Fewer airstrikes as ground combat intensifies
USAToday reports that coalition forces are using their main asset in the war in Afghanistan…air power…75% less than they were three years ago;
So far this year, jets have dropped bombs on only 10% of their combat support missions, compared with almost 40% in 2007, Air Force records show. The decline coincides with the arrival of most of the additional 30,000 U.S. troops ordered to Afghanistan by President Obama. Attacks on U.S. and allied troops — as well as deaths — are at all-time highs.
So, the administration gives commanders fewer troops than those commanders say they need to win the war and then hamstring them with rules of engagement which won’t let them give the troops the support they need.
They sure know how to make me an anti-war blogger.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
Jonn said: They sure know how to make me an anti-war blogger.
There it is!
And it doesn’t take a conspiracy nut to consider that position.
Expect a ‘Peace With Honor’ speech maybe in October.
As I recall reading, McCrystal enacting those ROEs. The rationale was that the airstrikes kill more civillians than Taliban and the locals believe that we are omnipotnet. Thus if our air power kills civillians, we must have done it on purpose.
I don’t fault the logic. It’s a different kind of war.
But what is coming out from Rethink Afghanistan is that reason that there are now so many US deaths is due to lacking a clear definition of success.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=126472490729802&id=54124414652
There is likely a variety of reasons for the increased U.S. Deaths such as the increase of troops, renewed attention to the Afghan Theatre and changes in tacticzs that take troops into harms way more often. However, I have said many times that I don’t believe we have defined our long term reasons for being in afghanistan and taht our goals may not be reasonable considering the state of Afghanistan. While nation building can be a good thing, it does not justify long term American Occupation if our security objectives can be met by other means.
HM2 said: I don’t believe we have defined our long term reasons for being in Afghanistan
You are helping to build the case.
Declare Peace with Honor and pull the plug. Most of our citizens will switch off after that.
I agree with Ponsdorf, there’ll be a “peace in our time” speech in the fall, maybe even waving a worthless piece of paper in the air. Just in time for the November elections.
I am not advocating for withdrawal. I am asking for someone to give me something more than a Glenn Beck talking point or a personal insult when I ask what is the definition of success and how do we get there. This is not the kind of war where the enemy is well defined and capable of laying down arms en-masse. So how do we know when we won?
Nobody “wins” in that map drawing called Afghanistan. We punted at Tora Bora and have wrapped ourselves around a tar baby. The tribes that inhabit “Afghanistan” are pleased as punch to be feudal & are jiggy with living in the bronze age.
Like I mentioned to Doc in a couple of replies to the ‘HuffPo Poster’ thread, one may disagree with the definition, goal, or degree of importance, but it’s disingenuous to state that our goals have not been defined. Looking for the definitions of success? Straight from the U.S. State Department, The United States’ goals in Afghanistan; “A Stable and Democratic Afghanistan: Helping Afghanistan to achieve peace and stability will require a continued commitment by the Department, USAID, and international donors to four interlocking objectives: (1) Afghanistan must establish internal and external security to ensure economic reconstruction, political stability, and stem the rise in opium production; (2) we must work to establish a stable, effective, and broadly representative central government; (3) economic development must bolster this new government and reduce dependence on donors; and (4) we must help the people of Afghanistan meet their critical humanitarian needs while reconstruction proceeds.” That’s just the tip of the iceberg, I suggest you go to the State Dept website and read the Global Mission Statement for yourself so that you get the whole picture in context. Also pertinent to the topic, from the International Security Assistance Force – Afghanistan http://www.isaf.nato.int/ ; Mission Statement ISAF, in support of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, conducts operations in Afghanistan to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency, support the growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development, in order to provide a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population. Security In accordance with all the relevant Security Council Resolutions, ISAF’s main role is to assist the Afghan government in the establishment of a secure and stable environment. To this end, ISAF forces are conducting security and stability operations throughout the country together with the Afghan National Security Forces and are directly involved in the development of the Afghan National Army through mentoring, training and equipping. Reconstruction and development Through its Provincial Reconstruction Teams, ISAF is supporting reconstruction and development (R&D) in Afghanistan, securing areas in which reconstruction… Read more »