Why We're Not Winning in Afghanistan

Afghanistan: The 'Good War' Gets Complicated
By David Wood
Afghanistan Journal (PoliticsDaily.com)
September 4, 2009


COMBAT OUTPOST ZORMAT, Afghanistan -- When a warning crackled over the radio of a suspected ambush ahead, Lt. Col. Rob Campbell swore softly and ordered his three armored trucks to a halt. What happened next illustrates why the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan is failing, why commanders here are asking for more manpower- and why they are pleading for more time.

Leaping out with his M-4 carbine, Campbell, a tall cavalry officer with sandy hair and freckles, strode through the empty, sun-baked fields flanking the road while his men fanned out, checking the ground for IEDs, sweeping the fields for snipers. The Afghan police assigned to patrol this stretch of road? Nowhere in sight.

"I can't be doing this all day," Campbell grumbled as he paused to examine a distant building through his rifle scope. Campbell is a senior officer. He commands a U.S. Army cavalry squadron of roughly 1,000 soldiers. Handling a suspected ambush is a job for a junior soldier with two or three years experience.

Carefully, they approached a tumbledown building beneath a dusty grove of wilted trees. Three disheveled young Afghans emerged, blinking in the sunlight: Afghan National Police. There was little sign of the U.S. training and equipment they'd received.

The ambush report was a false alarm, but for Campbell, it was a teachable moment.

"Who's in charge here? Where are your boots and helmets and uniforms?"Campbell demanded. "You have to look professional, then people will respect you and the Taliban will not attack!"

The young police managed to look both sheepish and skeptical. Through a translator, they complained that an overnight rain had left a foot of water in their sleeping quarters. When the Taliban mortars them at night, they have no mortar to shoot back.

"You have to go out and patrol," Campbell lectured them as they stood sullenly. "The Taliban will run away. That's how you stop them from attacking. You don't need a mortar." He climbed back in his multi-ton, air-conditioned armored truck. The police did not wave goodbye.

The plain fact in Afghanistan today is there are too few U.S. troops, and too few reliable Afghan security forces, to protect the population from the Taliban and other insurgents. But, in this complex war, simply pouring more American combat power into Afghanistan isn't enough, commanders here say.

"We need the support of the population; the insurgents only need to control the population -and they do that by making them scared to act." Col. Michael Howard told me. Hunting down and killing enemy insurgents is necessary, he and others argue, but it's not enough. Winning means enabling Afghans to resist the Taliban on their own- militarily, politically, socially and economically.

Howard is an intense, sinewy war-fighter who commands the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division, which is spread across three provinces (Paktika, Paktiya and Khowst) of eastern Afghanistan. This is his fourth deployment in Afghanistan, and he's seen enough to know that firepower alone is insufficient to win. This time, he wields an impressive array of combat troops, plus military and civilian experts working on economic and agricultural development, mentoring local government officials, and training and advising Afghan army and police. In his secret daily battle-update briefing, officials from the State Department, Agriculture Department, USAID and other civilian agencies sit at his side. "And they're in charge of things and make decisions and produce results" Howard stressed.

But for U.S. soldiers and Marines trained to seize and hold a hilltop or other objective, this is a complicated, ambiguous and seemingly endless campaign. Their biggest fear is than an impatient American public or Congress will reach the same conclusion, and not understanding the complexity and long-term nature of this war, will pull the plug on what looks like a losing quagmire.

"We are winning here, but the requirement to win faster is real because at some point, people will lose faith," said Howard, referring both to Afghans and the American public. "The war is really over-simplified to the American public, and that's a function of how it's reported," Howard scolded me.

But another officer, an artillery officer, struggling here with small-town tribal and political dynamics, confessed: "Even my family doesn't understand what we're trying to do here."

Small wonder, for the requirements of this war turn conventional military thinking on its head. The very presence of American troops in body armor, helmets and ballistic sunglasses can be intimidating, Afghans say. And American combat power and tactics, no matter how judiciously applied, often alienate local people. An insurgent killed by U.S. forces is likely to have a local family committed to revenge, no matter how they view the war. Kill an insurgent, create four new ones, as the saying here goes.

"I could do nothing but kill the enemy all day long, while public support goes down to nothing," said Campbell. His men are excruciatingly careful about wielding their power. In seven months, they haven't kicked down a door- formerly a common practice by troops conducting house searches.

But Campbell also told me of an operation one night when overhead surveillance showed what looked like a team of insurgents planting IEDs beside a road. He and his staff watched until they were certain, and then called in a strike -on local farmers engaged in midnight planting.

"It was horrible, something I'll have to live with," Campbell said with anguish on his angular face. He took a goat and compensation payment to the family of the dead farmer, and apologized. "They forgave us, so we didn't create any new insurgents," he assured me.

Still, deadly errors like that have set back the war effort during the seven years that American forces have been operating here in east-central Afghanistan, a region of broad plains and towering mountains. In March 2002, two battalions of infantry, from the 10th Mountain and 101st Airborne Divisions, mounted an assault into the mountains above what is now Combat Outpost Zormat. The plan was to surround and kill fleeing remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Instead, the insurgents escaped into the jagged peaks and narrow defiles of the Shah-i-Khot Valley.

Having covered that operation first-hand, I was curious to see how seven years of U.S. military operations here, and costly training and equipping of the Afghan army and police -- $5.6 billion in Afghanistan this year alone -- had improved security.

Sadly, things have gotten worse.

In Gardez, the nearest city, a young Afghan told me the insurgents still hold the Shah-i-Khot, and U.S. commanders said they avoid that area, content for the moment to leave insurgents to themselves up in that relatively unpopulated area."We're focused on the population centers, which is not ideal," said Capt. Brian Johnson, the 27-year-old who commands the modest Zormat combat outpost. Insurgents travel through the area in groups of 10 or 20, he said, but a neighboring combat outpost that could intercept them is not manned "because of a lack of [U.S.] troops."
In the more populated valleys below, Johnson's men run joint patrols and targeted attacks with the Afghan army unit based next door. "There's more good news than bad news here,'' he insisted. A year ago, a trip up the road to another combat outpost required the brigade commander's permission and attack helicopters hovering overhead. "This morning, we went back and forth twice with no permission or escort needed," he said.

Still, U.S. and Afghan forces have been unable to effectively protect the civilian population across the region. Insurgents have set a record number of IEDs, about 45 percent more than a year ago. About half of those are detected or avoided before they detonate -- but Afghan civilian casualties have still risen sharply. Here in Paktiya Province, the number of civilians killed, mostly by insurgent IEDs, is up 29 percent from last year, while across the broader region of eastern Afghanistan the number of civilians killed and wounded rose about 45 percent.

Col. Howard, the brigade commander, told me the rising violence is a deep concern that has led him to raise the issue of getting additional U.S. troops, although he wouldn't say how many he needs.

"The violence has to come down to a level where it doesn't affect the daily lives of the people, to a point where people aren't afraid to take an active part in their government -- and right now we're not at that level,'' he said. In particular, he is struggling with IEDs and official corruption, the two scourges that Afghans complain about the most. Corruption, Howard said, "is a cancer without a cure in Afghanistan. If we don't come up with a cure, it will cause us to fail."

The IED problem is manageable, with more resources, he suggested. Jalaluddin Haqqani and his sons, who run a violently dangerous Taliban network in this region, have poured tens of thousands of dollars into attacking the civilian population. "Those IEDs cost a ton of money, those suicide vests, the suicide truck bombs, cost thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars' worth of explosives."

"If your enemy ups his resourcing by 10 percent and you don't -- and you're not already winning by 10 percent in the first place, you're gonna have a setback," Howard said, explaining his current situation. The result is an increasingly intimidated population unwilling to vote, for example, or even risk routine travel.

Doctors at the Afghan civilian hospital in Khowst used to regularly make the short drive to visit the U.S. military hospital at Forward Operating Base Salerno, Howard's sprawling headquarters. No longer.

"It's very dangerous to be known to be working with the Americans," said Lt. Col. Patricia Ten Haaf, the hospital commander. "Two years ago there was a lot of back-and-forth, but now I wouldn't send my only eye surgeon there, and their doctors won't come here for internships. And I regret that."

A middle-aged Afghan doctor also lamented the deterioration of security. "In 2002 to 2006, the security situation was better. It was easy for an American doctor to come to Khowst hospital. Walking around the city was no problem. Now..." he crinkled his eyes in an apologetic smile. "Not possible." He asked not to be identified by name.

U.S. agricultural experts hired four Afghans from Khowst to be agricultural advisers. Their families received threatening "night letters" from the Taliban, and two of the four advisers quit. With the safety of the Afghan people eroding, Howard acknowledged that "we have to have an increase in resources -- certainly an increase in ground troops."

U.S., Allied and Afghan forces are winning every fight with insurgents. "But are we winning fast enough, are we bringing the violence down fast enough? I don't think we are," he acknowledged.

That concern is widespread among American military officers here. "You can't be here and not want to help the Afghan people, and I do think Afghanistan could again become a breeding ground for international terrorism,'' said Col. Cindra Chastain, deputy commander of the Indiana National Guard's agricultural development team in Khowst Province.

"Is the public willing to have us stay long enough to do what we need to do? I don't think so,'' she told me. "But if not, everything we're doing here will be wasted."

Afghan Election Antics or Comedy Central??

U.S. Walks Fine Line In Afghan Vote

By Anand Gopal and Matthew Rosenberg
Wall Street Journal
August 31, 2009

The U.S. and its allies are walking a thin line by trying to monitor the count in Afghanistan's presidential vote without influencing the outcome, as results from the election trickle into public view.

Rampant allegations of electoral fraud, combative statements from candidates, and po! pular speculation about the U.S.'s role as kingmaker have made the balancing act more difficult.

According to the latest results, released Saturday, President Hamid Karzai's lead has widened, with votes from a third of the polling stations counted. At stake in the vote is not just the credibility of the new Afghan government, but also that of the U.S. and its allies, who have backed the democratic experiment with troops on the ground, say Western diplomats.

"If Afghans don't believe in these elections, then the international community will have failed here," said a European diplomat in Kabul.

Meetings between Western officials and Afghan presidential candidates have fed talk of efforts to shape a runoff between the two lead candidates, President Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah. In this context, an Aug. 21 meeting between Mr. Karzai and U.S. regional envoy Richard Holbrooke has also assumed importance, if only to highlight the prominent American role in the el! ection.

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul has said its only preference i s for a fair election. "We do not support or oppose any particular candidate, and whether there is a runoff is an issue for the Afghan electoral bodies to determine," the embassy said.

Saturday's results show Mr. Karzai has 46.2%, up three percentage points from earlier in the week and well ahead of the 31.4% obtained by Dr. Abdullah, a former foreign minister and the lead challenger -- but still short of the absolute majority needed to avoid a runoff.

The two million votes already counted represent one-third of Afghanistan's polling stations. The electoral commission said it will provide the next update Monday.

Fraud allegations have marred the election. Afghan and international observers say supporters of both candidates stuffed ballot boxes and intimidated voters. Critics of Mr. Karzai say his camp engaged in more widespread fraud, if only because there were fewer monitors in parts of the country where his support is strongest, and the Taliban insurgency! is at its most potent. The Karzai campaign denies engaging in any fraud.

The independent Electoral Complaints Commission had received more than 2,000 allegations of misconduct through Saturday. Nearly 700 were considered serious enough to affect the outcome, the commission said.

Dr. Abdullah has repeatedly said he will dispute the results only through legal means. At the same time, he has said Mr. Karzai can win only through "big fraud," and has presented photos and videos of alleged ballot-stuffing in favor of Mr. Karzai.

Over the weekend, Dr. Abdullah offered a bleak outlook for the country if people don't accept the election results. "If the democratic process does not survive, then Afghanistan doesn't survive," he told hundreds of supporters at a rally north of Kabul Friday.

Such talk, along with private suggestions from some in Dr. Abdullah's camp that a Karzai win could be met with violent protests, has prompted U.S. and European officials to ! press the doctor to rein in his people. Dr. Abdullah's comments are "s omething that certainly worries all of us. It's not at all helpful at this moment," said a U.S. diplomat in Kabul.

As the vote count becomes more contentious, the U.S. and its allies are finding it harder to play a hands-off role. Over the weekend, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown called Dr. Abdullah to discuss the elections, according to Abdullah campaign spokesman Fazel Sangcharaki.

"The British were very concerned about the possibility of violence," said Mr. Sangcharaki. "But they were careful not to suggest anything to us except for asking us to respect the legal process."

The U.K. Embassy in Kabul didn't respond to requests to comment.

A meeting the day after the Aug. 20 vote between Mr. Karzai and Mr. Holbrooke, who was accompanied by U.S. Ambassador Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry and another senior American official, illustrated the delicacy of the U.S. role. U.S. and Afghan officials with knowledge of the meeting described it as tense but not especi! ally heated. The Americans raised concerns about electoral fraud. They avoided pointing fingers at the president, but urged Mr. Karzai's government to address endemic corruption, if he were indeed re-elected, according to people with knowledge of the meeting. Mr. Karzai and Mr. Holbrooke met again Sunday to discuss many of the same issues, these officials said.

But the exchange quickly became part of Afghanistan's political folklore, spun by some into a shouting match in which Mr. Karzai stormed out of the room -- a scenario both U.S. and Afghan officials deny. Supporters of Mr. Karzai painted it as a U.S. attempt to force the rightful winner into a runoff. Opponents sought to portray it as another sign that the president, who came to power with the backing of the Bush administration, has lost Washington's backing and could no longer effectively govern.

Finally - Marines Do Right by Chessani

Marine Escapes Charges In 24 Killings In Iraq

Los Angeles Times
August 29, 2009

CAMP PENDLETON--The Marine Corps has decided not to seek to reinstate criminal charges against a former battalion commander for a 2005 incident in which his troops killed 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq.

Instead, the Marine Corps will convene a Board of Inquiry to hear testimony and recommend whether Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani should be demoted to major for purposes of retirement.

Even if such a recommendation is made and then accepted by the Secretary of the Navy, Chessani's retirement pay would still be based on being a lieutenant colonel.

The Marine Corps had sought to try Chessani for dereliction of duty for not ordering a war-crimes investigation when his Marines killed the 24, including three women and seven children. Chessani, who was not present during the killings, reported to his superiors that the deaths, while tragic, were the result of fighting between Marines and insurgents.

A court-martial judge threw out the charges after ruling that it was improper for a Marine lawyer who investigated the Haditha shootings to sit in on meetings with the general who decided to bring the charges.

--Tony Perry

CMC: In Iraq, but ready for Afghanistan!

Top Marine Checks Troops In Two Wars
By Lara Jakes, Associated Press

CAMP RAMADI, Iraq -- The top U.S. Marine is checking on troops in one war zone as he gets ready to send more to the next.

Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, visited Iraq this week on his way to Afghanistan, where the United States is considering adding more troops. Many of the fresh-faced Marines who met Conway are serving their first combat mission - and already are looking forward to the next battle.

They are part of a force that, between the years in Iraq and Afghanistan, could be fighting wars for a generation.

At a hot and dusty base outside Ramadi, the capital of Iraq's Anbar province, Conway made clear he does not yet know whether Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, will add to the 68,000 American troops already scheduled to be there by the end of the year. But Conway told the Marines he wants them to be ready.

"I'll be surprised if we don't get asked for more," Conway said. He predicted "more combat support in there."

McChrystal is preparing a review of his war - and his needs for fighting it. He is expected to deliver that review to the Pentagon by early September. Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week said the review will not address troop levels, but military officials privately believe McChrystal ultimately will ask for as many as 20,000 additional soldiers.

U.S. troops first invaded Afghanistan in 2001 after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and Iraq two years later. Although the United States is committed to pulling its combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2011, military officials and experts believe the battle in Afghanistan easily could last for up to a decade longer.

That has required the Pentagon to rethink how to prepare its forces. The Army is recruiting 22,000 new soldiers and extending time at home for troops returning from battle. The Marines are making physical fitness more rigorous for those headed into combat.

Marines being Marines - a force that prides itself on running from one fight to the next - appear eager to head from Iraq to Afghanistan. An estimated 13,200 Marines remain in Iraq, and the vast majority of them will be gone by Thanksgiving. About 11,400 Marines are currently in Afghanistan.

"We're an expeditionary force; we're very offensive-minded, and it would be a better use of our time to be in Afghanistan," said Capt. John Roma, commander of a Marine company that deployed to Iraq just two weeks ago. It's his second tour of duty in Iraq; he has also fought in Afghanistan.

"But we still have a job to do here, and we're doing it to the best of our ability."

All troops will receive at least as much time at home between deployments as they spent in combat, meaning those currently in Iraq will not go to Afghanistan immediately.

Whether the U.S. should send more troops to Afghanistan is part of a simmering debate in Washington over how much money, and ultimately, time should be spent on the war. A recent policy paper by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, warned against shortchanging the war in Afghanistan.

"Adequate resources win in Iraq, inadequate resources lose in Afghanistan: Late in one case, still waiting in the other," the CSIS paper concluded.

Under a security agreement with the Iraqi government, U.S. troops no longer operate in Iraqi cities without permission or escort by local Iraqi forces. In Anbar, that means Marines have scaled back their missions to the point of being bored, even though violence between Iraqis continues.

A pair of deadly bombs this week in Baghdad killed nearly 100 people and wounded hundreds more. In July 2007, 203 coalition forces were killed by improvised explosive devices, military figures show. By comparison, IED blasts killed nine troops last month.

But security remains fragile, and some local Iraqi officials are evasive about whether they want Americans to help protect them from insurgents and other threats even as the troops prepare to move on.

Saeed Hamadan, mayor-elect of Hit, in Anbar, said Baghdad gets the most attention but his city faces the same threats as the rest of Iraq. "We see explosions every day," Hamadan said in his office last week.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Conway said that in Afghanistan up to 700 troops should be added or, at the least, retasked to focus on IED attacks. He estimates such attacks have caused 80 percent of Marine deaths since May, when the U.S. launched a major offensive against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan.

He would not discuss how many troops ultimately could be added to the fight, except to say that he does not want it to go beyond 18,000 more Marines, or he won't be able to protect the length of Marines' time at home between war zones.

"The most important thing that's happening is right here in Iraq," Conway said during a question-and-answer session with troops at Camp Taqqadum air base, 35 miles west of Baghdad. "The most difficult thing that's happening for our Corps today is in Afghanistan. And I think we're going to be there for a while, and if you all want to go to Afghanistan - that's been my experience from talking to most Marines - then you may well get that chance."

Gen Jones: Our Goals in Aghanistan

We Have Clarity In Our Goals
Administration takes fight to the extremists, denies them havens.By Gen James Jones, USMC, Ret.
White House National Security Adviser
USA Today
August 20, 2009

Today's election serves as another reminder that the future of Afghanistan lies in the hands of Afghans, and that significant challenges remain. President Obama's recently announced strategy is focused on protecting America's and our allies' security interests, while advancing a successful transition to Afghans' responsibility for their country.

First, there should be no doubt about the clear U.S. goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. With the collaboration of both countries, al-Qaeda and the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 are feeling relentless pressure. But should the Taliban be successful in its goal to take over Afghanistan again, there is no question that we and our allies would again be unacceptably threatened. That is why the president is focused on taking a comprehensive fight to the terrorists, and denying them the safe havens they seek. Al-Qaeda and its allies will not be successful if recent trends in executing our strategy continue.

To achieve our goals, the president has put in place a comprehensive strategy supported by the international community. We have increased troop strength in Afghanistan, while increasing support to the Pakistani government in going after al-Qaeda and the Taliban along the border. In just a few months, we have put the Taliban on the defensive in places where it used to act with impunity, and many of its top commanders are now forced to wonder whether each day will be their last. Our increased military capacity has joined with NATO allies in accelerating the training of the Afghan army and police, so that they can take over responsibility for security at an accelerated pace.

We and our allies have also stepped up civilian support. By advancing the economy, encouraging individual opportunity and strengthening governance from the smallest village to Kabul, we isolate extremists, put a dent in a drug trade that funds insurgents and help establish security. To succeed, these pillars — security, the economy and governance — must advance in unison. We are joined in this effort by 47 countries and institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, the European Union and the World Bank. This will sustain a shared, international commitment to Afghanistan's future.

I served in command of NATO's efforts in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006, and have studied this war as a private citizen. This is the first time in seven years that we have had clarity in our goals, and a strategy and resources necessary to get the job done. We won't solve every problem; we are pursuing the possible, not the perfect. But this is not simply an "American war" — it is an international effort to rid the region of the ravages of extremism to protect ourselves and our allies, while giving the Afghan people the opportunity to control their future.

The president has been clear that this won't be easy, but it is necessary. It will take great sacrifice — especially by our men and women in uniform, our dedicated civilians who work alongside them at great risk, and their families who suffer long separations. But we are pointed in the right direction, we are protecting our people, and we are doing what is necessary to achieve our goals and bring our troops home as soon as possible.

The Few, The Proud...The Parents

The Few, The Proud...The Parents
At first, we resisted our son's decision to join the Marines. We're learning to see things differently.

By Pat Saperstein

After we celebrated the Fourth of July with a family barbecue, my 18-year-old son, Sam, shipped out for Marine Corps boot camp in San Diego. The idea of having a son in the military still seems strange, but I'm starting to get used to it.

When Sam first announced his decision, it seemed mystifying that my not-terribly-athletic, bookish son would decide that what he wanted most of all was to be a Marine.

My friends were shocked and offered plenty of advice -- he should see a psychologist; he should consider the Navy; did I realize how underhanded the recruiters could be?

But Sam never had an easy time at school, and he wasn't interested in college, at least straight out of high school. He wanted to be a Marine, period. Since he was a toddler, he's been fiercely stubborn, a child who did exactly what he wanted without much interest in the approval of teachers or parents.

For years, he read up on World War II and the Vietnam War and devoured war novels and fighter plane encyclopedias, though he had little use for history classes at school. It didn't occur to me what his hobby might lead to. We didn't know a single person who served in any branch of the military, other than the grandfathers who fought in World War II.

In some circles, Sam's decision might have seemed practical, even heroic. But in our liberal, antiwar sphere, his desire to enlist was met with shock -- even hostility. I wasn't really surprised at our friends' reactions -- after all, Sam's dad and I were initially opposed. We talked to him over and over about the risks he would face, the unyielding obedience he would need to summon. We spent the last year trying to inject some reality into his somewhat idealized vision of the military, but true to form, his mind would not be changed.

As the parent of a high-schooler, I had to answer the same question at every social event or Trader Joe's encounter: "What is your son doing about college?" That was a hard question, because though I didn't agree with him, it was still his choice, one he felt strongly about.

Often the reaction was pity or even anger. A friend with anarchist leanings pleaded with me to get him counseling. One mother stated firmly that she felt her job as a parent was to raise her daughter so that there would be no chance she would ever join the military. A few people warned that even though he had selected a noncombat job category, the Marines might still require him to face combat. Was that supposed to make me feel better? Because it didn't.

Once I got over my initial reticence and started talking to other parents about his choice, I found out that Sam wasn't the only kid we knew who was interested in the military. One boy had nearly joined up but was derailed when he got a mononucleosis-like illness. A colleague's nephew -- a British citizen -- was accepted into the Marines. Another friend's son decided to become an Army medic even though he was nearly finished with college.

My son passed his high school equivalency exam last summer and signed his enlistment papers in the fall, with the understanding that he would be inducted after completing a year of community college. The decision seemed to agree with him. After years of never really getting with the program, years of endless struggles over toothbrushing and homework, he changed in the months after enlisting.

The bedroom that had been the typical teen vortex of dirty plates glued to gaming magazines was suddenly organized and vacuumed. For the first time ever, homework was getting done and chores accomplished, at least some of the time. Despite weekly karate classes, he had started the year with the typical gamer's pudge. Now he woke early on Saturdays for physical training with the recruiter. He watched his diet, joined the Y and got the highest score in his bodybuilding class.

It seemed like he was ready for basic training, but we were still worried about what would come after.

Sam selected aircraft information systems as his job (which, thankfully, involves an entire year of training in mellow Athens, Ga.), and he says if the Marines need him to go into combat, he'll do what is asked of him. Of course I'm worried about Afghanistan, tanks, injuries, psychological scars ... but worrying hardly seems productive.

So he'll be an unconventional Marine -- full of historical facts but short on street smarts, a noncombatant in a branch known for its combat prowess, a kid from a liberal family who's going to really miss Zankou chicken and the taco trucks when he gets to the Marine mess hall.

It wasn't until I started chatting online with a childhood friend just a week before Sam's ship date that I started to make peace with my son's decision to face war. My friend's 20-year-old son recently decided to emigrate to Israel, where he will be required to serve in the Israeli army. "College is a joke if you're not into it," my friend wrote. "Just an expensive waystation for bored kids."

"It's the first lesson in learning to release them," he typed. "To let them do what they feel passionate about."

And then: "Entering the military and serving your country is a lost art among us privileged Angelenos."

I closed the little message box on the computer feeling a little less guilty that I should have done more to stop Sam, and maybe even a little proud of my son for being willing to try something that is completely foreign to us privileged Angelenos.

===============
Pat Saperstein is a senior editor at Variety and editor of the blog EatingLA.com.

Fingers, the Taliban, and Sex

Taliban Threat To Chop Off Fingers Of Afghan Voters

By Ben Farmer
London Daily Telegraph
August 15, 2009

TALIBAN commanders have threatened to chop off the fingers of anyone caught voting in next week?s presidential elections. Insurgents in southern Afghanistan said fingers found bearing the indelible ink used to mark voters would be removed.

“We will know those who cast a vote from the ink, and his finger will be cut off,” a commander warned villagers in the south of the country.

The Taliban ruling council, led by Mullah Omar, has called on Afghans to boycott the election, described them as an American sham and told its fighters to block roads to polling stations.

President Hamid Karzai?s heartland is in the rural Pashtun south, where kinsmen could deliver crucial votes for his re-election campaign. But the risk of violent retribution from the Taliban and the prospect of re-electing a president who has attracted intense criticism for his policies in the final weeks of campaigning could dissuade many from turning out.

Mr Karzai faces a second round run-off because he is now unlikely to win by the 50 per cent of votes required.

As the presidential campaign entered its final week yesterday, human rights advocates accused Mr Karzai of betraying Afghanistan's women for votes after it was disclosed that he had ratified a controversial law said to condone marital rape.

The president's recent decision to free five convicted drug traffickers, including the nephew of his campaign manager, was also questioned by a minister in charge of hunting down Afghan opium lords.

Mr Karzai addressed thousands of supporters in the north-east city of Herat as it emerged that controversial legislation governing family life for the country?s Shia minority had been rushed through to become law.

The president was forced to reform the original draft in the face of international outcry earlier this year when it was found to rule that a woman had to satisfy her husband's sexual desires at least every fourth night.

But the amended version, which has quietly come into force after being published in the country?s official gazette, still maintains that a husband can stop feeding his wife if she does not submit to him.

Brad Adams, Asia director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said: “Karzai has made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in return for the support of fundamentalists.”

The law also grants custody of children only to fathers and grandfathers.

Brits in Afghanistan

British Troops Have Poor Hygiene And Too Many Injuries, US Commander Says

By Michael Evans, Defence Editor
London Times
August 13, 2009

A US commander has criticised British troops in Helmand province, attacking everything from their gathering of intelligence to their personal hygiene.

The unnamed Marine commander claimed that British Forces spent insufficient time living among the Afghan people, were not posted for long enough, had too many bases and suffered too many non-battle injuries.

The confidential briefing, given in the spring, according to the New Statesman, also suggested that the British military “are cautious about the enemy and overestimate their strength”. The commander was quoted as saying: “Your standards of personal hygiene and field discipline aren?t good enough.”

Many soldiers in Helmand serve in primitive forward bases where facilities can be crude. Showers often consist of a plastic bag of water with a tap, hung from a frame. Soldiers returning from patrols in scorching heat have to wait their turn to get a shower.

The Ministry of Defence said that troops were aware that good personal “field hygiene” was important. It was “nonsense” that British hygiene was worse than American standards.

An army spokesman said: “We do not recognise this criticism of our highly professional troops. In the harsh battlefield conditions of Afghanistan every soldier knows that good field hygiene keeps them fighting fit.

“Recent US and UK operations in Helmand show that we work well together and US commanders rate the British Army very highly.”

The MoD also dismissed claims that British soldiers were suffering excessive non-battle injuries. “We have the same number of injuries whether the troops are serving in Afghanistan or back at home,” one official said.

Replying to the criticism that the tour lengths were too short, General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the Army, said: “I?m completely convinced that at the level of intensity of fighting in Afghanistan at the moment, six months is as long as I want to commit our people to. It is very intense, it is very difficult.”

More Troops to Afghanistan?

Optimistic Words On Afghanistan

The State Dept was upbeat. More cautious were defense officials. Top brass met Sunday.

By Anne Gearan, Associated Press
August 4, 2009

WASHINGTON -- A day after President Obama's senior defense advisers huddled in Europe to discuss the future of the war in Afghanistan, the State Department yesterday talked optimistically about the conflict that top generals have called a stalemate.

"We believe that this is a struggle that we are now, you know...we have turned a tide," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. "We're seeing success in Afghanistan, difficult as it is."

Hours later, five rockets slammed into the Afghan capital, Kabul, one of them near the U.S. Embassy, injuring at least one child, police said. "There's no indication these rockets targeted the U.S. Embassy," an embassy spokeswoman said. She requested anonymity because she was not authorized to release the information.

Crowley's remark came in response to a question about al-Qaeda, the terror network whose shelter in Afghanistan prompted the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Crowley said later he was "not trying to minimize the complexity" of eventual success in Afghanistan.

Defense and military officials have been circumspect about the situation in Afghanistan in recent months, with some of them characterizing the conflict as stalemated.

Even after adding 21,000 troops to expand its war against Taliban insurgents, top defense and military officials are hashing over whether to ask the White House for even more forces in Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, flew Saturday to a U.S. air base in Chievres, Belgium, and met Sunday with several advisers including Gen. David Petraeus, who has overall responsibility for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gates and Mullen were given an interim report on security in Afghanistan. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is putting together an assessment of the war that may include a request for additional U.S. forces and resources.

The trip was organized in secret, and Gates traveled without his usual throng of staff and reporters.

McChrystal's study is expected to recommend a significant expansion of the Afghan armed forces and a reorganization of U.S. and NATO operations. Any request to expand U.S. forces would be on top of the 21,000 increase Obama approved earlier this year.

That brings the total to 68,000 scheduled to be in the country by the end of 2009 - about double the figure at the same time last year.

With 74 foreign troops killed - including 43 Americans - July was the deadliest month for international forces since the start of the war in 2001.

The civilian death toll also climbed yesterday as a Taliban bomb tore through a crowded street in western Afghanistan's main city, Herat, killing 11 people, hurting dozens, and critically wounding the district police chief it targeted, officials said.

UK: In Afghanistan to topple Al-Qaeda

We're In Afghanistan To Topple Al-Qaeda, Says Armed Forces Minister

By Michael Evans, Richard Beeston and Catherine Philp
London Times
August 4, 2009

British troops are fighting in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from using it as a base to plot terror strikes against Britain, a defence minister said yesterday.

Responding to criticism that the Government had failed to explain its strategy in the Afghan campaign, Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, said British troops were battling against an insurgency that, if it were to succeed, “would provide free rein to the terrorist capacity that inspired, planned and provided support for attacks like those of 9/11, of 7/7, and many more besides”.

Mr Rammell insisted that although al-Qaeda?s main base was now in Pakistan, the presence of British and American troops and forces from 40 other countries in Afghanistan was essential to prevent terrorists surging back into the country. He said that the terrorist threat to Britain would be “significantly greater” if the Taleban were allowed to regain control of Afghanistan, bringing al-Qaeda with it.

“We don?t want to be in Afghanistan for ever, that?s why our strategy is to provide greater security by building up the Afghan National Army, which is currently 90,000 and is rising to 140,000,” he said. Mr Rammell was the latest government minister to try to explain to the public why Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan.

His views were echoed by Nato?s new chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish Prime Minister, who called on European countries to match the US commitment and prevent Afghanistan from becoming “a Grand Central Station of international terrorism”.

Mr Rasmussen said that Nato?s survival could depend on more European troops to dispel the perception that Afghanistan was a US operation. “If the Americans are to continue to regard Nato as relevant, so Europe has to do its part,” he said. General Stanley McChrystal, Nato?s top commander in Afghanistan, is preparing to demand thousands more US troops to train and support a vast parallel surge of Afghan troops, placing him on a collision course with President Obama.

General McChrystal, who will submit a review to the White House and Nato headquarters next week, was appointed by Mr Obama in the belief that he would not demand more troops. His demands, though, are backed by Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, who said that without a doubling of Afghan troops, from 150,000 to 300,000, the conflict could be lost.

Middle Eastern counter-terrorist sources said that while Nato was focusing its military effort on Afghanistan, al-Qaeda had been allowed to rebuild itself after the deal signed by Pakistan in 2006 with elders in the tribal regions, which lifted the threat of attack against al-Qaeda. One source told The Times that “2007 was the best year for al-Qaeda since 2001, because many hundreds of foreign volunteers came to fight for them”.

Only the campaign by the Americans, using unmanned Predator spy drones armed with Hellfire missiles and precision-guided bombs, had succeeded in making inroads into the al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. In 2008 and so far this year, 20 commanders had been killed, the sources said.

Mr Rammell said that the Government?s strategy embraced Afghanistan and Pakistan. “For Britain to be secure, Afghanistan needs to be secure, Pakistan needs to be secure,” he said, speaking at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “Of the people arrested in connection with terrorist offences in Europe over the past few years, a significant proportion have been trying to engage in insurgencies in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Some people, he said, believed that the West “brought this on ourselves, that if we hadn?t gone into Afghanistan and Iraq, all would have been well”. He said that George W. Bush, the former US President, could not be blamed for al-Qaeda?s atrocities. “This strand of thinking ignores the reality that the planning of 9/11 took place while Bill Clinton was in the White House and the prospects for peace in the Middle East were closer than they had been for a generation,” he said.

It is understood that a Conservative administration would consider appointing a Minister for Afghanistan who would attend Cabinet meetings when Afghanistan is being discussed and complement the Defence and Foreign Secretaries.

William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: “The Prime Minister must make clear which minister has primary responsibility for our policy in Afghanistan and the Government should make quarterly reports to Parliament, covering Britain?s objectives, the progress made in achieving them and the resources required.”

The Afghan Elections - Amb Karl Eikenberry

In Afghanistan, A Time To Debate And Decide
By Karl W. Eikenberry
Washington Post
August 3, 2009

In the run-up to Afghanistan's presidential and provincial council elections on Aug. 20, Afghan and international political elites and journalists will pass judgment on the past five years. But only the Afghan people can decide who will best lead their country for the next five.

Afghanistan's elections present an opportunity for the country's citizens to create a future of prosperity and peace for their children. Five years ago, with guid! ance from the international community, Afghanistan held its first elections and began the process of building a new state -- a complex and difficult effort following 25 years of invasion, civil war, oppression and foreign-inspired terrorism. This time, Afghan authorities bear the full responsibility for fulfilling their people's right to choose their leaders, with the international community assisting, not leading. But none of this will matter unless the voters have a real choice and know what each candidate stands for. There must be a serious debate among the candidates and by the Afghan people.

The issues at stake are numerous and weighty. How will the next president finish building a strong army and police force respected by the people and fully capable of providing security? Can the nation's wealth be used for investment and development in an accountable manner? How will young people be educated and trained to develop the human capital that Afghanistan needs to mo! ve forward? What policies will be adopted to encourage the return to A fghan society of those who renounce ties with international terrorism and the use of force while accepting the constitution of the nation? What are the candidates' ideas for governing Afghanistan; how, for example, should the provincial councils evolve to give a real voice to Afghans across the land? And how can the international community better partner with Afghanistan to achieve peace, justice and economic progress?

In March, President Obama announced a new U.S. strategy that includes a major commitment of American men and women -- civilian and military -- to Afghanistan, as well as important new financial contributions to help accelerate development. We will continue to work with the next Afghan administration to field capable and sufficient Afghan National Army and police units; to support effective government personnel systems; to help combat corruption; to provide financial assistance to key Afghan institutions; to promote agricultural development; to address de! tention issues; to support Afghan-led reconciliation efforts; and to fix contracting practices. All of these efforts must be underpinned by accountability on both sides. The international community looks forward to strengthening its partnership with whichever candidate emerges from the elections, based upon a renewed spirit of cooperation.

So it is not just the Afghan people who need to understand the candidates' platforms and plans. We members of the international community need to know these things, too. The United States is one nation among a great partnership of more than 40 NATO and non-NATO countries that have joined with the people and government of Afghanistan. We have lost our sons and daughters, just as Afghans have, and we have invested significant development assistance during difficult economic times. Our commitment is extraordinary and long term. We are prepared to forge ahead based on common interests and mutual obligations. We stand with absolute impar! tiality regarding who should be president of Afghanistan. But all of u s will benefit from clarity as to what policy goals we should expect from the next administration.

This is an exciting time to be in Afghanistan. Walking through the bazaars of Helmand, Wardak, Kunduz, Herat, Uruzgan, Khost and numerous other provinces where the Afghan people are defending against destabilizing forces, I have seen their hope and thirst for progress. Candidates -- some prominent, some relatively new to the national stage -- are for the most part embracing their responsibility to discuss the issues. Ongoing televised debates remind me that, though we may be separated by barriers of language and culture, the democratic process in Afghanistan is like our own: an intense competition of political ideas to the benefit of the common citizen.

On Aug. 20, Afghan men and women will travel great distances -- in some cases, unfortunately, under threat of attack -- to make their voices heard. In the final weeks of this election season, the Afghan people deserv! e to know the platforms and implementation plans of each candidate. And so do we. The stakes are high and the opportunity great for all of us. The Afghan people and international community must be positioned to move quickly in partnership immediately after the inauguration of Afghanistan's next president. We have no time to lose as we work together to deliver peace, justice, economic opportunity and regional understanding.

It is time for a serious debate.

The writer is the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. He has served five years in the country in civilian and military capacities, including as commander of international forces from 2005 to 2007.

USS Jason Dunham!

New warship named for lifesaving Marine
Corporal who covered live grenade with body honored at christening

The Associated Press
updated 8:48 p.m. ET, Sat., Aug 1, 2009

BATH, Maine - In a solemn ceremony punctuated by talk of courage, service and sacrifice, the mother of a Marine corporal on Saturday christened a warship honoring her son, who died after covering an exploding grenade to protect his comrades in Iraq.

After composing herself and taking a deep breath, Deb Dunham smashed a bottle of champagne over the bow of the 510-foot warship Jason Dunham, then held the bottle aloft to the cheers of hundreds.

She was joined by the Marines who served with her son, by her husband, Dan Dunham, and their daughter Katelyn Dunham.

Retired Gen. Michael Hagee, a former Marine commandant who was with the Dunhams when their son died at Bethesda Naval Hospital days after the explosion, said Jason gave the "gift of valor." Hagee said the warship will serve as a reminder that freedom "is paid for by the men and women who wear the cloth of this nation."

"They are willing to give up everything that is important: love, marriage, children, family, friends," Hagee said of the 22-year-old Marine. "I can tell you I've always stood in awe of that."

At the Bath Iron Works shipyard, a special place was reserved for those who served with Dunham in Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines. Dunham's company commander, Maj. Trent Gibson, Sgt. Bill Hampton and Cpl. Kelly Miller, who were present the day Dunham died, were among them. Hampton and Miller were next to Dunham when the grenade detonated. Their lives were saved by Dunham's actions. They suffered burns and shrapnel wounds but recovered.

Hagee said Dunham, from Scio, N.Y., seemed destined to be a Marine: He reminded the audience that Dunham's birthday was the same as that of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Dunham served as squad commander on his first tour in Iraq, and he chose to extend his enlistment so he could serve the entire tour with his Marines. He vowed to bring his squad home alive, and was true to his word. They all came back.

Dunham won the Medal of Honor for his actions April 14, 2004, as his squad sought to engage insurgents after a convoy was ambushed.

While the squad searched vehicles, the driver of a Toyota Land Cruiser jumped out and attacked Dunham. They fell to the ground, where the fight continued.

Dunham shouted: "No, no, no! Watch his hand!" as the attacker pulled out a grenade. Dunham covered the explosive with his body and his helmet as it went off. He died eight days later.

Before the ceremony, Dunham's mother said it was fitting that the ship that would bear her son's name is a guided-missile destroyer. "It's an honor Jason would really get a kick out of," she said.


Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

Marines in 'Stan - The Fight Today

Marines In Afghanistan Using Ancient Fortress As Base

CNN Sunday Morning, 7:00 AM

T.J. HOLMES: Now, U.S. Marines have been battling the Taliban for control of southern Afghanistan's rural area. One group of Marines is holding an ancient castle attacked over the years, with everything from arrows to air strikes.

BROOKE BALDWIN: We sent our own Ivan Watson there. He has this exclusive look at how a fledgling struggling local government is coming together behind the ancient mud walls.

I! VAN WATSON: There is a timeless quality to Afghanistan. Sometimes, you really feel like you're going back in time when you visit here and now more than ever. Because we're walking on the ramparts of a centuries-old Afghan fortress. A mud and brick fortress complete with what look like arrow loops of some sort.

And the remarkable thing about this structure is that the U.S. Marines, a modern fighting force, are using this as a military base. They are protecting themselves behind these walls from insurgents who have been operating out in the fields and the canals and gullies out there.

The insurgents have fired rocket-propelled grenades at this location. They fired small arms as well. And they've lobbed deadly mortars into this castle.

We had a loud night in the castle last night because the marines were hunting for a suspected insurgent mortar team out in the fields beyond the walls. And to help the patrols out there, they were firing illumination rounds fro! m mortar tubes, that was deafening.

Anyway, the work that's bein g done here is so important because there's an experiment underway. Within the walls of the castle are the beginnings of a fledgling district government, with representatives from the ministry of health and education, as well as Afghan National Police officers and Afghan National Army soldiers, and they are part of the ticket for an exit of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. It's got to grow up here, this local government, in an area that was, until just a few weeks ago, controlled by the Taliban.

And that makes the work that these men are doing right here in this guard tower so important. They are protecting this experiment in establishing an Afghan government from the insurgents in the fields just out there.

PFC. RICHARD REED, U.S. MARINE CORPS: The day before yesterday, we had a couple of mortar rounds hit right outside the post and also inside the castle.

WATSON: And have you had to retaliate? Have you actually seen any of the fighters?

REED: Yes. We h! ad a man suspected of being the fort observer for them right outside here, probably about 1,200 meters.

CPL. ADAM TRANTHAM, U.S. MARINE CORPS: My job here is to help the Delta Company with their indirect fire. So, I have a part in help to deter these mortars that they have been firing at us, sir. We came up here and spotted their forward observer. We returned fire. And, hopefully, we deterred them.

WATSON: Make no mistake. This is incredibly, difficult, dangerous work.

And the Marines who have been here with the Delta Company of the 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion have not had an easy time over the past two weeks. Three of their comrades have been killed in two separate incidents during what has been the bloodiest month yet of this eight-year war in Afghanistan. The U.S. has had record losses this month as have NATO forces. This is the season for fighting, summer in Afghanistan, and the summer is far from over.

Ivan Watson, CNN, Khan Neshi n in southern Afghanistan.

Where are the Afghans ??

Dearth Of Capable Afghan Forces Complicates U.S. Mission In South

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post
July 25, 2009

GARMSIR, Afghanistan -- "Six, you've got six," Marine 1st Lt. Justin Grieco told his military police training team, counting the handful of Afghan police officers present for a patrol in this volatile region of southern Afghanistan.

The men filed out! of the dusty compound gate into the baking afternoon sun. On the patrol, U.S. military police officers outnumbered the Afghans two to one -- a reflection of the severe shortfall in Afghan security forces working with Marines in Helmand province.

President Obama's strategy for Afghanistan is heavily dependent upon raising more capable local security forces, but the myriad challenges faced by mentors such as Grieco underscore just how limiting a factor that is -- especially in the Taliban heartland of southern Afghanistan.

The extent of the push by 4,500 Marines into Taliban strongholds of southern Helmand will be determined, to a degree, by whether there are enough qualified Afghan forces to partner with and eventually leave behind to protect Afghan civilians. Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson, commander of the Marine forces here, said urgent efforts are underway to dispatch additional Afghan forces to Helmand.

But here in Helmand's Garmsir district -- as i! n much of the south -- Afghan forces remain few in number, as well as short of training, equipment and basic supplies such as fuel and ammunition. Some Afghans quit because they are reluctant to work in the violent south; others are expelled because of drug use. The Afghan troops here, heavily dependent on Western forces, are hesitating to take on greater responsibilities -- and, in some cases, are simply refusing to do so.

The Afghan National Police officers mentored by Grieco's team, for example, are resisting a U.S. military effort to have them expand to checkpoints in villages outside the town center of Garmsir as the Marines push farther south, taking with them the Afghan Border Police officers, who currently man some of those stations.

"Without the Marines, we cannot secure the stations," said Mohammed Agha, deputy commander of the roughly 80 Garmsir police officers. "We can't go to other villages because of the mines, and some people have weapons hidden in their houses. We can't go out of Garmsir, or we will be killed."

The border police, too, have resisted taking up new positions. Col. Gula Agha Amiri, executive officer of the 7th Afghan Border Police, complained of his unit's lack of body armor and chronic shortages of ammunition and fuel. "If we have contact with the enemy, we can't fight for more than two hours," he said.

Both police forces have lost dozens of men to insurgent attacks in recent years, the Afghan officers said.

U.S. Army Capt. Michael Repasky, chief of the team that mentors the border police here, remains frustrated at the lack of logistical support. "I've been here five months and haven't been able to figure out why they aren't getting fuel," he said, explaining that the police receive fuel perhaps every two weeks and then run out.

That, in turn, makes the border police officers reluctant to move beyond their headquarters in the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah, he said. "If they move farther from Lash, it will be harder for them to get what they nee! d. They want a roof over their heads, hot meals, time to rest," Repask y said. "I can encourage them to start a new checkpoint. But the commander can say no, and there's nothing I can do about it."

The overall shortage of security forces in southern Afghanistan exacerbates such tensions. There are about 13,600 Afghan soldiers and 11,000 police officers in the south, and each force is short of 4,000 men for positions that have been authorized but not filled. U.S. military officers say Afghan forces should be doubled to provide adequate security in the south.

"The U.S. force is growing down here, but the Afghan force is not growing nearly as fast," said Col. Bill Hix, who until recently led the Afghan Regional Security Integration Command in Kandahar, another large southern province, overseeing the development of police and soldiers in southern Afghanistan. "We have people who are bleeding and dying, and we need to look hard at how we generate [Afghan] forces."

The shortages of capable Afghan forces means they usually assist wit! h searches and security on operations planned and led by Marines, the mentors said. "Right now, they're just happy with us telling them 'Go there, do this,' " said Stephen Woods, a civilian police adviser with the Marine mentoring team.

There are exceptions. Two police officers buying lunch in Garmsir this week observed a drug sale, shadowed the dealer, detained him and seized 30 bundles of heroin, Grieco said.

Gaining approval for increasing the size of the Afghan forces -- which requires international endorsement -- has been a maddening process, said Hix, comparing it to "negotiating a peace treaty."

Even after such approval, many hurdles remain, particularly in the south, he said.

"It's a challenge to get people down here," said Hix, adding that units that deploy to southern Afghanistan often suffer higher rates of unauthorized absences. "The guys think there is a monster down here." Drug use in the forces is another problem, according to U.S. and! Afghan officers. "We lose 5 to 10 percent of every class in the polic e force to opiate use," Hix said.

Training the police and army poses other challenges, he said. Police officers and soldiers -- the vast majority of them illiterate villagers -- require extensive training, but during a war only so many can be pulled away from their jobs at any one time.

Building training and other facilities for the forces and providing them with equipment remain slow because of red tape and contracting rules, he said. It takes 120 to 180 days to start work on a training facility and often more than a year to 18 months to field new equipment, such as the 1,000 Humvees on order for the Afghan army in the south. "We can't swing the money cannon quickly enough to adapt," Hix said.

Still, Hix said, the Afghan forces have made significant progress in the south. In the past year, the training capacity for regional police has doubled and the rate of those absent without leave has halved.

Despite the problems, Hix said that replacing foreign ! forces with homegrown ones is the only viable long-term solution, in part because the latter cost far less. "We should not be substituting U.S. troops for Afghans, which is what we are effectively doing now...in trying to secure and stabilize Afghanistan," he wrote in an e-mail.

U.S. and Afghan officers urged greater emphasis on professionalizing the Afghan police, which are at least as critical as the army in a counterinsurgency campaign but have received far fewer resources. Residents also have complained about corruption among police officers, the mentors say.

The police's law-enforcement role in Garmsir is limited because many of the officers are illiterate, Grieco said. "Paperwork, evidence, processing...they don't know how to do it," he said. "You can't get a policeman to take a statement if he can't read and write."

Increasing numbers of residents are coming to the police station to report problems, said Staff Sgt. David Dillon, one of Grieco's! team members. Still, as a patrol moved through the local bazaar, the police barely interacted with civilians, troubling their mentors.

Shopkeepers and residents eyed the patrol silently and did not respond to greetings in Pashto. An Afghan boy swore in English at one of the Marines, who responded: "Go home."

"They're still a little hostile towards us," Woods said. "They will throw rocks. They will give you that look. They don't trust us."

Maleki visits Tomb of Unknowns @ Arlington

Al-Maliki Honors U.S. Sacrifice In Iraq

PM's gesture a departure from tough talk at home

By Ken Dilanian and Aamer Madhani, USA Today
USA Today
July 24, 2009

ARLINGTON, Va. — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose disparaging comments about U.S. troops have drawn criticism from American officials recently, visited Arlington Cemetery on Thursday and laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns.Flanked by honor guards from each branch of the armed forces, al-Maliki stood respectfully at attention during a brief ceremony.

After a 19-gun salute, the U.S. Army Band played the national anthems for Iraq and the United States. A single bugler then played Taps.

Al-Maliki left without making public comment, as is common practice at such ceremonies.

The display of gratitude toward the more than 4,300 U.S. troops who have died in the Iraq war was a departure from al-Maliki's recent tone — and a potentially risky political move for him back in Iraq.

Prior to last month's deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq's cities, al-Maliki trumpeted the occasion as a "victory" for Iraq over the American "occupiers." He also compared the withdrawal to Iraq's 1920 revolt against British colonial rule. In a speech on June 30, which he dubbed "National Sovereignty Day," he failed to mention the U.S. military's role in helping bring down violence in Iraq.

Ambassador Christopher Hill, the U.S. envoy to Iraq, told USA TODAY last week that al-Maliki's comments have been "at times tough to take."

Al-Maliki, who met President Obama in Washington earlier this week and spoke with Pentagon officials Thursday, has been trying to distance himself from the U.S. presence in Iraq and burnish his image as a nationalist ahead of national elections in January.

Both U.S. officials and Iraqi political allies of al-Maliki in Baghdad said the prime minister's decision to visit Arlington was a genuine gesture.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said the visit was not the result of prompting by Americans. "Maliki requested the visit to Arlington Cemetery in order to pay tribute to the servicemembers who died in Iraq," Odierno said in a statement.

Ali al-Allaq, a member of Iraq's parliament and political ally of al-Maliki's, said that some of his comments have been blown out of proportion. He's said that al-Maliki has commended American troops over the years for their sacrifice and noted that the prime minister thanked the U.S. during his Wednesday news conference with President Obama.

"All Iraqi people appreciate all that the U.S. has done," Allaq told USA TODAY. "We thank the Americans for all they've done, and now it is time for them to play a different role."

Al-Maliki also understands that he still needs U.S. support, said Ghassan Atiyyah, the executive director for the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy, a London-based non-profit group. There are still about 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and their role is critical to training Iraqi troops and maintaining security as al-Maliki deals with unresolved political issues, hesaid.

"Maliki knows playing the anti-American card has proven in recent Iraqi history to be an effective strategy," Atiyyah said. "(But) without the Americans' involvement, he knows there could be chaos."

He cited several remaining threats to Iraq's security including potential meddling from neighboring Iran and tensions between Kurds and Arabs over disputed territory in northern Iraq.

At a separate event earlier Thursday, al-Maliki said there could be some flexibility to a security agreement signed in December that mandates the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. "If Iraqi forces need more training and support, we will re-examine the agreement at that time, based on our own national needs," he said.

The 2011 deadline was insisted upon by al-Maliki's government in negotiations with President Bush's administration last fall. Obama has said — and repeated again in al-Maliki's presence Wednesday — that the withdrawal date will not be modified.
Madhani reported from Baghdad.

Press Release from Camp Leatherneck

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 19, 2009
PRESS RELEASE 09-07
CAMP LEATHERNECK, Helmand Province, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan –

Afghan National Army soldiers and U.S. Marines from Regimental Combat Team 3, Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan, conducted a raid on a known insurgent stronghold July 18 in the town of Lakari, Garmsir District.

The raid force uncovered several weapons caches – including supplies used in making improvised explosive devices – and a stockpile of Afghan National Army uniforms, used by insurgents in ambush attacks. The force also included members of the Afghan National Interdiction Unit supported by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and discovered a significant quantity of illegal drugs, which help fund the insurgents.

There were no reports of ANA or civilian casualties, or damage to civilian property.

Tom Friedman & Afghanistan

Teacher, Can We Leave Now? No.
By Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times
July 19, 2009

Pushghar, Afghanistan--I confess, I find it hard to come to Afghanistan and not ask: Why are we here? Who cares about the Taliban? Al Qaeda is gone. And if its leaders come back, well, that’s why God created cruise missiles.

But every time I start writing that column, something stills my hand. This week it was something very powerful. I watched Greg Mortenson, the famed author of “Three Cups of Tea,” open one of his schools for girls in this remote Afghan village in the Hindu Kush mountains. I must say, after witnessing the delight in the faces of those little Afghan girls crowded three to a desk waiting to learn, I found it very hard to write, “Let’s just get out of here.”

Indeed, Mortenson’s efforts remind us what the essence of the “war on terrorism” is about. It’s about the war of ideas within Islam — a war between religious zealots who glorify martyrdom and want to keep Islam untouched by modernity and isolated from other faiths, with its women disempowered, and those who want to embrace modernity, open Islam to new ideas and empower Muslim women as much as men. America’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were, in part, an effort to create the space for the Muslim progressives to fight and win so that the real engine of change, something that takes nine months and 21 years to produce — a new generation — can be educated and raised differently.

Which is why it was no accident that Adm. Mike Mullen, the U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — spent half a day in order to reach Mortenson’s newest school and cut the ribbon. Getting there was fun. Our Chinook helicopter threaded its way between mountain peaks, from Kabul up through the Panjshir Valley, before landing in a cloud of dust at the village of Pushghar. Imagine if someone put a new, one-story school on the moon, and you’ll appreciate the rocky desolateness of this landscape.

But there, out front, was Mortenson, dressed in traditional Afghan garb. He was surrounded by bearded village elders and scores of young Afghan boys and girls, who were agog at the helicopter, and not quite believing that America’s “warrior chief” — as Admiral Mullen’s title was loosely translated into Urdu — was coming to open the new school.

While the admiral passed out notebooks, Mortenson told me why he has devoted his life to building 131 secular schools for girls in Pakistan and another 48 in Afghanistan: “The money is money well spent. These are secular schools that will bring a new generation of kids that will have a broader view of the world. We focus on areas where there is no education. Religious extremism flourishes in areas of isolation and conflict.

“When a girl gets educated here and then becomes a mother, she will be much less likely to let her son become a militant or insurgent,” he added. “And she will have fewer children. When a girl learns how to read and write, one of the first things she does is teach her own mother. The girls will bring home meat and veggies, wrapped in newspapers, and the mother will ask the girl to read the newspaper to her and the mothers will learn about politics and about women who are exploited.”

It is no accident, Mortenson noted, that since 2007, the Taliban and its allies have bombed, burned or shut down more than 640 schools in Afghanistan and 350 schools in Pakistan, of which about 80 percent are schools for girls. This valley, controlled by Tajik fighters, is secure, but down south in Helmand Province, where the worst fighting is today, the deputy minister of education said that Taliban extremists have shut 75 of the 228 schools in the last year. This is the real war of ideas. The Taliban want public mosques, not public schools. The Muslim militants recruit among the illiterate and impoverished in society, so the more of them the better, said Mortenson.

This new school teaches grades one through six. I asked some girls through an interpreter what they wanted to be when they grow up: “Teacher,” shouted one. “Doctor,” shouted another. Living here, those are the only two educated role models these girls encounter. Where were they going to school before Mortenson’s Central Asia Institute and the U.S. State Department joined with the village elders to get this secular public school built? “The mosque,” the girls said.

Mortenson said he was originally critical of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he’s changed his views: “The U.S. military has gone through a huge learning curve. They really get it. It’s all about building relationships from the ground up, listening more and serving the people of Afghanistan.”

So there you have it. In grand strategic terms, I still don’t know if this Afghan war makes sense anymore. I was dubious before I arrived, and I still am. But when you see two little Afghan girls crouched on the front steps of their new school, clutching tightly with both arms the notebooks handed to them by a U.S. admiral — as if they were their first dolls — it’s hard to say: “Let’s just walk away.” Not yet.

Gen Cartwright on Success in Afghanistan

Afghans’ Attitude Will Be Measure of Success, Vice Chairman Gen Cartwright Says

By John J. Kruzel
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 9, 2009 – A key measurement of success in Afghanistan will be the attitude of Afghans affected by U.S.-led operations, the military’s second-ranking military officer said today.

Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the counterinsurgency mission in Afghanistan elevates the civilian population as a main determinant of success or failure, much as it did in Iraq.

“I believe personally that one of our key metrics for success will be over the next few months to see whether or not there is a shift in the attitude of the local residents,” Cartwright said. The committee is considering the general’s reappointment.

Cartwright fleshed out the “clear, hold, build” strategy under way in Afghanistan. The latter elements of the strategy emphasize the role civilians play in establishing stability.

Articulating how local attitudes could be gauged, Cartwright said a favorable view of U.S. and multinational forces could come in the form Afghans providing intelligence or other resources.

“If they start supporting us with intelligence, with the giving of their own sons and daughters in the fight, and that they see there is more value in being able to produce crops rather than warriors, and that they can be sustained in that type of a lifestyle, then we will have an opportunity to turn the corner,” he said.

The general advised that the Marines engaged in a joint operation with Afghan forces in the Helmand River valley pay attention to the sentiment in villages and towns they operate in. Now in its eighth day, some 4,000 Marines and 650 Afghan security forces are engaged in Operation Khanjar, which translates to “Strike of the Sword“ the biggest military offensive since President Barack Obama announced a new Afghanistan strategy in March.

“I think those are key metrics that we have to watch as the Marines move into Helmand, and followed by the [Army’s] Strykers as they move in on their flank,” Cartwright said.

At a briefing with Pentagon reporters yesterday, the commander overseeing the operation described how the interaction between U.S. Marines and local Afghans are playing out.

Anticipating that local residents would be curious about the Marines’ intentions, Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Lawrence Nicholson, commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, established a requirement: Company commanders must hold a “shura,” or meeting, with local elders within one day of arriving.

“The focus of this operation from the very beginning has been on the people, not the enemy,” Nicholson said. “And I know that may sound very strange, and I got some raised eyebrows, even with talking to Marines. On the way, we'll take care of the Taliban. But get to the people.”

The “clear” phase of the three-stage approach refers to the type of mission the Marines undertook when Operation Khanjar launched, with the brigade fanning out across the southern Afghanistan region during the early morning hours of July 2. The strategy was two-fold: overwhelm opposing forces while saving civilian lives.

Current operations in Helmand are fundamentally different from previous missions, in that Marines are remaining behind to protect those villages as the remainder of forces moves through, Cartwright said. He added that forces have been successful in avoiding civilian casualties in the ongoing “clear” phase.

“Our approach here is to win their hearts and minds,” Cartwright said. “And we can't do that by having unnecessary civilian casualties.”

From Anbar to the NFL

Bu Mike Klis
Denver Post
May 4

There are many Broncos players who, after their freshman season of college ball, began to realize the NFL was not just possible, but probable.

Others may have been focusing on earning a promotion from backup to starter. Some may have been dealing with other issues, such as grades and girls.

Rulon Davis went off to fight in the Iraq war.

Fight for his country, a far cry from the sports world, where Davis is currently competing, as an undrafted 25-year-old free-agent defensive end, for a spot on the Broncos' roster.

* Adapt and overcome. *

It's an inspirational edict U.S. Marines frequently say to each other. Yes, Davis witnessed death. Soldiers he considered friends were killed.

"Unfortunately, yes," he said. "They're the real heroes. Not me. People think, 'Wow, you did all this.' But I don't think it's that big of a deal because I didn't have to sacrifice my life, like some of these other guys. Really, the honor is on them."

Heroes come in many forms. Broncos defensive backs Champ Bailey and Brian Dawkins are often considered heroes.

Davis has been considered a football hero, too, having started the past two years at the University of California. That was part of his new life, after his four-year commitment to the Marines and six-month tour in Iraq in 2004.

"That's serious. Marines are tough people, man," said Broncos rookie tight end Richard Quinn Jr. "My dad was one."

And Davis' football stardom at Cal would come after his motorcycle flipped on a Los Angeles freeway interchange and left him crawling, too late, in an attempted escape from under a rolling semi.

* Pain is weakness leaving the body. *
Davis, 6-feet-5 and 281 pounds, didn't play much high school football in Covina, Calif. So upon graduation he joined the Marine Corps reserves. He first got the idea after spending his eighth- and ninth-grade years at the Marine Military Academy in Harlingen, Texas.

"I fell in love with the Corps," he said. "The structure, the discipline, the leadership traits. The routine of things. Organization. It was my thing. I liked it a lot. I wanted to live my life as a Marine."

He went through the Marines' rigorous training program, then served one weekend a month in the Marine reserves when he decided to also play football at Mount San Antonio Junior College in Walnut, Calif.

He had 16 1/2 sacks as a freshman. Davis still loved the Marines, but now he also loved playing football. And Pac-10 schools scouted him, and offered a scholarship. The Marines would make one more call, however, to go to Iraq.

"I wanted to get back as soon as I possibly could to start playing football again," Davis said. "But I had to do my job. I signed the contract, and I like to honor my commitment."

Davis does not give specifics of his tour of duty. When asked, he politely asked to change the subject. Civilians who have never served can only understand they will never understand.

"It's tough," he said. "I think about it all the time."

Brought up right
America can only imagine how most 20-something men start their day, but Davis begins by making his bed. His father, Lorenzo, served a four-year commitment in the Marines from 1971-75. If Semper Fidelis didn't run through Rulon's blood the day he was born in San Diego, the Latin expression meaning "Always Faithful" was ingrained while he attended the Marine Military Academy in Texas.

Lorenzo didn't push the military school upon his son but said his son knew right from wrong before he went off to military school.

"It wasn't my decision; it was his decision," Lorenzo said. "We talked about it for about three months. It was hard letting him go; he was only 13 years old. But I felt if a young man wants to get out in the world, this was a great way to do it. And this would teach him some character traits he might not learn if he stayed at home."

Davis said long after football, he will keep his hair short, his face shaven. He will take a jog each day.

* Once a Marine, always a Marine. *
In another sense, the Marines are always with Davis, in the way he acts, the way he carries himself.

"The way he speaks, he's very correct, proper," Broncos coach Josh McDaniels said. "He treats everybody with a great deal of respect. He listens, asks good questions. Sits up in his chair, always attentive, those types of things. You can tell he was brought up the right way."

Davis returned from the war safely, only to endure a near-death experience a few months later while riding his motor-cycle. He was exiting off one busy L.A. highway onto another when the car behind him tapped his bike. The collision sped him uncontrollably forward into the rear bumper of a midsized truck in front. The bike flipped, and Davis flew.

Airborne, Davis landed beneath an adjacent semi. Fortunately, Davis was wearing his helmet, which was dented in the front. But there was still the matter of this semi. "I knew I was about to die if I didn't move," Davis said. He tried to crawl out of the way, but the semi continued to roll, right over his calves.

Davis suffered some internal tissue damage and spent a month in and out of a hospital because of swelling. And while his return to his sophomore football season at Mount San Antonio was out, he did not have any broken bones.

Major-college football is a competitive business. Before Davis had completely healed, he had pledged his allegiance to the Cal Bears, who didn't forget about his 16 1/2 sacks before he left for Iraq, and before the motorcycle mishap.

3-4 looks familiar
Davis voluntarily enlisted in the Marines, but come last week, he thought he would be drafted — into the NFL. It didn't happen. San Francisco, Jacksonville and the New York Giants all communicated their interest in the days leading up to the draft. But after the draft ended, Davis chose the Broncos instead because they are converting to a 3-4 defense.

"I don't even care about that anymore," Davis said of not getting drafted. "I'm happy I'm with this team. I'm trying to make this team right now and that's where my focus is."

Turns out, Cal is one of the few major-college programs to play a 3-4. And Davis became the only pure "5-technique" defensive end the Broncos took last week, either in the draft or as a free agent.

Maybe he isn't such an underdog to make the Broncos after all. Not with his experience as a 3-4 end. Not with all he's been through. The challenge of going from undrafted free agent to a 53-man roster? Puh-leze.

"Nothing's came easy in my life as you can see," Davis said. "I've had to work for everything. Hard work is not something that's unfamiliar to me."