Let us re-visit the main justifications/objectives for the Afghanistan war, which began in October 2001:

1) Defeat the Taliban;
2) Defeat al-Qaeda;
3) Bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan.

Over the span of seven years since this war began, major combat operations have kept on going and going in Afghanistan - despite the proclamation in May 2002 that major combat operations were over and in the face of repeated claims that this war has been a big success.

Defeat the Taliban? Whether fueled by drug trade or corrupted misappropriations of U.S.A. funds to Pakistan (!), the Taliban insurgency shows no signs of wavering - not only in the South of Afghanistan where it has been most active but slowly spreading to the North of the country as well - all the while profiting from Pakistan's ineptitude (or incompetence, or fear?) to deal with them on their own side of the border. Just recently, Pakistan released a senior Taliban leader on his pledge to cease attacks in Pakistan - proving once again that Pakistan looks out for itself first and foremost, despite being a much touted "ally against terrorism". In the meantime, there have been repeated calls to negociate with the Taliban, going as far as to promise them a significant presence in the Afghanistan government - with the tacit approval of the U.S.A., Canada (for which the Afghanistan war has pretty much become its war) and other N.A.T.O. allies. Why, even after a much publicized recent attack by the Taliban on Afghani officials and foreign dignitaries (of which the Afghani government had been warned about), Afghani President Hamid Karzai went as far as to demand that N.A.T.O. "leave the Taliban alone" in order to stop "undermining negociations" with them! And guess what? N.A.T.O. forces are apparently following suit by putting the word out to Taliban fighters that they want to talk!

"If we don't succeed in Afghanistan, the Taliban will return" indeed. Interestingly, many Afghanis are not unhappy to see the Taliban returning!

Yes siree, the Taliban has lost - definitely.

(To learn more about the Taliban and "how much" they know about us and hate our freedoms and whatnot, I strongly suggest that you to read/watch the series Talking to the Taliban, via Red Tory: part I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII - but I disgress).

Defeat al-Qaeda? Osama bin Laden got away and is still in hiding, along with most of the al-Qaeda leadership, quite alive and well - thank you very much. In the meantime, Pakistan is once again of little help here - not only are bin Laden and al-Qaeda hiding in Pakistan, Pakistan freed suspected al-Qaeda members in 2006, whereas al-Qaeda funding keeps going through Pakistan. At one point, Pakistan even "lost" the trail of bin Laden - and recently, Pakistani President Musharraf declared that Pakistan was "not particularly looking" for him. All well and good, considering that al-Qaeda presumably assassinated opposition leader and staunch al-Qaeda opponent Benazir Bhutto, while continuing to cause much chaos in Pakistan alongside Taliban fighters. And through it all, the now-infamous "on and off" hunt for bin Laden by the U.S.A., Canada and other N.A.T.O. allies still goes on (or not) ... in Afghanistan! No wonder such a wild goose chase will be a very long one ...

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda keeps fighting alongside the Taliban in the continuing insurgency in Afghanistan, and is poised to launch more terrorist attacks around the world ... from Pakistan. That, in addition to the fact that al-Qaeda continues to be a source of inspiration for would-be extremists - especially in Iraq.

Yes siree, al-Qaeda is on the run - definitely.

Bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan? Yes, there have been some positive steps towards democracy in Afghanistan - but such gains are far from being faits accomplis. Rampant corruption and the booming drug trafficking (and the Drug Lords behind it) are but two of the prevailing problems which keep undermining said gains. The biggest problem of them all lies with the remaining powerful, brutish Warlords. Although having been elected in 2004, President Karzai holds power in Kabul only ... with the consent of said Warlords who hold power practically everywhere else in the country, thanks to more short-sighted, expedient incompetence on the part of the Bush administration. It doesn't help either when one of the Warlords declares allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And Karzai's government remains hardly stable, thanks to the ongoing insurgency. Last, but not least, what of the Afghani women? Little has changed since 2001 and things are in fact worsening in this respect, while laws are slowly but surely returning to the "old style" Taliban ones. On a related note, freedom of the press is not that free just yet and is likewise worsening - all of this thanks to seven years after Afghanistan's liberation from the "Taliban Regime".

Yes siree, the Afghanis have freedom and democracy - definitely.

So all in all, after looking closely at the main justifications/objectives for the war in Afghanistan and how "successfully" they have been achieved, it is safe to conclude that for all the boasts from the Bush administration, as well as those coming from Canada's Harper government (and from the British, and the Australians, and the French, and so on and so forth), soldiers and civilians have been dying in Afghanistan over the last seven years for absolutely nothing.

But we know all too well why we've arrived to this point, which is more or less right back where the Afghanistan war began on all accounts, despite all the empty rhetoric of touting all the progress achieved "over there": botched pre-war planning, botched post-war planning and the disastrous diversion of the Iraq war.

This war is indeed a veritable catalogue of errors.

No wonder Afghanistan is a quagmire. No wonder it's damn hard work. No wonder the situation is grim. No wonder the Afghanistan "mission" is in trouble, if not actually in crisis. No wonder Afghanistan has been assessed as a 30-years long marathon "mission" while we keep running in circles.

For indeed, each one of the prime justifications/objectives for the Afghanistan war have now been either completely disavowed ("defeat the taliban"), more or less abandoned ("defeat al-Qaeda"), or outrightly dismissed/ignored ("bring freedom and democracy"), by the very same people who have been pushing and supporting said justifications and this war.

In essence, the core-reasons for going into Afghanistan are being put aside in lieu of political salvage operations of appearances - with the price continuing to be exacted with the lives of N.A.T.O. soldiers and Afghan civilians in the meantime.

To put it in other words: people and soldiers have been dying over the last seven years for nothing more than what in the end has amounted to a needless and ludicrous political exercize on the part of incompetent "deciders" as their response to 9/11.

The idea of military intervention as the crux of the strategy behind the Global War on Terror(TM) was wrong-headed to begin with and has proven itself to be wrong-headed ever since - if only because one does not wage war on a method/technique of fighting. In this respect, it is now safe to say that the Global War on Terror(TM) has been a colossal failure so far, in addition to fostering more terrorism and extremism than prior to its implementation.

And Afghanistan will forever constitute grave testimony to that effect.

Hip, hip, hooray.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Once again, the Eight Principles of Incompetence:

Zeroth Principle: Incompetence is driven by intellectual sloth.

First Principle: Incompetence surrounds itself with incompetence.

Second Principle: Incompetence is ethics-impaired.

Third Principle: Incompetence abhors transparency and accountability.

Fourth Principle: Incompetence does or says anything to defend itself.

Fifth Principle: Incompetence always supports incompetence.

Sixth Principle: Violence is the last refuge of incompetence.

Seventh Principle: Incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself.

Incompetents are intellectual sloth- and fear-driven, in addition to being morally hypocritical and ethics challenged, as well as hopeless slaves of expediency. That is why incompetents will cheat, lie, misuse, "back stab" and abuse anything and everything in order to get their way - all the while making perfectly quaint rationalizations, as well as giving themselves a deluded moral high ground (or authority), to justify their wrongdoings. In other words:

Incompetents will do and say anything to defend themselves and other incompetents, including disassembling, obfuscating, lying and blaming others (...).

They lie, they misrepresent, they use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. For them, the use of duplicity, of secrecy, of arguments of (non-existent) conspiracy, of fact (and non-fact) selectivity/cherry-picking, of quacks/fake experts, as well as putting forth logical fallacies, are simply means to an end.

For incompetents, everything is about spin and truthiness - never about facts and truth. Even when they are blatantly caught, incompetents continue to react and reason with their intellectual sloth-driven infantile/adolescent immaturity - they will deny that they did anything wrong or that they have lied, then they will blame/attack (read: character assassinate) their "accusers". I call this: "Lie and Cry".

Let us now take another look at the justifications put forth by the Bush administration for the Afghanistan war, as laid out by President Bush's address on October 7, 2001 (emphasis mine):

"On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime (...).

I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the Al Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens unjustly detained in our country.

None of these demands were met. And now, the Taliban will pay a price."

Hence why the war in Afghanistan is deemed to this day a "just" war, meant to capture/destroy al Qaeda (especially their leader Osama bin Laden), the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

Putting aside the fact that the Taliban was never a terrorist organization to begin with, here are some interesting, seldom known, truths concerning the Taliban's "refusal" to hand over bin Laden:

a) From September 28 to October 4, 2001, the Taliban negotiated and agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan in order to place him before an international tribunal, with the court free to decide whether to try him on the spot or hand him over to America - but Pakistan President Musharraf killed the deal in the end;

b) In the morning of October 7, 2001 (a few hours before Bush's address and the beginning of the war), the Taliban offered to try bin Laden themselves - but the White House rejected the offer;

c) On October 14, 2001, the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to the U.S., provided that proof was shown that he was responsible for 9/11 - but this offer was likewise flatly rejected by the White House.

Ergo: in its (incompetent) desire to rush into war, the White House effectively lied about the Taliban's refusal to hand over bin Laden in order to cover up ... their desire to rush into war.

As for the hunt/capture/killing of Osama bin Laden? As we know all too well, such primary purpose - the very raison d'être for the Afghanistan war launched seven years and a half ago - has ever remained an "on and off" affair meant to be "turned on" for nothing more than keeping political support for the Global War on Terror(TM)when said support is perceived as wavering. A few quotes as cases in point:

Hunt is "on":
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - Pres. G.W. Bush; 09/12/2001;

"We made it very clear we want Osama bin Laden (...)" - Vice-Pres. R.B. Cheney; 12/09/2001;

"We are going to continue the hunt for Osama bin Laden (...) I'm quite certain that we will get Osama bin Laden." - Sec. State C. Rice; 03/17/2005;

"We have got US forces on the hunt for not only Bin Laden but anybody who plots and plans with Bin Laden." - Pres. G.W. Bush; 03/01/2006;

"We've been looking for (bin Laden) for some time." - Vice-Pres. R.B. Cheney; 01/24/2007.


Hunt is "off":
"(...) He’s not the issue." - Pres. G.W. Bush; 02/05/2002;

"I truly am not that concerned about him." - Pres. G.W. Bush; 03/13/2002;

"The goal has never been to get bin Laden." - Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. R. Myers; 04/06/2002;

"bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism." - Pres. G.W. Bush; 09/14/2006;

"He’s not the only source of the problem, obviously(...)" - Vice-Pres. R.B. Cheney; 09/10/2006.

In essence, bin Laden is a de facto bogey man who's existence is reminded only when deemed politically convenient. Why? Because these people need to cover-up their utter incompetence and therefore rely on hype, fearmongering, cherry-picked facts (and non-facts) and outright lies in order to get, and keep, everybody else "on board" with them. I even suspect that in their intellectual sloth- and fear-driven petty minds, they actually come to believe their own tall tales - because, in their self-deluded vanity and arrogance, they are right.

Case in point with this excerpt of Donald Rumsfeld appearing at Meet The Press on December 02, 2001 (links and emphasis mine):

Russert: The search for Osama bin Laden. There is constant discussion about him hiding out in caves, and I think many times the American people have a perception that it's a little hole dug out of a side of a mountain.

Rumsfeld: Oh, no.

Russert: The Times of London did a graphic, which I want to put on the screen for you and our viewers. This is it. This is a fortress. This is a very much a complex, multi-tiered, bedrooms and offices on the top, as you can see, secret exits on the side and on the bottom, cut deep to avoid thermal detection so when our planes fly to try to determine if any human beings are in there, it's built so deeply down and embedded in the mountain and the rock it's hard to detect. And over here, valleys guarded, as you can see, by some Taliban soldiers. A ventilation system to allow people to breathe and to carry on. An arms and ammunition depot. And you can see here the exits leading into it and the entrances large enough to drive trucks and cars and even tanks. And it's own hydroelectric power to help keep lights on, even computer systems and telephone systems. It's a very sophisticated operation.

Rumsfeld: Oh, you bet. This is serious business. And there's not one of those. There are many of those. And they have been used very effectively. And I might add, Afghanistan is not the only country that has gone underground. Any number of countries have gone underground. The tunneling equipment that exists today is very powerful. It's dual use. It's available across the globe. And people have recognized the advantages of using underground protection for themselves.

I still remember to this day this interview because, as I watched it, I kept thinking that somehow someone had slipped hallucinogenics in my coffee, making me experience an alternate reality whereby pure fiction is not only discussed as reality, but that high officials of the White House actually confirm such paranoid fantasies as reality.

That was when I had begun to understand that I was witnessing utter incompetence in action: all that mattered was that people support the war in Afghanistan (a war to cover-up their incompetence in not heeding the alarm bells signaling for an al Quaeda strike on U.S. soil, thus likely preventing 9/11) and, consequently, any lie, obfuscation, conflation, fearmongering or outright fantasy constituted acceptable means to A) make the "deciders" appear serious, competent and deserving of trust; and B) keep the hype going to sustain a frenzied support for the "deciders" (some George Orwell, anyone?).

Because - once again - everything is about spin and truthiness, never about facts and truth, where incompetents are concerned. It matters more for them to appear competent and "on top of things" than actually doing something to correct/remedy their incompetence.

So, what of Osama bin Laden, nowadays? Well, without any competent strategy to this effect, let's just say that the hunt for bin Laden will be a long one and leave it at that.

Or, as President George W. Bush proclaimed recently: "He'll be gotten by a president".

Thus, after seven and a half years in Afghanistan, all we ended up with is a quagmire with no end in sight - all the while having ignored the real problem: Pakistan.

Nevertheless, Afghanistan has been a big success in the minds of the incompetents in the White House.

But, and again as we know all too well, things worsened with regards to the so-called Global War on Terror(TM) - for shortly after the onset of the Afghanistan war quickly came the justifications of the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq. And there, the lies, obfuscations, disassembling and truthiness were offered profusely - just a few examples (emphasis mine):

On Iraq's WMDs:
Vice-President Dick B. Cheney (August 26, 2002): "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

President George W. Bush (October 7, 2002): "The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror (...) (The Iraqi regime) has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons. It is rebuilding the facilities used to make those weapons (...) Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program (...) (Saddam) is seeking nuclear weapons (...) he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."

Vice-President Dick B. Cheney (March 17, 2002): "But we do know, with absolute certainty, that (Saddam) is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."

Condoleeza Rice (September 8, 2002): "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (November 14, 2002): "Well, we know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. And we know he has an active program for the development of nuclear weapons."

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (January 29, 2003): "(Saddam's) regime has the design for a nuclear weapon; it was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State Secretary Colin Powell (February 6, 2003): "(Iraq's programs to create WMDs) are a real and present danger to the region and to the world."

Vice-President Dick B. Cheney (March 16, 2003): "(Saddam's) had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

President George W. Bush (March 17, 2003): "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."


On al Qaeda, 9/11, Saddam Hussein/Iraq links:
Vice-President Dick B. Cheney (August 26, 2002): "It is a certainty that the al Qaeda network is pursuing such (weapons of mass destruction), and has succeeded in acquiring at least a crude capability to use them. We found evidence of their efforts in the ruins of al Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan (...) containment is not possible when dictators obtain weapons of mass destruction, and are prepared to share them with terrorists who intend to inflict catastrophic casualties on the United States (...) Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator (Saddam Hussein), or the two working together, constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined."

National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice (September 26, 2002): "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (November 14, 2002): "Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a month, and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, either use them himself, or transfer them to the al Qaeda, and somehow the al Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States, or an attack on U.S. forces overseas, with a weapon of mass destruction you're not talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being killed, but 30,000, or 100,000 of human beings."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (January 29, 2003): "The (Iraq) regime plays host to terrorists, including al Qaeda (...)"

State Secretary Colin Powell (February 6, 2003): "Al Qaeda continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction (...) I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda."

President George W. Bush (March 18, 2003): "(...) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations (Iraq), organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

President George W. Bush (May 1st, 2003): "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 (...) The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

(More "on the record" quotes can be found here, here, here and here)

Hence, what we got was the exact same modus operandi, but incredibly worse.

Of course, every single one - think about it: every single one! - of those claims were proven as empty of substance and reality as they were completely false.

That is why the justifications for the Iraq war were changed retroactively - from regime change to bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East (domino theory, anyone?) to preventing al Qaeda from acquiring control of oil resources.

(And in the end, it does not matter if the true justification was oil, and only oil - because this further underlies the Principles of Incompetence!).

Thus we got the Iraq war, the second/concurrent quagmire with no end in sight.

And as in the case of Afghanistan, the Iraq venture has been a big success in the minds of the incompetents in the White House.

What are incompetents to do when they are revealed for the incompetents that they are, when they are confronted with their very own mendacious words?

First, they deny their exagerations, their cherry-picking of facts, their fearmongering, their hype and their lies. A few examples:

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link;

Rumsfeld denies making claims Iraq had WMDs (see above);

President George W. Bush denies he'd ever said he wasn't worried about Osama bin Laden (see above);

Dick Cheney Denies "Last Throes" comment (see this);

Rice heatedly defends her integrity on Iraq claims (see above);

Bush denies torture claims at CIA-run facilities (see Part I on this series);

Bush: "We’ve never been 'Stay The Course'" (see here);

Etc., etc., etc.

Second, they blame others for misquoting them, or for taking their words out of context, or for seeking to make cheap political attacks. Better yet: they simply blame others for their own failures - I could provide here examples of these, but they are far too numerous where this administration, as well its allies, supporters and enablers, are concerned - as we have come to know all too well.

And in the end, incompetents deny reality because they are too busy creating their own in their petty, deluded minds.

Unfortunately, reality does not care one bit about the delusions of incompetents and has this nasty knack of biting them in the arse - sooner or later.

But what terrible, wasteful damage incompetents do nevertheless.

In the meantime, the drums of war keep on beating the exact same way as for Afghanistan and Iraq - this time with Iran as the target, in what I have come to dub Operation Enduring Propaganda.

All of which once again illustrate clearly what incompetence is all about:

(They) are often deluded by intellectual vanity and invariably become slaves of expediency. Furthermore, everything is about image and appearance, instead of substance. Truthiness, instead of truth. All of these characteristics underlie incompetence - whether as nations, as communities, as citizens, as blue-collar/white-collar workers, as parents, and/or as thinking, reasoning human beings. In short, intellectual sloth transforms any adult person who is guilty of it into an irresponsible and reactionary child or adolescent, who lives only in the “now” while remaining blind to “yesterday” and “tomorrow". Such a person thus becomes incompetent - in dealing/composing with reality, or in at least trying to understand it (...).

As long as incompetents do not acknowledge their affliction with intellectual sloth, they will stubbornly refuse to change. Some people call this hubris. To this effect, incompetents are known to repeat the same mistakes again and again, because of their arrogance and utter fright at being exposed for what they truly are - and thus, they find themselves unknowingly enacting Franklin's, and/or Einstein's, very definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Fear.
Need for expediency.
Lack of morals and ethics.
Vanity and arrogance.
Lack of responsibility.
Denial of mistakes.
Duplicity.
Mendacity.
Denial of reality.

Incompetence.

Thus again I give you President George W. Bush and the whole of his administration, resulting in countless thousands of deaths, increased instability in the Middle East and terrorism ever on the rise.

That, and three trillion dollars wasted (see what you can buy with that insane amount of money here).


(In Part III: "control, control, control" - or be questioned, exposed and held accountable)


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Indeed, many (including yours truly) have been clamoring the same said obvious - however, that this simple fact is at last admitted openly in testimony before Congress, and that said admission was actually proded out by elected representatives, constitutes nevertheless a significant moment.

In order to fully appreciate such significance, let us first go back to the core-reasons for the Afghanistan War (emphasis added):

At the time, President Bush justified the launching of the Afghanistan War as a response to 9-11 and the failure of the Taliban to meet his demands concerning terrorists, including delivering Osama bin Laden. Following the trauma and outrage brought by 9-11, an overwhelming majority of Americans supported the War in Afghanistan - and President Bush was believed at face value when he claimed that the replacement of the Taliban regime was a requirement for keeping the U.S.A. safe from another al-Qaeda attack.

However, and despite President Bush's "convictions", a lot did not sit well with his invasion of Afghanistan (emphasis added):

(...) there was a rather meek international support for such justifications initially, especially since: 1) the U.S.A. had turned a convenient blind eye when the backward, fundamentalist Taliban regime seized power in 1996 (after all, the U.S.A. had supported the Taliban); 2) although the Taliban was indeed characterized by its parochial, fundamentalist and theocratic-driven ruthless rule, it was never a terrorist organization to begin with; 3) the Taliban was certainly not involved in 9-11; 4) the Taliban had agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan for trial (10/01/2001, but Pakistan refused); 5) the Taliban then offered to try bin Laden themselves (10/07/2001, but the offer was rejected by Bush); and 6) the Taliban thereafter offered to hand him over to the U.S., provided that proof was shown that bin Laden was responsible for 9-11 (10/14/2001, but this offer was likewise flatly rejected by Bush).

Hence, the Taliban regime was not a terrorist organization and had made a significant number of overtures to deliver Osama bin Laden - however, all such overtures were rejected.

Why? Because of the expedient desire to go to war - which happened on 10/07/2001, when American and British forces undertook an aerial bombing campaign targeting Taliban forces and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan - thus marking the beginning of the Afghanistan War.

From then on, the rest was history - including how it turned out (emphasis added):

By the summer of 2002, the Taliban had been removed from power and its remnants, like those of al-Qaeda, had gone into hiding. By the end of spring 2003, then-still U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared major combat operations over. However, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, by then fully allied by necessity, had already regrouped along the Afghani-Pakistani border, recruiting heavily while training in guerrilla warfare tactics - thanks to consistent funding seemingly transiting through Pakistan. Then, the Taliban insurgency followed - which has been lasting to this day.

(...) Osama bin Laden got away and is still in hiding, along with most of the al-Qaeda leadership - even if he and his organization were the prime justification for going into Afghanistan in the first place.

How could this have happened? Simply this way:

The Powell Doctrine was already established and demonstrated after Operation Desert Storm. But then the resident incompetents in the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al.) tossed it aside when they went into Afghanistan - especially because, as it has been revealed, they already had their sights on Iraq. So, they went in Afghanistan without massive deployments, made those stupid deals with the Afghan Warlords and their militias, contented themselves with routing the Taliban and al-Qaeda away from Khabul (and for the life of me, I never understood why no one figured out that the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban would run into Pakistan and, consequently, take strategic steps to block off the border in order to prevent this - then again, they never had enough boots on the grounds to enact such a basic strategy to begin with - but I digress), and then they asked for U.N./N.A.T.O. help because they had begun occupying themselves with Iraq.

Conclusion: the Taliban and al-Qaeda have been back in force after being essentially allowed to flee to Pakistan and regroup, thanks to the mind-boggling incompetence of the Bush administration.

Or, in other words: this has been a policy of retreat from bin Laden and Afghanistan.

At the same time, this has also been a policy of not only ignoring the Pakistan problem, but actually coddling to it (emphasis added):

Pakistan has often been praised by the Bush administration, among others, for its role in the Global War on Terror(TM). President Bush even once proclaimed a broad and lasting strategic partnership with Pakistan to this effect.

Despite evidence to the contrary:

A) Although initially helping to round up remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban (after their defeat in the summer of 2002) on its own side of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the Pakistani army quickly found itself in a sub-war (dubbed the Waziristan War) which began in the spring of 2004 and ended in the summer of 2006, being pitted against al-Qaeda and other militants joined by local rebels and pro-Taliban tribal forces - all believed to be connected with the Taliban insurgency. A peace agreement was signed in September 2006 between the Pakistani government and the pro-Taliban militants, encouraged by the Tribal Elders in power in the region.

B) The provisions of this peace agreement included, among others, a significant reduction of Pakistani troops in the Waziristan region and the release of some 2500 al-Qaeda and pro-Taliban militants previously captured. Consequently, al-Qaeda and the Taliban have free reign at hiding within Pakistan.

C) Since then, Pakistan's "help" against al-Qaeda and the Taliban has been going downhill. Osama bin Laden was ascertained all along of being in hiding in Pakistan, whereby the Pakistani "lost his trail" quite a while ago. Furthermore, al-Qaeda funding still goes through Pakistan.

and D) Despite previous claims (see above), members of the Bush administration have begun this year to call upon Pakistan to "step up" further with its help in fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban, even going as far as to threaten military strikes within Pakistan's side of the border with Afghanistan, without Pakistan's permission.

In between, there has been a resurgence of terrorist attacks in Pakistan, as well as clashes and confrontations between Pakistani forces and pro-Taliban/al-Qaeda forces - in fact, Pakistan is deemed likely to face a civil war should it presses on further in the areas where al-Qaeda and the Taliban are hiding. Furthermore, President (dictator) Musharraf may yet declare martial law, even if he has so far publicly rejected the option. Meanwhile, the only solution that President Bush could come up with in solving this dire problem is by seeking a $2 billion Pakistan aid package from Congress, in order to help financing tribal paramilitary groups in the semi-autonomous region of Waziristan in Pakistan (where al-Qaeda and the Taliban have gained such a foothold) as part of an American-Pakistani joint counterinsurgency effort designed to wrest the region from extremist militants.

The preceding was written in August 2007. Since then, Musharraf did declare martial law in November 2007 (which he lifted about one month later, but not before making himself President until 2012 - with congratulations from President Bush), opposition leader and staunch al-Qaeda opponent Benazir Bhutto was assassinated (apparently by none other than al-Qaeda), and a new Prime Minister intent on restoring full democracy in Pakistan (and a close associate of Benazir Bhutto) was elected.

In the meantime, Pakistan remains very much volatile as al-Qaeda, Taliban and tribal allies continue to sow chaos, while U.S./N.A.T.O. forces have stepped up their unilateral strikes into Pakistan from Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and its allies.

In short, terrorism and extremism have remained so far beyond the control of Pakistan, having painted itself in a corner to this effect long before 9/11 and the launch of the Afghanistan War.

So here we are, with two full-fledged quagmires - one (Afghanistan) brought about by incompetence-driven desire to rush to war along with botched pre-war and post-war planning, and the other (Iraq) brought about by incompetence-driven desire to wage a war of choice ... along with botched pre-war and post-war planning (violence is the last refuge of incompetence and incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself - so state the 6th and 7th Principles of Incompetence, respectively). In addition, we have a country (Pakistan) with nuclear weaponry which ever hangs precariously on the razor's edge of civil war and anarchy.

Oh - and to top it all, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are still alive and well in Pakistan ... as they have always been.

The idea of military intervention as the crux of the strategy behind the Global War on Terror(TM) was wrong-headed to begin with and has proven itself to be wrong-headed ever since - if only because one does not wage war on a method/technique of fighting. In this respect, it is now safe to say that the Global War on Terror(TM) has been a colossal failure so far, in addition to fostering more terrorism and extremism than prior to its implementation.

Or, in other words: anti-terrorism is not a matter of troops and tactics, but rather one of diplomacy and strategy - at home and abroad.

Another fact which was obvious all along, to which incompetent warhawks, chickenhawks and fear-driven fools have ever been blind to (we all know who and what they are).

Consequently, the very à propos question which should have been asked from the begining and which is to be asked again and again, especially in light of the aforementioned admission by Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker, remains this one: what should we do about al-Qaeda in Pakistan?

I have found some potential answers (emphasis mine):

- implementation of a new guarded, yet effective, counterinsurgency strategy in Pakistan. This means relying on credible human intelligence, winning over local support, and coordinating with American trainers and intelligence and military personnel in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis were able to bring Swat – a former Al-Qaeda stronghold in northern Pakistan – under state control using such a comprehensive strategy.

- in addition to a desire to "talk" to moderate Taliban, more needs to be done to endorse counterinsurgency strategies over brute-force counter-terrorist measures. Pakistani politicians are eager to take charge – but they must know that simply cutting deals with al-Qaeda or Taliban will not guarantee security. Before hastily signing another truce with the "moderate Taliban" in the tribal areas, the new government must investigate past failures of similar agreements.

- measures that promise better governance, more constitutional autonomy and socioeconomic opportunities to the tribal areas pending expulsion of terrorists will only succeed if Pakistani politicians guarantee consistent engagement. That includes, for example, asking the military to support Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) – similar to International Security Assistance Force’s (ISAF) role in Afghanistan – over large-scale military operations.

- the current U.S. plan to increase the training of Pakistani troops – paratroopers, Pakistani Special Forces, and Frontier Corps – is a step in the right direction. U.S. training programs must be supplemented by U.S. military hardware and intelligence exchange across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. In constrast, the current unilateral U.S. attacks on Pakistan’s rustic tribal areas are highly likely to prove devastatingly unsustainable and counterproductive (Note: actually, they have done so in the recent past already).

Once again: anti-terrorism is not a matter of troops and tactics, but rather one of diplomacy and strategy.

Only by taking a long, hard and sober look at was done horribly wrong will we be able to formulate the policies and strategies to combat terrorism that should have been devised to begin with.

If only because (emphasis adeed):

A stable nuclear-armed Pakistan is crucial for any successful effort to bring stability to the region. It holds the potential for intelligence exchange and military support, and holds a strategic geographic location next to Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban know this too well. With time running out, Washington should provide smart and targeted military, economic and diplomatic aid to all willing and capable Pakistani civilian and military leaders and institutions. Changing the counterterrorism-counterinsurgency calculus by focusing on active socioeconomic engagement over excess use of brute force is essential to achieving victory in the Global War on Terror.

Looks like the table has been set after all.

Do we have the courage and competence to pull up a chair and sit down to it?

Que sera, sera.


(Cross-posted from APOV)