Categories: Need to know

Top NATO general slams pols over Afghanistan

Leadership in alliance is “AWOL,” says Supreme Allied Commander

by macleans.ca on Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:00am - 3 Comments

U.S. General John Craddock didn’t mince words in a speech to the Atlantic Council earlier this week, saying the mission in Afghanistan has ground to a halt in the southern and eastern parts of the country because Western political leaders lack the will to adequately fund and staff it. Charging that “political leadership in NATO is AWOL,” Craddock went on to offer some free advice. “I think that in many cases political leaders have to determine what is in the best interest of their nation,” he told the pols, “and if it’s not popular with their citizens, then it’s their role as a political leader to convince the citizenry to support the government position.” Craddock is in the last few weeks of his command. Evidently, he feels he can be candid.

Acus.org

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

Finally, some candour. If you’re going to fight in Afghanistan, fight; if you’re not going to fight, don’t fight. But this half-assed middle-of-the-roadery is embarrassing.

Cash

Embarrassing and our soldiers are getting killed for nothing. Is there any hope of changing Afghanistan from a ghastly, murderous, Taliban infested, warlord run, narco-state? No? Then quit trying. Afghanistan appears to me to be just a sideshow anyway. From what I’ve read, the real problem is Saudi Arabia which provides financing and indoctrination for Muslim extremists and Pakistan which is the originator and facilitator for the Taliban not to mention unstable and nuclear armed. If we have to expend resources and lives it has to be against Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. By messing in Afghanistan we’re wasting time and not dealing with central trouble makers.

http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

The idea is that it forestalls the creation of a lawless zone in which the Saudi-funded and Pakistani ISI-backed extremists could plot further harm to the West, à la 9/11. Given the intractability of Mullah Omar & co., I don’t see why a withdrawal from Afghanistan, at least before the ANA is able to fight pitched battles by itself, would result in anything but a pre-2001 situation. Why do you think the Taliban would renounce Al-Qaeda after they succeed in taking back Afghanistan, if they haven’t renounced it in the 8 years since 9/11?