Sunrise - Kandahar, Afghanistan 03/11/2013

Our day started with a nice sunrise today but we got word that 2 US troops died in a "Green on Blue" attack in Wardak Province.....This conflict is difficult and will be so until we can rely on the Afghans for their own defense.  Regardless of what the pointy headed POLS in WASH DC think, it is not going to happen by end of 2014.  To see all the effort made here go for naught will be tragic along with all the killing that will occur once we leave.... There is no easy answers.

I wanted to share this sunrise and hope all is well stateside.

In AFGHANISTAN, " It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over "

The great Yogi Berra once said, " It ain't over 'til it's over "
That seems to be the mantra for all things Afghanistan....

IF the enclosed news story isn't the surest sign that the 2014 "yap-yap" about Afghanistan is as worthless as any other promise made by a Politician, I'll be shocked.  There are lies and then there are damned lies. 

If the POLS would just be straight up about things, it would be so much less painful for all involved.

We need to be here  in Afghanistan for the Afghan people, our own defense interests and as a stabilizing force in the region.

No my dear friends, this game is going into extra innings....and then some.

U.S., Pakistan sign deal to allow supply routes through 2015
By Richard Leiby, Tuesday, July 31, WASHINGTON POST

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan will allow NATO supply convoys to cross its territory into Afghanistan until the end of 2015, one year beyond the deadline for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces there, under an agreement signed on Tuesday by U.S. and Pakistani officials.

The pact seems to close, for now, one of the most contentious chapters in the long-turbulent relationship between Washington and Islamabad, cementing cooperation by Pakistan in winding down the war in Afghanistan at least in terms of logistical assistance. Washington also has urged Islamabad to step up its participation in the peace process by bringing to the negotiating table militant groups that shelter in Pakistani’s tribal belt and regularly cross the border to attack NATO troops.

The so-called “memorandum of understanding” signed on Tuesday also provides the option for both sides to extend the deal in one-year intervals beyond Dec. 31, 2015. And it would apply to other NATO nations if they sign separate pacts with Pakistan.

Although Pakistan ended its seven-month blockade of NATO supplies earlier this month, the pact formalizes some key details, including a ban on transporting lethal supplies. And it lays out security arrangements Pakistan will provide for the thousands of container trucks and oil tankers whose routes originate at the port of Karachi.

Last week, after the war-provisioning convoys began rolling in significant numbers, Pakistan once again shut down the routes when a trucker was fatally shot in an attack attributed to the Pakistani Taliban, which has vowed to kill anyone who drives for NATO.

Pakistani officials said Tuesday that the convoys would resume only after the routes – which span hundreds of miles -- are suitably protected. Under the new arrangement, police in cities and towns would handle security until the convoys reach the restive tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, where nation’s paramilitary Frontier Corps would take over.

The pact was signed in a ceremony at Rawalpindi by a senior Pakistani defense ministry official, Rear Admiral Farrokh Ahmed, and the U.S. Embassy Chargé d'Affaires, Richard Hoagland.
The agreement formalizes the verbal agreements that the United States reached in the past with Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s most recent military ruler, who was forced into exile in 2008 after civilians took power.

Musharraf was able to set foreign policy and forge alliances as he saw fit. The deal he struck in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was a quid pro quo: Pakistan would cooperate in the war against terrorism, including allow the U.S. supply routes, in exchange for billions in aid.

The U.S. eventually designated Pakistan a “major non-NATO ally,” but that alliance, severely tested by the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden, essentially collapsed after a U.S. airstrikes killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at Afghan border posts last November.

The signed agreement is significant in that it appears to have been reached with the absence of overt Pakistani military involvement, U.S. officials have said the Pakistani generals stood back to allow civilian leaders to negotiate the pact, which proved to be a slow, politicized and unwieldy process.

Some Pakistani officials have described the NATO route agreement as a watershed moment, signaling that the “one phone call” days of Washington-Islamabad relations are over, and a sign that civilian rulers, for all their struggles in solving the nation’s social and economic ills, now have a voice in foreign policy.

Petraeus “ The progress achieved has put us on the right azimuth to accomplish the objective...Afghan forces in the lead.....by the end of 2014.”

Slow and steady progress is being made in a world where people expect overnight results... What we see in Afghanistan is along the lines of what occured in Iraq.

The issue now will be to build upon what has been accomplished and make sure we provide an ability for the Afghans to defend their own country from the threats within and in their region.



Petraeus: Taliban momentum halted in Afghanistan, but harder fighting ahead

By William Branigin,
Tuesday, March 15, 11:26 AM
Washington Post

Gen. David H. Petraeus told lawmakers Tuesday that the U.S. and NATO forces he commands in Afghanistan have halted the Taliban’s momentum in much of the country, but he predicted difficult fighting ahead as the radical Islamist insurgents try to regain lost territory in a spring offensive.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus said that the “hard-fought achievements in 2010 and early 2011” by U.S. and NATO forces have permitted a recommendation to shift lead security responsibility to Afghan forces in several provinces this spring.

He said these achievements also are important as he prepares to “provide options and a recommendation to President Obama for commencement of the drawdown of the U.S. surge forces in July.” He referred to Obama’s Dec. 1, 2009, speech at the U.S. Military Academy in which he pledged to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July 2011 at a pace to be determined by conditions on the ground.

In addition, Petraeus said, “the progress achieved has put us on the right azimuth to accomplish the objective agreed upon at last November’s Lisbon Summit, that of Afghan forces in the lead throughout the country by the end of 2014.”

The general’s comments come amid declining U.S. support for the Afghanistan war effort, which began in the fall of 2001 following al-Qaeda’s Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans now say the war in Afghanistan is no longer worth fighting.

In an opening statement at Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that in view of the poll, the next few months could be “decisive” as winter turns to spring and NATO forces “face a renewed Taliban offensive to retake territory lost on the battlefield.”

McCain, the top Republican on the committee, said the United States “needs to be exceedingly cautious about the withdrawal of U.S. forces” starting in July. “We should not rush to failure, and we should cultivate strategic patience,” he said.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the committee chairman, said the success of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan depends on the growth and capability of the Afghan security forces. He pointed to what he called a hopeful sign in “the increasing support of the Afghan people” for their security forces. He agreed that this spring’s fighting season could be an “acid test” as the Taliban tries to reverse recent losses.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) lamented the decline in U.S. popular support even though “we are succeeding in the Afghan war.” He attributed such sentiments more to continuing frustration over the domestic economy than to the actual situation in Afghanistan, and he said that “we have to remind the American people why we are in Afghanistan, why it’s worth it, and we are succeeding.”

In response to questions, Petraeus said he has not yet decided on the scope of the withdrawals that are to begin in July. But he expressed support for the concept of starting the drawdown then because “it undercuts the narrative of the Taliban that we will be there forever” and sends a message of urgency to the Afghan government.

He said he has requested resources to increase the Afghan security forces by 70,000, building on the growth “in number and capability” of those forces in the last couple of years. He said the growth is projected to bring the size of the Afghan forces to as many as 378,000, with a floor of at least 352,000.

Petraeus said the assessment by the NATO command in Afghanistan is that “the momentum achieved by the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2005 has been arrested in much of the country and reversed in a number of important areas.” He added: “However, while the security progress achieved over the past year is significant, it is also fragile and reversible. Moreover, it is clear that much difficult work lies ahead with our Afghan partners to solidify and expand our gains in the face of the expected Taliban spring offensive.”

Petraeus said U.S. and NATO forces, working with Afghan partners, have “stepped up the tempo of precise, intelligence-driven operations to capture or kill insurgent leaders.” He said about 360 “targeted insurgent leaders” are killed or captured in a typical three-month period. He also cited successes in clearing the Taliban from long-held safe havens, including “such critical areas as the districts west of Kandahar city that were the birthplace of the Taliban movement, as well as important districts of Helmand Province.”

A program to reintegrate “reconcilable” insurgents has also shown promise, Petraeus said, noting that “we and our Afghan partners cannot just kill or capture our way out of the insurgency in Afghanistan.” He said that “some 700 former Taliban have now officially reintegrated with Afghan authorities, and some 2,000 more are in various stages of the reintegration process.”

The general expressed concern, however, that “levels of funding for our State Department and [U.S. Agency for International Development] partners will not sufficiently enable them to build on the hard-fought security achievements of our men and women in uniform.” He warned the committee, “Inadequate resourcing of our civilian partners could, in fact, jeopardize accomplishment of the overall mission.”

braniginw@washpost.com

"We do strongly believe that for Afghanistan to be able to survive... it will need (US) help beyond 2014..."

The nature of the conflict in Afghanistan is driving the timeline for how long outside help will be needed...The Taliban and forces working with them would like to be able to wait out the US and others providing stability to Afghanistan.

We will be there for the foreseeable future as our presence provides stability. The change we need to look at is how long we should house military troops in Europe as the threat there has diminshed. Changing our footprint there could save Billions and allow us to redirect support where it is needed.

The instability that would follow our pulling out of Afghanistan before the job is completed would make things there only worse. The trick will be making sure we strike the right balance between what is needed and what we can provide....I have personally seen the progress there and it is encouraging although it will always be a difficult place. The hope is that the effort will pay out in the future...Many people said that stability would never occur in Iraq, but they were proven wrong.


Afghanistan seeks US help post-2014
by Shaun Tandon Shaun Tandon – Thu Feb 24, 12:24 am ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Afghanistan appealed to the United States to provide security assistance beyond 2014, the date by which President Barack Obama wants to withdraw US combat troops.

Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak held talks at the Pentagon to look at future relations, despite recent tensions between the two governments over civilian deaths in the NATO-led campaign against the Taliban.

"We do strongly believe that for Afghanistan to be able to survive in that very volatile region, it will need your help beyond 2014," Wardak said at the start of a meeting with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Wardak saluted the nearly 1,500 US troops who have died in the war, which was launched in 2001 to root out Al-Qaeda extremists responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States.

"We should be extremely grateful for all the sacrifices which your sons and daughters have given," Wardak said.

Gates said the meeting would be the start of a twice-a-year forum aimed at laying "an enduring foundation for our partnership well beyond 2014."

The meetings should "demonstrate to others in the region and to our own people, in concrete terms, that together we are putting Afghanistan on a path towards stability and security," Gates said.

In a statement afterward, the Pentagon said the talks aimed at developing "an enduring strategic partnership" in which Afghans take charge of their own security and ensure the country "never again becomes a safe haven for extremists that threaten others."

Opinion polls show dwindling US public support for the war in Afghanistan, with many Americans questioning the continued human and financial toll nearly a decade after troops were first deployed.

Obama has poured more troops into Afghanistan but said he will start pulling them out in July this year. However, the administration has recently shifted focus and emphasized 2014 as the date by which US troops will leave.

Colonel Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said the US military expected to play a role in Afghanistan even beyond that year.

"We have said that there will likely be some type of support past 2014 involving US troops of some nature," Lapan told reporters.

Lawmakers from the rival Republican Party have criticized Obama for setting a time-frame for withdrawal, saying it would embolden guerrillas to wait out and also encourage Pakistan to hedge its bets by keeping ties with the Afghan Taliban.

Gates, a holdover from Republican president George W. Bush, acknowledged in an interview published Wednesday that he was initially skeptical of setting a deadline but came to believe it would influence Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"I couldn't think of another way to grab Karzai by the lapels and say: 'You have to take ownership of this. This is your war,'" Gates said in The Weekly Standard, a conservative political magazine.

Gates also said that the United States soon "could do some judo" on the Taliban, who would be surprised if they had anticipated a significant troop drawdown in July.

The United States has had tense relations with Karzai, with officials accusing him of corruption, personal instability and a dependence on US troops that has prevented Afghanistan from developing its own forces.

Tensions have also mounted over civilian casualties. Karzai on Sunday voiced anger at what he said were the deaths of more than 50 civilians in airstrikes in Kunar province. NATO said it would probe the allegations.

The deaths of Western troops and Afghan civilians have also fueled opposition to the military campaign in the United States, where polls show more than half of the public believe the war is going in the wrong direction.

Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, a staunch war critic from Obama's Democratic Party, said that the civilian deaths from the airstrikes would only fuel the insurgency.

"No innocent civilian deaths are acceptable, especially to the families of those killed. We must end this war and bring our troops home," Kucinich said