We’re going down there, and we’re going to stay – that’s what is different this time.
- Brigadier General Larry Nicholson
It is good fighting weather in Afghanistan. U.S. Marines along with Afghan forces have set out to raid several villages in the Helmand River valley in southwestern Afghanistan early Thursday morning. The region is seen as stronghold for Taliban fighters where they plan operations and sustain their existence from poppy harvests and their opium smuggling network. All in which, greatly assist their insurgency. The region is seen as hotbed for activity and is one of the deadliest areas for coalition forces to operate.
This marks the first military offensive under President Obama.
The offensive was launched shortly after 1 a.m. Thursday local time (4:30 p.m. EDT Wednesday, 2030 GMT Wednesday) in Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold and the world’s largest opium poppy producing area. The goal is to clear insurgents from the hotly contested region before the nation’s Aug. 20 presidential election.
Officials described the operation, dubbed Khanjar, or “Strike of the Sword,” as the largest and fastest-moving of the war’s new phase and the biggest Marine offensive since the one in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004. It involves nearly 4,000 newly arrived Marines and 650 Afghan forces. British forces last week led similar, but smaller, missions to clear out insurgents in Helmand and neighboring Kandahar provinces.
“Where we go we will stay, and where we stay, we will hold, build and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces,” Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson said in a statement.
Jules Crittenden writes on the apparent disconnect between this operation, The Obama administration and the military, all centered round Bob Woodward’s latest Washington Post piece,Preventing Another Iraq/US Says Key to Success in Afghanistan: Economic, Not Military.
The headline is not Woodward’s fault, except to the extent he buried and obfuscated his lede. He reports after the jump that National Security Advisor James L. Jones briefed commanders on the ground that there won’t be more troops, that requests for more troops will prompt a “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” response in the Oval Office.
That’s your lede, Bob. There’s your hed, Washington Post copy desk. Obama to Troops: “WTF?”
We can dicker if you like about whether he actually said that or not. But the president’s national security advisor only voiced in military slang what the president himself more formally enunciated with the unveiling of his Afghan strategy some months ago, when he indicated he didn’t want to be a wartime president. He liked the idea of running some counterterrorism ops and buying his way out of this one instead. Put another way, ”WTF?”
Meanwhile, Pakistan is finally on the offensive in coordination with the U.S. and Afghanistan. They are deploying more troops to the border to prevent the Taliban refuge when fleeing from the new onslaught. This comes on top of the Pakistan Army greatly pressing Taliban fighters along the border the past week. In fact, Pakistan’s effort was so productive and consistent many here in the U.S. were criticizing Congress and the Obama Administration for inaction for a change.
More now than ever, Pakistan is acting as if it is committed to fighting the Taliban. The military in recent days has expanded a high-stakes offensive along the Afghan border, while the government enjoys wide public support, even as casualties and refugees mount.
So naturally, the U.S. Congress is finding a way not to help. An aid package has hit repeated hurdles on Capitol Hill, while U.S. allies shortchange Pakistan on humanitarian assistance for the people displaced by the fighting. This is myopic and dangerous. If Pakistan fails to defeat the Islamist insurgency, the consequences will resonate far and wide, in the worst case with al Qaeda getting Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile.
Earlier this year, the Obama Administration prodded, pleaded and shamed Pakistan to fight. Passive acceptance of Taliban gains turned into the current counteroffensive. The military has since taken back the Swat Valley and shifted its sights to such tribal regions as Waziristan. Count that a tentative success for Pakistan and the Obama foreign policy team.
UPDATE: Soldier captured and missing in Afghanistan
BREAKING NEWS — Insurgents have captured an American soldier in eastern Afghanistan, the U.S. military said Thursday.
Spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias said the soldier went missing Tuesday.
“We are using all of our resources to find him and provide for his safe return,” Mathias said.
Mathias did not provide details on the soldier, the location where he was captured or the circumstances.
Jason
Mike
3 responses so far ↓
sanityinjection // July 2, 2009 at 2:45 pm
The WSJ has got to be kidding if they are giving credit for the Pakistani offensive ot the Obama foreign policy team? WTF? Have they forgotten that just a couple of months ago, Pakistan’s strategy was Munich-style appeasement of the Taliban by handing over an entire province to them? It was only the Taliban’s foolishness in launching an attack toward the Pak capital as soon as they’d swallowed their tribute, that woke the Pakis up. Pakistan’s leaders could care less who runs the Frontier provinces, but sending a military force toward Islamabad is not something they can sit by and quietly tolerate.
The point is, Pakistan’s offensive has NOTHING to do with the US or Obama. Pakistan could have done what it is doing now at any time over the past 7 YEARS, but just weren’t interested until now. Once they decided it was in fact their problem, you see how effective they can be. This should be viewed as a COLOSSAL FAILURE by both the Bush and Obama Administrations, because clearly they have been played by the Pakistanis.
Tom the Redhunter // July 4, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I’ve been following this operation, but haven’t gotten into the details of it yet.
We can clear, but can we hold? Our problem in Iraq 2003-6 was that we could do the former but not the latter. As soon as we left the bad guys came back because
1) We didn’t have enough troops,
2) we kept what guys we had on large bases instead of basing them out with the people
3) The Iraqis couldn’t do it themselves
We’ll see whether we’ve overcome these obstacles in Afghanistan.
Jason // July 5, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Thanks for the comment, Tom. I guess we’ll see if we can hold. According to the one of links, they will have to because more troops aren’t coming as were planned.