Pentagon So Far Quiet On Afghanistan War Leaks

Hours after three major newspapers published front-page stories based on thousands of classified documents that were obtained by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, the Pentagon has yet to issue an official statement.

Multiple attempts by the Talk Radio News Service to obtain a comment from spokespersons at the Pentagon have been unsuccessful. An official at the Pentagon did tell Talk Radio News Service this morning that there were no plans to brief the media on DoD’s response to the leaks.

Today’s editions of The New York Times, Great Britain’s The Guardian and Germany’s Der Spiegel all featured extensive reports on the leaked documents. According to The Guardian, the over 90,00 mostly classified documents reveal “threat reports from intelligence agencies, plans and accounts of coalition operations, descriptions of enemy attacks and roadside bombs, [and] records of meetings with local politicians.”

In an effort to get out ahead of the story, the White House yesterday released a statement from National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones, who condemned the leaks, calling them “irresponsible.”

“The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security,” he said.

Former CIA Officer Jack Rice Analyzes Afghanistan Leaks

This Just In: The War In Afghanistan Is Going Poorly

WikiLeaks has released some 91,000 documents to the New York Times, Germany’s Der Spiegel and Great Britain’s The Guardian. What they highlight is an almost blow-by-blow look at the war in Afghanistan from the beginning of 2004 through the end of 2009. In my mind, there are basically three significant issues raised by these documents. Two of them have to do with what’s going on in Afghanistan, and the third is the interesting response they’ve garnered from the U.S. Government.

First, the issue of Afghanistan and what it means:

One of the major issues highlighted in these documents is the number of civilians that have been targeted, occasionally inadvertently, inside of Afghanistan. This is one of the big issues that since-resigned Gen. Stanley McChrystal tried to deal with. The problem is that dealing with an insurgency, particularly in a place like Afghanistan, is extremely challenging. What makes it far worse, and far more complicated, is that the more civilians you kill, the further you drive other civilians to side with and embrace the insurgency. Simply put, if success is defined by bodies killed, the more successful you are, the less successful you’ll be in the long-run.

These documents also highlight what comes next for U.S. and NATO troops. As the Taliban and what’s left of al-Qaeda continue to insert themselves inside of society in Afghanistan, the more our troops must leverage their way in and push those insurgents out. But to distinguish between an insurgent and a civilian is almost impossible at this point.

A second issue exposed within these documents, an issue which I think is far more troubling, and something that neither NATO nor U.S. troops have been willing to acknowledge, is the corruption and close association between the Taliban and the Pakistani ISI. According to these documents, the ISI is working almost hand-in-glove with the Taliban, not only targeting Afghan officials, but also aiding insurgents who are targeting U.S. troops. This is an extraordinary situation when you consider that the third greatest ally of ours in the war against terror, in terms of money, is Pakistan. Thus, our closest ally in the region is also the most sophisticated ally of the very same people that we’re fighting. This variable highlights almost the impossibility of success in Afghanistan.

Now, let me turn to the issue of the United States’ response to the leaked documents. Late last night, the White House released a statement from National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones condemning the release of these documents. Jones focused specifically on how the leaks pose grave threats to U.S. troops. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have since been echoing Jones’ sentiment. But here’s the interesting aspect; what Jones and others in Congress are doing is ignoring the content of all of the leaks themselves. It’s much easier to explain what happens when a leak actually finds its way to the press. Conversely, it’s much more complicated to explain what happens when your closest ally in the region is working with your enemies, or to explain the inability of your own troops to distinguish between the bad guys and unarmed civilians who are being killed by the hundreds across Afghanistan.

As we look back over the nine years that U.S. and NATO forces have spent in the region, the difficulty now is trying to figure out how to extricate oneself; that’s what the White House is hoping to accomplish at this point. But the problem that this administration also faces is how to do that without creating even more instability. In some ways, I think this issue is being pushed to the side; they’re far more interested in finding a political solution to Afghanistan. What these leaks are doing is making that political situation much more difficult to achieve. I, along with millions of other Americans, am hoping for the best. But sadly, it appears that the worst is coming.

Jack Rice is an International Correspondent for the Talk Radio News Service. He is also a former CIA officer, prosecutor and talk show host. He appears frequently on MSNBC and CNN.

Official Pledges Commitment In Afghanistan

President Barack Obama’s Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday that the proposed July 2011 troop withdrawal date marks only the beginning of a gradual, transitional phase for Afghanistan and its military.

Holbrooke was pushed to give members his own “vision” of when the United States can expect a “full, absolute withdrawal” of troops from Afghanistan after they argued that a three to five year prospective timeline made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was “too long” a period.

“I am very wary of setting a specific date for absolute withdrawal,” he said.

Holbrooke said that the United States must continue to support the economic development of Afghanistan and the training of the country’s police and military forces.

“A sustainable transition will be a gradual one [and] we continue to fulfill our obligation to train the police and the military,” he said.

Strategies regarding the transition from America’s military presence to a civilian assistance campaign are already being implemented but Holbrooke added that this process will be expensive and it will not happen overnight.

“This will not be cheap, but it will be a fraction of the money that is now being authorized for the military campaign,” he said. “If we walk away from Afghanistan again, as we did 21 years ago, the consequences will be catastrophic because of the unique strategic position of Afghanistan and the reaction that would have in Pakistan.”

Report Could Prevent Next 9/11, Says Military Official

By Linn Grubbstrom - Talk Radio News Service

Implementing ideas contained in a 2008 report put out by a top Washington think-tank would protect the U.S. from the next big terrorist attack, said a top military official on Friday.

The report entitled, “Measuring Progress In Conflict Environments (MPICE),” provides the DOD with a framework of ideas aimed at bringing stability to war-torn nations, like Iraq and Afghanistan. A co-editor of the report, Col. John Agoglia, Director of the Counterinsurgency Training Center in Kabul, Afghanistan, said it would have sped up progress during the Iraq War.

“I think we would have cut the stabilization pace in Iraq by at least half, if not two-thirds,” he said via telephone from Kabul during a discussion held by the United States Institute of Peace on Friday. 

“Hopefully for folks who are sitting there for the next 9-11 - hopefully there won’t be one, but let’s not kid ourselves, there probably will be - they will have a process by which they can sift through what’s going on, identify what are the causes of instability that resulted in the conflict that we’re in and articulate to the policy-makers what challenges we face, what resources it costs and more importantly, how much time it will take,” he said.

The full report is online and can be found by clicking here.

Experts Criticize Counter-Narcotics Policy In Afghanistan, But Offer No Concrete Solution

By Sarah Mamula - Talk Radio News Service

In an effort to create a politically stable Afghanistan, the United States has attempted to combat the country’s notorious level of opium production with a counter-narcotics policy. However, Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Melon, Mark A.R. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at UCLA, and researcher Jonathan Kulick recently released a report critiquing current policy, saying that the efforts aggravate the Afghan insurgency.

Addiction, corruption, insurgent and terrorist funding have all profited from the drug trade in Afghanistan, according to the report presented at United States Institute for Peace on Tuesday. Although opium production is concentrated to areas labelled as “insecure,” the Taliban is reportedly making millions of dollars from the industry. 

In 2009, the government policy switched focus from the complete eradication of opium crops to an increase in law enforcement and alternative development. 

Caulkins’ analysis critiqued the success of the current administration’s policy, but his report did not provide any alternatives or concrete recommendations for a counter-narcotics policy.

“I’m not an expert on Afghanistan across the board,” said Caulkins.

Caulkins, Kleiman and Kulick had differing opinions, but agreed that counter-narcotics efforts must be augmented and suggested that one solution might be the reorganization of enforcements with targeted areas could make corruption less rewarding and help address the problem.

However, the experts conceded that the issue is complex and that not much can be done as long as a demand for the product remains. 

The report states that even if a solution is found to the drug problem in Afghanistan, the production would be displaced to another country since international demand for opium is so high. Afghanistan currently produces nearly 90% of the world’s opium supply.