Just Foreign Policy News
May 14, 2010
Could Congress Block Antiworker IMF ‘Bailouts’ in Europe?
Republicans are trying to block the Treasury Department from supporting U.S. tax funded IMF contributions to the "bailouts" in Europe, which, as economist Mark Weisbrot explains, aren’t bailouts for working families at all – for working families, the IMF programs guarantee extreme hardship, and most Europeans would be much better off if these IMF packages collapse – but bailouts of European banks with bad loans. If a handful of anti-IMF Democrats decide to pile in with the Republicans, it’s a whole new ballgame.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/14-9
VIDEO: Zackie Achmat speech (Treatment Action Campaign, South Africa) at May 13th Obama AIDS (non-)treatment protest in NYC
See also article from the Advocate, #5 below; 8 people were arrested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=futmdmjE2ew&
VIDEO: Urge Congress to End the War in Afghanistan
Just Foreign Policy made a short video to help publicize the McGovern bill and the importance of a timetable for military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Spread it all around. https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/video/feingold-mcgovern
Beverly Bell – The Urgency of Housing in Haiti: First Priority in Addressing Widespread Rape
Conditions in the camps substantially heighten the risk.
http://www.truthout.org/the-urgency-housing-haiti-first-priority-addressing-widespread-rape-part-i59464
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) Obama insisted to President Karzai that reconciliation in Afghanistan must wait on U.S. military success, writes Gareth Porter for Inter Press Service. A US official indicated to IPS the Obama administration is not open to the suggestion embraced by Karzai that reconciliation might be pursued with some of the Taliban leadership.
2) President Obama signaled Wednesday that despite his earlier hesitation he may embrace a plan by his counterpart from Afghanistan to reconcile with certain Taliban leaders in hopes of uniting the country and ending the war, the Los Angeles Times reports. "The meetings the last couple days have enabled us to reach a good understanding of how the reconciliation process will proceed, and we are fully supportive of Karzai’s efforts going forward," said a senior Obama administration official.
3) The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a $58.8 billion war funding measure Thursday that would raise the total price tag for Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade to $1 trillion, AP reports. The war funding comes on top of $130 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan money provided to the Pentagon in December.
4) U.S. military strategists are saying that large-scale counterinsurgency efforts cost too much and last too long, Nancy Youssef reports for McClatchy. The biggest spur is a growing recognition that large-scale counterinsurgency battles have high casualty rates for troops and civilians, eat up equipment that must be replaced and rarely end in clear victory or defeat. Many Pentagon strategists think future counterinsurgencies should involve fewer US ground troops, an approach some call "counterinsurgency light." The new kind of counterinsurgency is on display in Yemen and Pakistan.
5) Eight activists were arrested Thursday in a large protest against flat funding for global AIDS during a visit by President Obama to New York City, the Advocate reports. 500 protesters from around the world chanted and marched holding signs reading ‘No More AIDS Lies! Treat People Now!’ and carrying body bags." The activists protested outside the St. Regis Hotel in Manhattan, where President Obama addressed a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The demonstration included speeches from the longtime AIDS activists Larry Kramer and Zackie Achmat of the Treatment Action Campaign of South Africa.
Afghanistan
6) A night raid by US troops in Nangarhar left at least 10 Afghans dead, and protests by their relatives and friends turned violent, claiming at least one other life, the New York Times reports. Afghan officials said the witnesses described the dead as civilians, but the US military said they were insurgents. An Afghan member of Parliament, Safia Sidiqi, was among the protesters. The protesters carried the bodies of four of the latest victims, burned an American flag, and shouted slogans, including "Death to America" and "Long Live the Taliban."
7) Although it’s just beginning, the U.S. effort to pacify Kandahar already appears to be faltering, Dion Nissenbaum and Jonathan Landay report for McClatchy. Key military operations have been delayed until the fall and efforts to improve local government are having little impact. NATO officials once spoke of demonstrating major progress by mid-August, but U.S. commanders now say the turning point may not be reached until November, and perhaps later. The U.S. troop buildup won’t reach its peak until September. One major question is whether there will be enough forces for Kandahar, where McChrystal’s plan calls for the deployment of 20,000 U.S. and Afghan troops. U.S. defense officials and defense analysts said that McChrystal used 10,000 troops in Helmand to gain control of a rural river valley with about 50,000 residents. But in Kandahar, with an estimated population of 800,000, he’s calling for just 20,000 troops. "None of this makes any sense," said a U.S. defense official. "If it took you 10,000 (U.S. troops) to do Marjah, there aren’t enough troops (for Kandahar)." The challenges in Kandahar come amid a growing recognition that efforts to install a new administration in Marjah quickly have stumbled. Marjah "is already coming unraveled," the U.S. defense official said. He noted that on the eve of the Marjah offensive in February, McChrystal described how he planned to bring in a "government in a box." "But when they opened the box, there was nothing in it," the U.S. defense official continued.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Obama, Karzai Still Split on Peace Talks with Taliban
Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service, May 13
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51429
Washington – U.S. President Barack Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai sought to portray a united front on the issue of a political settlement with the Taliban in their joint press conference Wednesday. But their comments underlined the deep rift that divides Karzai and the United States over the issue.
Karzai obtained Obama’s approval for the peace jirga scheduled for later this month – an event the Obama administration had earlier regarded with grave doubt because of Karzai’s ostensible invitation to the Taliban to participate.
On the broader question of reconciliation, however, Obama was clearly warning Karzai not to pursue direct talks with the Taliban leadership, at least until well into 2011.
Karzai played down the Taliban role in a peace jirga, saying that it was the "thousands of Taliban who are not against Afghanistan, or against the Afghan people… who are not against America either…" who would be addressed at the conference.
But he also acknowledged that the jirga would discuss how to approach at least some in the Taliban leadership about peace talks.
Karzai said, "Those within the Taliban leadership structure who, again, are not part of al Qaeda or the terrorist networks, or ideologically against Afghanistan’s progress and rights and constitution, democracy, the place of women in the Afghan society, the progress that they’ve made… are welcome."
The "peace consultative jirga", he said, would be "consulting the Afghan people, taking their advice on how and through which means and which speed should the Afghan government proceed in the quest for peace".
Karzai thus made it clear that he would be taking his cues on peace talks with the Taliban from popular sentiment rather than from Washington.
That could not have been a welcome message to the Obama administration, because of Karzai’s well-known pattern of catering to views of the Pashtun population, which are overwhelmingly favourable to peace talks with the Taliban.
Obama endorsed the peace jirga, but he limited U.S. support to "reintegration of those [Taliban] individuals into Afghan society".
Obama pointedly referred to what had evidently been a contentious issue in their private meeting – his insistence that moves toward reconciliation with the Taliban should not go forward until after the U.S. military has carried out Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s counterinsurgency plan for southern Afghanistan.
"One of the things I emphasised to President Karzai," said Obama, adding "however", to indicate that it was a matter of disagreement, "is that the incentives for the Taliban to lay down arms, or at least portions of the Taliban to lay down arms, and make peace with the Afghan government in part depends on our effectiveness in breaking their momentum militarily."
Obama asserted that "the timing" of the reconciliation process was linked to U.S. military success, because that success would determine when the Taliban "start making different calculations about what’s in their interests".
Neither Obama nor Karzai gave any hint that the Afghan president had agreed with that point. Karzai openly sided with tribal elders in Kandahar who were vocally opposed to the U.S. military occupation of Kandahar City and surrounding districts at a large shura Apr. 4.
An administration official who is familiar with the Obama-Karzai meeting confirmed to IPS Thursday that the differences between the two over the issue of peace talks remained, but that the administration regards it as positive that Karzai was at least consulting with Obama on his thinking.
Before the Karzai-Obama meeting, the official said, "A lot of people were jumping to the conclusion that [Karzai and the Taliban] are talking about deals. Now he is talking to us before making any back room deals."
The official indicated that the Obama administration is not open to the suggestion embraced by Karzai that reconciliation might be pursued with some of the Taliban leadership. "We’d have a lot of problems with someone saying ‘these Taliban are acceptable, but these people aren’t’," the official told IPS.
Obama’s forceful opposition to any political approach to any Taliban leadership until after the counterinsurgency strategy has been tried appears to represent a policy that has been hammered out within the administration at the insistence of Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and Gen. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Obama had suggested in a White House meeting Mar. 12 that it might be time to initiate talks with the Taliban, the New York Times reported Mar. 13. But Gates and McChrystal apparently prevailed on him to abandon that suggestion and accept their position during the preparations for the Karzai visit.
[…]
2) Obama may embrace plan to reconcile with Afghan Taliban
Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s weeklong visit to Washington seems intended to ease tension and suspicions.
Peter Nicholas and Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2010
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-obama-karzai-20100513,0,5306138.story
Washington – President Obama signaled Wednesday that despite his earlier hesitation he may embrace a plan by his counterpart from Afghanistan to reconcile with certain Taliban leaders in hopes of uniting the country and ending a conflict that has stretched nearly nine years.
[…] Karzai has used the visit to solicit concessions. He wants the U.S.-led coalition forces to curb civilian casualties, and he is asking for control of prisons and detention facilities operated by the United States. Obama pledged cooperation on both counts.
But Karzai is also looking for Obama to endorse a peace plan that carries a politically risky element: reconciling with some of the Taliban’s leaders. To date, the administration has been cool to the idea. With the Afghan war already unpopular at home, many Americans are likely to be further dismayed at the thought of making amends with figures who killed U.S. troops.
After returning to Afghanistan, Karzai plans to convene a jirga, or traditional tribal council, to help determine the shape of future peace talks.
At an international conference on Afghanistan in London in January, U.S. officials said they favored assimilation of enemy foot soldiers who disarm and renounce violence. But they refused to publicly discuss the notion of reconciliation with top Taliban leaders.
U.S. officials have worried that Karzai might cut secret deals with militant leaders, including some with a history of war crimes and human rights abuses. The Obama administration has been divided internally over the issue.
At the news conference, Obama indicated that he was open to the plan. He said the jirga would provide a basis for future talks.
"What we’ve said is that so long as there’s a respect for the Afghan Constitution, rule of law, human rights; so long as they are willing to renounce violence and ties to Al Qaeda and other extremist networks; that President Karzai should be able to work to reintegrate those individuals into Afghan society," Obama said.
The president added an important caveat: To maximize leverage in such negotiations, the coalition needs more success in routing the Taliban.
"One of the things I emphasized to President Karzai, however, is, that the incentives for the Taliban to lay down arms, or at least portions of the Taliban to lay down arms, and make peace with the Afghan government in part depends on our effectiveness in breaking their momentum militarily," Obama said.
A senior Obama administration official later elaborated. "The meetings the last couple days have enabled us to reach a good understanding of how the reconciliation process will proceed, and we are fully supportive of Karzai’s efforts going forward," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
When he returns home, Karzai can point to some diplomatic victories.
The White House pledged to hand over control of U.S. military prisons to Afghanistan on an accelerated timetable.
The military had promised to turn over the U.S.-run prison at Bagram air base by early next year. But administration officials had privately expressed doubts about the plan, in large measure because some officials hope to use the Bagram prison to hold terrorism detainees, out of reach of U.S. law.
Senior military officials opposed such a plan, arguing that it is critical to the standing of the Afghan government for it to take control of its prisons.
In a joint statement, Obama said it was his "strong desire" to have Afghan security forces conduct all searches, arrests and detention operations.
[…]
3) Senate panel takes up war funding measure
Andrew Taylor, Associated Press, Thursday, May 13, 2010; 8:17 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/13/AR2010051303408.html
Washington – A key Senate panel approved a $58.8 billion war funding measure Thursday that would raise the total price tag for Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade to $1 trillion.
The measure, approved by a unanimous 30-0 vote, blends about $30 billion for President Barack Obama’s 30,000-troop surge in Afghanistan with more than $5 billion to replenish disaster aid accounts, as well as funding for Haitian earthquake relief, and a downpayment on aid to flood-drenched Tennessee and Rhode Island.
The must-pass legislation is the only appropriations bill likely to advance to Obama’s desk until the fall and is a tempting target for Democrats seeking to add money for a summer jobs program or to help to local school district to retain teachers. But Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, is opposing such add-ons to build GOP support for the bill.
The GOP support Thursday seems to bode well for floor passage before Memorial Day – provided the measure doesn’t become bloated on the Senate floor. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, promised to offer a $23 billion teacher-retention plan, while Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, pledged to seek additional border security funds, including money for unmanned surveillance aircraft.
"This bill is neither a bailout nor a stimulus," Inouye said. "Instead it is the minimum necessary to meet emergency requirements and the cost of war."
In a break with tradition, the Senate is advancing the war funding measure before the House acts on it. Many of Obama’s Democratic allies in the House oppose war funding and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., hasn’t been in any hurry to bring Obama’s war funding request to a vote.
The war funding comes on top of $130 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan money provided to the Pentagon in December.
[…] The measure contains $1.1 billion for mine-resistant vehicles, $657 million for military bases in Afghanistan, and $6.2 billion in foreign aid for Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Haiti. The panel cut about $300 million from Obama’s Afghanistan request and added about $130 million to the request for Haiti, according to a summary.
4) Pentagon Rethinking Value Of Major Counterinsurgencies
Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers, Wed May 12, 6:40 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100512/wl_mcclatchy/3503172
Washington – Nearly a decade after the United States began to focus its military training and equipment purchases almost exclusively on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan , U.S. military strategists are quietly shifting gears, saying that large-scale counterinsurgency efforts cost too much and last too long.
The domestic economic crisis and the Obama administration’s commitment to withdraw from Iraq and begin drawing down in Afghanistan next year are factors in the change.
The biggest spur, however, is a growing recognition that large-scale counterinsurgency battles have high casualty rates for troops and civilians, eat up equipment that must be replaced and rarely end in clear victory or defeat.
In addition, military thinkers say such wars have put the U.S.’s technologically advanced ground forces on the defensive while less sophisticated insurgent forces are able to remain on the offensive.
Counterinsurgency "is a good way to get out of a situation gone bad," but it’s not the best way to use combat forces, said Andrew Exum , a fellow with the Washington -based Center for a New American Security . "I think everyone realizes counterinsurgency is a losing proposition for U.S. combat troops. I can’t imagine anyone would opt for this option."
Many Pentagon strategists think that future counterinsurgencies should involve fewer American ground troops and more military trainers, special forces and airstrikes. Instead of "fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here," as former President George W. Bush once defined the Afghan and Iraq wars, the Pentagon thinks it must train local populations to fight insurgents.
The military calls it "foreign internal defense," although some have a pithier name: counterinsurgency light.
The new kind of counterinsurgency is "for the indigenous people and a handful of Americans," said Joseph Collins , a professor at the National Defense University , a Pentagon -funded institution that trains officers and civilians.
The newer approach is on display in Yemen and Pakistan, countries in which the U.S. faces entrenched extremist organizations with ties to al Qaida .
In Yemen , where leaders have distanced themselves publicly from the United States , the U.S. has quietly dispatched military trainers to work with Yemeni government forces and has provided air support, largely for observation. In addition, the U.S. sent Yemen $70 million in military aid.
In Pakistan , the Obama administration has authorized a record number of unmanned airstrikes along the Afghanistan – Pakistan border and promised $7.5 billion in aid over five years. In addition, defense officials said roughly 100 special forces trainers were working with the Pakistani military.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recognized the changed thinking in an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. "The United States is unlikely to repeat a mission on the scale of those in Afghanistan and Iraq anytime soon – that is, forced regime change followed by nation building under fire," he wrote. More likely, he said, are "scenarios requiring a familiar tool kit of capabilities, albeit on a smaller scale."
[…] The economic downturn is driving much of the change within the Pentagon . Military spending has risen steadily since the Sept. 11, 2001 , terrorist attacks.
When former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld arrived at the Pentagon in 2001, the Defense Department budget was $291.1 billion , or $357.72 billion in today’s dollars. The current budget is $708 billion for defense costs and funding the wars. Pentagon planners say budget cuts are inevitable, and that the change in strategy will help make them.
5) Eight Arrested at Obama AIDS Protest
Eight activists were arrested Thursday during a protest against President Barack Obama in New York City for flat funding in global AIDS programs.
Julie Bolcer, The Advocate, May 14, 2010
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/05/14/Eight_Arrested_at_Large_Obama_AIDS_Protest/
Eight activists were arrested Thursday in a large protest against flat funding for global AIDS during a visit by President Barack Obama to New York City.
According to Housing Works, "In addition to those arrested, 500 protesters from around the world chanted and marched holding signs reading ‘No More AIDS Lies! Treat People Now!’ and carrying body bags."
The activists protested outside the St. Regis Hotel in Midtown Manhattan, where inside President Obama addressed the crowd at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
The demonstration included speeches from the longtime AIDS activists Larry Kramer and Zackie Achmat of the Treatment Action Campaign of South Africa.
[…]
Afghanistan
6) Afghans Protest Deadly U.S. Raid
Rod Nordland, New York Times, May 14, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/world/asia/15afghan.html
Kabul, Afghanistan – A night raid by American troops in the eastern province of Nangarhar left at least 10 Afghans dead, and within hours, on Friday morning, protests by their relatives and friends turned violent, claiming at least one other life, according to accounts from witnesses and Afghan officials.
Afghan officials said the witnesses described the dead as civilians, but a spokesman for the American military, Lt. Col. Joseph T. Breasseale, said they were insurgents, including a Taliban subcommander and several others; he did not have a precise number of fatalities. He said they were killed in a firefight after refusing orders from a joint Afghan and NATO force to come out of a house. Two insurgents were wounded and captured, he said, and "multiple automatic rifles" were found in the house.
American Special Operations troops and Afghan special forces carried out the raid in an attempt to arrest an insurgent named Qari Shamshudin, who was among the 10 people killed, according to a spokesman for the Nangarhar governor’s office, Ahmad Zia Abdul Zai.
It was the second fatal night raid in two weeks in the Surkh Rod District, about nine miles west of Jalalabad, the provincial capital. Afghan officials had confirmed that a man was killed in the previous raid, on April 28. An Afghan member of Parliament, Safia Sidiqi, said that the house raided then was her own and that the victim was related by marriage to her brother.
Ms. Sidiqi was among the protesters Friday, witnesses said. The protesters carried the bodies of four of the latest victims, burned an American flag, and shouted slogans, including "Death to America" and "Long Live the Taliban." They were also critical of the Nangarhar governor, Gul Agha Shirzai, and the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai.
When the crowd of villagers and relatives tried to storm the district police and government building, the police fired to repulse them, Mr. Abdul Zai said, killing one protester and wounding two. Ms. Sidiqi and other local officials said one of the wounded later died, but there was no official confirmation. She said she worked to calm the crowd down and dissuade it from an attempt to march on Jalalabad.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Interior, Zemarai Bashary, said the ministry was sending an official delegation to investigate the night raid and the protests. The delegation would be headed by Lt. Gen. Merza Mohammed Yarmand, head of the Afghan national police’s criminal investigation division, who had formerly conducted investigations of civilian killings by NATO forces in Gardez and elsewhere.
"The local people in the area are claiming these are innocent civilians who have been killed," Mr. Bashary said. "We are investigating those claims."
In response to the April 28 case, Mrs. Sidiqi accused the Americans of deliberately seeking out her house, although she was not at home at the time of the raid.
"My brother called me on the phone at 11:40 p.m. and told me that there were some thieves outside our house and then I called Nangarhar Provincial Police headquarters, and they told me they are not thieves, they are Americans doing their search operations," she said. Her response at the time, she said, was to quote an Afghan saying, "If you’re not a thief, you have nothing to fear from the authorities."
In that raid, Colonel Breasseale said, the victim came out of the house with a shotgun.
"He clearly presented hostile intent and they yelled at him to drop the weapon and he refused to do it," he said.
Colonel Breasseale was skeptical of claims that the people inside the house thought they were being attacked by criminals. "That seems to be the running line for anyone who was hit in a night raid these days," he said.
A villager from Surkh Rod District, said he lost four cousins and an uncle during the raid; he said his uncle was shot while still asleep in his bed and his cousins had hidden in the house when they were shot. "I hate this stupid Karzai, this stupid governor," said the villager, Omarudin, who like many Afghans uses only one name. "My uncle and cousins were not Taliban, so why did they kill them?"
Ms. Sidiqi, who later visited the survivors in the village of Koshkaky, where she was reached by telephone, said it was clear to her that all of the victims were farmers, who had been working late into the night threshing their wheat harvest. One of the victims was a 12-year-old boy and another a 70-year-old man; all were males, she said. After talking to survivors, she put the number of dead from the village at 11 rather than 10.
"I think this is the enemies of the Americans in Afghanistan, feeding them bad information in order to create friction between the Americans and the people of Afghanistan," she said. "If the Americans keep behaving like that, definitely it turns people to the Taliban."
Ms. Sidiqi said NATO troops should work with local officials and elders to arrest people they suspect of insurgent ties; early this year, the NATO commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal issued guidelines limiting night raids and encouraging working through locals where possible.
"Instead they just shot them down as they jumped from their beds," Ms. Sidiqi said. She confirmed there were some weapons found in the house. "They were two rifles, these are farmers and everyone has rifles," she said. "They cannot compete with a hundred Americans with all their modern weapons."
7) U.S. Efforts in Kandahar, Barely Begun, Already Are Faltering
Dion Nissenbaum and Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers, Thu, May. 13, 2010
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/13/94133/kandahar-offensive-scaled-back.html
Kandahar, Afghanistan – Although it’s just beginning, the U.S.-led effort to pacify the Taliban’s spiritual capital in southern Afghanistan already appears to be faltering.
Key military operations have been delayed until the fall, efforts to improve local government are having little impact and a Taliban assassination campaign has brought a sense of dread to Kandahar’s dusty streets.
NATO officials once spoke of demonstrating major progress by mid-August, but U.S. commanders now say the turning point may not be reached until November, and perhaps later.
[…] McChrystal has spoken about a "rising tide of security."
The tide appears to be rising slowly, though. According to an updated timeline seen by McClatchy, the U.S. troop buildup won’t reach its peak until September, around the time that Afghanistan is to hold parliamentary elections and U.S. congressional election campaigns will be in full swing.
One major question is whether there will be enough forces for Kandahar, where McChrystal’s plan calls for the deployment of 20,000 U.S. and Afghan troops.
U.S. defense officials and defense analysts said that McChrystal used 10,000 troops in Helmand to gain control of a rural river valley with about 50,000 residents. But in Kandahar, however, Afghanistan’s second largest city, with an estimated population of 800,000, he’s calling for just 20,000 troops.
"None of this makes any sense," said a U.S. defense official. "If it took you 10,000 (U.S. troops) to do Marjah, there aren’t enough troops (for Kandahar)." The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
[…] The challenges in Kandahar come amid a growing recognition in Kabul and Washington that efforts in neighboring Helmand province to install a new administration in the former Taliban stronghold of Marjah quickly have stumbled.
Marjah was meant to be the proving ground for McChrystal’s counter-insurgency strategy, which emphasizes building governments trusted by local populations over combat operations.
Military leaders now describe Helmand as a "tale of two districts," however. One is Nadi Ali, where British forces are reported to have had some success; the other is Marjah, where Afghan security forces and the nascent Afghan administration still need U.S. Marines to keep the Taliban at bay.
Marjah "is already coming unraveled," the U.S. defense official said. He noted that on the eve of the Marjah offensive in February, McChrystal described how he planned to bring in a "government in a box."
"But when they opened the box, there was nothing in it," the U.S. defense official continued.
McCrystal insisted Thursday that progress was being made in Marjah. But he also conceded that the locals "remain to be convinced" that they’ll see an honest local administration.
–
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans.