کابل پرس

Chess Master Putin Humiliates Hollywood Obama Over Crimea

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2014-03-26T21:56:18Z

In the Crimea, we are seeing a chess master pitted against a superficial Hollywood want-a-bee. It is almost painful to watch a hapless Barack Obama being outmaneuvered at every step by a skilled strategist like Vladimir Putin. President Obama has opposed a democratic referendum in Crimea while he supported one in Kosovo, and he is siding with coup leaders in Kiev who overthrew a democratically elected government; none of which is consistent with American values. In an effort to shift the focus away from the Administration's lackluster performance; poorly educated Administration officials have attempted to compare President Putin to Adolph Hitler (which is always a sign of desperation). The story has reached a point where the Obama Administration's statements and actions have become a joke. When your adversary, your allies in the Ukraine and most of the rest of the world ridicule your efforts, it is time for some serious self-reflection. The best thing the U.S. Congress could do is purchase hundreds of chess sets and send them to senior Obama Administration officials with a note that reads, “Please learn how to play.”

The evidence points to a Russian strategy that may have begun almost a decade ago. The old Soviet Union fell apart due to a variety of factors, including a poor economy. The new Russia under Vladimir Putin has been slowly repairing that deficiency, while beneath the surface a resentment has been smoldering over the way that the United States and old Europe have treated Russia. Russia was ignored in the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, as the United States and NATO acted unilaterally, both in those crises and virtually every other over the past two decades. Russian objections were dismissed and its proposals sidelined.

Today, the world has shifted. Russian allies in Iran, Syria and Egypt are on the rise, while U.S. allies in Afghanistan, Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan struggle or decline. The current Iraqi and Afghan governments are openly hostile toward the United States, reflecting resentment within those two countries from at least a significant portion of the populations.

Russia is flush with money and resources and is largely independent of international influences, while the United States is broke, its military shrinking, and its economy dependent on China, Vietnam and Korea.

The Russian strategy is a long-term one, which is to break up NATO, pushing old Europe into neutrality. The NATO countries lack the resources to meet the 2% GDP goal for funding their militaries, therefore they cannot challenge Russia militarily. As Europe is struggling out of a recession, it must decide whether to take resources from Western Europe and invest them in Eastern Europe as a buttress against Russia. It is unlikely that such will occur. The Putin plan is for the citizens of Western Europe to tire of this economic arms race thereby pushing new governments office committed to an accommodation with Russia. It is an amazingly bold plan by a master tactician; and it might work. Barack Obama has little to counter this plan with.

The U.S. military is overextended abroad. It seeks to have influence everywhere, with the result being that it has insufficient influence anywhere. While Russian slowly builds, the U.S. slowly deteriorates. American allies in the developing world are increasingly authoritarian and therefore unstable. Target killings by U.S. drones, and the civilian casualties that result due to mistakes, are fueling opposition movements around the world. Shooting an unarmed Osama bin Laden, then finishing him off as he lay injured on the floor, and then dumping his body secretly in the ocean, were not the actions of a confident victor. While heralded in the U.S. press, the killing had no positive impact on America's war. Al-Qaeda is stronger today than ever.

One of the many flaws in U.S. “strategy” (it really has none) is that al-Qaeda can be defeated by violence. President Obama and his mediocre national security staff fail to understand that al-Qaeda is not the enemy; it is merely a symptom of a larger problem. Communism was defeated in most of the developing world, but it too was simply a symptom of the dissatisfaction of a portion of the population. They feel disfranchised by the authoritarian governments that the U.S. has historically supported. Crushing local Communist party groups was a short-term tactic, not a long-term strategy because it merely shifted the population to more radical forms of protest, which is what we are faced with today. The U.S. needs to develop long term viable strategies that are consistent with American values. It needs to plan decades in advance. It needs to act boldly and it needs to take risks if it intends to prevail against President Putin and his successors. Learning chess can help.

Obama Golfs While His Female Troops Endure Sex Crimes

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2013-12-31T15:07:07Z

President Barack Obama enjoys the glamour of being “Commander in Chief,” but not the responsibility. He prefers to golf while his female troops are being sexually abused (the estimate is 130,000 victims over the past five years).

The Afghan people have been the recipients of numerous speeches from Obama Administration officials promoting the rights of women and concepts of justice and freedom, yet these same officials have refused to act to protect women serving within the American military from sexual assaults by their male counterparts. If the U.S. military refuses to protect its own troops from these insider attacks, how can this same military be relied upon to protect the Afghan people from the Taliban and al-Qaeda?

The latest statistics from the Pentagon reveal that an estimated 26,000 sexual assaults and other unwanted sexual incidents occurred within the U.S. military during fiscal year 2013. Of that total, only about 5,000 were officially reported, with only a small percentage prosecuted. The low reporting of these crimes by victims was due to fears, apparently valid, that it would do no good to report the offenses. Retired U.S. Major General Robert H. Scales recently wrote in The Washington Post that there is a culture within the U.S. military in which women are not valued. Oddly, this is the same cancer which pervaded the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and which still guides the Taliban movement. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish friend from foe in Afghanistan.

New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand had been leading a year-long effort to strip U.S. military commanders of their authority over sex crimes. Her proposal was to vest prosecution authority in the service Judge Advocate Generals. Essentially, victims could file complaints directly with experienced prosecutors, much as American citizens do in the civilian world. This significant reform was opposed by both the Pentagon and the White House. As a result it died last month within the Congress.

The Pentagon has long benefited from a legion of apologists. They include former President Bill Clinton (never an ardent protector of women), and his wife, Hillary Clinton (who as Secretary of State refused to criticize the brothels in Kabul that arose to service NATO officials and their contractors). The policy has too long been, “Boys will be boys,” as if this is all just harmless fun.

The apologists cross the spectrum within the American news media. Jennifer Steinhauer of The New York Times wrote a November 7, 2013 article about sexual abuse within the U.S. military. It was low key and bland, containing numerous “talking points” quotes from Pentagon officials to the effect that things were improving. Just as bland was the December 28, 2013 Editorial from The Washington Post entitled, “New sexual assault policies may not go far enough.” It quotes President Obama as giving the Pentagon another year to show improvement and if it does not, the President may order still more reforms (the crucial word is “may”). It apparently never occurred to the Post's editors that perhaps firing some senior Generals and Admirals would send a more forceful message than implementing the new measures directed by Congress. It also apparently never occurred to the Post that Barack Obama, after five years of this scandal, should not have had to be pushed into reforms by an Act of Congress. Shamefully, none of the mainstream American news media have leveled any criticism against the President for five years of inaction. His Pentagon's war against women gets a pass.

On May 7, 2013, The New York Times' Maureen Dowd joined the list of Obama-protectors. Her article entitled, “America's military injustice” focused on Pentagon missteps, ignoring the Commander in Chief. Mr. Obama never seems to be in the loop on any crisis, disaster, scandal or embarrassing policy or practice. This does not seem to bother Ms. Dowd.

This writer served as an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate with the U.S. Air Force, including a tour with the First Special Operations Wing. The U.S. military justice system was broken years ago and remains broken. This writer recalls a Captain at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma who was sexually harassing a group of 18-year-old female airmen under his command. It proved impossible to remove the Captain from his post because he was a favorite of the base commander and the base commander had a General at the Pentagon who was his patron and who protected him. Because the U.S. military operates on consensus and not leadership, no other General wanted to quarrel with the Pentagon protector. That is U.S. military justice. On a similar vein, this writer was appointed to an Accident Review Board that investigated the death of an LTV Corporation test pilot in Arkansas. The Colonel managing the “LANA” (low altitude night attack) flight program was clearly negligent because the test pilot had not passed his proficiency test for night flight operations and should not have been flying that night. Attempts to have the Colonel disciplined were thwarted because he had a General officer protector. Again, this is American military justice.

If this writer had the opportunity to address President Obama, he would say, 
“Mr. President: You are giving these Pentagon generals and admirals another year! That means another potential 26,000 victims! What does it take before you will actually fire someone? If (God forbid) one of your daughters was being sexually abused by your military perhaps you might have a little more sense of urgency and concern. These female soldiers, sailors and airmen are your responsibility and are entitled to no less protection than your daughters. You should be ashamed.”

By warring against their own troops, General Marty Dempsey and his lackluster senior staff at the Pentagon have become their own worst enemy. An army divided against itself will always fail. Afghanistan needs reliable allies and allies committed to ideals of justice. In the absence of such, the nation needs to be prepared in 2014 to go it alone.

Bishop Tutu Shames Mandela Funeral Opportunists

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2013-12-20T06:10:30Z

On December 17, 2013, former Archbishop Desmond Tutu spoke out against the exclusion of Afrikaners from the funeral of former South African President Nelson Mandela. The crowning achievement of President Mandela was to bring together two warring sides into one South Africa. With racial, religious and ethnic conflicts on the rise around the world, President Mandela's funeral should have been a celebration of his amazing accomplishment. The theme of inclusion and a demonstration of that inclusion would have been a fitting tribute and an example for others.

Instead, the world watched politicians from around the globe flooding into South Africa seeking to stand in the shadow of someone whom they do not understand and will never be. They all gave self-promoting speeches, probably written by others, in which each tried to outdo the other in praising President Mandela. The goal was form over substance. Then, after the obligatory tourist trip to Robben Island, they each then returned to their own country confident that they, as the “heirs” to Nelson Mandela, will be able to invoke the Mandela name in support of their own petty policies and programs. To use a phrase coined over a century ago by American author Ralph Waldo Emerson, these officials would have to enlarge themselves to even imagine someone like Nelson Mandela.

The world caught snapshots of these officials joking and clowning during the ceremonies, oblivious to the gulf that separates them from President Mandela. Each basked in the praise of the crowd, something President Mandela was uncomfortable with. This writer has a copy of a Mandela print entitled, “The Window,” depicting the view from his prison cell on Robben Island. It is a hauntingly elegant and simple drawing, by a simple man, with a simple dream that we are all God's children.

Bishop Desmond Tutu is of the same substance. He tends to speak quietly, passionately and without malice. He can always be found at the front of any honorable cause. He does not conduct polls before he announces his position. He does not worry about his place in history. History will unfortunately find him to be a rarity. A truly gentle man, for whom honor trumps all else.

Bishop Tutu, who is 82, may also be concerned about his own funeral; one hopefully in the distant future. He is telling the world that it should not be managed by the African National Congress. He is likely also telling the world that opportunist politicians and self-promoting civil rights leaders will gain no legitimacy by attending his funeral.

President Karzai Risks Assassination for Defying NATO

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2013-12-01T13:46:36Z

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is a “bad puppet,” to use a term coined by American author Francis Fitzgerald. He is refusing to obey the dictates of his Western allies who want him to immediately sign the BSA (Bilateral Security Agreement) with the United States. That places him in the same position as (bad puppet) South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, who was murdered in a CIA-backed coup on November 2, 1963. To-date, Western intelligence agencies had considered President Karzai to be more of an asset than a liability. As the 2014 Afghan Presidential election approaches, President Karzai's favorables are waning; consequently his continued viability is less important to the West. When the tipping point is reached (it may have already been exceeded), President Karzai's life expectancy will drop and he risks being sacrificed for the sake of democracy and freedom.

An ominous development is the November 30, 2013 New York Times article by Rod Nordland. The article goes out of its way to paint a picture of an Afghan President who is opposing the will of the Afghan people and his own Cabinet due to his delay in signing the BSA. Mr. Nordland also wrote that the Afghan people are opposed to President Karzai's criticism of a U.S. drone strike last week that killed an Afghan child and wounded two women in Helmond Province, while President Karzai was silent over a suicide bomber last Friday who attacked an American patrol in Kandahar, wounding two Americans but also killing an Afghan child. Mr. Nordland seemed to equate the two attacks. In one, an unknown American controller, potentially sitting in an office at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, caused the civilian casualties and will never face justice or even be publicly identified. The parents of that child should have the right to face their child's killer and hear from him or her why it occurred (even if the controller is never punished). It is outrageous that an Afghan child can be killed by remote control 8,000 miles away and the killer gets to go our for a beer after and is protected from any accountability. While mistakes are inevitable in warfare, there is no excuse for not acting honorably in the aftermath. In the case of the child in Kandahar who was killed, his killer paid with his life for his crime. The two incidents are not the same, but the hostility of The Times toward President Karzai may help to give the “green light” to his replacement with extreme prejudice.

The BSA agreement has fundamental flaws in that it is a sale of sovereignty. In return for money and troops, the Government of Afghanistan agrees not to enforce its laws and it acknowledges that it cannot protect its own people from abuses by either side in the conflict. It teaches Afghan children the “golden rule,” which is that those with the gold make the rules. Despite NATO claims that it punishes its soldiers, the reality is that such occurs in perhaps 1% of the cases due to the NATO rules of engagement which permit killings which would be crimes under U.S. and European criminal codes, and under the Rules of War.

The West does not learn from its mistakes. The murder of President Diem was the beginning of a downward spiral of coups and counter-coups which crippled the South Vietnamese Government and led to its eventual defeat. Democracy and freedom cannot be enhanced through the arrest and/or murder of democratically elected officials. The U.S.-backed coup in Egypt is another good example of a morally bankrupt scheme. The West created elaborate and contorted rationales for why the coup against President Morsi was good for democracy. Interestingly, those same bizarre rationales would justify coups in the U.S. and many European countries which have similarly unpopular governments.

The looming U.S. and NATO failure in Afghanistan can be traced to poor planning, a half-hearted effort, a failure to understand counter-insurgency concepts, a lack of accountability in the seemingly endless USAID scandals, support for warlords, prisoner abuses and the killing of too many civilians. NATO should think twice about installing a new Afghan President. It is not competent enough to create a viable Afghan Government, and it cannot spin such an abhorrent act as morally acceptable.

U.S. Leaving Toxic Time-Bombs Across Afghanistan

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2013-10-14T19:00:00Z

The U.S. Government waged chemical warfare in Afghanistan. It did not do so with sarin gas or mustard gas, but with solvents, toxic metals, hazardous liquids, corrosive materials, infectious hospital waste and radioactive debris from scrap military equipment. Millions of gallons and millions of tons of each were transported into Afghanistan and used, with the spent remains being burned, buried and abandoned in hundreds of outposts, air bases and forward operating bases across Afghanistan. The Kabul Press^? and other have written for years about the toxic burn pits operated by the U.S. military, the illegal landfills and the other environmentally damaging practices that resulted from more than a decade of U.S. and NATO military operations

This past week U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been in Afghanistan seeking to pressure the Karzai Government into signing a long-term agreement that would keep U.S. forces in Afghanistan beyond 2014. To date, neither side has apparently discussed any of the toxic time-bombs that the U.S. is planning to leave behind. No one is publicly addressing the billions of dollars that Afghanistan will need to clean up the hazardous mess that the Pentagon and State Department plan to leave behind. No one is mentioning the precious groundwater that has been poisoned and will continue to be poisoned for decades. There are no apparent negotiations about environmental restoration efforts, including the replanting of thousands of trees that the U.S. has cut down in its hunt for rebel forces. The countryside remains scarred from decades of warfare.

The fact is that the United States would not be abandoning a battlefield in Europe with such careless disregard. As the Kabul Press previously reported, the Canadian Government required the Pentagon to dig up and take home all the hazardous waste the U.S. buried at its old DEW Line radar posts in Northern Canada. The Karzai Government should be insisting on no less. The Afghan people deserve better from their Government. It should be fighting for their health, their safety and for future generations of Afghan children. The Karzai Government is the steward of the country and owes an obligation to hand over to its successor an unpolluted nation, or at least a nation on the mend. The next time the U.S. decides to “save” another country, that county may say “no thanks” as the long-term environmental price for irresponsible U.S. military operations may be unacceptably high.

Vladimir Putin's Star Shines Over Washington, D.C.

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2013-09-18T15:19:44Z

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, President of the Russian Federation, has saved President Barack Obama from a humiliating defeat in the U.S. Congress, caused in part by his bungling Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry's bellicose speeches helped push President Obama into a “red line” corner and to the brink of war with Syria.
Luckily, cooler minds prevailed at the Kremlin.

President Putin is now poised to rid Syria of chemical weapons and he is attempting to unite the world against al-Qaeda's growing army in Syria, an army being funded by America's “allies.” One would think that President Putin would be the toast of official Washington, D.C. due to his brilliant diplomacy and that of his Foreign Minister Sergey Victorovich Lavrov, yet that is not the case. Despite that, common people do recognize President Putin's efforts, as will hopefully the Nobel Committee in Oslo.

This week the American people were embarrassed by the crude opinion piece written by Congressman Philip “Buck” McKeon and published in The Moscow Times. The ill-mannered Congressman refers to President Putin as simply “Putin.” When one has nothing positive to say, one resorts to insults. Congressman McKeon, a long time supporter of dictators in Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen and Egypt, attacks the democratically elected President of Russia for human rights violations! Congressman McKeon's opinion piece can best be used to wrap up old fish.

The chemical attacks in the Markaz Rif Dimashq district located east and south of Damascus do merit a firm international response, as do the previous chemical incidents in Syria. The evidence hints that both sides may have used these banned weapons. The legality of such use was placed into question by the July 8, 1996 decision of the United Nation's International Court of Justice. It found that the use of nuclear weapons was not necessarily illegal, if a State's survival was at stake. That dubious and unfortunate decision apparently voids any war crimes prosecutions for using any weapon of mass destruction by a State engaged in a war (internal or external).

The world should be united in (a) assisting the Syrian refugees, especially as winter is approaching, and (b) forcing all sides to the conference table. Russia is leading this effort, but Turkey and Jordan have to cease their meddling in Syrian affairs and support the peace process. Let us hope that the West will join Russia in forging a peace for the Syrian people.

U.S. Money Buys Audience with Britain's Queen Elizabeth II

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2013-07-25T10:07:09Z

Barack Obama is once again selling the U.S. Ambassador post to the United Kingdom. In his first term, a bribe (i.e., campaign contribution) of $300,000 was sufficient for political campaign contributor Louis Susman to purchase the position. Today, the price has increased to $2.3 million, but that was easily paid by Obama campaign contributor Matthew Barzun, the new nominee to the Court of St. James. Mr. Barzun, as the new Ambassador, will be able to purchase a 20-minute royal audience at Buckingham Palace with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The stated purpose is for him to present his Letter of Credence to the Queen. Prime Minister David Cameron and Britain Foreign Secretary William Hague should be protecting the Queen from having to suffer such an indignity.

It is sad that Great Britain does not rate a professional diplomat. It merely serves as a dumping ground for President Obama's political debts. When Barzun's tour expires, or he becomes bored, perhaps his successor will be able to buy the post at Wal-Mart, or perhaps on line at eBay, or perhaps even on an American game show.

The U.S. Department of State currently awards contracts worth tens of millions of dollars each year to politically connected consultants who travel to developing countries in order to “instruct” them on anti-corruption practices. Secretary of State John Kerry is directing this effort while selling diplomatic posts to the highest bidder; a highly corrupt practice. He seems oblivious to the damage such corruption is causing to the image of the United States.

While there is corruption within Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan have a genuine respect for Her Majesty. The Government of Afghanistan, for all its flaws, would never think of offending the Royal Family. It may be necessary, in the future, for the Government in Kabul to dispatch a delegation to Washington, D.C. to instruct the Obama Administration on how to battle corruption within its diplomatic service. The first step would be to end the abhorrent practice of selling U.S. Ambassador posts.

The statistics are dismaying. Barack Obama has nominated the highest percentage of political appointees in U.S. history as Ambassadors: 32.2%. Campaign contributors and campaign “bundlers” have reportedly been nominated for the top U.S. diplomatic posts in Italy, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, France, Hungry, Switzerland and Singapore. They, along with Britain, have the distinction of being diplomatic backwaters where non-professionals can play at being ambassador because no important diplomatic interests are at stake,

The impact of this corruption does not end with the appointments of these persons. It is important for the world to follow the careers of those who purchase U.S. diplomatic posts. Take former Ambassador Susman. He has cashed in on his foreign policy adventure in Great Britain by accepting an appointment to the board of “J Street,” a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, D.C. He is, in effect, selling his contacts with the Obama Administration and the British Government.

The issue for the House of Commons and the British people is whether the post of Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and the resulting royal access, should be a “party favor” to be dispensed as an American political reward. One would think that it would be an insult to America's “closest ally” to be so treated. The response in Great Britain and the rest of subservient Europe should be to, “Just Say No! Alas, that seems too much for its old and tired bureaucracies.

U.S. Sinks Into Pit of Slime to Negotiate with the Taliban

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2013-06-19T15:48:26Z

Officially, the U.S. Government does not negotiate with terrorists (except for those occasions when it holds formal talks with them). Such is the case for the Afghan Taliban, which was declared a FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization) by U.S. President George W. Bush. This week Obama Administration officials are meeting in Doha, Qatar with their “respected” adversaries in face to face peace negotiations. U.S. diplomats, eager to legitimize the Taliban, have agreed that the Taliban can open an embassy of sorts in Qatar.

The war against the Taliban has been a trillion-dollar, decade-long, colossal failure. The Taliban did not win the war, the Pentagon, CIA and State Department lost the war. It was lost due to an inept war plan, a dismally managed reconstruction plan, support for corrupt regional warlords and excessive civilian casualties, which fueled the opposition. Virtually all those American officials responsible for this debacle have been promoted or otherwise rewarded, as have their lackey consultants at the Brookings Institution, Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Failure has become the new American success. Losing a war is now politically acceptable as long as your political party can shift the blame. American, NATO and Afghan forces have died, and died for nothing, but their families have been inexplicably silent. That silence has emboldened the culpable to slide to new depths.

The looming failure in Afghanistan has been eclipsed in Washington, D.C. by scandal. The Obama Administration is currently engulfed in scandals. There are scandals within the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice, the Secret Service, the National Security Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Department of Agriculture, the General Services Administration and the Veterans Administration. The latest scandals are within the U.S. Department of State, which has covered up sexual abuses by U.S. Ambassadors and members of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security detail. The cover-ups were reportedly approved by Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) has once again emerged as a second-rate, bumbling group that is unable to police itself. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki told the press this week that DS was seeking help from “experienced law enforcement officials” from outside the Department. As there continues to be no adult supervision at the State Department, America's image is being tarnished yet again.

Into this mess comes Secretary of State John Kerry who, oblivious to the cancer and scandal spreading within his Department, supports negotiating with Taliban terrorists. Apparently, as long as the Taliban state they will support democracy and voice their opposition to al-Qaeda, they are welcome at the White House. If they but mutter a few words unconvincingly spoken, decades of terror and abuse will be forgotten. America's negotiating policy can be summed up as a whiff of cologne to cover up the stink of perfidy.
In order to negotiate with its peace partner, the Obama Administration will have to slide into the Taliban's slime pool. Battlefield failures often result in humiliating spectacles for the defeated.

Just as the Kurds were sold out by Henry Kissinger and the Marsh Shia in Iraq by George H.W. Bush, Afghan women are poised to enter the auction block where, in the interests of American geopolitics, they will be sold off to the Taliban. The Obama Administration will then call on its Hollywood backers, Democratic Party cheerleaders and MSNBC apologists to help package this betrayal as something noble.

Hillary Clinton saw the Taliban victory approaching and she resigned in order to distance herself from the consequences she helped to engineer. The problem for President Obama is that he cannot easily resign. As he descends into the Taliban slime pit, he needs to recognize that history is not kind to those who betray the helpless, and slime is not easy to wash off.

“Obama-Sleep” Promotes Failure in Afghanistan

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2013-05-18T06:34:41Z

Alex Thier, the official in charge of the scandal-racked USAID mission in Afghanistan, is being promoted. That is the stunning news from Washington, D.C. Mr. Thier is currently the Assistant to the Administrator for the Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs at the U.S. Agency for International Development. His new job will be as a Deputy Assistant Administrator in charge of USAID's Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning.

The seemingly endless list of audit reports that revealed that USAID programs in Afghanistan are ineffective and waste billions in taxpayer funds, has had no impact on USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah. Not only has Mr. Shah refused to impose accountability on any culpable official, but he continues to promote them. Alex Thier is but the latest example.

Journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran extensively investigated USAID failures in Afghanistan. He gave an example to PBS' Newswatch. In 2010, USAID attempted to spend $4 billion in Afghanistan. Mr. Chandrasekaran likened the spending spree to USAID, “carpet-bombing the country with money.” This enormous infusion of money distorted the local economy, fostered dependency on foreign aid and began a rash of capital construction projects that the Afghans lacked the resources to maintain. U.S. taxpayer funds were not simply wasted, but they helped to undermine the economy, made matters worse and aided the enemy.

This was confirmed by the Kabul Press^?, which for years has been reporting on USAID road construction projects, which created hundreds of kilometers of cheap asphalt roads that are already crumbling because the Afghan government has neither the infrastructure nor the budget necessary to maintain such a roadway system. These roads are cheap to construct but costly to periodically resurface, a task necessary every four to five years.

Mr. Thier has displayed no appreciation for the hardships that most Americans have to endure in order to pay their income taxes. He has failed to oversee the spending of taxpayer funds in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The idea seemed to be that the more money spent, the more successful the war effort, regardless of whether most of the projects eventually failed. This bizarre strategy has no basis in reality. It also reveals a gross ignorance of Afghan society.

America, helped by the contribution of Mr. Thier, is destined to lose its war against the Taliban. The long-term cost to the American people for this adventure may eventually total $1 trillion. Total U.S. casualties, including wounded and disabled with long-term medical conditions, has already exceeded 200,000.00. The Iraq and Afghan wars have all but broken the U.S. military. Historians will likely conclude that these losses were unnecessary.

Wars have to be fought with honor, integrity and creativity, and with rapid adjustments to changing conditions. This requires brutal honesty, prompt accountability in order to remove mediocre or non-performing officials and generals, and a 100% commitment to winning (rather than a 100% commitment to making Administration officials look good). None of this has ever been evident in the U.S. war effort. This article singles out Alex Thier, but the list of other Alex Thiers is long. This was a collective leadership failure.

History may well dub Barack Obama as the “sleeping President.” Bedazzled by Hollywood and MoTown, surrounded by courtesans singing his praises, and obsessed with a poorly drafted medical plan stripped of its crucial “public option” component, he slept. During the Obama-sleep, lackluster political appointees squandered his legacy. Second-rate Generals, diplomats and intelligence officials flailed away at real and imagined enemies, billions were wasted and two wars lost. Iran and al-Qaida emerged stronger, while the U.S. economy faltered. At home, a third-rate Attorney General sat on the sidelines while unscrupulous elements within the Government, freed from Government scrutiny, repeatedly ignored the rule of law and basic civil liberties.

An emerging scandal in Massachusetts involving U.S. Department of Agriculture officials (False Claims Act prosecution, 12CV30121-MAP (D.Mass.)), threatens to be just the latest Obama Administration scandal. Its web of public corruption may reach all the way into the office of Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack.

Some day Barack Obama may emerge from his Obama-sleep, but it will be too late for Afghanistan, which hitched its horse to the wrong wagon. As for Mr. Thier, life is good for those with political connections. Failures, even those that help to lose a war, are excusable by a Government which lacks honor.

U.S. Rules of Engagement Doom Afghan Mission

Matthew J. Nasuti (Former U.S. Air Force Captain) — 2013-05-10T15:05:03Z

“Kill-em All, Let God Sort Them Out.” This is a popular slogan with America's right-wing and it has unofficially become the centerpiece of America's strategy of desperation in Afghanistan. As will be explained, this flawed strategy is made possible by the Pentagon's secret “rules of engagement.” Counterinsurgency or COIN has now been jettisoned as a U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. The only goal now is to kill as many real or imagined Taliban as possible, as quickly as possible, so that the U.S. can retreat “with honor” claiming success. The problem with that goal is that is it creating new and long-term enemies for the West among the growing civilian casualties, and it is fueling the conflict. The United States is likely to find itself in the same endpoint as in Iraq. Exhausted, it will retreat under cover of darkness, leaving no friends behind, and leaving Iran and al-Qaeda stronger.

In the United States today, Pentagon surrogates are speaking out, publishing books and writing editorials in an attempt to explain away America's pending defeat in Afghanistan. It is alternatively being dismissed as due to “lack of resources” or due to the Karzai government or due to the failure to pursue peace talks with the Taliban. The dirty secret that no one wants to discuss is that the U.S. military lost the war because it lacked the commitment to win. Put simply, senior military officials never believed that the war was worth American lives and therefore they were not psychologically prepared to wage a protracted low-intensity, military campaign. The best evidence of this is the rules of engagement that the Pentagon set forth for the Afghan battlefield.

The rules of engagement were a recipe for disaster and are at the core of a deep-seated problem for the U.S. Government in its “war on terror.” At the apex of the rules there is always one key, overriding priority. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, that number one priority was to protect American forces. It is crucial to note that the apex was not victory over the Taliban and al-Qaeda, or the protection of Afghan women and children, but the safety of U.S. troops and diplomats. The real reason that the rules are labeled “secret” is that they are embarrassing and disreputable.

General Ray Odierno, whose heavy-handed, French/Algerian-type tactics in Tikrit helped to fuel the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, reportedly gave a speech at Basin Harbor, Vermont on June 9, 2004 in which he admitted that protecting his troops (not achieving victory or protecting Iraqi women and children) was his number one priority. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the same, as has recently her successor, John Kerry. These defects doomed both military campaigns. Pentagon and State Department officials failed to realize that achieving victory in the shortest period of time should have been the number one priority, as it would have brought American personnel home (where they would have been truly safe).

The problem with placing American safety at the apex of the rules of engagement is that such then permitted the U.S. military to commit thousands of abuses, all in the name of protecting Americans at all costs. There were unnecessary killings, checkpoint shootings, highway shootings, arbitrary arrests, abusive night home raids and errant air attacks, all of which inflamed the populace and fueled a decade-long war in Afghanistan. It did not matter that such abuses aided Taliban and al-Qaeda recruitment and therefore were counterproductive. Winning was not the focus.

The U.S. military continues to conceal many of the key statistics of its wartime abuses. One of them is to examine checkpoint killings. According to some available information, it appears that 95% or more of checkpoint shootings resulted in innocent civilians being killed, which fostered cycles of revenge against U.S. occupation forces. Logically, the result would be to change the rules of engagement in order to bar the firing on civilian vehicles, as the soldiers were wrong 95% of the cases. That change might slightly increase the number of Americans killed in the short-term, but likely would have led to a long-term drop in casualties as the cycles of revenge thereafter would never have occurred.

The U.S. military and all of its fancy “experts” and supporters such as David Petraeus, H.R. McMasters, John Nagl, David Kilcullen and Fred Kaplan all failed to comprehend that the rules of engagement were a key to victory (and a primary cause of the defeat). The rules also pointed out a fundamental flaw in the war planning, which is that the goals of liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, while important to White House officials, were (within the Pentagon and State Department) ultimately not worth dying for.

At the U.S. military academy at West Point, a cornerstone of leadership training for officer candidates is to ingrain into them the maxim that they must protect the personnel under their command. That maxim runs counter to COIN where the core principle is to protect the civilian population at all cost. Zero civilian casualties has to be the centerpiece of any successful COIN operation. Without a commitment to that goal (which will help lead to victory), no country should even attempt COIN. Sadly, this precept remains beyond the grasp of American policy-makers.

In conclusion, the United States remains psychologically incapable of successfully waging a large-scale counterinsurgency campaign. In Afghanistan the U.S., out of desperation, has reverted to a counter-terrorism strategy. It is premised on the assumption that increased killings of insurgents and their civilian supporters can win the war. This is an assumption that all reputable experts have rejected because the Taliban have shown that they can replace their losses indefinitely. The targeting of civilian supporters of the Taliban has increased the level of violence and caused unnecessary innocent casualties, which has led to calls for revenge and still more violence. America is doing nothing more than manufacturing a new generation of enemies who may follow U.S. troops home after 2014. Not only is America losing in Afghanistan, but the real war against America may only be beginning.

As with most large, ponderous organizations, the U.S. Government never learns any lessons from its mistakes. What that translates into is that more Americans and Afghans will have to die, all for a failed effort, and all due to the small minds and narrow vision of American policy-makers.

Final Note: The rules of engagement are but one key reason for the U.S. military's failure. Other reasons which this author has written about include the Pentagon's flawed notion that COIN can be waged by any fungible soldier or Marine. In fact, troops need to be screened before being assigned as perhaps 75% are not fit for COIN work. Their deployments only made matters worse. Troops should also be deployed as individuals (i.e., the Vietnam rotation scheme) instead of rotating whole units, which is far too disruptive of the local reconstruction and training functions. All personnel need extensive local language skills. Relying on interpreters has been a disastrous policy. The U.S. military needed a viable and professional civilian reconstruction partner, which it never had. The State Department simply assigned bodies for short-term deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan. These personnel usually lacked the engineering and infrastructure skills needed, and had no knowledge of local dialects. They could not function independently in the countryside and therefore rarely contributed anything positive to the war effort. The whole, disorganized Country-Team concept that the U.S. Government utilizes overseas is flawed and needs to be redesigned from the ground up.