Video: Gates says no intel for “years” on bin Laden’s location

Our intel on other aspects of AQ and the Taliban have been improving, but not on the one man Americans want captured.–Ed

On what basis do you qualify that statement? Exactly which “other aspects of AQ and the Taliban” are you referencing with such positive coverage?

Clinton cut back our military and our intelligence. George W. Bush made it a point to attempt to re-establish our intelligence in the MidEast to the consternation of Congressional Democrats who have refused to fund and support American Intelligence except for the easy pickings of attacking American conservatives and abusing government powers via DHS to be fascist. And Pelosi’s rant against the CIA hampered our intelligence community even while Democrats like Obama continue to wrongfully blame intelligence officers and his secret service agents.

Our intelligence in Afghanistan is very limited, and compromised given the Tribal allegiances to themselves, their own tribal allegiances with the Taliban already made, not to the US, COIN or not. McChrystal’s address made the point that regardless of what good work for the betterment of the Afghan people that our military accomplishes in Afghanistan (building roads, wells, schools), every task shifts the balance of powers which produces new enmity from the powers that be.

The experts below do not share your opinion, Ed. Friedman specifically made the point that the US troops in Afghanistan do not have intelligence on the ground, and that it is the height of irresponsibility to bring more troops in without more intelligence first.

George Friedman is the founder and CEO of STRATFOR, a global intelligence company and online publisher of geopolitical intelligence that pioneered the field of private intelligence. As chief intelligence officer, he guides the strategic vision of the Stratfor intelligence group. Stratfor produces the well-respected Strategic Forecasting analyses delivered on a daily basis to more than 150,000 paid subscribers. Friedman has published numerous articles and several books on national security, information warfare, and intelligence including The Future of War (Crown, 1997) and The Intelligence Edge (Crown, 1997).

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely – Fox News Military Analyst & Chairman of the Stand Up America Project

Lawrence Eagleburger – Former Secretary of State

We need to not just kill or capture those leaders, but discredit extremism enough so that new leaders don’t appear.

Even if that were the purpose of our diplomatic-military COIN engagement in Afghanistan, the US does not have Afghani standing to discredit extremism, “enough” or not. New leaders will appear whether we engage in Afghanistan or not. No American has standing to “convert” Afghani Tribes to our concept of fair play.

The experts mentioned above agreed that Afghani Taliban and/or al Qaeda (will) infiltrate our intelligence network there and the Afghan Army as well.

“We need to not just kill or capture those leaders…”

Ed, what do you know regarding France/Algiers for instance? And Algiers was Westernized. There is no way to simply kill and capture the Afghan Tribal Chiefs, because the next men standing become the Tribal Chiefs. The experts made it clear that for any military “victory” the attack would need to annihilate all the people of Afghanistan AND of Pakistan as well, killing hundreds of millions of people. And the US has neither the rational desire, the WILL, the manpower, nor the means at hand and the wealth required to obliterate all of those people.

maverick muse on December 7, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Hillary Clinton assuming the authority to lecture the Pakistani government on capturing/killing bin Laden was the epitome of passing the buck, given Clinton’s MANY opportunities to take bin Laden out; and Bill would NEVER give the order to shoot every time bin Laden was in the sights of the barrel. “Look, a swing-set! Don’t shoot!”

maverick muse on December 7, 2009 at 4:04 PM

marybel, good link.

If there is one word that captures President Obama’s much-anticipated Afghanistan speech, it is “cynical.” Yes, the speech was also internally contradictory, counter-historical, and premised on fatally flawed assumptions about Islam and the Afghan people. Cynicism, however, is the defining feature of Obama speeches.–Andrew McCarthy

The problem with Obama is his ever changing mind and position. And THAT is a problem for our troops, sent in handcuffed by the Karzai 12 Rules of Engagement, relying on intelligence that is sometimes compromised, leading/leaving our troops ambushed.

The foolishly overambitious lesson that no honorable leader forgets is to NEVER extend troops beyond supplied fortresses. The problem with Iraq’s “Shock and Awe” attacca subito was that we got where we were going without the backing required to keep the population from rioting. And then our fortified positions were so far apart, that the patrols and supplies were under sabotage. And we weren’t even dealing with mountainous terrain, let alone the Mother of all mountain chains, the Himalayas. And when did Obama reach his “decision”? WINTER!!!!!!!

McChrystal warned Obama that we had less than a year to turn things around. Obama sits on his thumb for months, waiting for WINTER WEATHER to complicate everything from the onset.

maverick muse on December 7, 2009 at 4:18 PM