US military chief Admiral Mike Mullen talks with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari (R)
That is the issue. Whom sets the strategy? The Taliban with Karzai's consent or the USA and NATO. Karzai has an unrealistic view of the issue and continually demoralizes the strategy to bring about an impossible response to violence in Afghanistan.
...Karzai's emphasis on preventing civilian deaths and injuries could make it difficult for NATO to relax rules of fighting that some U.S. troops say give the battlefield advantage to the Taliban. For now, however, no changes have been proposed, said a spokesman for visiting Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.... (click title to entry - thank you)
I do not believe any American soldier is in military service to kill. To simply kill. They have a right to defend themselves and when fighting an insurgency, self defense is primarily the only time such military strength is needed.
Building confidence in the military operation by the population of a country burdened with poverty and oppression is a primary tool to ridding the country of insurgency. But, when the right to investigate reports or noted violence becomes a burden to the country, it demoralizes the military actions to stop the insurgency and costs the lives of soldiers.
NATO has a point in that there are unrealistic expectations placed on the forces in Afghanistan to protect the citizens. The NATO casualities have gone up, along with the casualities of Americans, due to unrealistic views of the Karzai government. In my opinion, they are corrupt standards for any military action. Either Karzai is going to allow the presence of troops or he isn't. In that lies the understanding any military is doing its level best to stop the killing. But, to surrender to terms of the Taliban by Karzai and the military in Afghanistan is unrealistic. The Talban need to surrender to Karzai, a much different paradigm to success.
In a recent radio interview with NPR, a USA soldier on the front lines in Afghanistan stated, they knew a house in the area would cause added violence, yet, due to the policies of Karzai and the acceptance of those standards they were unable to carry out necessary intervention/investigations; when the violence finally broke out there was a dead soldier that resulted. In the opinion of 'the foot soldier' it could have been prevented if they were allowed to do their job. That type of insight doesn't come without 'experience and commitment to purpose.' When a soldier is defending him or herself and that of the others they rely on in their company/unit; frequently it is done in 'prevention' of violence NOT just in response to violence.
If there is to be success in the Middle East, the American military cannot be demoralized to operate in a standard that doesn't work for them. The success of the military means the violence is stopped, not simply answered with equal or greater force to stress the power of the government over the insurgency. Today, to the extent the current strategy has worked in reducing the civilian deaths, it has also failed in preventing soldier deaths.
The 'idea' that an insurgent strategy can be defeated by allowing 'peacefulness' in the face of 'danger' is unrealistic and a poor example of how the 'nationalized military of Afghanistan' should be responding.
The people of Afghanistan, through their leadership in Karzai, have to understand they don't 'own' their country so long as the Taliban are carrying importance to them and the 'idea' they hold government infrastructure 'on a local' level hostage to 'allowing the Taliban' back in when they are annoyed. That reality is simply outrageous and a battle not worth fighting. Basically, when the Afghans hold 'their commitment' to better quality of life as a bargaining tool to their cooperation to achieve it, that is a direct insult to the commitment the USA and NATO has made to assist that goal.
There may be too much to overcome in Afghanistan nine years after September 11, 2010 and no matter how the USA commits treasure and talent nothing is appreciated or will change. It was and is wrong for the USA to assume Afghanistan 'wants' the USA to be safe from extremists.
I believe people in Pakistan want to stop the extremists that 'hide' within their country and 'within' their faiths, but, the corruption has been so great for so long it is difficult to overcome and is complicated by issues that presents when a broader picture includes India and Kashmir.
Admiral Mullens has his work cut out for him and I congratulate him in taking this trip and finding the will to examine the need for the USA in the Middle East and what our mission sincerely is and should be. It may be to prudently leave countries in their misery if that is the path they choose, but, to protect ourselves from their priorities over ours.
