Bob Woodward | Washington D.C. | September 20

WaPo - The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.

McChrystal concludes the document's five-page Commander's Summary on a note of muted optimism: "While the situation is serious, success is still achievable."

But he repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.

more

[Comment: Woodward? So it's to be an establishment PR offensive, then? And so the show begins. I look forward to this not at all. ~ JPD]

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

McChrystal was happy to take kudos for the 'Helmand surge' but now things are not so great so it is McKiernan's fault :) and this from Asia Times today- it will be Pakistan's fault:

For example, Washington has pressed for a ground assault against militants in the South Waziristan tribal area, stronghold of the slain Baitullah Mehsud. The army, for tactical reasons, is unwilling to send in troops as it believes the casualties would be too high, and with no guarantee of success. The government in Islamabad has put its full weight in favor of immediate military operations.

Zardari argues that by not conducting operations, the militants will be able to regroup and fight back. This is already happening.

In New York, Zardari will argue that any lapse in Pakistan, al-Qaeda's international headquarters and the strategic backyard of the Taliban, would be disastrous. The US will be listening, and also hoping that its main ally in the region can sort out its internal divisions, otherwise the entire American political and military initiative undertaken by the Obama administration will be jeopardy.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

...little adventure that were legitimately Pakistan's fault, it would go on for some pages. If by bizarre quirk of fate I end up dragooned into being a political decision maker - I swear once my country's interests are minded I will never, ever, ever overlook a chance to use the tools available me to blade the Pakistani military/intelligence establishment. I know of too many of my countrymen taking dirtnaps ultimately because those jerks wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

it silly that to say unless Pakistan attacks S Waziristan the US plan will fail or be in jeaopardy? Especialy since McChrystal and Obama want a NEW stategy. I find that disingenuous and a cop out - especially since the US can send the drones into the area at will.

edited

out the part on if part of this could be tied up with the aid package to Pakistan. I had thought I had my dates were messed up, but not lol

U.S. Fears Pakistan Aid Will Feed Graft

By JANE PERLEZ
Published: September 20, 2009

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — As the United States prepares to triple its aid package to Pakistan — to a proposed $1.5 billion over the next year — Obama administration officials are debating how much of the assistance should go directly to a government that has been widely accused of corruption, American and Pakistani officials say.

...is actually a USG construct (i.e., it may be more the author's take). Me, I tend to think that they're at least as concerned about North Waziristan (home to the Haqqani network). The key factor here is cross-border supply and sanctuary - every time that we get an indication that someone will help us undercut it, we need to press for as much as we can. The drones are decent at hitting key individuals (if one closes one's eyes to the long-term effects of the collateral), but I don't think that's a long-term strategy - it buys time and can help set conditions to achieve other things, but indefinite whack a mole doesn't seem to me to achieve much, long-term on the ground in Afghanistan.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

09/21/2009

Human Rights Lawyer on Bagram Prison
'The Obama Administration Has Completely Failed'

Human rights lawyer Tina Foster talks to SPIEGEL about detainee abuses in the US military prison in Bagram, Afghanistan and her disappointment with the Obama administration.

It's called Bacha-bazi. When the Taliban was in power, offenders if caught could have their heads used as footballs, but now that democracy has beset Afghanistan, the practice is reportedly in full swing again. (Perhaps someday when the dust has cleared, someone will ask exactly how it came to be that Omar Khadr resided in that mountain hideout. a child with all those strangers.)

Here's an article dated November, 2007.

A ‘bacha bereesh’ is a boy without a beard, and in several circles a beardless boy is most desired by rich, powerful male patrons. Grown men become involved in ‘bacha bazi’— which literally translates into ‘boy-play’. This is a time-honored tradition, condemned by human rights activists and Muslim clerics, but it is seeing a revival in the north province of Afghanistan. It is by no means restricted to the north of Afghanistan only, but has virtually faded in the south, where the Taliban’s strict moral code act as a deterrent.

The bacha bereesh, between the ages of 14 to 18 (though 14 seems to be the preferred age), are dressed in special women’s clothing, with bells tied to their feet, and paraded out to dance at parties and weddings. In general, the practice of men dancing at parties is relatively common in Afghanistan, where the sexes are strictly segregated and women unallowed to partake in such activity. However, in Baghlan, the former warlords and mujahideen commanders are resurrecting bacha bazi, and holding dance competitions between the boys.
Allah Daad, once a mujahedin commander in the northern Afghan province of Kunduz, explains how the boys are enticed into the arrangement: “First we select boys in the village and later on we try to trick them into coming with us,” he said. “Some of them stay with us for money; they get a monthly allowance, and in return we can have them any time we want. They don’t stay with us all the time - they can do their own jobs and then just come to parties with us.”
Large halls provide the venues for the weekly parties where the boys’ owners, invite their friends to watch them dancing. Several different types of dances are popular, Daad says, and if the boy refuses to dance or performs badly, his master beats him with a long stick.
"We have to do that,” explains Daad. “We spend money on these boys, so they have to dance.”
Later into the night, once the dancing is over, the boys are frequently shared with close friends, for sexual favors. And by the end of the evening it is not at all uncommon for the boy to have a new owner, as the parties often provide the opportunity for buying and selling.
Both prestige as well as poverty are the main motivators for the revival of bacha bazi.

Nor is that necessarily the worst fate for Afghan children.

Radhika Coomaraswamy, United Nations Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict held a Press Conference in July 2009 in which she stated, in part...

The second grave violation against children in armed conflict of course is the recruitment and use of children in the fighting forces. We have credible information that in the last few months there has been an increase in the number of children in combat. We also have verified reports of individual cases of suicide bombers. This is a terrible situation and we hope that action will be taken by everyone to help eradicate this.

We want to reiterate that the Taliban itself recognize this and in Rule 19 have stated that mujahideen are not allowed to take young boys with no facial hair on to the battlefield or into their private quarters.

So we urge all parties, especially the anti-Government elements, to begin to take action to prevent children from being used on the battlefield.

We also have reports that there are children associated with the Afghan police force in different parts of the country. We have had discussions with the Ministry of Interior and the National Directorate of Security to help eradicate this practice.

We are also concerned about children detained after military operations. ISAF have given us exact figures, but we do not have exact numbers on minors being detained by the Afghan authorities or the American forces. No one seems clear about the guidelines or the standard operating procedures in this regard. We hope that this report will be an opportunity to set these procedures in place.

As we know from other areas in the world, keeping young people in detention often makes them into hardened individuals and only feeds the cycle of violence.

We are also concerned about attacks on schools. These attacks kill children who are completely innocent. And such practice violates all norms of civilized behaviour contained in international law and in the teachings of the great religions. There have been a total of 228 schools that have been attacked with 75 deaths and 111 injured. And that was for 2007. In 2008 there have been 83 schools attacked so far.

We have also been receiving allegations about sexual violence against boys. Afghan civil society is particularly concerned about what has been called the Bacha-bazi system or practice for young boys associated with military commanders. This practice has to be eradicated as it is against international humanitarian law.

While informative she skated lightly over the details and omitted many documented reports of child kidnapping in Afghanistan, the murder of children for the international black market in body parts, and the trade in abducted boys and girls as slaves.

Another UN document cites the conclusion of a 2005 Afghanistan national human development report that recognised children made up the most vulnerable sector of Afghan society. The report noted that 20 percent of Afghan children die before the age of five and that more
than 300,000 children may have perished during the conflict. (Note that number was current 5 years ago.)

that's what sexual repression and gender inequality does - it creates a violent world.

Travis Schouten's problem is that he is an exceptionally caring human being.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

I realize that, Adrena. However my point is that his concern is barely reveals the tip of the iceberg.

Violence has many, many causes, among them oppression and inequality.

...also engaged in this charming little practice, founding myths [which may, in this case, have some truth to them] aside. As to the statistics, the 300,000 figure refers to the number of children believed to have perished during the Soviet invasion and subsequent Afghan civil war (also worth noting that the most recent version of the report [2007] notes that infant mortality has dropped by 18% since the first report).

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

available online here is a devastating review.

It includes many references to the desperate circumstances of the children of Afghanistan.

! 60,000 children in Afghanistan are addicted to drugs.
! 100,000 children are disabled and otherwise severely affected physi-
cally due to the prolonged conflicts in the country.
! There are an estimated 8,000 former child soldiers in Afghanistan.
Many of them have left militia groups voluntarily, but they still need
assistance to reintegrate back into civilian life.
! Nearly 56% of landmine casualties (472) were under 21 years, with the largest group of children between seven and fourteen years.
! There are an estimated 1 million child laborers between seven and
fourteen years of age. Of these, about 60,000 are reported to work in the streets.
! More than 37,000 children work and beg in the streets of Kabul alone,some 80% of them being boys, 36% of whom are aged 8-10 years.
! Among children under age five, 6.5% suffer from acute malnutrition
and 54% are chronically malnourished.

...completely? Magic eight ball says, "Outlook not so good".

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

the situation would be terribly grim, a lost country awash in poverty and crime and subject to continual exploitation.

But western military presence has not and can not possibly bring internal stability in these circumstances. 250,000 more soldiers, when all the kings horses and all the kings men can't put Afghanistan together again.

If it is truly in the West's geopolitical interests to occupy/stabilize/modernize Afghanistan, then we should tear a leaf from the Chinese' book.

What Afghanistan needs is not 250,000 more American soldiers, but 3 or 4 million more ordinary Americans - mums and dads with kids and family pets together with their TV sets and frigidaires and Hershey bars etc. and their entourage of teachers, lawyers and doctors, etc. There'll be change, massive change, in jig time. Oh yes.

Han Chinese are paid an annual stipend by their government to relocate to troubled areas and permanently settle there. The influx of new people doesn't usually go down well with some of the locals (see Uighurs) but then again, the feelings of the locals never really mattered anyway. Also, it works.

And for two centuries it's worked in North America, too.

My suggestion could just possibly solve the economic crisis at home and the military crisis in Afghanistan in one swell foop.

Yet still nobody ever listens to me. {hiccup}

...how completely we have ignored/fucked up development to this point. It's bad enough that the current nearly 8 years and counting of stunning lack of success facilitating development really aren't at all a good predictor of what is and isn't possible with current, or even decreased resources. The lack of coherent focus, the totally unintegrated nature of all facets of the involvement - it's all really pretty, well, for lack of a new better word "stunning".

I agree the big thing that needs to happen is to flood the zone with civilian development and to be willing to lose some of it to enemy action - but that just ain't gonna happen, given the western navel gazing nature; that means that we have far less development to work with, backed by guys with guns. If we don't have the guns, we won't have any development to speak of in the areas most critical to the conflict. Art of the possible, I'm afraid.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Afghanistan: Putting The Squeeze On The President

by Turkana, The left Coaster

Meteor Blades has noted that the Pentagon appears to be trying to force President Obama's hand, in Afghanistan; and Big Tent Democrat is exactly right that General Stanley McChrystal should be removed from his command, if he's threatening to resign if he doesn't get his way. But amidst all this disturbing news is this hint of of something better, as reported by the Associated Press:

The White House is considering expanding counterterror operations in Pakistan to refocus on eliminating al-Qaida instead of mounting a major military escalation in Afghanistan.

Two senior administration officials said Monday that the renewed fight against the terrorist organization could lead to more missile attacks on Pakistan terrorist havens by unmanned U.S. spy planes. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because no decisions have been made.

Top aides to President Barack Obama said he still has questions and wants more time to decide.

The officials said the administration would push ahead with the ground mission in Afghanistan for the near future, still leaving the door open for sending more U.S. troops. But Obama's top advisers, including Vice President Joe Biden, have indicated they are reluctant to send many more troops – if any at all – in the immediate future.

A couple weeks ago, the New York Times already reported that Biden is skeptical about sending more troops, while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and special representative Richard Holbrooke both support the idea. Former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke sides with Biden, and Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin would prefer trying to strengthen the Afghan military.

Now, at face value, the idea of using more drones is not necessarily a good one. They don't work, and they do sometimes kill civilians. But anything that slows the push for more troops is helpful.

...one is prone to when trying too hard to think like how they envision political operators thinking. Stepping back for a second, for this to really be an actual policy alternative, first there has to be room for expansion in what they're doing against al-Qa`eda in Pakistan. Not sure that I see the room for that - looks to me like it's been pretty much a full court press against al-Qa`eda and the cross border basing for the Afghan Taliban. There's room for expansion against the Pakistani Taliban, but I would want to be extremely careful with that. Me, I think the crucial resource limits (primarily int) have been reached and that there's not a lot of room for expansion, not if the US is going to continue to be in the driver's seat on it.

Less directly pertaining to the issue, my dominant reaction is that the notion that folks would consider "deals with their devil" like this because it's "helpful" to their political position is pretty stomach churning. I'm sure the civilians are honoured to be considered in their amateur political calculus. There are lots of times when one has to trade off between smaller and larger degrees of civilian death and destruction, but the factors expressed there - sure doesn't sound to me like that trade off was the primary driver to the calculation.

Edited to add: Sorry, missed the italics; mentally saw it as a sig, that I then didn't read. Kinda like those studies saying no one "sees" advertising on the Internet. I don't know how much credence to give to the notion that McChrystal would threaten resignation. I've seen this "fire the bum" "the generals are pushing around the elected officials" etc. etc. dynamic way too much out of the commentariat to assign it much import. At the end of the day resignation is every serving regular officer's right - period. It's a safety valve one sure doesn't want to remove - Lang had it right when he commented to the effect that the "I'll fall on my sword over this" notion has largely disappeared. The strength of the service is diminished by that. It's certainly possible to abuse it, but I'd have to have a lot higher standard of proof than I've seen thus far to believe it's happening here.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Being well acquainted with two families from Afghanistan, I do recognize the issues, at least in the general overview, and from the very beginning - before the beginning. I also absolutely disagree with the use of the military as physical infrastructure builders (much less arbitrators of human rights.)

Militaries in areas of armed conflict are mandated to destroy things. They are not there to build things except for their own purposes. Nevertheless, given the possibility that a glimmer of sincere interest in improving Afghan society underscores western military efforts there, it can't be boiled down to exercising skills at physical engineering - building roads, hospitals and schools. They only present new targets for those who resist. Social engineering is not about bricks and mortar. Nor is it about handing out candy to happy children as a way to introduce them to friendly foreign soldiers, to spark their youthful interest in "democracy, or help ward off their starvation and drug addiction. But your average soldier, I warrant, is not schooled in psychology, linquistics, ethics, religion, Arab history, local family histories, and communications necessary to actively engage the people of this destitute country so that they could ever work together to reframe some notion of the common good, daring to leave tribal, religious and familial affiliations behind.

Such a change in mission would be deeply complicated and require a degree of altruism that I doubt is really at the base of Western interests in the country.

Humanitarian endeavours by ignorant foreign military in active war zones (not peace keepers) are bound to fail because permanent residents can never trust the players. The present overlap of military and humanitarian projects is frequently cited by aid organizations and the United Nations as causing severe problems in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

Regarding my "recommendation", of course Americans would never be persuaded to immigrate to Afghanistan and I was being entirely facetious in suggesting it. However, tribalism, destitution and illiteracy were aspects of 18th century native America too. Nevertheless its unlikely that an 18th century solution could ever be put into effect (nor, for that matter, would I support it if it could. All those smallpox soaked trading blankets leave a long guilt trail).

I predict that what is eventually most probable with the increasingly unpopular "war" in Afghanistan is that slowly but surely the country will fade from the news stream (see Iraq). Foreign military will likewise quietly be eliminated, except for a few US outposts not unlike the several hundred others they maintain around the world. And within a year or two the terrible humanitarian disaster that is, and was, Afghanistan will slide down the collective memory hole like Biafra, like Darfur, like Wounded Knee.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

..."ignorant soldiers" [unless they're peacekeepers] / "heroic aid workers" dichotomy that you've built here. It simply isn't that one set of folks is stupid bad guys while the other is somehow smart good guys. All of them are to pretty much equal degrees bumbling around in the dark - the major difference is that one group of them is doing so while looking like something that you don't like. The other group, to a much larger degree than we'd like in the areas where we need it most, isn't doing it at all because their security can't be guaranteed - in large part because the group you don't like has been playing catch up for the past several years. Me, I take your scenario and I play it out to its logical conclusion and where I end up is a place where all that has to happen is the bad guys have to be willing to kill aid workers and we'll fold and let them do whatever they want to their populace. I don't believe that to be an acceptable option.

As to your entirely facetious suggestion, more's the pity that no one has the balls for it. Much more comfortable to sit back home and paint good guy / bad guy pictures and never have to test them against reality, I guess.

Me, I don't predict that Afghanistan will benignly fade away, though the news stream will move on - I predict that the intervention will achieve far less than in could because the populace has no stomach for even modest sacrifice and that they will walk, even sprint away while telling themselves comforting lies about how there was nothing they could have done. Meanwhile the scale of carnage will increase a hundredfold, but many of the most vocal will have moved on to the newest "state of play" and some will even secretly despise the victims. Meanwhile they'll preen and talk to each other about how enlightened their politics are while old soldiers and those that listen to them try not to retch. The walking I understand - the lies, even to themselves, I won't accept.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

... all of us, including you, sit comfortably back home painting different scenarios.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

...scenarios. I object to folks reaching only for comforting "Gordian Knot" type solutions while painting those scenarios and ignoring their likely impact. Faced with the bewildering and discomforting situation we see in Afghanistan even in the face of unbelievable need, rather than folks asking themselves what they can spare and what can be achieved, many folks are simply saying "nothing - nothing can be spared and nothing can be achieved, I just want my people home". Sorry, but I don't think that cuts it and I particularly don't think that anybody should get to look away and walk without looking back. I got all the time in the world for those who try to strike a sane balance between the polar insanities of bearing "any burden, any price" and complete withdrawal as soon as possible, but the folks that run to the comforting extreme that blades the other guy, yeah I think they should have the costs pointed out to them periodically.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

and I appreciate your position but with all due respect, I resent your habit of summarily brushing away with one gigantic derogatory stroke, any opposing view expressed by "us folks" as you like to refer to people who don't agree with you.

There are costs for both sides that need to be pointed out periodically. The Canadian army suffers from battle fatigue for various reasons - lack of progress leads to a lack of purpose that many soldiers feel. They are entitled to their feelings and beliefs, no? Likewise, you cannot dismiss the legitimate views of the majority of Canadians who similarly see this war as an exercise in futility.

Also, as you must be aware, some of the conditions have become worse since the start of the war. For example, this week, The Globe and Mail offers a six part multi media series with interactive videos, and discussion groups that explain how and why the conditions of Afghan women have actually deteriorated as a result of this war.

I'm afraid that, on the war in Afghanistan, I continue to agree with the views that Chickadee has expressed extremely well.

At the same time, I appreciate your opinions and will continue to enjoy your insightful comments, not only on Afghanistan, but on a variety of topics.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

...I wouldn't presume to tell you what to believe. Most of my vitriol is aimed at those specific folks who are spending an awful lot of effort pushing two extremes without looking at the middle, helping ensure that what is possible is diminished. What I object to with regards to individual views is that people are not taking into account the costs and they are also not, in my view, taking into account the actual reality that we're faced with - they're minimizing the potential and maximizing the cost, and they've got it too far backwards, MPFAO. The mood of the day is triumphing over clear thought and notions of what just might be the right thing to do - as an example, there are people who are complaining that it might cost $10 billion a year or more to keep the Afghan security apparatus afloat - as if we haven't already been spending hundreds of billions on endeavours that are good deal sketchier. That's a bill we shouldn't even blink at, given some of the foolishness we've funded.

I get the costs to our side - for personal reasons I'm very in tune with the costs of this to the CF. Everything that I've seen indicates to me that the feelings and beliefs of that group is overwhelmingly that they don't want to pull out precipitously and that they believe in the mission. If anything, the members that I know are more biased towards being unhappy about the writing the see on the wall, post-2011.

I don't dismiss the the views of Canadians on this, but I also don't think that their views are in the main very well informed, and I just can't respect the degree to which the population has fallen down on their duty in this regard. We've been in this eight years and the percentage of the population that knows a Hazara from a Honda is vanishingly small. Judgmental bastard that I am, I think that's damned near a crime. This is one of the five or six most important policy decisions that Canadians currently alive will live through - and more particularly it's one that far more than anything else is predicated simply on their will to continue political support, to the extent that they and the elite political opinion founded upon them are the enemy centre of gravity - and yet I see no mass movement to seek knowledge. The issue doesn't demand great sacrifice on their personal part - for the vast majority it's restricted to a willingness to figure out what's going on so they can provide informed political oversight, yet folks have not in the main done that, though there is no shortage of opinions they hold. I find that mind boggling.

This simply isn't something where costs should be pointed out periodically - all of those costs should constantly be front and centre in our calculus.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

Eric Margolis, a respected expert on foreign affairs, spots another Vietnam on the horizon.

America’s attempts to build an Afghan sepoy army of 250,000 have failed miserably. The 80,000 men raised to date are 95% illiterate and only on the job for money to feed their families. They have no loyalty to the corrupt Western-installed government in Kabul. CIA’s 74,000 “contractors” (read mercenaries) in Afghanistan are more reliable. The Afghan police are little better than uniformed bandits.

But the biggest problem in Afghanistan, as always, is tribalism. Many of the US-raised Afghan army troops are minority Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara who used to collaborate with the Soviets. They are scorned by the majority Pashtun tribes as enemies and traitors. These US-paid troops also know they will face death when the US and its western allies eventually quit Afghanistan. More

Then there's Andrew Wilder, a former manager of humanitarian aid and development programs in Afghanistan, with an insider's perspective.

He states that

the more money we try to spend in this environment, which has very limited human resources and institutional capacity, inevitably money overflows into the pockets of corrupt officials. Our aid programs are actually fueling the corruption, which is de-legitimizing the government, which is fueling instability.

He raises a few additional good points. However, as you can imagine, I disagree with his suggestion that, despite the many obstacles, we should not walk away from Afghanistan. In fact, after having read this article, I find that Chickadee's arguments make even more sense.

Finally, this

It’s estimated about 20 per cent of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from the illness characterized by flashbacks, anxiety and depression (PTSD). In January, the U.S. army disclosed they lost more soldiers that month to suicide than enemy fire. Britain this year launched an unprecedented suicide watch that encouraged soldiers to get help. Source

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

(but neither has anyone else on the site)...
Yes, you're excused, we all are.

_{I feel the American worker has been sacrificed to the capitalist idols in the ancient Mayan fashion. - Sue Lamb, NYT reader}

...and say what burdens it is that they are willing to bear rather than forcing folks to read minds, 'cause right now all of the oxygen's being sucked out of the debate by folks who are shouting about what they're against. By default the rhetoric seems to be all in or all out - either we throw some unbounded "more" at the issue or we simply go home (frequently with some remote kinetics to "look after" our interests). Me, I think we want to deserve to be excused from those early morning eyes in the mirror (or the looking into the computer screen at 4:08 a.m. equivalent) we need to ask some real hard questions about what it is that we can spare and should do in between the extremes, some questions that put some other group of folks in the forefront.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

I only rephrased what Dave had said ... "Much more comfortable to sit back home and paint good guy / bad guy pictures" I don't consider a response to thoughts expressed in a post "mind reading". Am I missing something?

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

...assertion as to what lies in folks' hearts must be based on mind reading. There's some truth to that notion, but frankly based on what folks are saying, in my view it ain't much of a stretch. If there are other factors that they are weighing, let them give them as much of an airing as the more self-interested ones.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

and his elaborate reconstruction of your rephrase

but he took it very well....:-)

_{I feel the American worker has been sacrificed to the capitalist idols in the ancient Mayan fashion. - Sue Lamb, NYT reader}

I'm very surprised to hear that. Whatever else they may be, the Taliban are religious zealots and this practice is strictly prohibited in religious texts. The UN actually references the Taliban edict in that regard.

...going to be eradicated, even by the Taliban? Yeah, sorry, I'm not so credulous. They're not two dimensional cardboard cutouts serving to reinforce preconception, though frequently treated as such.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

A general, acting without rule or plan, although at the head of an army superior in number to that of the enemy, finds himself almost always inferior on the field of battle." Napoleon I "Maxims of War" 1831.