Reality check on Afghanistan: We're LOSING

The Economist's cover this week (26/6-2/7/10) bears the headline "Losing Afghanistan". Inside is a leading article [editorial, to us North Americans - ed.] on what may or may not happen now that Gen. "Billy" McChrystal has been replaced by Gen. Petraeus, the hero of Iraq. (The Economist calls him that.)

There is also a "briefing" -- a lengthy analysis -- on Afghanistan, headed "More than a one-man problem". The sub-headline reads "The gaffes that cost General Stanley McChrystal his job are symptoms of far deeper trouble -- a war that is being lost." Critics and war hawks please note: those are the Economist's words, not mine. It's my emphasis though.

After going through a long list of failures and a somewhat shorter list of successes in Armpitistan, the Economist concludes the three-page opus thus: "Perhaps the best that can be hoped for NATO's current operations is to weaken the militants sufficiently to bring them to the table."

It seems to me that's a pretty faint hope. And one that is not worth the spilling of another drop of blood. Instead of planning strategies for counter-insurgency, Obama and whoever his advisors are today should, in my view, be looking for the door marked "EXIT".

There is nothing ... repeat, NOTHING ... to be gained by staying in Afghanistan, not "peace with honour", not even peace WITHOUT honour. The USA and its allies are in the wrong war, in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons. It's time to quit while we're behind!

Back to the night club circuit for McChrystal

Erstwhile comedian Billy McChrystal, who clawed his way out of the entertainment gutter and rose to the lofty position of U.S. commander in Afghanistan, seems likely to be planning a return to the nightclub circuit following an evening of fun and frolic with freelance journalist Mike Hastings, who was doing a profile on the general for Rolling Stone.

McChrystal's commander-in-chief, the Rainbow President, has invited Billy to the Formerly White House for what is expected to be a severe bollocking. "I was just trying out some impressions", McChrystal said, "but I guess the prez wasn't amused. I hope he'll change his mind once he sees the polished version of my new act."

The material McChrystal referred to reportedly included Vice-President "Joe Bite Me", U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, and National Security Adviser James Earl Jones, who was depicted as a clown. "I rented a Krusty the Klown outfit for that one," McChrystal said. "I mean, I really put some effort into this, y'know?"

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said McChrystal's new routine was definitely a CLM, and hinted that McChrystal "will never work in this town again". Gibbs promised that in his meeting with McChrystal, President Barack would be "wide awake and fully engaged...not like last time."

The Americans are expected to follow the lead of the Canadian Armed Forces, who earlier this month assigned their former commander in Afghanistan, General Daniel Ménard, to head a crack team developing a new computerized personnel system. Given his background in entertainment, General McChrystal is tipped to be placed in charge of of bringing Bob Hope back from the dead to headline a new USO show to cheer up the boys in the Middle East.

Neither the U.S. nor the Canadian Armed Forces have yet named new commanders for the Afghanistan police action. However, Walt can reveal the names of the leading candidates: Brig.-Gen. Stan Lee Laurel (Canada) and the first top-level female commander in U.S. history, Gen. Olive R. Hardy.

Afghanistan commander's assessment: FAILURE

The Washington Post has put the truth -- or at least the unclassified version of it -- out there for all to see. Today it published US General Stanley McChrystal's Commander's Initial Assessment of the Afghan war.

Dated 30/8/09, the report to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is brutally frank. The West is losing the war, McChrystal says, and will have to withdraw in defeat unless more troops are sent to pursue a "radically revised strategy".

The general says failure to reverse "insurgent momentum" in the near term risks a situation in which "defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

Here are some other pertinent quotes:
"The overall situation is deteriorating."
"Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it."
"Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."

General McChrystal, who already has at his disposal more than 100,000 Western troops, mostly American but including thousands of Canadians, has reportedly drafted a separate request for yet more troops, but has not sent it to the Pentagon.

The idea of putting "more boots on the grounds" faces resistance from within Obama's Democratic Party, which controls Congress. Public opinion in the other NATO countries which might be asked to contribute, is even more strongly against any further commitment.

The obvious course of action is for the Americans to admit that they've made a colossal blunder, and devise a speedy exit strategy. Will that look like cutting and running? Who cares?! As Washington insiders have been heard to say "the jig is up"!