Panetta Insists US is 'Winning' in Afghanistan: Statistics Disagree
December 15, 2011 Anti-War.com & The Washington Post & Al Jazeera
Over a decade into the US-led occupation of Afghanistan with no end in sight, and with officials quietly negotiating to keep US ground troops in the nation for another 14 years, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta informed the troops that "we're winning." Exactly what they're winning isn't clear. Also a revealing and penetrating interview of US Army Lieutenant General and Commander of the NATO Training Mission William Caldwell by Al Jazeera journalist Sami Zeidan that puts US reporters to shame.
Panetta Declares US 'Winning' in Afghanistan
'As Always, We Have Not Won' Jason Ditz / Anti-War.com
(December 14, 2011) -- Over a decade into the US-led occupation of Afghanistan with no end in sight, and with officials quietly negotiating to keep US ground troops in the nation for another 14 years, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta informed the troops that "we're winning."
Exactly what they're winning isn't clear, and when asked at a news conference later Panetta said the large size of the Afghan national army was evidence of his claim, adding that the Taliban had gotten weaker over the course of a decade of fighting.
"As always, we have not won, we have not completed this mission," added Panetta, without indicating exactly what "this mission" is. Throughout the rest of his comments he never again uttered the phrase "we're winning."
When pressed by a soldier on whether the US "win" might mean leaving and returning a decade later, Panetta answered that the US would be supporting Karzai "long after the end of 2014." The comment, as always, did not publicly mention the talks to keep troops in the nation for a decade beyond that date.
FORWARD OPERATING BASE SHARANA, Afghanistan (December 14, 2011) -- After 10 years of inconclusive war in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta declared during a visit here Wednesday that "we're winning" -- but his burst of optimism proved short-lived.
US military commanders and Obama administration officials have been exceptionally cautious about raising public expectations regarding the Afghan war, even with a surge of more than 33,000 US troops to the war zone over the past two years. They have usually resorted to safe cliches in describing how the surge halted the Taliban's momentum and "turned the tide" of the conflict.
More recently, they have spoken of "making progress" and moving "in the right direction," but have shied away from mention of outright victory.
That changed briefly when Panetta visited this US base in the southeastern province of Paktika, about 35 miles from the Pakistani border. Standing on dusty ground in the hilly terrain, he delivered a pep talk to a gathering of 200 troops from the 172nd Infantry Brigade.
"For all the sacrifices that you've made, the reality is that it's paying off," he said. "We're winning this very tough conflict here in Afghanistan."
Panetta only uttered the word "winning" once; subsequently, he described the war as being at "a turning point," a phrase he has used often this week during other stops to see US troops in Djibouti and diplomats at the US Embassy in Kabul. Asked about his use of "winning" by reporters later Wednesday, he declined to repeat it.
"As always, we have not won, we have not completed this mission, but I do believe we are in the process of making significant progress here," Panetta said at a news conference in Kabul with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
As evidence, he cited a weakened Taliban, reduced levels of violence and a strengthened Afghan national army and police force. "I think when you look at those achievements, clearly we are going in the right direction," he said.
US commanders have been carefully upbeat in recent weeks but have not gone as far as Panetta. "It's clear that we have the initiative," Army Lt. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, the second-ranking US and NATO commander, said Wednesday. "We're in charge on the battlefield."
Scaparrotti came close to declaring victory against the Taliban in the movement's birthplace and former stronghold in Kandahar and the Helmand River Valley, which is where the United States and NATO have concentrated their surge of troops since last year. But he quickly added an asterisk.
"In the south, I believe we've delivered a tactical defeat to the insurgency," he said. "But we need to consolidate that gain."
While the troops in Paktika province greeted Panetta enthusiastically -- he also pinned Purple Heart ribbons on a dozen service members -- they also expressed some skepticism about how the war will end.
"If the Afghan government falls apart after we leave here, are we going to have to come back in 10 years to pick up the pieces?" one soldier asked.
The Pentagon chief replied that the United States and its allies would continue to provide support to the Afghan government long after the end of 2014, the date President Obama has set for withdrawing US forces from the country. "The answer to your question is: We are not going to walk away."
Another soldier wanted to know how poor relations between the United States and next-door Pakistan were affecting the war mission and what could be done about it. Panetta allowed that was another tough problem. "Bottom line is that it is complicated, it is complex, we have some difficult issues to deal with, but at the same time it is important to maintain the relationship with Pakistan," he said. But Panetta, still in a winning mood, said none of the problems confronting the war effort were intractable.
"Are there challenges out there? You're damn right there are challenges," the famously tough-talking secretary said. "Are we going to be able to take on those challenges? You're damn right." Mission in Afghanistan Failing on Every Front John Glaser / Anti-War.com & Al JAzeera
(December 11, 2011) -- This is a commendable job by al Jazeera journalist Sami Zeidan interviewing US Army Lieutenant General and Commander of the NATO Training Mission William Caldwell.
The Lt. Gen. stumbled and bumbled over the embarrassing hard facts Zeidan puts forth, and had no answers for most of the interview. The whole thing is well worth a watch, but what's most notable about it is that I don't know of a single established American journalist on network news that would ask such tough questions of a military commander.
Instead, mainstream journalism -- especially face-to-face televised interviews like this one -- oozes with deference to authority and an utter disdain for asking relevant, truthful questions of our "patriots."
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.