I do not know what it is with Bush/Cheney but whoever works for them starts acting differently than what you would expect from his answers during the confirmation process. Robert Gates came out during the process as an honest no nonsense man who would tell the truth to congress. His blaming the NATO forces is uncalled for. The truth is that Bush/Cheney took thier eye from Afghanistan and never provided required troop strength to rout the Taliban and Al-Queda forces. To make up for this short fall they made NATO carry the burdon. Now blaming them as Gates is doing could result into those countries pulling out their troops. If that happens, I am sure Gates will once again blame them for not supporting the fight against terrorism.
By the way does he want us to believe that if we had all American forces in Afghanistan, they would not have the same difficulty as the NATO troops are having? Does he think that we do not know the history of Afghanistan? The British in 19 the century and then Russians during 80s had similar difficulties in fighting in Afghanistan.
Posted by suresh at January 17, 2008 09:41 AMBush will thank them when there is a political payoff for doing so.
Posted by T2 at January 17, 2008 09:44 AMGood post, Turkana.
But look, Gates is trying to walk back his offensive remarks.
Regards, C
Posted by Cernig at January 17, 2008 09:58 AMIt was my understanding also that Gates as the new SECDEF was highly intelligent and very knowledgeable of the situation in Afghanistan. Those comments were short-sided and narrow minded and demonstrate that he does not have command of the situation on the ground. Why do we as Americans continue to tolerate the incompetence of these people? (These comments are par for the course).
Posted by angryman at January 17, 2008 10:52 AMWell, that's how to win friends and influence people, ha-ha! Suresh has it exactly right IMO.
The Europeans better wake up and smell the fetid reality---NATO is now a device for the Old World to get caught in the New World's foreign entanglements. Duh.
Bushco completely and intentionally fucked up the campaign in Afghanistan, recklessly diverted our limited ground resources to Iraq and then called for (demanded?) "help" in what was clearly going to be a thankless, resource starved, secondary-front effort. Who are the bigger fools?
Posted by euzoius at January 17, 2008 10:59 AMI hope upon hearing this the Dutch soldiers pack up, head to Amsterdam, and hit the nearest cafe to toke up and swap stories about what a pile of shit they just walked away from.
"Well, yeah, I mean things would be going better in Afghanistan, but those Dutch guys can't shoot for shit!"
I'm so proud to be represented by this administration.
MV says: "I'm so proud to be represented by this administration."
well, MV, isn't that a huge part of the problem? Namely that you aren't, I'm not and millions of other Americans are simply not being represented by this administration?
well, MV, isn't that a huge part of the problem? Namely that you aren't, I'm not and millions of other Americans are simply not being represented by this administration?
Yes, of course it is. It might be the WHOLE problem. History will tell.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at January 17, 2008 11:49 AMThe U.S. isn't losing the Afghan war. The U.S. has lost the Afghan war.
Extending the war across the obsolete Durand Line into Pakistan will only aggravate the disaster. But that's just what our bipartisan elites are doing:
"Beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning."
U.S. Troops to Head to Pakistan by William M. Arkin,
Early Warning, Washington Post, Dec 26, 2007
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/musharrafs_woes_have_opened_a.html
"The surge is about to hit Pakistan. The top U.S. commander for the Middle East says that the deteriorating situation in the country and the increased violence in the frontier area have prompted Islamabad to accept plans for U.S. forces in the country for the first time since early 2002. Meanwhile, a top counter-terrorism diplomat says the situation has become so dire, the United States cannot afford to wait."
The Surge Hits Pakistan by William M. Arkin
Early Warning, Washington Post, Jan 17, 2008
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2008/01/the_surge_hits_pakistan.html
U.S. soldiers can resonably expect competent, sustained resistance:
"Hundreds of Islamic militants attacked a paramilitary fort in Sararogha, in the restive South Waziristan tribal region in north-west Pakistan on Tuesday, killing 22 soldiers and taking several others hostage in a nearly six-hour battle, government intelligence agency officials and local officials said Wednesday."
Pakistan Fort Overrun by Militants by Ismail Khan
New York Times, Jan 17, 2008
And our candidates won't discuss it, except as primitive chauvinism, beneath the level of an elementary school playground.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at January 17, 2008 01:18 PMthanks, pvt. keepout...
the lack of understanding of that region is as profound as the danger that is growing there. and that's a big part of why bush continues to coddle musharraf- because he has no idea what else to do.
Posted by Turkana at January 17, 2008 01:47 PMI notice that Gates had enough sense not to include the French, who have quite a bit of experience, in his remarks.
However he didn't have enough sense when talking about the British. Maybe he doesn't remember Malaysia and Kenya, for example.
Posted by bernarda at January 18, 2008 05:05 AM