Tag: Stanley McChrystal

McChrystal’s “Chaosistan” plan calls for “Somalia like haven of chaos” managed by US from Outside

Crossposted at Daily Kos

War is Peace.

    The Military Industrial Complex meets the Terroism Industrial Complex.

     In his widely reported London speech earlier this month, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, described how people constantly offer him ideas for fixing that country’s problems. One of the more unusual recommendations, he suggested, came from a paper that advocated using a “plan called ‘Chaosistan.’ ” McChrystal said it advised letting Afghanistan become a “Somalia-like haven of chaos that we simply manage from outside,” but there was no further explanation of its origins.

Newsweek.com

Bold added by diarist

Much more below the fold

“We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war”

“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier,” a senior Pentagon official said. “We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.

I’m going to interpret this remark as a glimmer of independence in the White House regarding the future direction of the ongoing war in Afghanistan. The quote comes from a McClatchy article yesterday, the Pentagon is worried about Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan.

The concern among members of the military leadership is that while U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recently submitted his assessment of the “deteriorating situation” in Afghanistan did not request additional troops, such a request could come from the Pentagon within weeks. Or, as the New York Times reported the Groundwork is laid for new troops in Afghanistan.

Torture puts our Troops in Danger

At least according to this Counter-intelligence Afghanistan Vet:

Jay Bagwell, Afghanistan Veteran, Counter-intelligence



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Jay Bagwell:

My name is Jay Bagwell. I became a Counter Intelligence Agent in 2005, and deployed to Afghanistan in 2006.

As a Counter Intelligence Agent it is very clear to me, Torture puts our Troops in Danger.

Torture makes our Troops less Safe.

Torture creates Terrorists.


Land of Perpetual War: US Troop Levels in Afghanistan to Double from Last Year

According to a report by Paul Tait of Reuters, published at Truthout.org, U.S. forces in Afghanistan have expanded to near double the level of last year, with plans to expand to 68,000 troops or more by December, up from 32,000 at the end of 2008. Currently, with both U.S. and other allied troops, there are over 100,000 soldiers facing what is reported to be a more “aggressive” and “brazen” Taliban force.

Forty-one U.S. troops died in Afghanistan in the past month; 71 allied troops overall. The article gave no figures for Afghan deaths.

Commander of U.S. forces, U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal — formerly head of Special Forces for the Pentagon, during a time when Special Operations units were implicated in torture in Iraq — “said the resurgent Taliban have forced a change of tactics on foreign forces and warned that record casualty figures would remain high for some months” (emphasis added). No one asks why the Taliban should be stronger now, almost eight years after 9/11 — well, no one in the mainstream U.S. press.

SERE Psychologists Still Used in Special Ops Interrogations and Detention

Originally posted at Firedoglake

The great novelist William Faulkner famously wrote, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

With all the controversy over the use of Survival, Evasion, Escape, Resistance, or SERE, psychologists in the interrogation of “high-value detainees” — most recently detailed in a fascinating melange of an article in last Sunday’s Washington Post —  everyone seems to assume that terrible chapter is a thing of the past. Recent documentation that has come to my attention suggests otherwise.

The reasons no one until now has noticed the current activities of SERE psychologists in offensive military operations are that, one, no one has cared to look, and two, a specious narrative ending in the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC)  report, “Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody,” released last April, that appeared to conclude the episode was over. In its Executive Summary, the SASC concluded that, in September 2004, “JFCOM [U.S. Joint Forces Command] issued a formal policy stating that support to offensive interrogation operations was outside JPRA’s charter.” And that, presumably, was that.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, And The Context Of Obama’s AfPak “Solution”

Crossposted from Antemedius

Yesterday we saw investigative historian and journalist Gareth Porter  talk with Paul Jay of the Real News Network about the war in Afghanistan and Obama’s recent appointment of Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to replace General McKiernan as the US commander in Afghanistan.

Porter says the McChrystal appointment won’t fulfill Obama’s supposed intention of investing in a civilian surge that will “win over the population,” through “services and political programs” because during his five year service in the Joint Special Operations Command and recently as the Director of the Joint Staff, McChrystal “has only been involved in targeted killings.”

We also learned that Obama’s surge may be only a prelude to a ground invasion of Pakistan as part of ongoing imperial resource wars.

Today in part two of the interview we learn that Porter has also interviewed Graham Fuller, the CIA Station Chief in Kabul during US support for the Afghan Jihadi movement against the Soviet Union, and says that Fuller “now believes very strongly the United States has to get out. That there is no way the United States is going to be able to win, [because the US] has no understanding of the forces it has unleashed in Afghanistan.”



Real News Network – May 25, 2009

No way to “win” in Afghanistan

Porter: The United States doesn’t understand the forces it unleashed in Afghanistan


I think that Porter is right as far as the majority of people in the US and the world not understanding the forces unleashed in Afghanistan by the US invasion and occupation, but I also feel Porter hasn’t gone far enough in explaining the context of what is happening in Afghanistan and with Obama’s surge, and I want to highly recommend to readers a thorough reading of another recent and very detailed in depth piece from Tom Englehart and from Pepe Escobar that places the AfPak situation in the much wider geopolitical context of a desperate US attempt at world energy and resource domination: Tomgram: Pepe Escobar, Pipelineistan Goes Af-Pak.

General Stanley McChrystal & Obama’s AfPak “Solution”

Crossposted from Antemedius

Investigative historian and journalist Gareth Porter talks with Paul Jay about General Stanley McChrystal’s new job as the head of US operations in Afghanistan. Porter says McChrystal’s appointment will hardly change US policy in Afghanistan, but could intensify US commando raids and air strikes in the region.

He also comments on Obama’s plans for a civilian surge saying, “a civilian component to a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan is essentially empty talk, in the sense that they don’t really know how to do it.”.

“They don’t have the means to do it. They don’t have people that are trained in Pashtun, the language of southern Afghanistan, where the ethnic group that basically inhabits the area, where most of the Taliban gains have been made, is located.”



Real News Network – May 24, 2009

McChrystal and the Afghan military “solution”

Porter: A civilian component to a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan is essentially empty talk

Load more