RSS

July 23, 2007

Oliver Hauss, -, Gold Contributor (112)

Contrary to the author's claims, Germany was involved directly in the fighting. The Kommando Spezialkräfte took part in "Operation Anaconda" and, infamously, Tommy Franks thanked France and Germany for their participation on international media before the respective governments had even briefed parliament. Pretending help that was actually given didn't exist is not going to be conducive to receiving more help in the future.

Second, Roper is missing the point. Given the lack of success the US-led endeavours both in Afghanistan and in Iraq have in quelling the "assymetrical warfare", lectures on how to deal with it ring hollow. One doesn't lecture on fields one has little grasp on oneself.

And this, finally, is the main point behind thoughts on disengagement: When you're in an operation that doesn't achieve its goal, then there's two options: Change something very fundamental about how you're pursuing that goal --or cut bait. And as long as --and this is exemplified by Roper-- there is the school of thought prevalent that the US could not possibly be doing anything wrong in going about its operations, one shouldn't be surprised that other nations don't want to have their soldiers serve as biological body bags.

Help can come in many different forms. One of them is good advice. The Bush administration had countless offers of help that were scoffed at. If the support dwindles, it is not the least an expression of the fact that people get tired of being seen as the light brigade at Balaklava:
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred."

These times are (luckily) over.

There's nothing wrong with supporting a productive operation. There's something VERY wrong with having one's soldiers shot to death just because "Simon says".

Lastly, it is telling that Roper speaks of "events in New York City, Madrid, London and now Glasgow." This is telling because it illustrates how little attention has been spent on the problem. France has been dealing with domestic islamist terrorism throughout the 90s, and successfully so. The US, conversely, shrugged off the 1993 attack on the WTC and got a bad wake-up call. Miraculously, this event transformed US authorities into experts on terrorism overnight.

If others have no desire to stand --let alone fall-- for this attitude, it should not come as a surprise.

July 23, 2007

David Vollmer, Uni Mannheim, Silver Contributor (26)

We Germans are pretty lazy people. We do not have real debates on foreign policy. We only debate how much support we shall give the Americans.
It would be better if we were more independent thinkers. We should first analyse how important Afghanistan is for us and then debate what we need to do to achieve the goal.

Instead of doing that, we simply agreed to ISAF and OEF and have sent troops, but did not give them the proper mandate to really make a difference. The troops mostly patrol a few streets in their vicinity. And the special forces have not been deployed to Afghanistan for quite a while now.
The motivation of sending troops was to somehow support the US and fulfill our NATO burden sharing.
The motivation was *not* to defeat the Taliban and spread democracy.

And now, we blame America for mistakes in Afghanistan rather than suggesting a better police.

It is often said that the US forces kill too many civilians, therefore Germany should withdraw. How stupid is that? It would be smarter to say: Listen, my American buddies, you are making a few mistakes, let us show you how you can avoid them, and then send German troops. Then it would be interesting, if the Bundeswehr would manage less collateral damage than those "stupid" US forces.

Oliver, the author has not claimed that Germany did not participate in any fighting.
For your argument you mention just one operation. Wasn't there more in the last five years? Germany did not participate in as many combat operations as the Brits, the Dutch, the Canadians and all the other "war mongers."


"One doesn’t lecture on fields one has little grasp on oneself."

Which sentences do you perceive as lecturing?
Roper is just pointing out that Germany supports the missions in Afghanistan politically, but does not provide the necessary resources. Thus Germany cannot expect help from the US the next time die Scheisse ist am dampfen.

"the main point behind thoughts on disengagement"

Germany has not really gotten engaged in Afghanistan. So how can Germany disengage?

"The Bush administration had countless offers of help that were scoffed at."

There was one unspecified offer right after 9/11, but it would have taken too long for the Europeans to mobilise their troops. Thus the US prefered to fight with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban.
Oliver, please tell me about all those other "countless offers"?

July 23, 2007

Oliver Hauss, -, Gold Contributor (112)

-David:

"It is often said that the US forces kill too many civilians, therefore Germany should withdraw. How stupid is that? It would be smarter to say: Listen, my American buddies, you are making a few mistakes, let us show you how you can avoid them, and then send German troops. Then it would be interesting, if the Bundeswehr would manage less collateral damage than those “stupid” US forces."

Really? Well, tell you what: How much were these suggestions heeded:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1125933.ece
There was plenty of advice by British commanders early in the Iraq conflict. They were ignored.

As long as anyone who disagrees is claimed to "not understand the nature of this conflict", people can make better suggestions as much as they want.

"Germany did not participate in as many combat operations as the Brits, the Dutch, the Canadians and all the other “war mongers.”"

If putting insults into my mouth is all that you can do, I see no point replying to any further comments of yours.

"Which sentences do you perceive as lecturing? "

Answer: "What these people do not understand is the nature of asymmetrical warfare, and the nature of groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda. These are not the set-piece battles of previous wars, when national armies took and held ground against their sworn enemies. " Yes, of course. Anyone who disagrees does so because he does "not understand". This is precisely the attitude that forced both theatres into the mess they are in.

"Roper is just pointing out that Germany supports the missions in Afghanistan politically, but does not provide the necessary resources. Thus Germany cannot expect help from the US the next time die Scheisse ist am dampfen."

The necessary resources for WHAT? For keeping a treadmill going further? When the US intelligence community states that Al Qaeda is as strong as right after 9/11, and instead of considering what to change about the way he goes about things, the US president simply denies the facts as they are, do you really think anything productive will come out of "helping" with the "necessary resources" to further keep a delusion going that is costing US, German and Afghani lives?

"Germany cannot expect help" -from whom? Roper states "With time it will anger the United States Government as well." As was pointed out by a different poster in another thread, the impact of this concept is a shadow of what it used to be.

Germany IS providing resources -chiefly to the civilian reconstruction effort. This is an important part of the operation without which it cannot hope to succeed.

"Oliver, please tell me about all those other “countless offers”?"

It is telling that you cut what I said immediately before: "Help can come in many different forms. One of them is good advice." There was plenty of such advice, both before and during the Iraq conflict, for one example. Instead of listening to it, the Bush administration opened up a whole new theatre, sent recruits into the open arms of Al Qaeda in masses and tied down a huge number of its own troops.

Stop spooling insults, start reading what people write. If you can't be bothered to respond to the actual arguments and instead resort to tactics of leaving out the inconvenient bits and acting as if they didn't exist and putting insults into other people's statements that aren't there, I have no interest in any further "discussion".

July 24, 2007

David Vollmer, Uni Mannheim, Silver Contributor (26)

Ropers article and my comment are about Afghanistan, but you bring up examples about Iraq all the time. Why don't you stick to the topic of this post?

“Help can come in many different forms. One of them is good advice.”

Yeah, the next time Europe is in a mess and needs help from the US military, the US will also give good advice and promise civilian reconstruction.

July 24, 2007

Robert Shawley, University of Iowa, Gold Contributor (99)

To Mr. Roper:

You admit yourself that 61% of Germans believe it is time to pull out of Afghanistan. Unfortunately for you, Germany is a democracy and if a continuation of German presence in Afghanistan is indeed in Germany’s best interest, then it is up to people like you to give convincing arguments of why that should be so. Throwing around meaningless ‘floskeln’ like “these people do not understand the nature of asymmetrical warfare”, followed by no real indication of any insight of what it actually entails, or “Western people have difficulty understanding the nature of this particular enemy” and doing nothing but pointing to recent terrorist attacks in Western capitals falls awfully short of that goal. Your statement “this should be proof enough to most reasonable human beings that the risk comes because we exist” just drips with the same ignorance that was apparent when the Bush administration announced in 2001 that ‘they hate us, because they hate freedom’. “Us Good – Them Bad”. It doesn’t really get much more simplistic than this. It is precisely because of these sort of circular arguments that the German public is sick and tired of the way things are going in Afghanistan. Understandably so if all they get fed as an explanation is a lukewarm regurgitation of moral superiority, to which especially the German people are for historical reasons terribly averse.

Oliver:

I totally agree with you that this, and the resultant complete denial of any flaw in current strategy, is good enough reason Germany should pull out. I strongly believe there is still the possibility to transform Afghanistan, but the strategy has to change dramatically. Maybe Germany pulling out might actually serve as a good wake-up call to my country!

However, I would contest the claim that it was entirely the US administrations fault that better strategies have not been implemented. It is, as with pretty much everything else, a mixed bag. If the UNSC would have agreed to expand ISAF forces beyond Kabul, it would have made a big difference to reinforcing the territorial gains of the war as well as provide security guarantees free from attachment to warlords. On the other hand, the drug-eradication policy the US is so fond of employing no matter where it is, has clearly been counter-productive.

Having said that, I gotta agree with David that there really hasn’t been a huge amount of advice forthcoming _prior_ to the invasion of Afghanistan. People were much more worked up about Iraq, which is why examples of criticisms of the US strategy there are so much more abundant. Afghanistan happened so quickly, with strong support for America still echoing from the 9/11 attacks, the knowledge that in terms of military intervention it would be a piece of cake, the invocation of NATO article 5, the brazen idiocy of the Taliban (“ durr, bin Laden is our guest, we can’t give him up, durr’) etc. etc.

David:

You’re quite right to say that a large part of the motivation of sending troops was simply fulfilling our commitment to NATO, but there were other reasons, too, as expressed by Karsten Voigt in his video on 'Germany's Open-Ended Commitment to Afghanistan' (see related materials above)


Ultimately, though, in this glorious year of our lord 2007, advice is abundant. And if this advice is not heeded, I, as an American, would have to say that there really is no need for Germany to support the effort in Afghanistan anymore.

July 24, 2007

David Vollmer, Uni Mannheim, Silver Contributor (26)

Robert:

"advice is abundant. "

Please summarize this advice, because I don't hear anybody in Germany giving advice about what to do in Afghanistan.
Everybody is too busy complaining about Americans and has no time to make suggestions about how to defeat the Taliban, rebuild the Afghan institutions and promote reconciliation and cooperation between the various groups.

Why do you see Germany's role as an advisor and the US role as listening and implement that advice?
Why don't you expect Germany to actually do something in Afghanistan rather than to just give advice?
Germany could for instance build up the Afghan police force, as our government promised many years ago.

Why is Germany paying so much ransom to the kidnappers? Perhaps it is the German rather than the American government that needs some advice...

July 25, 2007

Robert Shawley, University of Iowa, Gold Contributor (99)

David,

you're right to say that there is too much finger pointing, but I won't be summarizing policy advice that is easily accessible from a multitude of sources - this website included. When I said advice, I wasn't exclusively talking about advice generated in Germany. There is plenty of good advice also coming from inside the United States that is similarly ignored. My point was that if there is no political support for continuing to stay in Afghanistan without any change in strategy, that is totally reasonable imo.

As for the rest of your post: please point out where i say Germany should have the role as an adviser and US only listens and implements? And where do you derive the notion that Germany doesn't do anything in Afghanistan except for give advice?

July 25, 2007

GM Roper, Valley Counseling Centers, Inc., Bronze Contributor (12)

First off, I'd like to thank Joerg Wolf and the Atlantic-Community for the opportunity to weigh in on the issue of Germany in Afghanistan. I'd also like to thank Mr. Shawley, Mr. Hauss and Mr. Vollmer for their contributions to the topic and the generally well argued points that each has brought up.

While I may be mistaken, it seems that both Mr. Hauss and Mr. Shawley object to my mentioning "asymmetrical warfare." Mr. Hauss by noting "One doesn’t lecture on fields one has little grasp on oneself" (although I think that this brief article is hardly classifiable as a "lecture") and Mr. Shawley by noting "Throwing around meaningless ‘floskeln’ like “these people do not understand the nature of asymmetrical warfare”, followed by no real indication of any insight of what it actually entails, or “Western people have difficulty understanding the nature of this particular enemy” and doing nothing but pointing to recent terrorist attacks in Western capitals falls awfully short of that goal" leads me to believe that both gentlemen have based their comments on my profession and training, but not on certain knowledge. In fact, I am quite well read on asymmetrical warfare and would suggest to these two individuals that they too can bone up on the topic in any number of places readily available on the internet such as Meigs' Unorthodox Thoughts About Asymmetric Warfare (http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03summer/meigs.pdf ) or perhaps "The Asymmetric Warfare Group: Closing the Capability Gaps" (http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume3/april_2005/... ) or especially Primmerman "Thoughts on the Meaning
of "Asymmetric Threats" ( http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A444192&Location=U2&doc=... ) and be sure to read his "Afterword" because he precisely lists the bombings in NYC, London, Madrid as well as beheadings that were objected to in my brief article. Books these two gentlemen can read are also easily available and I would recommend "Principles of Asymmetrical Warfare: How to Beat Islamo-fascists at Their Own Game" by Uda and Schillings "Non Traditional Warfare."

From my two detractors, I would never presume to assume they know nothing about say, mental health counseling based on their bios on this site. I'm wondering if they have done me that disservice?

I might also mention that I was indeed trained in some of the aspects of AW, though it was a long time ago when I was in the Army at Fort Polk and Fort Benning since, at that time we were being trained to survive in Vietnam which certainly ought to count as asymmetrical warfare. Though I did not have to go to Vietnam, indeed did not finish Officers Candidate School due to a significant hearing loss, I still remember some of the lessons (I may be old, but I'm not yet senile gentlemen).

Lastly, I might mention that the article I wrote was limited to less than 600 words and I had less than a full week (as I recall) to complete it. Scholarship under such circumstances can be rather difficult methinks. I would also suggest, that if you go out on the streets and ask 1000 people in each of say 50 cities across the world what is meant by asymmetrical warfare, you will get an awful lot of answers, but not all that many will be close to accurate. This would seem to substantiate my original assertion that " these people do not understand is the nature of asymmetrical warfare..."

July 25, 2007

GM Roper, Valley Counseling Centers, Inc., Bronze Contributor (12)

A last point if I may. Mr. Hauss states in his opening sentence:

"Contrary to the author’s claims, Germany was involved directly in the fighting. The Kommando Spezialkräfte took part in “Operation Anaconda” and, infamously, Tommy Franks thanked France and Germany for their participation on international media before the respective governments had even briefed parliament. Pretending help that was actually given didn’t exist is not going to be conducive to receiving more help in the future."

What I actually said was:

"...with some 100 Special Forces hunting Bin Laden [emphasis added but that would at least seem to imply combat troops] and nearly 3000 soldiers as part of ISAF. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder put the Bundeswehr in harm’s way, but they were based in the northern part of Afghanistan. The troops are used in more of a peacekeeping and nation-building capacity than as security and/or offensive war forces. Germany’s allies have taken more risks and have suffered higher casualties in the more chaotic regions of southern and eastern Afghanistan."

That hardly constitutes a denial of combat, but rather points to the more used effort in non-combat operations. Would Mr. Hauss like to assert that the Bundeswehr has participated more in combat than in peacekeeping and nationbuilding? I don't think he is saying that, nor am I denying that Bundeswehr has faced combat. I only stated that they had faced less than our British allies and certainly less than the US itself. Mr. Hauss, please do not put words in my mouth as you have accused Mr. Vollmer of doing to you.

Cheers!

July 27, 2007

William C. Curtis, Lieutenant Colonel (Oberstleutnant) U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), (3)

1. The world is at war. It is a very different type of war than those of the 20th century.
2. Western Europe was (still is?) a group of nations of power and influence.
3. If Western Europe is to survive...include the U.S. here...then it needs to use its power and influence. This includes its' military forces. Governments, and the citizens they serve (AND the other way round also), need to understand what military forces are for...in this century and in AW. Failure to do so will mean their demise.
4. The U.S. has made, makes and will makes mistakes. So do other countries.
5. With the proverbial neighborhood on fire, we do not need people yelling insults at the firemen. We NEED everyone's help. If a country's military isn't going to be used to stop terrorism, what use is it? Disband it and go for even more socialism. The Nanny State, which I regret very many Americans think is fine idea also, will not and cannot protect anyone from terrorists.

GM is a gentleman and truly means well, which is to say is very bright and does not mean to offend Germany or Germans. Heck, he really likes Germany and Germans. He, however, has given some well-meaning advice to Germany, which -by the way - could be applied to most of the other nations in Western Europe also. While help from Germany was/is appreciated, token forces mostly cannot get the job done. We can share advice, but we should also share the very hard duty of facing armed and vicious enemies. Those enemies state again and again that their goals and beliefs are the very things that most Germans and other Europeans say they are against. If that is true, where is the confusion? If we all can just be really nice, the bad people will stop, right? No. Diplomacy will work better than arms. Sure, if the other side has any decency. If they don't, you're attempting to treaty with rattlesnakes. Treaties and international organizations only work if they are backed up by good and decent people....willing to enforce sanctions...including war. Do not shrink from violence with the mantra of: "Violence is bad." Of course it is. However, when the bad guys kick in your door and they are armed, will you give them a hug and offer them sandwiches? If you do, you and your family will perish. The League of Nations, The Kellog-Briand Pact, The United Nations....all worthy ideas, have largely not worked. We should embrace idealism, but we also must be realists. It, I believe, is that simple. Terrorism will not simply just go away. Someone has to make it go away. Just now, the U.S. seems to be doing most of the heavy lifting. Why is that?

July 27, 2007

Robert Shawley, University of Iowa, Gold Contributor (99)

Dear Mr. Roper,

You surmize that "both gentlemen have based their comments on my profession and training, but not on certain knowledge." Actually, I based my comment on what I read in your article (and of course the knowledge I already carry) - nothing more, nothing less. I also did not challenge your knowledge on AW. Unlike you, I might add, as you seem very keen to point out where I can "bone up on the topic". (Is it maybe you who is doing me disservice?)

My beef with your article was your mentioning of phrases like "They do not understand the enemy" or "they do not understand AW". Then, rather than provide us with useful information that might help us understand better, you just leave these phrases standing - almost as an accusation. You provide no, absolutely zero, further insight into asymmetrical warfare or into the underlying dynamics of who or what our enemy is.

Of course, religious fanatics are not particularly amenable to civilized dialogue or reasoned debate and compromise. Yes, they are our enemies, yes they will kill us given only half a chance, and yes, as we will have absolutely no chance of engaging with them constructively, we must kill them first. But first and foremost we are fighting an ideology, an idea. And violence, along with the poverty and lack of education that it begets, is the primary force driving people towards this idea.

That is the first lesson of AW, that poorly directed military action can be extremely counter-productive in the battle for ideas. The military should only be deployed when there is a high degree of accuracy in the intelligence, and when there is no other option to disrupt the target. Everything else in counter-insurgency is, in effect, social and economic policy: providing opportunities, education, understanding, a stake in the future, etc.

'More boots on the ground' cannot provide any of that.

July 28, 2007

GM Roper, Valley Counseling Centers, Inc., Bronze Contributor (12)

"...you seem very keen to point out where I can “bone up on the topic”. (Is it maybe you who is doing me disservice?"

You are correct, having worded it the way I did it would be a disservice to you and for that I apologize. However, my original statement that most do not understand AW stands as written. Most people do not and I suggest that you are more than likely in agreement.

Again, in a very short essay, I was not attempting to describe AW, my intent (perhaps not so well argued as I might have) was that the fight in Afghanistan as being practiced by the enemy I was attempting to show that we cannot pull out (either Germany or any other country) because the struggle is difficult. In AW, this fight may go on for another decade and the role Germany is playing is vital to that effort. Germany cannot pull out because of the real fact that if they do, the taliban and AQ will perceive that as a weakness and attempt to increase the fear of them via more AW just as they did in Madrid and attempted to do in Glasgow and London and did do in London earlier.

I suspect, nay, I know that this is not a clash of civilizations as some would have it, nor a crusade, nor a clash of religions, but a clash of ideology. Shall the west bow down and become part of the oft stated goal of AQ of re-establishment of the Caliphate? I suggest that is unthinkable and "boots on the ground" is one of the ways we can fight back, not necessarily more, but absolutely not less.

July 30, 2007

Michael John Williams, Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, Silver Contributor (62)

Sadly Robert and Oliver both miss the point about the war in Afghanistan. You both feel that more boots on the ground cannot provide more security, but sadly this is not the case. First, you overlook the fact that the majority of Afghanistan is peceful and while there are several outstanding issues with relation to warlords violence by the Taliban is limited to the South and East of the country. Second, you attack the military deployment while failing to recognize the utter failure of all of the involved governments and the international community to provide adequate financial resources to the mission. Donations to Afghanistan have been significantly lower than donations to Kosovo and the Afghan problem is far larger (by the way, that problem is not 'fixed' either yet and may still blow up in our faces, so I suppose we should just pull out of there as well?). Also, what is UNAMA doing in country? The answer - not enough.

I completely agree that the US has pursued some terrible strategies in Afghanistan (and Iraq - starting that one was a mistake in itself) but I am not about to let you wriggle your way out of a mission that is failing because EUROPEAN states have failed to step up to the bat. the logic that Germans and other Europeans use to justify their actions does not make any sense and it perpetuates violence in Afganistan (see: http://mikewilliams.wordpress.com/ )Everyone likes to cite Germany's turn to democracy after WWII as an example of success in nation building. This comparision is absurd in a number of ways. Not in the least because they overlook the previous hundred years of conflict that was part of the birthing of Geman democracy.

How you expect to help put Afghanistan on the road to a better future in just six short years is beyond me. I don't advocate being in Afghanistan because the big bad Taliban or Al Qaida is going to come and turn America or Europe into part of an Islamic Caliphate. I do advocate involvement because unsecure areas pose a danger to the West as 9/11 illustrated and more importantly Afghans deserve a chance a better future and I think it is bordering on moral neglect to just pull German (or other Western troops) out of Afghanistan and leave them to a rather terrible fate.

August 5, 2007

Oliver Hauss, -, Gold Contributor (112)

Michael John Williams,
you are misrepresenting what I wrote. I never stated that "more boots on the ground cannot provide more security". My point is that "more of the same ol' same ol'" will only provide "more of the same ol' same ol'" -which is a steadily deteriorating situation.

You state yourself that the US has pursued some terrible strategies. It is only very recently that some of these have been overhauled, with Petraeus - who quite literally wrote the book about counter-insurgengy, as far as US forces is concerned - taking over authority in Iraq, and with finally some sense coming into aerial campaigns in Afghanistan with promises to maybe use a little less ordonance and double-check a bit more often you're actually targetting the right people. Which is a small step, but an important one. The point remains that simply sending over more troops is NOT going to produce a positive effect until what those troops are supposed to do receives a major revision. As it stands, more soldiers means more bullets flying, which means more collateral damage, which means more Afghanis p***ed off at their "liberators".

So, I never argued for "just pulling out". But threatening to do so unless a no-holds-barred re-thinking takes place that asks some very fundamental questions about what's working and what isn't and why should certainly be not just an option, but a duty to the soldiers who are supposed to be a bit more than moving targets.

In your dismissing the comparison with Germany after WWII, you actually miss the most critical point: Between 1918 and 1933, Germany DID have a democratic system, albeit a shaky one. And even before 1914, Germany had a parliamentary tradition, albeit with limited power. And coming with all of that, most importantly, Germany had democrats, people dedicated to that form of government.

@GM Roper:

Much like Robert, I judge you by your statements. It is no excuse that a short essay does not provide the room to explain asymmetrical warfare. That being the case, it would be proper to desist from raising claims you cannot back up. If you accuse others of not knowing what they're talking about, you should demonstrate that you do. Unfortunately, all we have seen so far is appeals to authority. Apparently, you did not even notice that the articles you cite are contradictory: One is largely concerned with the issue of IEDs and the US casualties they cause, while another explicitly states: "Finally, I note that although insurgent VBIED attacks on civilians are asymmetric actions, IED attacks targeting American forces are not, for reasons that should be clear, based on the arguments in this technical report."

And sorry to say, but something titled “Principles of Asymmetrical Warfare: How to Beat Islamo-fascists at Their Own Game” doesn't sound like a piece of scholarship seriously worth reading, let alone spending money on, given that one of the most fundamental tenets of good scholarship, "sine ira et studio" seems to be violated already in the title.

It just strikes me as odd that the weblinked documents you cite make little mention of the issue of operating within a civilian population. In Gen. Petraeus field manual counterinsurgency, this is THE key issue. And it is one that has been pointed out by the British time and time again, based on their experiences in Northern Ireland. I'd particularly like to point you at three aspects of it: Section 1-123, A-45 and A-50

A recent editorial in the New York Times made me wonder if finally, he has managed to establish his doctrine in Iraq. The question remains, however, if it was still in time or too late to save the operation, and when it will actually be fully heeded in Afghanistan. Until it is, I'm afraid sending more troops to Afghanistan is merely providing the Taliban with target practice.