Abu Muqawama: Post

Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.

An Open Letter to the Washington Post

Dear Sir or Madam:

As one of your readers, what in the world am I supposed to make of an article in yesterday's newspaper claiming that the United States and its allies are kicking the holy crap out of the Taliban, and another article today that claims that, no, actually, U.S. and allied operations are not having much of an effect at all on the Taliban's ability to conduct operations?

Can you see how this is confusing? I know the articles were written by different journalists working from different sources, but as a layman, I read these two articles and note that one was sourced almost entirely from officers within ISAF and that the other was sourced almost entirely from officers within the intelligence community. I also note that one article was sourced entirely from Afghanistan while another was sourced entirely from Washington. Was no attempt made by the left hand to figure out what the right hand was doing?

Here's a radical proposition: why don't you direct your reporters to pool their sources, work together, and write an article that highlights the conflicting assessments rather than write two articles taking each set of sources at face value? Because I shouldn't forget to read the newspaper one day and miss the news that we're winning. Or losing.

v/r,

Andrew Exum

Afghanistan

224 comments

That's a good point if you

That's a good point if you don't read beyond the headlines of these articles. In both articles, ISAF's cheery optimism and others' evidence-based pessimism is well noted.

Shoot that messenger.

Shoot that messenger. Because why should an American newspaper get away with slacking off on message discipline?

I read both articles, and came away with the impression that one corner of the war appears to have taken a turn for the better, though the story about it quotes Afghan sources as doubting that this is true. Meanwhile, the war as a whole appears not to be going well, though intelligence sources believe that there is good news here and there. It would be confusing for someone not paying attention, but I had the impression that paying attention to stuff like this was how Andrew Exum made his living.

Incidentally, Bob Woodward's account of the Obama administration's strategic review last year cites intelligence reports to the effect that the Taliban leadership was confident it could wait out an American surge. The story in today's Post, and to some extent the story in yesterday's, suggests that this belief is still held.

The press in the German

The press in the German speaking part of Europe has already decided, that the WP article about the failing US Military in Afghanistan is huge news and that the other article about the success is better not mentioned.

"Incidentally, Bob

"Incidentally, Bob Woodward's account of the Obama administration's strategic review last year cites intelligence reports to the effect that the Taliban leadership was confident it could wait out an American surge. The story in today's Post, and to some extent the story in yesterday's, suggests that this belief is still held."

Without doubt this is true. But its wrong to think the timetable is the basis. There are those who think with good reason that it is only a matter of time no matter how long it takes. They are willing to do so. Its my hope Obama has seen this too and has decided better to make it shorter than longer.

Conflating Taliban leadership is a mistake.

The Afghan Jalaluddin Haqqani is ISI supported, always has been, since the '80's. CIA and Saudi's gave much support in both weapons and cash. He was a CIA client during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Excellent fighter. Based around Miram Shah, North Waziristan.

When Bin Laden first came to Afghanistan he parked on Haqqani's territory. When OBL fled in 2001 he left via Haqqani's territory, undoubtedly using his network. They are like 'brothers', according to Steve Coll.

Pakistan has always worked well with Haqqani for their own ends. Principally this means an Afghanistan that is neutral if not friendly to Pak.

Pak has backed Haqqani for the inevitable,timetable or no, occurring end game. We saw Petraeus recently attack the Haqqani network in North Waziristan. (desperate stab?) Pak responded forcibly, cutting our supply lines into Afghanistan. The message was clear for all to see. Sovereignty is an issue, yes. But Petraeus blundered twice over with this unapproved move.

US aims in Afghanistan have long been mishandled, dashed. India, Russia, Karzai, other players, are now positioning themselves for the endgame; what will become Afghanistan? e.g. http://bit.ly/9EGfnO Pak, wise or not, will simply not allow India to gain undue influence via Karzai. Haqqani is still their man. Big time. Which obviously is a huge, complex, possibly unsolvable issue for the US.

Taliban operating in the South are mostly with the Qandhari faction of Taliban, led by Mullah Omar who is based primarily in Quetta.

"Incidentally, Bob

"Incidentally, Bob Woodward's account of the Obama administration's strategic review last year cites intelligence reports to the effect that the Taliban leadership was confident it could wait out an American surge. The story in today's Post, and to some extent the story in yesterday's, suggests that this belief is still held."

Without doubt this is true. But its wrong to think the timetable is the basis. There are those who think with good reason that it is only a matter of time no matter how long it takes. They are willing to do so. Its my hope Obama has seen this too and has decided better to make it shorter than longer.

Conflating Taliban leadership is a mistake.

The Afghan Jalaluddin Haqqani is ISI supported, always has been, since the '80's. CIA and Saudi's gave much support in both weapons and cash. He was a CIA client during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Excellent fighter. Based around Miram Shah, North Waziristan.

When Bin Laden first came to Afghanistan he parked on Haqqani's territory. When OBL fled in 2001 he left via Haqqani's territory, undoubtedly using his network. They are like 'brothers', according to Steve Coll.

Pakistan has always worked well with Haqqani for their own ends. Principally this means an Afghanistan that is neutral if not friendly to Pak.

Pak has backed Haqqani for the inevitable, occurring end game. We saw Petraeus recently attack the Haqqani network in North Waziristan. Pak responded forcibly, cutting our supply lines into Afghanistan. The message was clear for all to see. Sovereignty is an issue, yes. But Petraeus blundered twice over with this unapproved move.

US aims in Afghanistan have long been mishandled, dashed. India, Russia, Karzai, other players, are now positioning themselves for the endgame; what will become Afghanistan. e.g. http://bit.ly/9EGfnO Pak, wise or not, will simply not allow India to gain undue influence via Karzai. Haqqani is still their man. Which obviously is a huge, complex, possibly unsolvable issue for the US.

Taliban operating in the South are mostly with the Qandhari faction of Taliban, led by Mullah Omar who is based primarily in Quetta.

I agree with this,

I agree with this, specifically that the timetable for reviewing policy, thinning out American forces, etc. is not the source of reported Taliban confidence.

The enemy suffered a huge setback in 2001, and had over seven years to regroup. That's a lot. By this time, signals and messages of resolve on our part won't be the things driving their thinking as to whether they can win against the Afghan government. Hypothetically, a demonstration that the United States was determined to keep an army of 150,000 men in Afghanistan forever might have a different impact, but that has never been on the table.

forgive the double post,

forgive the double post, plz. thx

Good call.

Good call.

Curious... would you also

Curious... would you also have been stymied in 1862 by two articles in the Richmond Press: "Union Army 'whupped' at Fredricksburg, Lee's staff officers claim" and "Long term prognosis for Confederacy still not very good"?

I really like the lego

I really like the lego character who did it for you?
Joe Furniture Removalists Melbourne

Hello! kfkcbce interesting

Hello! kfkcbce interesting kfkcbce site!

Ага, теперь понятно…А то я

Ага, теперь понятно…А то я сразу не очень то и не понял где тут связь с самим заголовком…

Hey there! Quick question

Hey there! Quick question that is completely off subject. Do you know how you can make your internet site mobile friendly? My internet site looks weird when viewing from my iphone. I'm trying to come across a template or plugin that might have the ability to fix this problem. Should you have any suggestions, please share. With thanks!

8Ai5ks tpmfzpgqekao,

8Ai5ks tpmfzpgqekao, [url=http://fxotzmwieeom.com/]fxotzmwieeom[/url], [link=http://fhbrxwgpstnl.com/]fhbrxwgpstnl[/link], http://qitbohrjqfkq.com/

Add your comment

CNAS retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br> <hr><blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Search