So the Surge is "Working?": But does it even matter?

Site Issues 2008 Archive Room
#1

Predicting Pentagon news in 2008
What to watch for in military affairs in 2008?
LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD
By Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent
NBC News
updated 4:27 p.m. ET, Thurs., Dec. 20, 2007

At the end of 2006 we asked NBC News correspondents and anchors to offer predictions for 2007 in the areas they cover. Now, we’re doing the same for 2008. Here’s Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski’s look ahead for what promises to be a tough year for the military community. Read on — and then come back at the end of the year to see how accurate he was in his predictions. (Also, look for a link below to read how he did for 2007.)

Iraq
As it did last year, Iraq will again dominate the Pentagon’s agenda for 2008.

If the surge proves successful in reducing the level of violence, a gradual drawdown of American forces will continue through the spring. Gen. David Petraeus is concerned however that too rapid a drawdown could jeopardize what security gains have already been made, so don’t expect to see the level of troops dip much below 140,000 troops, which is still more than the pre-surge level at the beginning of 2007.

Pentagon and military officials will also be negotiating an agreement with the Iraqi government, setting the ground rules of a long-term, but smaller, U.S. military presence in Iraq, well beyond 2008.

Pentagon and military officials fear that the predominately Shiite Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Maliki remains “too sectarian” and hold out little hope for any major political reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis at the national level. U.S. officials do predict more of the kind of “bottom up” political progress seen at the local level during the past year.

Afghanistan
Concerns over the increased violence have Pentagon and military officials concerned that Afghanistan could be “slipping away.”

Military officials are looking at a more aggressive military strategy in Afghanistan while Defense Secretary Robert Gates is pressing NATO to live up to earlier commitments to provide money, manpower and helicopters to the fight.

Senior Pentagon officials will also be pushing for a far more aggressive strategy to eradicate Afghanistan’s poppy crop and reduce the nation’s heroin production, the largest in the world and a tremendous source of income for the Taliban and corruption within the Afghan government.

Pakistan
Despite $7 billion in U.S military aid in 2007, the Pakistan military has been unable, if not unwilling, to drive the Taliban and al-Qaida out of the safe havens in the tribal regions of western Pakistan. Senior Pentagon officials will propose that U.S. military forces be sent into Pakistan as “advisors” to train Pakistani forces and help plan military operations against enemy forces in the west.

U.S. forces
As stressed out as the forces may be by multiple and extended combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, there appears to be little chance for relief for them or their families. In an exclusive interview with NBC News in Iraq in December, Defense Secretary Gates said it would be at least until the fall of 2008 before he could consider ending those 15-month tours for all Army troops in Iraq.

Given the political climate in the 2008 election year, the Democrat majority in Congress will continue to make the Bush administration, the Pentagon and the military sweat for every dollar in military spending for combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But that same political motive will also drive up spending for military benefits, particularly for wounded veterans.

Exit strategy
As the end of President Bush’s final term in the White House draws near, administration officials in the Pentagon are acutely aware that their overall success or failure will be largely determined by the conditions they leave behind in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sources tell NBC News that since anything that could be considered “victory” is well beyond reach in either war in 2008, Gates is determined to lay out a path for military and political progress in both countries. The sources describe Gates as being “realistic” about the prospects for achieving total stability in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and instead has set his sights on handing the next administration, Democrat or Republican, a situation that could at least be considered “manageable” considering today’s security challenges and threat.

Jim Miklaszewski is NBC News’ Chief Pentagon correspondent based in Washington, D.C. Click here to see his predictions for 2007 and how they turned out.
© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

MSNBC

#2

[QUOTE=Nickdfresh;115232
Afghanistan
Concerns over the increased violence have Pentagon and military officials concerned that Afghanistan could be “slipping away.”

Military officials are looking at a more aggressive military strategy in Afghanistan while Defense Secretary Robert Gates is pressing NATO to live up to earlier commitments to provide money, manpower and helicopters to the fight.

Senior Pentagon officials will also be pushing for a far more aggressive strategy to eradicate Afghanistan’s poppy crop and reduce the nation’s heroin production, the largest in the world and a tremendous source of income for the Taliban and corruption within the Afghan government.is NBC News’ Chief Pentagon correspondent based in Washington, D.C. Click here to see his predictions for 2007 and how they turned out.
© 2007 MSNBC Interactive [b][/QUOTE]

That’ll be one sure way af alienating the people of Afghanistan and driving them into the arms of the Taleban. If the crop is to be destroyed something must be done to bolste the local economies of those villagers that depend on it. This isn’t bout moralising over poppey growth, it’s about taking away the support for the Taleban. Simply destroying the crops without making recompense will achieve nothing positive, in just the same way as merely cutting off the head of the Taleban will achieve nothing positive. Both poppeys and Taleban will be repalanted and regrown.

#3

Cutting off the head of the flower doesn’t necessarily kill the root.

One of the roots, probably most of them now, is in Pakistan.

A better policy than Dubya’s swaggering military stupidity in trying to tame the untameable would have been to get in, wipe out whoever could be found of bin Laden and his crew, get out after a few months to avoid draining military commitments, leave the country pretty much in ruins rather than getting into pointless reconstruction exercises, and make it clear that if there’s any more trouble hitting America from that source the same thing will happen again, not necessarily on the ground and not necessarily with conventional weapons.

Sure, it’s a harsh and brutal policy, but so is harbouring primitive religious nuts who fly planes into buildings for no good reason; without ever making demands; and with no hope of defeating the great American Satan. Nobody knows what they want apart from endless violence, so give it to them until they run out virgins in heaven because the math doesn’t support endless casualties, but end the violence with greater violence.

Okay, it’ll alienate a lot of the Muslim world. And that would be different to the present position, how? The same, but stronger.

Also, the Yanks shouldn’t have fallen for Musharraf’s weak flip flop when he realised he was in deep shit after 9/11 and decided to suck up to the Yanks or have them against him. The Pakis have played a double game the whole time, pretending to be solid with the Yanks while good old Osama and his mates have huge support at all levels of Pakistani society.

Pakistan might have nukes, but it ain’t got anything like America’s capacity to deliver them. Something that should be pointed out to Pakistan, along the lines of “If you’re with us, perform, but if you’re not, get ready to see your land burn like the bastards you support who are trying to burn ours.”

#4

Typical pacifist rantings! :slight_smile:

#5

:smiley:

There’s probably a reason I didn’t seek a career in the diplomatic corps. :wink:

Perhaps it was because I couldn’t give French.

Edit. Perhaps it was because I couldn’t speak French. Hard to do it when you’re giving it. ;D

#6

Every one, a gem! :slight_smile:

#7

Iraq seeks sharply reduced U.S. military role
Negotiations to begin on taking American forces out of combat
EXCLUSIVE
NBC News and MSNBC
updated 3:22 p.m. ET, Thurs., Jan. 24, 2008

BAGHDAD - The United States and Iraq will soon begin negotiating a power shift for U.S. forces, nearly five years after they invaded Iraq and installed a new government, Iraqi and U.S. officials told NBC News on Thursday.

Both countries are working on assembling negotiating teams to shape a new long-term bilateral strategic agreement redefining the fundamental role of U.S. troops, whose mission would shift from combat operations to logistics and support, the officials told NBC News’ Richard Engel.

President Bush did not address the report at an economic briefing for reporters Thursday afternoon in Washington, but Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, confirmed that negotiations would begin soon. Petraeus would not provide details, but he said the U.S. role in Iraq would be changing.

Officials of both countries have said in recent weeks that they envision an eventual drawdown of U.S. military forces inside Iraq. The Iraqi officials did not provide an estimate Thursday of how many U.S. troops could be withdrawn from the country, stressing that the agreement had yet to be negotiated.

But a senior member of the Iraqi negotiating team, which has been almost completely appointed, said they would seek to have U.S. troops — who for five years have conducted aggressive combat missions across the country against al-Qaida and other radical Muslim militias — largely confined to their bases.

U.S. troops would have only limited freedom of movement off base under Iraq’s position, leaving only when requested to provide intelligence, air support, equipment and other logistical support, the Iraqi negotiator said.

Plan would let Iraq fight its own battles
U.S. officials have long maintained that the Iraqi army is “all teeth and no tail,” meaning it is entirely focused on combat but is unable to operate independently because of equipment and intelligence shortfalls. The agreement, as envisioned by Iraq, would shift military operations inside the country to emphasize Iraq’s combat strength with sophisticated background support from U.S. units.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Iraq hoped to take advantage of a relative lull in violence in recent weeks to complete the new agreement by July, in time for a vote by the Iraqi Parliament.

U.S. and Iraqi officials acknowledged that there was no guarantee that the reduction in violence would continue, but they said the overarching goal was to have the new structure fully in place before Bush leaves office in a year, so as not to tie the next president’s hands.

The agreement would mean a sharply reduced role for the 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and the July deadline would dovetail with the U.S. Army’s desire to reduce soldiers’ battlefield tours from 15 months to 12 months beginning in August.

MSNBC

By Richard Engel of NBC News in Baghdad and Alex Johnson of msnbc.com.