Check for web archive captures
Checklist for General Petraeus
By maudeaster on 2010-07-07 06:35:16
Here’s a checklist for General Petraeus as he takes over leadership of the US troops in Afghanistan. He knows the
requirements for a successful counterinsurgency effort — he wrote the manual. Let’s see how the US strategy in Afghanistan
rates against these counterinsurgency requirements: * A competent national government as an alternative to the resistance:
Yes ___ No_ X_* National leaders seen as putting the people’s interest above lining their own pockets: Yes _ = No _X_°*
Afghan national police and military adequate to taking over security provision, or with realistic plans to train them: Yes___
No_X_* US development efforts equally important to US military efforts: Yes = No X_»* Development efforts that meet
civilian needs without enriching government leaders or the Taliban: Yes No_X__* Protection of the population given
consistent priority over civilian-alienating US military house raids and air strikes: Yes__ No _X_ If General Petraeus can’t
see this handwriting -- all these NO’s on the wall -- can’t see that his counterinsurgency plan is not working in Afghanistan,
then we will know for sure he is not the intelligent general Congress has been lauding. Responding to General Petraeus’
arrival in Kabul, here’s how Dexter Filkins of the New York Times described the US war in Afghanistan on July 5, 2010:
"Almost every phase of the war is going badly. In June, 102 American and NATO troops lost their lives, more than in any
month since the war began. The major offensive in Kandahar, the most important city in the Taliban heartland, has been
slowed because of worries over the lack of local support. The Afghan government and army show few signs of being able, or
even willing, to take over. In the United States, public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans have turned against
the war." The US war in Afghanistan is already the longest combat deployment in US history. The war is swallowing in
enormous gulps our taxes needed so badly for job creation, education, health care and creating a clean, green and non-oil
spill economy. The good news is that Congress is changing its direction on the war, seeing that this counterinsurgency
approach won't work. Just last week, 162 members of the House of Representatives voted for the McGovern amendment
calling for a game plan to end the Afghan war. And 100 representatives went even further, supporting Rep Barbara Lee's
amendment to limit funds for military operations in Afghanistan only to force protection and an orderly withdrawal of US
troops and military contractors. Bravo to our Representative Paul Tonko who voted for both these amendments! Call him
and thank him at 518-465-0700. Sadly, Representative Scott Murphy supported neither. Call and encourage him to vote
against the next Afghan war funding effort at 518-581-8247. There are alternatives to the current US approach. A negotiated
end to the war is possible. Most importantly the Afghans themselves at the recent national Peace Jirga --as well as our
NATO allies, Pakistan, the UN -- are all pointing to the need to move now on negotiations as the way forward. More on this
and the multiple options for what Afghanistan could look like after US forces leave in later posts.
