Grim Afghanistan Report To Be Kept Secret by US

#1
'Grim' Afghanistan Report To Be Kept Secret by US
"No Plans to Declassify" New National Intelligence Estimate for White House
By BRIAN ROSS
September 23, 2008

US intelligence analysts are putting the final touches on a secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Afghanistan that reportedly describes the situation as "grim", but there are "no plans to declassify" any of it before the election, according to one US official familiar with the process.

Officials say a draft of the classified NIE, representing the key judgments of the US intelligence community's 17 agencies and departments, is being circulated in Washington and a final "coordination meeting" of the agencies involved, under the direction of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is scheduled in the next few weeks.

According to people who have been briefed, the NIE will paint a "grim" picture of the situation in Afghanistan, seven years after the US invaded in an effort to dismantle the al Qaeda network and its Taliban protectors.
A spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Vanee Vines, said "it is not the ODNI's policy to publicly comment on national intelligence products that may or may not be in production."

The finished secret NIE would be sent to the White House and other policy makers.
More on the link
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5867448&page=1
 
#2
Well Europe and NATO don't want to play, apart from the usual suspects (copyright Casablanca ) UK and France.
An Obama administration will not be as keen on Afghanistan as Bush's gang, so I suppose we will see the Invader driven out as No One wants to play.
john
Poor Tom.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
The situation whereby we would seriously consider bailing out was always on the cards from the moment we decided to do Afghan and Iraq together.

Without Iraq, we'd have proper flooded the place and made a lot more progress.
 
#4
Biped said:
The situation whereby we would seriously consider bailing out was always on the cards from the moment we decided to do Afghan and Iraq together.

Without Iraq, we'd have proper flooded the place and made a lot more progress.
Truth brother! Both deployments were always at least Division-sized tasks, and we've struggled to maintain Brigades...
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#5
You know, in all my 2002 / 2003 posts I was insisting Iraq was going to be OK because I assumed that we had completed Afghanistan and that everything was hunky dory. Whats that rule about assumptions again?
 
#6
Mr Happy said:
You know, in all my 2002 / 2003 posts I was insisting Iraq was going to be OK because I assumed that we had completed Afghanistan and that everything was hunky dory. Whats that rule about assumptions again?
When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME! :twisted:

Don't worry about it, though; the people who are(God help us!)in charge of the Free World made the same mistake... :roll: :evil:
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#7
Werewolf said:
When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME! :twisted:

Don't worry about it, though; the people who are(God help us!)in charge of the Free World made the same mistake... :roll: :evil:
It was retorical but thanks.

Re your second point, if I ever set my standards by the 'most popular bloke in the country on election day' then I would be failing myself..
 
#8
Mr Happy said:
Werewolf said:
When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME! :twisted:

Don't worry about it, though; the people who are(God help us!)in charge of the Free World made the same mistake... :roll: :evil:
It was retorical but thanks.

Re your second point, if I ever set my standards by the 'most popular bloke in the country on election day' then I would be failing myself..
Fair one. :) The more I see of politicians, the more I agree with Garth Ennis(Preacher):

"Democracy is for Ancient Greeks." :twisted:
 
#9
'Democracy is the worst form of government possible, except for all those other systems that have been tried from time to time'
Winston Churchill
 
#10
While we're all waiting for the 17 to club together for their 'Grim' NIE (Classified) you are invited to study this for any interim assessments you'd like to make.

http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/progress_afghanistan.pdf


jonwilly said:
Well Europe and NATO don't want to play, apart from the usual suspects (copyright Casablanca ) UK and France.
An Obama administration will not be as keen on Afghanistan as Bush's gang, so I suppose we will see the Invader driven out as No One wants to play.
john
Poor Tom.
... July 23, 2008 Barack Obama's Afghanistan and Iraq policies are mirror images of each other. Obama wants to send 10,000 extra U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but wants to withdraw all American soldiers and Marines from Iraq on a short timetable. In contrast to the kid gloves with which he treated the Iraqi government, Obama repeated his threat to hit at al-Qaida in neighbouring Pakistan unilaterally, drawing howls of outrage from Islamabad.
An Obama administration is looking to draw down Iraq for an even greater focus in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

'Grim' assessment, as it is coined, serve as a major policy point which will in all likelihood be delivered to congress as among the first actions after election.

So as we don't hear any Fat Birds screetching just yet, we'd advise you to cool your boots.
 
#11
Having seen a few of these terrorist wars/freedom struggles, we have again come to the situation where the Military Bosses say to the government that they "see no military solution", That was what started the end in NI (if it was an end and not just a lull?), and in Aden and Cyprus. I don't know why the politico plotters cannot consult the Generals as to likelyhood and cost of a military solution before they cripple a generation with some overseas adventure.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
I think the trouble is that we are too nice about it. Too civilised. I'm not condoning this, but if we progromised, terrorised and genocided a iddy-biddy-widdle bit, we may be able to subdue the bad guys once in a while. Event the Russians didn't quite get the hang of it.

Now, the Romans on the other hand . . .
 
#14
I chuckled a little bit when I saw this thread, I believe British troops during the Raj used to call the NW Frontier/Afghanistan "The Grim" in soldier slang !
 
#15
I think we forget that the nation state as we understand it does not exist in some parts of the world. PAK, AFG have never been viable nation states. Then we introduce policies that ssume that they are - and watch them fail. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The Pushtun and everyone else in the interior have never acknowledged their membership of either AFG or PAK - so assuming they will support the "Afghan" or "Pakistani" Army is utter foolishness. We look at the Major of Kabul, kept in place by foreign troops and the Northern tribes and fool ourselves that he rules a country. We look at the coastal part of PAK which has many features of a nation state and fool ourselves that their writ extends up to some imaginary line on a map. FFS, they call half the country "Tribal Autonomous Zones" - what part of "Autonomous" don't we get ?

So we have a couple of options. First, a generational task to persuade using info ops, soft power and so on the locals to join us in the 21st Century. That means hundreds of thousands of troops, billions (if not trillions) of dollars and about 50 years.

Or we create a nation state in the way every single one to date has been created - genocide and/or ethnic cleansing. (In Europe we call this process "history", in the US they look away embarassedly when anyone mentions the Native Americans and we all pick on Turkey because they did it late enough that cameras were invented.)

But neither option will be taken. So get out now, we're not doing anything useful.
 
#16
One_of_the_strange said:
Or we create a nation state in the way every single one to date has been created - genocide and/or ethnic cleansing. (In Europe we call this process "history", in the US they look away embarassedly when anyone mentions the Native Americans and we all pick on Turkey because they did it late enough that cameras were invented.)
Send in UNPROFOR as a catalyst.

msr
 
#17
One_of_the_strange said:
Or we create a nation state in the way every single one to date has been created - genocide and/or ethnic cleansing.

But neither option will be taken. So get out now, we're not doing anything useful.
Iceland? That's a nation state....

To state it as Izzard might:

“But with dogs, we do have “bad dog.” Bad dog exists. “Bad dog! Bad dog! Stole a biscuit, bad dog!”

The dog is saying, “Who are you to judge me? You human beings who’ve had genocide, war against people of different creeds, colors, religions, and I stole a biscuit?! Is that a crime? People of the world!”

“Well, if you put it that way, I think you’ve got a point. Have another biscuit, sorry.””
Biscuit, anyone....?
 
#18
Biped said:
I think the trouble is that we are too nice about it. Too civilised. I'm not condoning this, but if we progromised, terrorised and genocided a iddy-biddy-widdle bit, we may be able to subdue the bad guys once in a while. Event the Russians didn't quite get the hang of it.

Now, the Romans on the other hand . . .
IIRC, Alexander the Great gave the proto-Taliban a severe shoeing...but ol' Alex was probably the most Nails military commander in history. :twisted: 8)
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#19
Werewolf said:
Biped said:
I think the trouble is that we are too nice about it. Too civilised. I'm not condoning this, but if we progromised, terrorised and genocided a iddy-biddy-widdle bit, we may be able to subdue the bad guys once in a while. Event the Russians didn't quite get the hang of it.

Now, the Romans on the other hand . . .
IIRC, Alexander the Great gave the proto-Taliban a severe shoeing...but ol' Alex was probably the most Nails military commander in history. :twisted: 8)
Don't you mean Alexander the Great, the Muslim that got a shoeing from The Sikh's?
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#20
I think we forget that the nation state as we understand it does not exist in some parts of the world. PAK, AFG have never been viable nation states. Then we introduce policies that ssume that they are - and watch them fail. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The Pushtun and everyone else in the interior have never acknowledged their membership of either AFG or PAK - so assuming they will support the "Afghan" or "Pakistani" Army is utter foolishness. We look at the Major of Kabul, kept in place by foreign troops and the Northern tribes and fool ourselves that he rules a country. We look at the coastal part of PAK which has many features of a nation state and fool ourselves that their writ extends up to some imaginary line on a map. FFS, they call half the country "Tribal Autonomous Zones" - what part of "Autonomous" don't we get ?

So we have a couple of options. First, a generational task to persuade using info ops, soft power and so on the locals to join us in the 21st Century. That means hundreds of thousands of troops, billions (if not trillions) of dollars and about 50 years.

Or we create a nation state in the way every single one to date has been created - genocide and/or ethnic cleansing. (In Europe we call this process "history", in the US they look away embarassedly when anyone mentions the Native Americans and we all pick on Turkey because they did it late enough that cameras were invented.)

But neither option will be taken. So get out now, we're not doing anything useful.
OoTS,

Your first two para’s are absolutely correct. In fact even the Geneva Convention recognises the difference and our ‘validity’ in engaging the enemy wherever he may lie. Our treatment of en PW’s goes beyond the level required for non-nation combatants and still the press bleat about it.

The US of course is fairly unique in that it recognises US Law before and above Intl Law unlike, say, most of the world. Certainly, if you caught me shoving red hot pokers up Osama’s arrse I’d cite the Geneva Convention in my defence.

The estimate of x000’00’s of troops and billions of bucks for 50 years is a little dodgy so forgive me if I don’t accept it. Unless of course you are a master in ‘Function Point Analysis’ * and have committed this to the AFG issue. In which case I apologise.

The idea of nation state building through clensing, genocide, bribary or whatever else is required is fine to bring about a solution but you seem to forget that ‘just keep killing bad guys’ is also a perfectly acceptable mission. Remember, some things don’t need solving. The war has its uses – like NI, Vietnam and Pearl Harbour.

I always liked Bush's rather badly calculated, stupid, ignorant and moronic statement that "we're killing them over there so they don't come over here and kill us" (roughly correct IIRC). In the case of the US, a country with massive porus boarders and easy to get weapons and explosives its proved correct. Tough for the UK or Spain but that was never really on his radar and we do have to take our own blame for the UK event.

* ‘Function Point Analysis’ basically says that you can’t take 1 “problem” which takes 1 person 1 dollar and 1 month to solve and times your effort by ten and solve it in 3 days (1 problem, ten guys and ten bucks). The concept was clearly lost on Don Rumsfeld, The State Dept, MOD and DoD. However, there is an optimum level of Solution/time that can be achieved with the correct application of manpower and budget. E.g. 5 guys, twenty bucks to fix a problem in a week.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top