Four soldiers navigate the difficult path to recovery from traumatic brain injury (TBI), the signature injury of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dear Mr. (soon-to-be) President,

You don’t know me, and technically I’m not an expert in anything- I have no formal schooling much beyond the high school level, have held no civilian career outside of basic retail services, and while I am an OIF vet and current member of the U.S. Military… my role in it has been rather small and low profile thus far. 

That being said, I still want to express my sympathies for the role you are about to assume in the world you have inherited.  Let’s be honest, it’s a nightmare out there.  The economy, heh, well we all know how THAT’s going.  But while we focus strongly on fixing the American economy, there are global matters we must keep a close watch on, because whether we like it or not, since throwing ourselves headlong into the “War On Terror” we are now deeply involved in most every conflict that could even possibly take place in arguably the most destabilized region of the world. 

First, Israel and the Gaza Strip conflict.  I understand where both sides are coming from here.  Hamas and the Palestinians are mad that there isn’t a Palestine anymore, and are bitter with the Israelis who now live in that region because they want their land back.  Israel wants Hamas to stop firing rockets into their country.  I know that’s over-simplified, but there is simply too much here to possibly get into without writing a text book.  Thus far you’ve been standing kind’ve in the background when it comes to this conflict, relying on statements such as “There’s only one President at a time”, when both you and I know that you have been working with great zeal on other aspects of what you’ll be doing as President.  It almost seems like a cop out to wait and see what happens.  One largely quoted reason that the assault on Gaza took place when it did is there was only a short period of time between the end of the ceasefire, and the beginning of your term in office, and while Israel knew Bush would totally be behind blowing things up in a major way, how you would feel was under dispute.  But here we are sir, and you’ll have to decide how America continues in response to their entire debacle. 

I’m not saying Israel is wrong to attack here, however their methods of doing so are mighty questionable, and our silent approval is turning many who were starting to maybe give us the benefit of the doubt with you coming into office against us.  Protests and flag burnings are being held not only in Arab states, but also throughout Europe.  Israel is our ally, however, we’re still looking at at least 1,200 Palestinians dead, near half of that have been children, and that’s not counting the many thousands injured.  Israel has lost 10 soldiers, and 3 civilians since this all began.  This starts to look less like a war, and more like a slaughter, especially when you consider that aid and escape for the Palestinian civilians has been rendered impossible, the only people escaping are the members of Hamas who thought ahead to use their smuggling tunnels and other means to get away as the assault began.  And before anyone accuses me of admonishing one group while ignoring the violence perpetrated by another (the U.S. tends to have pretty staggering numbers differences in our wars as well) I will gladly say that I’m against the death of any civilian, regardless of who causes it and why. 

Anyway, we need to work towards a ceasefire and some semblance of a resolution.  And we can not completely back Israel without backing their methods, and I believe we as a nation would be poorly served to do so.  Not only on moral grounds, but also out of, sadly, some amount of self-interest.  The Arab world was already weary of us after our lack of focus on Afghanistan, and our sudden needless at the time involvement in Iraq. 

Now after making progress in Iraq, and trying to refocus on Afghanistan, here we are again looking at a conflict that will quickly turn to blanket Us vs Them unless we work to mediate all sides.  Egypt and Afghanistan are calling for a stop to the assault and rendering of aid and reconstruction to the region, and usual pot-stirrers Iran, Syria, and others are calling for retribution in the name of the Arab community against Israel.  Violent times are pending with a finger on the trigger if we allow the conflict to continue for much longer.  It won’t matter what nations we bring Democracy to, if in their bitterness and anger they elect violent extremists to office.  If all Israel’s neighbors turn against it in full scale warring, we will have to come to their aid, and that is a battle we can not afford at this time, if ever. 

I don’t have an end resolution, I wouldn’t even begin to know where to look for one because as long as one group loses here, either the Palestinians or the Israelis, that group will be unhappy and looking to continue the fight, but we can’t completely remove one side from the table, that would be genocide, and while there are genocides or near-genocides that we have largely ignored (Armenians in Turkey, Burma, Darfur) we are better than that, and if we aren’t, then we should be. 

I know I’ll be unpopular for speaking against Israel here, even with just the members of this site, and I’m not excusing the actions of Hamas, their actions are criminal and the members of Hamas themselves should pay for them, but there is too much destruction here with the potential for more with no end in sight, so Mr. President, I ask you to prepare, because the moment you assume office, you will be looked towards to see how America will respond to the current state of things in the Gaza conflict, and what you say will have repercussions that will last us many many years, likely beyond your own Presidency, and I’m sure you know all about coming into the job with a lot already on your plate to be cleaned up.

A side note, but somewhat related- India and Pakistan… They are not currently at war with each other, and war is highly unlikely all things considered.  However, they are not truly at peace either, and possibly never will be.  That said, any escalation on either side of their border will only bode poorly for the world.  Pakistan has a direct link to our fight in Afghanistan for starters, and beyond that both are nuclear armed nations, and that last thing the world needs is a close quarters “Cold War” between the two.  Pakistan is a tenuous ally at best, between the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and the continued conflict along their border with Afghanistan in which they strongly demand that we steer clear of their side even when we know for a fact that the extremist factions we are fighting are staged there, we must be very weary of how we tread, we can not afford our fight to suddenly carry across into the two neighboring countries, especially when a 3rd (India) is poised for action even if they don’t desire it.

On the plus side, it does appear that the major conflict in Iraq is over, now we must simply continue to allow the Iraqi people to keep increasing their governing of their own country, and our drawing back and out of their way, after all… that was our end goal all along, right?

You have a lot to handle, and I’ve not even looked at employment, health care, the economy, or anything else that plagues our country.  So I want you to know that if everything is not 100% better in 4 years, I understand.  Progress is all I ask, just make progress.  The more the better. 

Best of luck to you,

~Skitz M. Jones

It feels funny in my mouth NOT to say Bush is sending troop (aka “surge”) to Afghanistan.  Then again, shouldn’t we have done this to begin with?

President-elect Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but the incoming administration does not anticipate that the Iraq-like “surge” of forces will significantly change the direction of a conflict that has steadily deteriorated over the past seven years.

Gear up, troopers. Although I’m sure you’ve had orders for months now.

[source]

It used to be that we thought of Pakistan as a relatively good ‘Stan.  Afghanistan was the more difficult ‘Stan, though once they were our buddies too, of course, we were busy with them “damned commies” at the time…  Enemy of my enemy and all that you know.  Anyway, India is saying that Pakistan is trying to hype everyone up for war following the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Last November’s Mumbai attack must have had support from some official agencies in Pakistan, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said.

Mr Singh also accused Pakistan of “whipping up the war hysteria”.

On Monday, India said it had handed to Islamabad evidence that linked the attacks to “elements” in Pakistan.

(T)he Pakistani government have denied any involvement.

Relations between India and Pakistan have plummeted to a new low since the attacks with an escalating war of words between the two neighbours.

There have been reports that Pakistan has moved troops from its western border – where the military is involved in action against the Taleban and al-Qaeda militants – to the eastern border with India.

“Today even as Pakistan engages in whipping up war hysteria, our nation remains steadfastly united and if anything the process of national consolidation is becoming stronger,” Mr Singh told a meeting of state chief ministers in capital Delhi.

“There is enough evidence to show that given the sophistication and military precision of the attack it must have had the support of some official agencies in Pakistan,” Mr Singh added.

The evidence was given to Pakistan’s gov’twho are currently reviewing it, but so far seem to be saying they see nothing conclusive and are not making any actions.  As long as Pakistan is moving it’s troops towards India, that now opens up more potential for trouble on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Already a trouble spot given that many of the terrorists we’ve been fighting in Afghanistan have been hiding out in the hills just over the border.  Of course, the Afghans have a little something on their minds other than dealing with us and/or the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda.  They’re showing their strong support of the Palestinians who are caught up in the battle between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The modest white Miladul Nabi mosque is almost hidden beneath a massive poster that depicts a red fist raised to the heavens surrounded by slogans expressing sympathy for the Palestinian people, support for what it calls their jihad against Israel and hatred of the “blood-sucking” American government.

Last weekend, the mosque sponsored a protest rally against the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip. On Monday, half a dozen young men with cellphones worked in its library, organizing a drive to collect money, blood plasma and volunteers to fight alongside the Palestinians. Sitting among them was the mosque’s imam, Ehsan Habibullah.

“Afghanistan is the land of holy warriors. We feel the pain of the innocent Palestinians, and we will stand with them to the end,” Habibullah said. “Israel is a terrorist state, and the Americans are supporting it, so how can they claim to be against terrorism? In Afghanistan, they are bombing civilians and setting dogs against women and children. They are not killing al-Qaeda — they are killing us.”

Well, you know how we were looking like we were going to have a groundswell of Muslim support around the world once Obama, who is known for showing a more open mind than our current Prez when it comes to world relations, takes office?  Yeah, forget about that, as Obama stands pretty much silent behind Bush and Co’s very wide open show of support for Israel saying little more than “There’s only one President at a time”, the world’s Muslims who feel the pain of Palestine view that as little other than a silent endorsement, even while most suspect that the reason for Israel initiating their attacks at this time is because they were not as certain that Obama would support them, but knew that Bush was all about blowing shit up, regardless of who it is.  So disregarding the question as to whether or not the Israelis are right in their current bombardment of the Gaza Strip, it’s still gonna wind up likely fucking us in the end as we’re having enough troubles in Afghanistan, and this is not going to win us any favor in the general public.  So whoo hoo for that.

Why are the ‘Stans so angry? Because it’s pretty much in their countries natures to be angry.  These are countries that have been warring with someone here, there, or elsewhere for more years than we’ve even given thought to them.

Over the past two years, the Afghan populace’s initially welcoming attitude toward U.S. troops has soured, in part because the international coalition forces here have failed to quell rising criminal and insurgent violence and in part because of civilian casualties during bombing raids and alleged violations of Afghan traditions by U.S. ground troops in conflict zones.

Now, the Israeli attack on Gaza, widely seen here as an act of aggression enabled by the United States, has become conflated in the minds of some Afghans with U.S. motives and actions in Afghanistan. Taliban propaganda and sermons by conservative clerics have contributed to a notion of the United States as an occupying power that seeks to subjugate the Muslim world.

“We have cable TV, and we know what the Americans are doing,” said Mehrabuddin Ali, a baker in a working-class Kabul district. “First they attacked Iraq. They didn’t find any nuclear weapons, but they killed a lot of Muslims. Now they are supporting Israel in killing innocent Palestinians. If they have come here to help us, we will welcome them. But if they come to destroy us, we will drive them out like we drove out the Russians. Real Muslims only need the protection of God.”

Well isn’t that cheery?  Boy I can only hope that all our various countries’ leaders and top military minds really know what they’re doing, because we’re aiming for a massive conflagration of animosity and violence the likes of which I don’t even want to think about.

2008 has been a year that in many ways defies easy summation.  Granted the words “utter disaster” “meltdown” “beginning of the end” could all come to mind, but so could “amazing triumph” “realization of hope” “beginning of change” and the like.  It all depends on how you want to look at it, and which parts you’d like to focus on.

I think the best I can do is… “it could be worse” and right now that’s true.

But the world continues to spin, and in it’s spinning we draw to the end of the year and the beginning of the next.  Sadly the calendar and various night spots are the only places where the strike of midnight matters.  For all things that matter, it’s just another day.  There’s been a lot of things I’ve wanted to touch on these past few days, I just really haven’t known how to go about it.  The economy isn’t great, and we all know it, though that seems to be a big focus for our incoming Prez and his Cabinet, so maybe there’s hope for at least some improvement, though for every bailout and stimulus check the money still has to come from somewhere and it’s likely that our kids and grandkids and perhaps beyond will still in some form or fashion be dealing with the fallout from each dollar spent… I don’t know where it all will come from other than just continued printing of money and exchanging cash for debt which devalues each cent and increases inflation and all around just further plunges us into the depths of economic failure… but there are those much smarter than I working on this case and hopefully they have a plan that while beyond my comprehension will nonetheless help to improve the financial state of the country.

However, there are other fears on tap, not manufactured fears heightened by changing color scales and random warnings, but actual threats to the well being of all peoples of the world.  Iraq’s security has improved beyond the holdouts who will likely continue to try to fight what is in their mind the good fight long after we’ve left and Iraq has been governing itself for decades, but while one warfront lessens in severity another picks up as the war in Afghanistan, so oft neglected while Iraq gained in focus, continues to escalate and grow in new and different ways, changing in dynamic, and requiring untried tactics to gain ground in the conflict.  And while American continues to fight in Afghanistan and along the border of Pakistan, Pakistan develops greater tension along the border of another of it’s neighbors in India, spawning most recently from the horrible terrorist attack and hostage situation in a hotel in India that has reportedly been traced back to Pakistan.  On top of that, the UN is still working on a commission to look into the assassination of Benazir Bhutto who was aiming to lead Pakistan into a new progressive future.  Then there’s the new escalation of force by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza and specifically Hamas following the end of the cease-fire and Hamas’ continued rocket attacks even during the cease-fire, the show of force which is dividing the Arab community as many extremists turn on their various country’s leaders for not taking a hard enough stance against Israel and/or for Hamas in a conflict that many are worrying could prove to be a rallying point for extremists and a growing source of violent intent and action.  In addition there’s been a raise in gas prices as a result of predictions that oil routes could be shut down due to violence and protests in the Middle East (in the grand scale of things, hardly the worst thing to spawn out of all this madness, but it still effects us so it’s worth mentioning).  Our incoming leadership has been strangely quiet about all of these world events as opposed to his revealing of plans regarding the economy, instead deferring to the current President George W. Bush and taking cues from him on what the country will do in response to all of these events and conflicts.

Like the economy I have no answers about any of these conflicts, they spawn from years upon years of issue between various social and religious factions along and about many different borders, and each conflict has it’s own intricacies that will require great care and consideration, as the clock continues to tick down the minutes to midnight and the end of 2008, I can only hope for resolutions to the many conflicts that face our world and a stabilization that would benefit us all in the next year.  I’m not holding my breath, and crossing my fingers would make it really hard to type any more of these late night rants, but regardless of what comes next… perhaps as some mantra that will just make it easier to get through the day remember that “it could be worse.”

Apparently President Karzai has heard about the time tables and strategic withdrawls of troops from Iraq and how well that seems to be working these days.  I guess what he might not have heard is that many of those troops are now coming to his country, because he’s asking for a planned withdrawl as well.

Mr Karzai made the call in a speech to a visiting UN Security Council team.

He said if Afghans had “no light at the end of the tunnel” they had the right to pursue other options, such as peace negotiations with the Taleban.

Mr Karzai said Afghans could be asking why a “little force like the Taleban can continue to exist, can continue to flourish, can continue to launch attacks”.

The president said after seven years Afghans were asking why “with the entire international community behind them, still we are not able to defeat the Taleban”.

Mr Karzai said there were two options.

First would be to set a timeline, saying that what had not been achieved in the past seven years would be achieved in the next “four years, five years or another seven years”.

But he added: “If we cannot give a light at the end of the tunnel to the Afghan people, [do] the Afghan people have a right to ask for negotiation for peace? [Do] the Afghan people have a right to seek other avenues?”

Mr Karzai said he would continue to fight al-Qaeda and Taleban members “who are ideologically against the rest of the world”.

However, he said Taleban members who were “part of the Afghan community” could be brought back to serve Afghanistan.

The BBC’s Daud Qarizadah in Kabul says Mr Karzai’s strong comments show he is extremely worried about the dissatisfaction and frustration among Afghans in the south and east where the insurgency is high.

The call for the timeline is an attempt to win support back in those regions ahead of elections next year, our correspondent says.

In addition to asking for some sort of a recognizable plan forward in his country, Karzai is also asking for an end to international security forces arresting Afghan citizens in their homes and on public roads, saying that is a job for the local police.

As to how the UN and U.S. will respond to these requests remain to be seen, but there is no question that new direction and a plan forward will be needed to reach any sort of success and stability in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military is investigating a report that an airstrike that occured last Monday, November 3rd, hit a wedding party killing nearly three dozen innocent Afghan people.

The President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karza, responds:

“This is my first demand of the new president of the United States — to put an end to civilian casualties,”

I’m sure he’ll get right on that.

McCain has time and time again referred to Obama as “naive” and accused him of lacking the understanding of foreign affairs that our next President needs to possess.  McCain and Palin talk extensively about needing to trust the ground commanders, preach the success of the surge in Iraq, and how it needs to be moved to Afghanistan, belittling Obama for his talks of having to meet with the enemies and try to reach agreements, relying on more than just military means to come to resolution in our War on Terror.

Well, this time it would seem that the military mind of McCain is failing, and his declaration of needing to listen to the commanders on ground is something he should be heeding himself, as the commanders on ground don’t want another surge in Afghanistan.  It’s a separate country, with different issues and different challenges and we can’t treat it the same as Iraq.

Here’s a quote from McCain during a portion of one of the Presidential debates while discussing the surge and the success in Iraq, and what would have to be done in Afghanistan- “Sen. Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn’t understand, it’s got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It’s going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.”

Here’s General David McKiernan, Commander of NATO troops in Afghanistan- “(T)here are countless other differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, it’s such a poor country, by any set of metrics you can imagine. A country that has very harsh geography. It’s very difficult to move around, getting back to our reliance on helicopters. It’s a country with very few natural resources, as opposed to the oil revenues that [Iraq] has. There’s very little money to be generated in terms of generated in Afghanistan. The literacy rate — you have a literate society in Iraq, you have a society that has a history of producing civil administrators, technocrats, middle class that are able to run the country in Iraq. You do not have that in Afghanistan. So there’s educational challenges, challenges of human capitol that I mentioned earlier.  So there are a lot of challenges. What I don’t think is needed — the word that I don’t use in Afghanistan is the word “surge.” There needs to be a sustained commitment of a variety of military and non-military resources, I believe. That’s my advice to winning in Afghanistan. It won’t be a short-term solution.”

Hmm… seems the two statements are a bit contradictory, doesn’t it?

Now, to contrast, here’s a little tidbit about how Obama is falling in line with the thinking of some military commanders:  General David Petraeus had sent a request to travel to Syria and meet with the government there to talk about ways to jointly stop the flow of insurgents crossing the border into Iraq.  His request was denied for the time being, but you have to admit the request to meet with leaders of countries that can be viewed as hostile sounds an awful lot like something one of the Candidates was suggesting, and was called “naive” for talking about, doesn’t it?

For all those voting for McCain due to his connection with the military and his faith in it’s leaders, this might be something to think about.  He seems to suffer the delusion that all the conflicts we’re currently engaged in can be handled in the same fashion, and diplomacy is secondary to military might, but even our military commanders will disagree with those opinions.

In the continuing saga of returning to step one against the fight against terror, Afghanistan will be the “new-old” playground for U.S. troops… again.

Just published is confirmation that up to three more combat brigades will be ready to deploy to Afghanistan next spring:

Up to three more combat brigades could be available to go to Afghanistan beginning next spring, in answer to repeated calls from commanders for more troops, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

Gates offered the likely troop buildup next spring, but cautioned that the next president will have to weigh how large a U.S. force should be sent to Afghanistan, given that the population does not readily welcome foreign forces there.

“I think we need to think about how heavy a military footprint the United States ought to have in Afghanistan,” said Gates, or “are we better off channeling resources into building and expanding the size of the Afghan national army as quickly as possible.”

The military shortfall in Afghanistan has been a common complaint from commanders. While the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan has grown from fewer than 21,000 two years ago to more than 31,000 today, the senior U.S. general there said last week that he needs at least 10,000 more ground troops, beyond the 3,700 Army Soldiers due early next year.

The requirements include more helicopters, combat troops, trainers and other support forces. But with about 151,000 forces committed in Iraq, the U.S. has not had the available troops to send to Afghanistan. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has often noted that in Afghanistan “we do what we can, in Iraq we do what we must.”

Let me count the Afghan ways via our blog posts here on PM.

Call it a mini-link dump if you will:

• September 9th:  Planned shift of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan
• September 17th:  Who’s killing the troops in Afghanistan:  Militants or Insurgents?
• September 17th:  Paving the way to chase Afghan bad guys into Pakistan.
• August 7th:  Camel spider brought home from Afghanistan. (I couldn’t help myself with this one.)

We’re fighting in Afghanistan, so why are we having so much trouble with Pakistan?

It’s all about crossing lines; specifically, borders.

Adm (Michael) Mullen met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani “to defuse tension”, the state news agency APP said. Army chief Gen Ashfaq Kayani was also present.

The visit comes after Pakistan’s army said it would not tolerate incursions.

Tension has been rising in Pakistan over an increase in US attacks along the border with Afghanistan.

His visit come two days after Pakistani troops were reported to have fired shots into the air to stop US troops crossing into the South Waziristan tribal area.

The tribal region is one of the main areas from which Islamist militants launch attacks into Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s military confirmed firing but denied that Pakistani troops were involved.

The major problem is that the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan is where the militants or insurgents (call them what you will) are hiding out and coordinating their attacks. Which is less than thrilling for the Pakistan gov’t because our fearless leader Prez Bush told U.S. troops to just go ahead and attack across the border without approval from the Pakistan capital of Islamabad.

It’s going to take a lot of work and coordination between us and Pakistan to reach anything like an agreement on how to handle the heated border area, hopefully we’ll be able to make some progress, I mean, after all, it’s not like we’ve basically been fighting at a stand still for 7 or so years or anything…

oh.