U.S. Considers Faster Pullout in Afghanistan after Obama / Karzai videoconference fallout

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

 

I agree with all your points but I did not star your posts

Well you know what buddy? It's PAY-BACK time! Any final requests before I don't star your posts either?

Originally posted by Panic2k11
since you failed to precisely point out that the intervention itself was the problem in what I see a veiled attack to the current administration.

The invasion of Afghanistan was a reasonable first move under the Bush Doctrine which says that the US will go after those states which sponsored the terrorism of 9/11.

The Bush Doctrine got us to first base - not so much the invasion, but the naming of "Afghanistan" as a state sponsor of terrorism. That doctrine allowed us to take action to regime change Afghanistan.

Now, you can quibble about how we did that, whether the invasion was the best method but the idea of not intervening at all, just leaving the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan would have been a bad option to take. Doing nothing was asking for another 9/11.

The problem was, and is, not getting to 2nd base with the Bush Doctrine - failing to name "Pakistan" as a state sponsor of terrorism.

That problem is not a partisan problem. Both Democrats and Republicans have been slow to hold Pakistan accountable. Congressman Rand Paul I think wanted to stop financing Pakistan but both parties are very far behind the intelligence we have on Pakistan now.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
The problem is that the mission as sold to NATO/UN was a still born since Pakistan never ceased to be the problem.

Right. We need an Afghanistan-Pakistani mission - an AfPak Mission.

But to be fair that wasn't at all obvious, not to me, and I would guess not to you either, when NATO-ISAF was set up but it ought to be obvious to everyone who takes an interest now.

Have you seen this video from the BBC, "SECRET PAKISTAN"? This is about the most useful video I know of when selling a new AfPak mission, to the President of the USA, Congress, other NATO country governments, the UN or whoever wants to win in Afghanistan.

BBC Panorama's "SECRET PAKISTAN - Part 1 Double-Cross"



BBC Panorama's "SECRET PAKISTAN - Part 2 Backlash"

Originally posted by Panic2k11
I can't begin to understand the US policy beyond a regional geopolitical interest (especially the mineral resources and the proximity to China and Iran) the capture of the bearded dude in the cave was clearly a bad joke only morons would accept that as a reason for the intervention, just as well as the WMD in Iraq...

No, our politicians are not so devious. They've no secret agenda here. They are simply being shafted every which way by the Pakistani state sponsors of terrorism and are losing heart because the Taliban won't stay down and they are not sure why.

So our politicians are really starting to believe it when the Pakistanis say that the Taliban have deep roots in Afghanistan and they must try to reach a peace agreement with them and pull out troops and so the whole mission has failed.

Our politicians and poor generals are being beaten by the Pakistani state sponsors of terrorism without being aware of who it is who is handing them their own asses. It's a surrender. It's a defeat.

There's no profit in this defeat for the power-brokers of the West. Their only hope now is to find a way to save face.

I on the other hand am supremely confident that given a chance, my strategy would win. Give me my chance is all I ask.

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

Well you know what buddy? It's PAY-BACK time! Any final requests before I don't star your posts either?

You should use the star system as you like, I only star posts that I agree with and I only flag threads that I find interesting (even if the first OP is bad, that is why we can star the OP) and would like to see further discussion. That is how I use the system anyone I do not find appreciative/willing to have a civil discussion is moved to my adversary list and I actively try not to engage them... (it suxs we don't have an ignore list) Anyway do what best suits you and serves your purposes not mine...

The invasion of Afghanistan was a reasonable first move under the Bush Doctrine which says that the US will go after those states which sponsored the terrorism of 9/11.

Disagree strongly. It was not reasonable not lawful (and intentionally so) it was a political reason that served only the power structure behind the government, not even America as a nation (even considering it as geostrategic scumbag action). It would only serve a greater goal had it moved into Iran/Syria ASAP but that was already out of the plans and as a slow erosion of wills policy it wouldn't have worked (and didn't, just the contrary).

The first Iraq war by Bush's father was already a setup for Saddam and to a point it could have served America's interests had it been concluded (geopolitically speaking it would have been advantageous, but since the US government created the problem without securing that it could finish the job, even with all the spying at the UN a buying votes after the fact it only served to prop the 1%s and those that profited from the conflict not the nation). I grant you that there was some benefits but it didn't payout (cost/benefits for the citizen). But that is not the war we are discussing, I'm just presenting the background...

The Bush Doctrine got us to first base - not so much the invasion, but the naming of "Afghanistan" as a state sponsor of terrorism. That doctrine allowed us to take action to regime change Afghanistan.

Again disagree. First there is no real doctrine behind Bush beyond making money for friends and family that should be pretty clear to anyone (not that he is alone but clearly not a service to the nation that "voted" him in, well they really didn't the voting was a huge mess and clearly shows that Bush senior concluded the CIA takeover of the US Government most like the ex-KGB now runs Russia). Well got again sidetracked...

But hey like the puppet in power is decided before elections when we can create "the problems" and define events naming "Afghanistan" was a easy thing to do. What would be harder would have been naming Pakistan or the Saudis (but we are already familiar to the the Bush family friendship with the Clowns there). The need to make a regime change in Afghanistan wasn't even justified, they could have gone in and take the bearded dude in the cave (if you do still believe that puppet-show), they had no problem in doing that in Pakistan. I also do not think that the new government will last longer or will remain favorable to the US (until the US does a regime change in Pakistan and Iran at least, bet lets see how the US maintains its presence in the region it can still have some long term advantages, even if again the payout does not compensate the mess created).

Now, you can quibble about how we did that, whether the invasion was the best method but the idea of not intervening at all, just leaving the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan would have been a bad option to take. Doing nothing was asking for another 9/11.

Disagree again. Even if you are gullible to up the 9/11 story (I'm not) it was clearly preventable (by documented evidences) and in fact it increased the chance for an escalation (the steps in Egypt so far have been much better planed, at the cost of the Egyptians but at least the US citizen may still benefit). To resolve the animosity and decrease terrorism against the US the need is to at least be perceived as doing some policy changes, especially towards Israel and the Saudi Clowns under thumb by simply continuing to maintain (recuperate) the status quo (in large part destroyed by the Bushes on the Iraq).

That problem is not a partisan problem. Both Democrats and Republicans have been slow to hold Pakistan accountable. Congressman Rand Paul I think wanted to stop financing Pakistan but both parties are very far behind the intelligence we have on Pakistan now.

Finally, agree but small correction. I think the population (Americans) is behind on the intelligence most of the world perfectly understand the situation and those on the US Government what has changed is the Pakistan is now moving towards China's sphere of influence.

(will do a 2nd rep.)

Originally posted by Trueman
Now he better kick out all illegals working with fake papers and give those jobs to our veterans.

Maybe I'm asking too much from him.

One reason a lot of the world hates Americans is statements like this and arrogant attitudes.
My country is the Earth and we are all citizens of the world. When stupid people in America stop thinking like this Trueman the world will be a better place.

reply to post by WormwoodSquirm


That is a bit unfair, the problem is now how a citizen thinks or even acts it is how the governance thinks and acts or reinforces that type of mind-think. That is why people do not like America I'm sure you also have idiots in your nation, even in power too...

One think that is obvious to me is that there is a general cultural deficit in Americans but again that is also a system problem not their own, even more during the cold war from an outside to compare even a middle class American to someone in a near position behind the Iron Curtain was very telling, even in Cuba. Part of it is clearly due the cultural back ground and the cultural focus that societies have, even more than moral or political aspirations. This is also part of what creates a rift so great between other cultures that do not share at the same level of priority materialistic, often egotistical goals.

But he will most likely get to see veterans picking fruit in the sun, the party is over. As soon as that is realized people will wish to go live in Mexico/Canada and be refused entry.

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow


Sorry I said I would respond by I haven't the time now. I already covered most of the points. Give me a bump after you read it and I will gladly debate the issue more.

Take a look at this doc also, it relates to how the relation Israel-Saudis (kingdoms) reflects the part of the world we are focusing on.

India Pakistan Partition BBC Special Presentation

Note that this is a English production, even if the BBC is not very propagandistic you should take it all with a grain of salt, Pakistan was basically a result of the type of decolonization England decided to impose on India. The players are the same the Anglo-American interests but in this case not specifically oil but raw material and then the cold war, India did go to Russia (think about that) and Pakistan was backed by the Anglo-Americans (and the kingdoms). The seeds were long planted what we see today are the fruits of that endless labor...

In today's world there are no accidents or unplanned events, the best strategy has been always to plan ahead to guide the outcome in your favor, to have and maintain initiative grants you more options. If it fails move to take control Egypt was a really nice job, TPTB clearly hadn't prepared for it to go as fast...

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Pulling out from Afghanistan doesn't necessarily mean they're "coming home". Maybe they'll support Azerbaijan against Armenia/Russia? If Azerbaijan tries to retake Nagorno Karabakh by force, it'll mean a fullscale war against Armenia, and Armenia is allied with Russia...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

A re-ignition of the conflict in the next year-and-a-half could jeopardize troop withdrawal plans from Afghanistan through the corridor

Originally posted by boymonkey74

Originally posted by Trueman
Now he better kick out all illegals working with fake papers and give those jobs to our veterans.

Maybe I'm asking too much from him.

Don't worry the war machine will never stop, they will just go into the next war.
Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
So Iam sure those soldiers will still have a war to fight.

Guys, why quit fighting the war the US and allies need to win, surrender the Afghan battleground to the enemy, but then go off somewhere else altogether to start a new war? It makes no military and political strategic sense.

Also, it's not President Obama's style. He's a hope and change optimist who is looking to avoid conflict wherever possible.

Obama doesn't really want to fight the war on terror that we are in, like it or not, against the terrorists and their backers who did 9/11 and that we absolutely have no choice but to fight somewhere in the world because the terrorists are coming for us in our homeland, even if we don't go after them in their homeland.

So Obama is hardly likely to want to go off and pick a new fight that's not already our fight.

What at least would make strategic sense would be extending the Afghan war under the Bush Doctrine to go after all the state sponsors of terrorism - next up would be Pakistan (turning the Afghan war into an Afghan-Pakistan war). Then in due course getting pay-back from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the state sponsors of terrorism.

But there is no sign that that's what Obama has in mind. He wants peace talks with the Taliban and to withdraw combat forces by 2014. He's had enough.

Looks like Obama is getting some "Dark Counsel" as regards pulling out from Afghanistan.

First to explain the phrase "Dark Counsel". Have you seen Lord of the Rings? Remember King Theoden and his adviser, Grima Wormtongue, who told him he was weak, could not fight and hope to win, turned out Grima was secretly an agent for Saruman?




OK remember now? That's "dark counsel".

So who is giving Obama, "dark counsel", who is his Grima Wormtongue?

Well maybe a lady called Robin Raphel, a former agent for Pakistan, a Washington Lobbyist in the pay of the Pakisan state. Obama has taken her on into her team, in charge of non-military aid to Pakistan, that's billions of dollars worth.

Wikipedia: Robin Raphel
Robin Lynn Raphel (born 1947) is a career diplomat who is currently the coordinator for non-military assistance to Pakistan with the rank of ambassador.

She was appointed by President Clinton as first Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, a newly created position, where her tenure was highly controversial. Regularly throughout her career, Raphel was described as being "warm" to totalitarian and military regimes, such as the the military governments in Pakistan, and conversely "cool" towards human rights considerations.

Her tenure as Assistant Secretary for Near East and South Asian Affairs was marked by perceived hostility towards India and Afghanistan, and "warmth" towards Pakistan and the Taliban, as was extensively documented by the media.

Famously, Raphel was hostile towards the Northern Alliance including its leader Ahmed Shah Massoud who she personally pressured to yield to the Taliban.

Raphel openly promoted the complete Taliban takeover of all of Afghanistan, until the events of 9/11. Some scholars believe that her perceived "favoritism" towards Pakistan and the Taliban indirectly, if peripherally, contributed to causing 9/11.

One commonly-cited factor was her aggressive promotion of Unocal's proposal for the Afghanistan Oil Pipeline, which would have required the defeat of the Northern Alliance.

As to U.S. relations with India, the largest and most prosperous state in the region, her tenure was marked as the the "darkest chapter since the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971".

Upon her dismissal from the Assistant Secretary position by President Clinton and her transfer to the backwater post of Ambassador to Tunisia, U.S. relations with India were reported to have "improved overnight".

She also served as a member of the Iraq Reconstruction Team during the Bush administration. She retired from the state department in 2005 after 30 years of service.

She soon became a lobbyist for Pakistan at Cassidy & Associates, a Washington lobbying form that was employed by the Government of Pakistan at an annual retainer of $1.2 million.

Raphel has been the senior Vice President at the National Defense University in Washington.

The Obama Administration appointed Robin Raphel as a member of the team of the late Richard Holbrooke, the Special Representative to the Af-Pak region.

Raphel is the enemy within. I would not let this woman within a mile of the White House, but there again, I'm not King Theoden, I mean, President Obama.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by WormwoodSquirm

 

That is a bit unfair, the problem is now how a citizen thinks or even acts it is how the governance thinks and acts or reinforces that type of mind-think. That is why people do not like America I'm sure you also have idiots in your nation, even in power too...

One think that is obvious to me is that there is a general cultural deficit in Americans but again that is also a system problem not their own, even more during the cold war from an outside to compare even a middle class American to someone in a near position behind the Iron Curtain was very telling, even in Cuba. Part of it is clearly due the cultural back ground and the cultural focus that societies have, even more than moral or political aspirations. This is also part of what creates a rift so great between other cultures that do not share at the same level of priority materialistic, often egotistical goals.

But he will most likely get to see veterans picking fruit in the sun, the party is over. As soon as that is realized people will wish to go live in Mexico/Canada and be refused entry.

You might not think it's fair but its true. I'm American Dual with Canada. Canadians do not say "kick out the illegals". I have never even heard the term here and I have lived coast to coast. I know a lot better than most of the world how different the two countries are after spending 20 years of my life in each country.
USA = a lot of ignorant fluoride filled morons who are racist cowboy types (not everyone of course but enough to ruin the USA reputation worldwide). Americans are gullible and swallow media like pigs at the trough. Americans refer to non-whites as illegals.
Canada = all immigrants enjoying life free of this kind of bullshat who are not stupid enough to fall for some anti-socialism crap. I go the the hospital and dont pay fees. My kids have 12 nationalities of people in their class. Canadians are respected worldwide. Canada did the right thing and said F U to Bush over Iraq.
I could write a book about the differences but will stop there.
Keep in mind I love all my family and friends in the States but I can see things with a little more focus than any American alive when it pertains to how other countries view the States. I have talked to Egyptians about it, French, Koreans, Hindus, Punjabs, Bulgarians, Russians, Chinese, Japanese and more.

The Americans who think they should fence off the outside world are dumb arses. Plain and simple.

reply to post by WormwoodSquirm


Well I'll star you but continue to think that you are missing the forest by focusing on the trees. Its like the saying about mushrooms and s#$%, those that create the conditions for simple mindlessness should be top in the blame attribution. By your own experience you also should have by now started to see that the mushroom system is spreading to other nations and that this is not due to the common folk...

As for fluorine I'm not a believer in its effect in the IQ but agree than it had negative health implications. So to a point it may indeed also affect IQ but not as a directed or intentional goal.

Originally posted by Jakes51
Yeah, I kind of figured that this pullout would have been escalated beyond earlier projections. When I heard that the United States was attempting to negotiate with the Taliban? I was surprised, but lately this government is doing things that at one time would have been deemed unthinkable. The frequency of doing those things is quite telling.

Unorthodox has become the new orthodox! Sending arms and supplies to unvetted militant organizations like the Free Syrian Army, the opposition forces in Libya, and other areas we are not privy too has become the norm. On another note, this government supported and bolstered the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and we a seeing how that is turning out on the news. What we are witnessing before our very eyes is what bumbling foreign policy looks like. Throwing excrement at the wall and hoping its sticks.

and what does a bumbling Secretary of State look like, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry?

This is what a brilliant Secretary of State looks like, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Jakes51
Then lets take a look at all the top brass being funneled out for "yes men."

Obama's Purge: Military Officers Replaced Under the Commander-in-Chief

High-ranking officers in the United States military are being replaced by the Obama administration and for a number of dubious reasons.

Looks like one of those old Soviet style purges to me? Our most abled body and skilled military tacticians are being tossed to the curb. For what apparent reason? I have no idea.

Really?

Well compare and contrast

• the Afghan war to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan (12 years, 3000+ coalition deaths and seeking a peace with the enemy who is still threatening a come-back after we pull out next year)
  

with

• the Gulf War in 1991 to kick Saddam's Iraqi forces out of Kuwait (5 weeks bombing campaign, a 100 hour ground campaign. 500- coalition deaths - a decisive coalition victory)
  

"Skilled military tacticians" are not what they were it seems.

I've no idea if that's Obama's reason for his purge of the generals - often not the stated reason anyway - but it would be my reason for sacking or demoting a lot of generals if I was president.

Originally posted by Jakes51
This behavior by the Administration is not standard for the course in any way, shape, or form. Back on Afghanistan, an obscure article came out last month stating that the military is abandoning quite a bit of military equipment, and at a steep cost.

The military is literally throwing away $7 billion in Afghanistan

The U.S. is simply abandoning tons of equipment because shipping it home would cost too much

The decade-long Afghan war has cost the U.S. a fortune. And withdrawing from the country, which still faces regular insurgent attacks, won't be a bargain, either.

More money swallowed up by the money pit known as Afghanistan. Maybe the US can donate it to the Taliban, because what a way to show good faith during negotiations. Political recognition, and free military equipment. I am just joking! However, the sarcasm of late is proving to look more like reality. Epic facepalm! Or lets make a mental picture of our President making the troll face? I just need to hide my face in my hands!

Yup. It's bad. Well I am ready to take it from here when the call comes.

Originally posted by EnoughAlready10
Isn't the real issue that were at war against the Taliban, which is a non-defined portion of the population, rather than with all of Afghanistan? You can’t compare this war to WWII, or the Nazis. It’s not like you can look at a crowd and pick out the enemy by the color of their shirt. Not to mention there is no real way to judge the success of our goals. Had we entered Afghanistan with the objective of conquer and eradicate the population in a defined boundary we could have easily define ‘victory’, but since our objective was as vague as defining our enemy, its next to impossible to achieve victory.

This lack of a victory is not the fault of the generals, but rather the fault of the policies we have towards ‘war’. I’m sure the generals would have had no issue conducting a massive shock and awe campaign complete with carpet bombings followed by air strikes of all key military and civilian infrastructures. Follow this up with ground forces (with massive air and artillery support) to clean up the towns one by one, purging them of any remaining populations. Then strip them of all resources and claim the land for the US. However when we have a ‘promote democracy’ policy instead of a conquer and occupy policy we limit ourselves in what methods we use.

No that's not the issue. The issue is that we have not declared and prosecuted a war against the imperial power in this case, Pakistan.

Have a look at the Gulf War that I mentioned in an earlier post.

Gulf War

First there was the 5 weeks bombing campaign -

The first priority for Coalition forces was the destruction of Iraq's Air Force and anti-aircraft facilities. The sorties were launched mostly from Saudi Arabia and the six Coalition carrier battle groups (CVBG) in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea.

The next Coalition targets were command and communication facilities. Saddam Hussein had closely micromanaged Iraqi forces in the Iran–Iraq War, and initiative at lower levels was discouraged. Coalition planners hoped that Iraqi resistance would quickly collapse if deprived of command and control.

The air campaign's third and largest phase targeted military targets throughout Iraq and Kuwait: Scud missile launchers, weapons research facilities, and naval forces. About one-third of the Coalition's air power was devoted to attacking Scuds, some of which were on trucks and therefore difficult to locate. U.S. and British special operations forces had been covertly inserted into western Iraq to aid in the search and destruction of Scuds.

then the 100 hour ground campaign

Shortly afterwards, the U.S. VII Corps, in full strength and spearheaded by the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, launched an armored attack into Iraq early on 24 February, just to the west of Kuwait, taking Iraqi forces by surprise. Simultaneously, the U.S. XVIII Airborne Corps launched a sweeping “left-hook” attack across southern Iraq's largely undefended desert, led by the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized). This movement's left flank was protected by France's 6th Light Armoured Division Daguet.
The movement's right flank was protected by the United Kingdom's 1st Armoured Division. Once the allies had penetrated deep into Iraqi territory, they turned eastward, launching a flank attack against the elite Republican Guard before it could escape.

The Iraqis suffered massive losses and lost dozens of tanks and vehicles, while U.S. casualties were comparatively low, with a single Bradley knocked out. Coalition forces pressed another ten kilometers into Iraqi territory, and captured their objective within three hours. They took 500 prisoners and inflicted heavy losses, defeating Iraq's 26th Infantry Division. Meanwhile, British forces attacked Iraq's Medina Division and a major Republican Guard logistics base. In nearly two days of some of the war's most intense fighting, the British destroyed 40 enemy tanks and captured a division commander.

The Coalition's advance was much swifter than U.S. generals had expected. On 26 February, Iraqi troops began retreating from Kuwait, .. A long convoy of retreating Iraqi troops formed along the main Iraq-Kuwait highway. Although they were retreating, this convoy was bombed so extensively by Coalition air forces that it came to be known as the Highway of Death. Hundreds of Iraqi troops were killed. American, British, and French forces continued to pursue retreating Iraqi forces over the border and back into Iraq, eventually moving to within 150 miles (240 km) of Baghdad before withdrawing back to Iraq's border with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

One hundred hours after the ground campaign started, on 28 February, President Bush declared a ceasefire, and he also declared that Kuwait had been liberated.

Smokin'

reply to post by EnoughAlready10

Now, imagine if instead of that excellent Gulf War battle plan, we had decided to invade Kuwait by air drop and then asked Saddam if it was OK to supply our air-dropped troops in Kuwait by supplying along Iraqi roads and we would pay him billions of dollars to let us?

How would the Gulf War have gone then? Saddam would have had us by the balls then like Pakistan has us by the balls now.

You can't defeat the troops of an imperial power by asking that imperial power for permission to do it. You have to defeat the imperial power. The front line troops, whether Saddam's forces in Kuwait or Pakistan's Taliban forces in Afghanistan are only the tip of the enemy war machine. You have to hit the enemy in the rear, hard.

And we've never given Pakistan the kind of air war that we gave Saddam in 1991. So Pakistan is laughing at our war campaign in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Mr Peter Dow

This is what a brilliant Secretary of State looks like, in my opinion.

Tut, tut Imageshack. Can't have your site not serving my photo of Condoleezza Rice at the Republican National Convention 2012 now can we?



That's better.

Originally posted by supremecommander

Originally posted by xuenchen
This sounds suspiciously like positioning for a contractor takeover.

The U.S. 'military' involvement may have achieved a goal of defending Afghanistan's main industry.

The contractors may be bidding for all we know.

Then send the mercs over there to die, and let our troops come home.

Originally posted by Mr Peter Dow

It doesn't sound from the reports of that Obama / Karzai video-conference that they were discussing which contractor offers the best quote and will do the best job. Sounds like they had more profound disagreements.

As for me, no, I'm a political and military writer these days, never held nor offered a military contract in my life, only ever worked as a college lecturer.

Also winning this war in very short order is more than a purely mercenary job that needs doing here.

For example, there are ways to turn the screw on the Taliban's masters (that would be the Pakistani military) that don't involve firing a shot. Like freezing all aid money and IMF bailouts to Pakistan, (nothing helps quite as much as not paying the enemy's war costs as well as your own).

Then there's seizing or taking out Pakistani satellite TV. That takes more equipment and legal authority than the private sector mercenaries have at their disposal.

Then there is bombing Pakistan with heavy air power and missiles. Again the private sector does not have enough air power to be useful against Pakistan.

Pakistan is a modern 21st Century military power with nuclear weapons and no private mercenary contractor can stand up against Pakistan. Fact.

We need to use official NATO forces and national and international governments and their organisations to win this but with new help from smarter people like myself to add needed brain-power to current organisations.

I don't suppose they'd ask me since I've never been in the military but if needed I'd volunteer to do the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe (DSACEUR) of NATO job (that's the highest rank in NATO open to a Briton like myself).

As well, I'd like Condoleezza Rice as my boss, so she could be appointed as the new Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

Now, if our governments can see their way to appointing Condi and me to run this war, we'll get you a complete victory in no time, honest.

Private security contractors, mercenaries, warlords etc for Afghanistan

These have been part of the Afghan mix since day 1. The Northern Alliance which we backed with air-power to oust the Taliban way back in 2001 was essentially an alliance of warlords.

Then all throughout our occupation, the US and then NATO-ISAF has hired private sector security contractors often with links to warlords to drive supplies along Afghanistan's insecure roads.

Now mercenaries can fill a gap in your organisation but unless they are very well regulated, they can lead to all kinds of problems as has been identified.



But the political reality is that the US has been tasked by the president to drawdown US forces from Afghanistan and to end combat operations by 2014 and the idea has always been that the Afghans should stand their forces up to take over as we stand our forces down and so that's what NATO-ISAF has been planning to do.

But as we scale back our forces in Afghanistan, it is likely that more gaps, not less, will arise in security for the country and I would guess this is going to lead to greater use of the private sector, contractors, mercenaries and perhaps even warlords.

So I just wanted to note that although I don't think this war can be won satisfactorily without NATO confronting Pakistan and forcing them to stop sponsoring the Taliban, any good strategy for Afghanistan will need a strong defence especially of Afghan military bases and of supply routes, as as well as a strong offensive against Pakistan, and whilst private security and mercenaries are of no use with the offensive against Pakistan, they can help with the defence of Afghanistan.

See this topic for my plan to secure Afghanistan

How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)