The Afghanistan ‘peace deal’ riddle — Pepe Escobar

Backgrounder. More complicated than meets the eye. As always, it about money and power.

Asia Times
The Afghanistan ‘peace deal’ riddle
Pepe Escobar

Where we are now in Afghanistan- Editorial Opinion by PL — Col. W. Patrick Lang

...we should leave, but we should leave on a schedule that will enable us to control the timing of our going and to protect the departure of those who wish to leave with us.….

Well worth reading the whole editorial. Col. Lang knows this region well.

Sic Semper Tyrannis
Where we are now in Afghanistan- Editorial Opinion by PL
Col. W. Patrick Lang, US Army (ret.)

At the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lang was the Defense Intelligence Officer (DIO) for the Middle East, South Asia and counter-terrorism, and later, the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. At the DIA, he was a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service. He participated in the drafting of National Intelligence Estimates. From 1992 to 1994, all the U.S. military attachés worldwide reported to him. During that period, he also briefed President George H. W. Bush at the White House, as he had during Operation Desert Storm.
He was also the head of intelligence analysis for the Middle East for seven or eight years at that institution. He was the head of all the Middle East and South Asia analysis in DIA for counter-terrorism for seven years. For his service in the DIA, Lang received the Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive. — Wikipedia

Pepe Escobar — How to kill 10 million Afghans and not win

Backgrounder on Afghanistan. Not really about Trump except the first few paragraphs. Trump just talking though his butt. The real not-so-hidden agenda lies elsewhere. And, as everywhere, "follow the money."

Asia Times
Pepe Escobar: How to kill 10 million Afghans and not win

Pepe Escobar

The Taliban Have Won in Afghanistan — Brian Cloughley

Like the Vietnamese, they outlasted the occupiers. But it remains to be seen whether the Taliban will repeat a forcing of ignominious withdrawal, tail between the legs. Remember the helicopters evacuating the remnant from the rooftops of Saigon?

President Trump's instincts are correct on this, but he is trapped by the politics and optics.

Strategic Culture Foundation
The Taliban Have Won in Afghanistan

Brian Cloughley | British and Australian armies’ veteran, former deputy head of the UN military mission in Kashmir and Australian defense attaché in Pakistan

Tom Winter — Historic meeting of Intel Chiefs from Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and China – But why?

Top security and intelligence officials from Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and China held a meeting in Islamabad, where they stressed the need for more active involvement of regional forces in efforts to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan.This is reported by TASS.

On Tuesday, a meeting of leaders of the intelligence services of Russia, Iran, China and Pakistan was held in Islamabad, at which measures were discussed to combat the threat of the reunification of ISIS fighters in Afghanistan....

Not stated in any of the news accounts of this meeting is the likely spur that led to it. Last month the Chief of Iranian General Staff Major General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri accused the US of transferring Daesh terrorists, defeated in Syria and Iraq, into Afghanistan.

Sputnik alike has reported “The US has been accused numerous times of providing various forms of support to Daesh and other terrorist groups, operating in the region....

For Russ

Historic meeting of Intel Chiefs from Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and China – But why?

Tom Winter

See also

Geopolitics Alert
5 Times the US Actively Supported ISIS or Similar Groups (Yes, Actively)

Brandon Stout, former member of the petty-bourgeoisie and is now a class traitor living happily in Detroit, Michigan

Update

Fort Russ
German RT — Historic Islamabad Meeting Of Intel Chiefs, Omitting The US, In The German PressIntelligence services of Russia, Iran, China & Pakistan decide to cooperate in Afghanistan - without the USA
Tom Winter

Pepe Escobar — The Syria connection to Iran, Afghanistan and China

Backgrounder. 

It's complicated. The US doesn't do nuance.

Asia Times
The Syria connection to Iran, Afghanistan and China

Pepe Escobar

Asia Times — Erik Prince’s plan for Afghanistan’s rare metals revealed

Leaked pitch to Trump administration warns of China’s goal to control key tech resource

Resources wars?

Asia Times
Erik Prince’s plan for Afghanistan’s rare metals revealed

Alfred W. McCoy — Never-ending war: Washington’s drug of choice

About Afghanistan.

There is method to the madness of staying in Afghanistan. The US deep state doesn't want to actually "win" the war, which would be a reason to leave and "save money,", since continued US military presence there is essential in terms of geopolitics and geostrategy, which is focused on US hegemony. Afghanistan is a key piece in controlling Central Asia and the Eurasian landmass. This is a part of a proxy war with Russia and China.

Tom Dispatch
Never-ending war: Washington’s drug of choice
Alfred W. McCoy | Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

FB Ali — Tillerson’s Trip & the new Great Game

Important backgrounder explaining what is really going on with Afghanistan.

So, this new Great Game goes on, with wily Vladimir Putin, tweeting Donald Trump, smiling Xi Jinpeng and creepy Narendra Modi all trying to outwit each other, and rope in the other minor players to their side.

Sic Semper Tyrannis
Tillerson’s Trip & the new Great Game
FB Ali
At the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lang was the Defense Intelligence Officer (DIO) for the Middle East, South Asia and counter-terrorism, and later, the first Director of the Defense Humint Service. At the DIA, he was a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service. He participated in the drafting of National Intelligence Estimates. From 1992 to 1994, all the U.S. military attachés worldwide reported to him. During that period, he also briefed President George H. W. Bush at the White House, as he had during Operation Desert Storm.

He was also the head of intelligence analysis for the Middle East for seven or eight years at that institution. He was the head of all the Middle East and South Asia analysis in DIA for counter-terrorism for seven years. For his service in the DIA, Lang received the Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive. — Wikipedia

Moon of Alabama — Moon of Alabama Phoenix 2.0 - CIA's Vietnam Terror Unleashed Upon AfghanistanPhoenix 2.0 - CIA's Vietnam Terror Unleashed Upon Afghanistan

Repeating failure in expectation of success.

This further exposes the CIA as a secret paramilitary organization rather than an intelligence agency as such.

Moon of Alabama
Phoenix 2.0 - CIA's Vietnam Terror Unleashed Upon Afghanistan

b

See also

In short a lot of activity, a lot of killings, a lot of doors kicked in, a lot of personal grudges paid off by fooling the Americans into doing your dirty work and not much else. Shades of Operation Phoenix in Vietnam.

Russia Observer
New US Operations In Afghanistan

Patrick Armstrong

telesur — As Afghan War Turns 16, Taliban Says It Will 'Break the Horns' of 'Imperialist' US

“The political analysts and inexperienced generals of U.S. leaders thought that Afghanistan was a bite-sized meal which can readily be devoured and added to their list of colonies” on October 7, 2001, when Occupation Enduring Freedom was launched, the Taliban said on its English-language website. “However, they were unaware that this valiant nation has broken the horns of every invading force and thrown them into the sinkhole of history.”

 “Afghanistan—where empires go to die.” ― Mike Malloy

Alexander, Britain, the USSR, now the US?

telesur
As Afghan War Turns 16, Taliban Says It Will 'Break the Horns' of 'Imperialist' US

Peter LaVenia — Afghanistan: Why We Won’t Leave

Geopolitics and geostrategy on the grand chessboard.

Trump’s recent decision to add troops in Afghanistan has nothing to do with combating terrorism (or mining mineral resources, or confusing militants as to when the U.S. military might finally leave), no matter what the endless stream of pundits and think-pieces have argued since it was announced. After 16 years of occupation the Taliban control 48 of nearly 400 administrative units, the Islamic State has established a foothold, the United States supplies almost the entirety of the military and civilian budget, the Afghan military is incapable of functioning without U.S. support, opium production has increased so that Afghanistan supplies 77% of the world’s heroin, and by the end of the next fiscal year the total cost of the 16-year Afghan war alone will be $1 trillion. Afghanistan and Pakistan have engaged in their worst border clashes in years as militants shift back and forth between both countries at will. Chinese troops operate openly in the country and conduct joint security exercises with Afghan forces. Russia is now debating a military intervention, ostensibly to counter the growing Taliban threat.…

The real reason is that Afghanistan is a forward operating base for the U.S. military in Asia in its attempts to counter China’s inevitable rise, whatever the official justifications for maintaining troops there are. China’s $900 billion Belt and Road Initiative aims to lay the trans-continental infrastructure to allow its transition from great power to world-hegemon. Its projected land routes go north around Afghanistan and south through Pakistan. Given that the United States recently began a “Pivot to Asia” strategy aimed at building an economic and military partnership with Asian states to balance China, and that the economic side of that – the Transpacific Partnership – was temporarily defeated, there has been an increased emphasis on its military part by the national security state.

In addition, India, alarmed at China’s rise and open provocation on its eastern flank, has already signed an historic agreement to allow U.S. warships and aircraft to use Indian bases for “refueling, repair, and other logistical purposes.” The United States conducted joint naval war games with India and Japan this summer. It is clear that the United States is turning towards India at the same time as Pakistan moves closer to China’s sphere of influence. China has signaled its displeasure at these containment efforts, even as it expands its military footprint into the South China Sea and Africa. Given that Afghanistan borders the northern and southern route of China’s New Silk Road, and India has openly aligned itself with the United States, what is the likelihood of American troops leaving Afghanistan?

Counterpunch
Afghanistan: Why We Won’t Leave
Peter LaVenia

Bilal Khan — The right question about Trump’s Afghan policy

In the context of America’s Afghanistan problem, Pakistan joined the international coalition in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, allegedly as a result of a direct threat by US secretary of state Colin Powell to the Pakistani president at the time, Pervez Musharraf. It is a folly to believe that the interests of these two countries converge in the larger scheme of things. They never have.

In terms of soft power, the United States has never enjoyed high approval ratings among the Pakistani populace. In terms of hard power, the US historically has used two tools to coerce Pakistan: one, much-needed military assistance, and two, economic bailouts from time to time. Most of the time, the United States has offered both to the real center of power in Pakistan – the military.

The US has never preferred to deal with civilian institutions or democratically elected rulers in Pakistan despite Americans’ alleged love of democracy. Too many decision-makers and sensitive constituencies wasted too much time for the Americans’ liking and often fell short of offering full servitude. They wanted results, by hook or by crook – that is how Pakistanis see how Americans have used them. What adds to such injury is not just the insult US President Donald Trump hurled at them on August 21, but the sense that the United States discards Pakistan whenever it wishes.…

Enter the dragon.

China may not yet be as great a power as the United States, but it has offered Pakistan what the Americans never did: respect. At the same time, the Chinese share Pakistan’s more immediate and pressing regional interests. Pakistan today is a relatively safer and economically viable place than it was 16 years ago, thanks largely to Chinese investment and the sacrifices Pakistan wants the West to recognize. If these trends continue, Washington will increasingly lose any hard-power leverage it once enjoyed in Islamabad....

The right question to ask.

Many experts around the globe are asking how likely the new US policy is to succeed. That is the wrong question to ask. America’s new policy for Afghanistan is doomed to fail, as former Pakistani finance minister Shahid Javed Burki has correctly concluded. However, the right question to ask is: What happens next when it fails?

If the precedent prevails, a wider war is the right answer.

Asia Times
The right question about Trump’s Afghan policy

Bilal Khan

M.K. Bhadrakumar — Pakistan trumps new US strategy for Afghanistan

In the final analysis, [US Ambassador] Hale’s softer line was probably influenced by the resolution passed by the Pakistan National Assembly and Senate last week, which amongst other things demanded the suspension of supply routes for US forces via Pakistan in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon heavily depends on Pakistani transit routes, which are logistically and financially the most optimal. Any American ‘surge’ in Afghanistan likely means even greater dependence on Pakistan’s cooperation to keep the routes open.

It is debatable how seriously the Pakistani military’s leadership took Trump’s threats in the first place. They would know that Washington is hardly in a position to read the riot act to Pakistan, given the worsening security situation in Afghanistan, the ineptitude of the US’ Afghan ally and a highly complicated regional milieu where the US faces near-total isolation.

In all likelihood, Pakistan sensed that Trump was largely grandstanding before multiple US audiences.

Asia Times
Pakistan trumps new US strategy for Afghanistan

M.K. Bhadrakumar

See also

The plot thickens.

North Korea declares H-bomb test ‘a perfect success’

AFP

China’s anger at West to overshadow tougher action on North Korea

Ben Blanchard and Philip Wen

M.K. Bhadrakumar — Russia Warns the US Over Afghanistan

The more one looks at it, President Donald Trump’s real challenge is not about winning the war against the Taliban, but the high risk he’ll be incurring, by taking his generals’ advice, to put his imprimatur on a full-fledged proxy war in Afghanistan against Russia, Iran and China.

Russia Insider
Russia Warns the US Over Afghanistan

M.K. Bhadrakumar

Pat Lang — The generals rolled him, as they rolled Obama ...

The difference between Trump and Obama is that under Trump generals are in key civilian positions that are supposed to put a civilian check on the military. Now there is in effect a military junta running military policy with State under the control of a former Exxon CEO and treasury under the control of a Goldman Sachs alumnus. This is even worse that could be expected if HRC had been elected instead, and it is what a lot people that voted for DJT were voting to prevent.

Sic Semper Tyrannis
The generals rolled him, as they rolled Obama ...
Col. W. Patrick Lang, US Army (ret.), former military intelligence officer at the US Defense Intelligence Agency

Also

Former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai said in a statement on Tuesday that US President Donald Trump's new strategy toward Afghanistan is against Afghanistan's national interest.

Sputnik International

Karzai Slams New US' Afghan Strategy as 'Trump More Focused on War & Rivalries'

Also for consideration:

Voltaire Network
The anti-imperialist camp: splintered in thought

The US military project for the world

Thierry Meyssan

UPDATE

No plan, no strategy.

Irrussianality
Reinforcing failure
Paul Robinson | Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa

Mark Perry — How Generals Talked Another President into Losing Strategy

Another Pentagon observer had a much different take. “This is Joe Biden’s plan, all the way,” he said, referring to the then-Vice President’s recommendation to Obama back in 2009. “Biden said that we should increase counterterrorism operations, draw down U.S. forces in the provinces, increase pressure on Pakistan and make a deal with India. Obama said ‘no’ to the idea, but you can bet Mattis was listening. This is his plan all the way.”

Almost everyone at the Pentagon agrees, though key senior military officers who have been privy to James Mattis’s thinking over the last weeks (but who remain unconvinced by it) provide a cautionary, and nearly fatalistic, note. “This Trump plan, at least so far as I understand it, sounds a lot like the kind of plan we’ve come up with again and again since the end of World War Two,” a senior Pentagon officer says. “We’re going to surge troops, reform the government we support and put pressure on our allies. In this building [the Pentagon] there’s a hell of a lot of skepticism. And that’s because we all know what this new strategy really means – and what it means that the only way we can get out of Afghanistan is to get further in. You know, it seems to me that if there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s that that doesn’t work.”

The American Conservative
How Generals Talked Another President into Losing Strategy

Mark Perry

Trump wants to privatize the war in Afghanistan because, you know, we're out of money.

This is ludicrous.

Check it out.

Trump Considering Plan to Privatize Much of War in Afghanistan

And this is for what reason? So he can give tax cuts to the wealthy?

The United States has become a buffoon nation with a buffoon for president. This would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

We export war. That's all we do. It's sickening. War for profit now. A new industry is born with the blessings of the White House.

The U.S.A. is a for-profit,  mercenary nation. We are a laughing stock with nukes. Zero moral authority. ZERO.

Trump is getting more pathetic every day. I am ashamed that I voted for this asshole.

Amy Goodman — Trump Considers Prolonging Afghan War to Secure $1 Trillion in Untapped Mineral Deposits

This is not new news. Apparently Trump is finding out about it.

Control of natural resources is a big part of neoliberalism, ne-imperialism, and neocolonialism.

Democracy Now!
Trump Considers Prolonging Afghan War to Secure $1 Trillion in Untapped Mineral Deposits
Amy Goodman interviews Jodi Vittori, senior policy adviser for Global Witness on Afghanistan policy and 20 year US veteran awarded two Bronze Stars, and Kathy Kelly, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, a campaign to end U.S. military and economic warfare

Michael Brenner — The Linear Mindset In U.S. Foreign Policy

CONTINGENCY is part of the natural order of life. Things happen that we have no control over – or, at least, cannot determine. Things happen that are unexpected – that catch us unawares. It’s one reason why "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft a-gley." If your projects are something less than well planned, then you are in even bigger trouble. And if you were flying by the seat of your pants in the first place, then the risks and costs mount. That is what has been occurring to American foreign policy in the Middle East. The phenomenon pre-dates the arrival of the inchoate Trump administration. Barack Obama’s amateurish foreign policy team had its own feckless tendencies. Its Bush predecessor at least knew what they wanted to do but lacked a feasible scheme to reach its dubious goals.

There are features of how the United States makes and executes foreign policy that help to explain why Washington is repeatedly thrown into confusion by unforeseen developments. Most significant is a certain linearity of thinking and action. It takes literally the proposition that since the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, the most efficient approach to getting from where we are now to where we want to go is to set our bearings accordingly. What lies between points A and B will yield to American know-how, ingenuity and force of will. That’s how we fought World War II in Europe. It was close to being a lock-step operation – especially after the Battle of the Bulge when Eisenhower ordered that the allied armies should proceed along an even front lest the Germans exploit geographical discontinuities. We tried to follow a linear battle plan in Vietnam (or as close to one as circumstances permitted) and paid the price for it. Even in Gulf War I, Schwarzkopf’s initial plan called for a “bull rush” to Kuwait City.

Our interventions in the Greater Middle East over the past 15 years exhibit similar patterns....

Moon of Alabama
Michael Brenner - The Linear Mindset In U.S. Foreign Policy
Michael Brenner | Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh; a Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, SAIS-Johns Hopkins (Washington, D.C.), contributor to research and consulting projects on Euro-American security and economic issues