawn? A public caning? McChrystal has to wear one of those Shepard Fairey “Hope” shirts everywhere he goes?

Hahaha. I like the “Hope” shirts idea.