A number of military men have voiced concern recently about the progress of the war in Afghanistan. German Major General Hans-Lothar Domröse has joined the chorus. The NATO third in command in Afghanistan says the West was "perhaps a bit naïve." German troops have been in Afghanistan since the beginning. On Thursday, Germany's parliament, the Bundestag, is set to extend the country's mandate in Afghanistan by an additional 14 months and up its troop contingent by 1,000 to 4,500. Given that Chancellor Angela Merkel's government is a coalition of Germany's two largest parties -- the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats -- the vote is seen as a sure thing. Increasingly, though, the mission in Afghanistan is not. The voices of doubt about the mission have been multiplying as the death toll of NATO troops and Afghan civilians continues to rise and the Taliban shows no sign of disappearing. Earlier this month, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the departing commander of British forces in Afghanistan, added gravitas to the pessimism, saying "we're not going to win this war." On Wednesday, the highest ranking German commander in Afghanistan, Major General Hans-Lothar Domröse, voiced his concerns in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Domröse is the chief of staff of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and thus third in command of the 50,000 soldiers under NATO command in Afghanistan. He said in the interview that the West has gotten more than it bargained for in Afghanistan.
A number of military men have voiced concern recently about the progress of the war in Afghanistan. German Major General Hans-Lothar Domröse has joined the chorus. The NATO third in command in Afghanistan says the West was "perhaps a bit naïve."
German troops have been in Afghanistan since the beginning. On Thursday, Germany's parliament, the Bundestag, is set to extend the country's mandate in Afghanistan by an additional 14 months and up its troop contingent by 1,000 to 4,500. Given that Chancellor Angela Merkel's government is a coalition of Germany's two largest parties -- the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats -- the vote is seen as a sure thing.
Increasingly, though, the mission in Afghanistan is not. The voices of doubt about the mission have been multiplying as the death toll of NATO troops and Afghan civilians continues to rise and the Taliban shows no sign of disappearing. Earlier this month, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the departing commander of British forces in Afghanistan, added gravitas to the pessimism, saying "we're not going to win this war."
On Wednesday, the highest ranking German commander in Afghanistan, Major General Hans-Lothar Domröse, voiced his concerns in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Domröse is the chief of staff of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and thus third in command of the 50,000 soldiers under NATO command in Afghanistan. He said in the interview that the West has gotten more than it bargained for in Afghanistan.
The NATO third in command in Afghanistan says the West was "perhaps a bit naïve."
The understatement of the day... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
...a mad militarist aquisitive empire.
I knew then, and I suppose you knew then, that everything out of Bush's mouth was a lie and every adventure tied to his corporate cronies.
But I don't remember if that was common knowledge yet.
Was the decision to get a war on based upon the coat tails of 11 September? not wanting to appear wimpish? hope for money into EADS? Why did everyone get involved in Bush's killing machine?
Don't they teach the History of Hubris in these prep schools for leaders? Especially the history of Afghanistan. Jeesh. Everyone, eventually, gets greeted with poppies. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
I think in the immedaite aftermath of 9/11 when there was a genuine sentiment of wanting to help, there was a bit of an all-hands-to-the-pump "build an alliance like we had for Gulf War 1" feeling around the world.
My initial sentiment at the time that some sort of attack on the Afghan Taliban was understandable and was gratified when the first discussions I heard were of avoiding using the Northern alliance who were just as bad in their own way as the Taliban.
However, I rapidly began to suspect what was going on because the US were so wary of losing their own troops that they wouldn't commit to ground attacks initially. Just bombing from 40,000 feet which anyone knows is indiscriminate and likely to cause far more damage to civilians than it is to Talibs. then the Northern Allaiance were brought on board and I knew then nothing good would come of it.
However, I think the whole world should have smelt a rat once the US started beating a drum about Iraq. That's when NATO should have said "we finish Afghanistan first, all the way to nation building (despite Rumsfeldt saying US don't build nations) before you go off on something else entirely. And if you don't, we're out of here. We're not cleaning up after you while you piss off elsewhere".
Even if they didn't admit it to the public, the politicians knew the yanks were lying about Iraq and 9/11 and the whole axis of weevils thing. That's when they could/should have called halt. That was the moment they should have known the B-C regime had gone over the edge. Trouble is, Blair had gone over with them/before them and he gave them the international credibility to at least let them do what htey wanted.
Blair is the most guilty, cos he was more gung-ho for Sadddam than anyone. keep to the Fen Causeway
At least the Germans learn it. The Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt has published a book (PDF here) with basic information about Afghanistan. It includes the full text of Fontane's Trauerspiel von Afghanistan
»Die hören sollen, sie hören nicht mehr, Vernichtet ist das ganze Heer, Mit dreizehntausend der Zug begann, Einer kam heim aus Afghanistan.«
Those who should hear, they'll hear nevermore, Destroyed, dispersed is the proud host of yore; With thirteen thousand their trail they began. Only one man returned from Afghanistan.
The final accounting for fiscal 2008 produced a larger shortfall than had been projected, reflecting the start of federal efforts to address the economic emergency... The deficit is likely to be even bigger next year as the country copes with the worst financial crisis since the Depression. The new figure breaks the previous record deficit of $413 billion in 2004 and more than doubles the 2007 deficit of $162 billion. It has focused new attention on government spending, coming just days after the National Debt Clock in New York City ran out of digits to record the overall national debt, which passed $10 trillion.
The deficit is likely to be even bigger next year as the country copes with the worst financial crisis since the Depression.
The new figure breaks the previous record deficit of $413 billion in 2004 and more than doubles the 2007 deficit of $162 billion. It has focused new attention on government spending, coming just days after the National Debt Clock in New York City ran out of digits to record the overall national debt, which passed $10 trillion.
The LA Times thinks this will become a "key issue as the presidential race winds down", but I doubt it. Neither candidate will say the obvious, the U.S. must raise taxes and only McCain has hinted at cutting defense spending.
SINGAPORE - Oil prices fell below US$78 a barrel today in Asia on concern a massive bank bailout by the US and Europe won't keep the global economy from slipping into a severe slowdown that would erode crude demand. Light, sweet crude for next month's delivery was down 98 cents to US$77,65 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange by midafternoon in Singapore. The contract fell overnight US$2,56 to settle at US$78,63. Oil prices have fallen by 47% since peaking near US$150 a barrel in mid-July. "People are worried that the world economy is heading for recession," said Gerard Rigby, an energy analyst at Fuel First Consulting in Sydney. "The bailout may save the banks, but companies are still laying off workers and demand is going to suffer."
SINGAPORE - Oil prices fell below US$78 a barrel today in Asia on concern a massive bank bailout by the US and Europe won't keep the global economy from slipping into a severe slowdown that would erode crude demand.
Light, sweet crude for next month's delivery was down 98 cents to US$77,65 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange by midafternoon in Singapore. The contract fell overnight US$2,56 to settle at US$78,63. Oil prices have fallen by 47% since peaking near US$150 a barrel in mid-July.
"People are worried that the world economy is heading for recession," said Gerard Rigby, an energy analyst at Fuel First Consulting in Sydney. "The bailout may save the banks, but companies are still laying off workers and demand is going to suffer."
So oil might zoom up pretty high pretty fast soon. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
What the Tehran conference is about is a Petrotrust: which is fundamentally different from a bourse. You can't be me, I'm taken
MOSCOW: A high-level delegation from the Russian energy company Gazprom met in Anchorage with state officials on Monday to talk about investing in Alaskan energy projects. The meeting came nearly three weeks after Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska talked in a television interview about her expertise in energy matters and took a hard line with Russia. Senior officials of Gazprom said at a shareholder meeting in Moscow in June that the company was seeking to take part in a consortium that is building a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to Canada. The company is also interested in investing in other energy initiatives in the state, according to a statement released by Gazprom on Tuesday about the meeting in Anchorage. "Gazprom has accumulated great experience in exploring hydrocarbon deposits, building and using gas pipelines in the far north environment," the company said in the statement. "Gazprom's experience will be relevant in realization of similar projects in Alaska."
MOSCOW: A high-level delegation from the Russian energy company Gazprom met in Anchorage with state officials on Monday to talk about investing in Alaskan energy projects. The meeting came nearly three weeks after Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska talked in a television interview about her expertise in energy matters and took a hard line with Russia.
Senior officials of Gazprom said at a shareholder meeting in Moscow in June that the company was seeking to take part in a consortium that is building a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to Canada. The company is also interested in investing in other energy initiatives in the state, according to a statement released by Gazprom on Tuesday about the meeting in Anchorage.
"Gazprom has accumulated great experience in exploring hydrocarbon deposits, building and using gas pipelines in the far north environment," the company said in the statement. "Gazprom's experience will be relevant in realization of similar projects in Alaska."
