Well, they do, but it’s because they don’t want our brave men and women to be there anymore:
From Red Fury’s CNN poll I believe was just released.
“Fifty-seven percent say the conflict is going badly for the U.S. and only a third say America is winning the war in Afghanistan.”
So in December 2013 when over 300,000 Afghans are now in uniform fighting the insurgency primarily on their own and because of that the reduction in American forces has begun and one net result of those two facts is that US combat deaths in Afghanistan for all of 2013 is lower than it was in 2008. In 2008 the Taliban controlled 80 percent of territory and Afghans were in the lead only in Kanul. The second largest city was under Taliban control. That is no more. ANA and ANP are in control of most of the territory and will be in control all by the end of 2016.
So with the enemy losing territory for the past four years and weakened substantially, plus Afghans in the lead in the fight just about everywhere, plus US combat deaths in steady decline to lower than 2008, 57% of Americans think the war is going badly - GOING - badly for the US. That’s a testament to something but I don’t think being informed about the progress of the war is it.
You think they would oppose that Christmas gathering if they knew about it? Do you oppose that Christmas gathering because you dont want our troops to be there?
I don’t see why you can’t want all troops home now but feel a warm place in your heart for the Americans and Afghans bonding there with each other. The reality is that wanting troops home does not bring them home so why wouldn’t recognizing some glimmer of Christmas spirit in war zone for what it is. Heartwarming. And seeing Afghan troops as people who want what we want out of life.
Well, that all depends on what one thinks the war was about, and what it means to win it.
I’m sure the WH will put it’s spin on this NIE, just as Bush put his spin on the Iraq NIE to justify the Iraq war. Some of us were not fooled buy Bush’s spin, and we won’t be fooled by Obama’s spin, either.
I don’t envy Obama’s job at all. He needs to get us the hell out, but he has to pretend as though we are leaving “with honor”. Of course he’s not going to say that once we leave he expects things to deteriorate. But the fact is, that is what his intelligence agencies are saying. And now that the news is out, no one has an excuse to be fooled by Obama, whatever he says.
Only indirectly, the way one might oppose a similar event in Vietnam in 1968. It’s nice, but…
Mildly. I’m just glad there’s an end in sight. There’s nothing we can do to transform Afghanistan into a modern, stable country, so every life lost trying to achieve that is a tragedy.
My heart isn’t that good at multi-tasking, I guess.
Eh, to some degree. Don’t start thinking they have the same values we do.
Interesting propaganda. Note that there isn’t a single quote from an Afghan in the whole article. A bunch of Americans patting themselves on the back.
How about this “uplifting” Christmas story:
Let’s not pretend that this is a country where Christians can openly practice their faith unless they are under the protection of the US or NATO military.
"**Fifty-seven percent **say the conflict is going badly for the U.S.
US Combat Fatalities by year.
2001 4 92% support toppling government in Afghanistan - destroying terrorist safehaven.
2002 22 Bush declared Taliban eliminated - US liberated 50 million Afghans
2003 **17 ** Bush orders US invasion of Iraq
2004 **24 ** Taliban remerge - war going badly
2005 66 Taliban getting stronger - war going badly
2006 65 Taliban taking back large swath’s of territory - war going badly
2007 83 Taliban stronger than ever - become IED experts - war going badly
2008 133 52% support war - Taliban control 80% - 40k foreign troops & 150k Afghan troops in uniform cannot effectively counter Taliban advances. terrible year for US in war. All attention is on surge in Iraq.
2009 **268 **US Military and ISAF go on major offensive… numbers of troops double - Training of Afghans intensifies. war is going badly…
2010 **440 **US troops tripled - major fighting . war is going badly
2011 **367 **July beginning of US withdrawal set by Obama - Transition to Afghan lead begins and begins effectiveness . war is going bad but improving - Taliban momentum since 2003 is reversed.
2012 251 Afghans take over lead in major populated areas… on schedule set in 2009. War is going better
2013 **85 ** War is definitely not going badly.
Perhaps the above time line will help.
But I see something wrong no matter what people think the purpose of the war was - in 2008 our side was losing big time… Afghans had no capability to fight on their own …but 52% supported the war… a war we were losing and that was going badly.
But after two years of verifiable improvement 57% say the war is going badly.
I am aware that all answering a poll question today may not have been around in 2001 when 90% of Americans supported toppling the Taliban from power. that is the core purpose of the war - regime change. The win - no need to call it a win - is preventing Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for terrorists like Osama Bin laden ever again and preventing the Taliban from regaining control. One major national security matter was also the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan and al Qaeda and the Taliban sanctuary in the lawless regions on AfPak Border. It is a big national security issue because Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
All that may need to be explained to people specifically younger people but the conditions on the ground today do not indicate that the war is now going badly.
What’s propaganda about it? Do you believe our troops and officers are staging this? Where is it written that and Afghan has to be quoted?
Perhaps not everyone interpreted that poll question as referring to casualties suffered by American forces, but in a broader sense of how the war’s outcome conformed to their expectation. I can’t speak for poll respondents whom I’ve never met, but I’d say that’s more likely than your alternative, which is people being unaware that casualties have declined.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
I am aware that all answering a poll question today may not have been around in 2001 when 90% of Americans supported toppling the Taliban from power. that is the core purpose of the war - regime change.
[/quote]
Which was accomplished in 2002. Of course people are restless when we’re still there in 2013.
That’s a pretty low-hanging fruit, there, as far as objectives go, at least relative to lofty rhetoric about an Islamic republic and nation-building.
An American/allied military victory was never in doubt. What was, and is, in doubt is that a stable government that’s hostile to Islamist extremists, while not itself being a repressive tyrannical nightmare or anarchic warlord free-for-all, can emerge.
It does meet one common definition of propaganda, which is:
“A form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument.”
…but so does plenty of government reporting. It is written by a sergeant, and published on defense.gov, after all.
[QUOTE]
Do you oppose that Christmas gathering because you don’t want our troops to be there? -Ntfldbw
You mildly oppose that Christmas gathering? Would you prefer they didn’t do it at all? Not give presents to the Afghans? How mild is mildly? I don’t see how anyone could oppose that gathering of two cultures even if they oppose the war.
Are you the final authority on ‘nothing’ can be done to transform Afghanistan? And that is odd because plenty has been done already. The question now is whether the will can be mustered to finish it. The main argument against finishing it would be if our troops had to do the fighting for them. Those Afghans in that Christmas gathering are part of the Afghan people who are fighting and only want a continuation of our partnership to back them up. IF you only mildly oppose that perhaps you can be convinced to continue to back them up a while longer… as long as they continue to fight for themselves and do what they need to do to turn things around.
Indeed. Most of us are not fooled by such reporting. A “joint” Christmas celebration where not even one person from the other party is interviewed or quoted, in a country where a person risks being killed by mere association with Christians. Where members of the government call for killing anyone who converts to Christianity. No wonder they didn’t interview any of the Afghan participants.
Spin what? First of all the 2010 December NIE was proven to be wrong:
"The LAT says that the analysts of 16 intelligence agencies in Washington “contend that large swaths of Afghanistan are still at risk of falling to the Taliban” NIE Questions Progress in Afghanistan
So had Obama given up and begun bringing troops out - the Taliban could be running the country again by now.
And have you played out your vision of how Obama is going to spin the NIE? Could we get an example? If Karzai signs the pact what does Obama spin? If Karzai never does sign the pact then what does Obama spin? Surely you have all this Obama mischief figured out. Prepare us for it.
So its clear. You assess that Americans serving in a combat zone are willfully constructing a propaganda masterpiece that you and whoever ‘most of us’ is are wise to. What is the propaganda about a Christmas gathering supposed to accomplish. Who are the targets of this Defense Department mind control? Is Obama in on this?
It is not toppling a regime if they go hide, we leave, and they come back or sonething worse. So no it was not accomplished in 2002 and I would argue that the serious business of setting up a permanent Taliban replacement government did not begin until 2009. Iraq was a major distraction to getting Afghanistan right.
What attitude in what community are the service members aiming to influence by sharing the Christmas celebration with Afghan miliary partners and friends in a war zone?
What is the other side they are failing to present? Do atheists get a party? Are those Afghans at the party really those who kill Christians that Mace discovered?
What is the one side of an argument about a Christnas get together between Americans and Afghans at a military outpost in a war zone. Should somebody kill somebody to even it out?
Who called it a “masterpiece”? Not me.
Tell you what. If they hold a joint Christmas celebration in public, in the streets of Kandahar next year, I’ll be impressed. What do you think the odds are of that happening?
It’s not mind control, it’s propaganda. The targets are people who are easily fooled by it.
I’m curious about this Loya Jirga. You seem to know a lot about it. How about you tell us all exactly:
-
How were the members of this body chosen?
-
Who are they, and how exactly do they represent “all of Afghanistan”?
and
- What actual legal authority do they have?
I’ll assume you made a mistake by talking about “tribal elders and Loya Jirga”, but if there is a separate body of “tribal elders” apart from the Jirga, please tell us about them, too. Are they anything other than just old people? How does one become a “tribal elder”? Is that system something that Americans would want to support? I’m sure it’s something really good since you are so hung-ho about it, but it really just sounds like a bunch of oligarchs, no?
I am not pretending anything. Lets not fail to acknowledge that Afghanistan is not unuque in what John Mace has singled out Afghanistan to complain about: