Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Russia's Missing ship Artic Sea: Intercepted by Mossad?


EU source implies Israel behind July hijacking of Russian ship

Admiral Tarmo Kouts, who heads European Union's piracy watch, tells Time Magazine Israel was most likely responsible for hijacking of Arctic Sea in an attempt to intercept Mideast bound missile delivery


A European source claimed in a recent interview with Time Magazine, that Israel was responsible for the hijacking of Russian cargo ship the Arctic Sea since it was suspected of carrying an arms shipment to the Middle East, Ynet learned Wednesday.


The Arctic Sea went missing in July while en route from Finland to Algeria. Its disappearance sparked reports of a first incident of piracy in European waters in modern times.


The Russian Navy has since located the ship, arrested the alleged hijackers and charged them with kidnapping and piracy, but Admiral Tarmo Kouts, the European Union's rapporteur on piracy, now claims the Arctic Sea was intercepted by Israel as it carried a secret cargo of weapons to the Middle East.

Speculations
Op-ed hints Mossad snatched Russian ship / Yael Branovsky
Russian, Ukrainian media spreading rumors over their analysis of disappearance and subsequent finding of cargo ship, which was allegedly carrying sawdust, despite reports that it was transporting missiles to Iran
Full story


Russia has adamantly denied the ship was carrying any kind of military supplies.



Nevertheless, Kouts told Time that only a shipment of missiles could account for Moscow's "bizarre" behavior throughout the month-long saga: "There is the idea that there were missiles aboard, and one can't explain this situation in any other way. As a sailor with years of experience, I can tell you that the official versions are not realistic."



Kouts claims that an Israeli interception of the ship is the most likely explanation. But his theory, has been vehemently denied by Russia's envoy to NATO, Dmitri Rogozin, who says Kouts should stop "running his mouth."


Too many unanswered questions

Moscow's official explanation was simple: The Arctic Sea, manned by a Russian crew, set sail from Finland under a Maltese flag on July 22. It was destined for Algeria and carried less than $2 million worth of timber. Then a group of eight Russian and former Soviet hijackers boarded the ship on July 24. The ship's tracking device was disabled in the last days of July, as it passed through the English Channel into the Atlantic, and the ship disappeared. On Aug. 12, the Russian navy sent out a search party. A week later, Russia declared that the ship and its crew had been rescued.



The explanation, however, does little to clear many unanswered questions: Why, with so many other ships carrying much more valuable cargo, would the hijackers target the Arctic Sea and its small load of timber?



Why didn't the ship send out a distress signal? Why did Israeli President Shimon Peres pay a surprise visit to Russia a day after the ship was rescued? Why did Russia wait so long to send its navy to find the ship? And why did family members of the suspects claim their kin were "hostages to some kind of political game"?



There are also several questions surrounding ship's rescue. The Kremlin apparently dispatched a completely disproportionate force, including destroyers and submarines, to look for the vessel and it took five days for them to find it, even though the Russian Foreign Ministry later claimed that it was fully aware of the Arctic Sea's coordinates the entire time.


On top of that, to fly the alleged pirates and the crew back to Moscow – a group of only 19 men – Russia dispatched two enormous military-cargo planes.


"Even from the basic facts, without assumptions, it is clear that this was not just piracy," said Mikhail Voitenko, editor of the Russian maritime journal Sovfrakht, which has been tracking unusual incidents on the high seas for decades.


"I've never seen anything like this. These are some of the most heavily policed waters in the world. You cannot just hide a ship there for weeks without government involvement."



According to Voitenko and other experts, a secret cargo could have been hidden on the ship during the two weeks it spent in Kaliningrad for repairs, just before it picked up its Finnish haul of timber. Not contiguous with the rest of Russia, Kaliningrad is the country's westernmost enclave on the coast of the Baltic Sea, and is known as a hub for Russian smugglers. "Personally, I don't care about any missiles. I care about what they're doing with those sailors."



Many governments, and Jerusalem especially, have expressed concerns about missile shipments bound for the Middle East: Israel has consistently raised alarms about Russia's plans to sell MiG-31 fighter planes to Syria and its construction of a nuclear-power station in southwestern Iran.


Advertisement


"The most likely explanation is that the Israelis intercepted this cargo, which had been meant for Syria or Iran," said Yulya Latynina, a prominent political commentator and radio host on Echo of Moscow, a station owned by state-controlled gas giant Gazprom.



"They will now use the incident as a bargaining chip with Russia over weapons sales in the region, while allowing Russia to save face by taking its empty ship back home."



According to the report in Time, both the Israeli Prime Minister's office and Mossad, declined comment.

Song and Dance in Jerusalem: Statesmanship with no substance: Is Netanyahu connig, err..communicating with President Obama's ideology?

One Step:U.S. drops demand for Israel building freeze in East Jerusalem By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent, and News Agencies Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu
BERLIN - The Obama administration has agreed to Israel's request to remove East Jerusalem from negotiations on the impending settlement freeze.

According to both Israeli officials and Western diplomats, U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell has recognized the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cannot announce a settlement freeze in East Jerusalem. The officials said the U.S. will not endorse new construction there, but would not demand Jerusalem publicly announce a freeze.

Netanyahu presented a proposal on Wednesday for resolving the ongoing Israeli-American dispute over construction in the settlements. In a meeting with Mitchell, Netanyahu suggested a temporary freeze, reportedly for nine months, on construction in the West Bank, a government source said.
Advertisement
Netanyahu also said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' reported willingness to meet with him was "a positive first step."

The Americans are slated to respond to Netanyahu's proposal at a meeting in Washington next week between Mitchell and two Israeli officials: Netanyahu's envoy, attorney Yitzhak Molcho, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Mike Herzog.

Mitchell himself will return to Jerusalem in the second week of September with the goal of finalizing an agreement.

The new Israeli proposal will exclude some 2,500 housing units on which construction has already started.

Additionally, in special cases where it is necessary to keep "normal life," Netanyahu wants to be able to erect public buildings in the settlements - mainly kindergartens and schools.

Finally, Israel wants the freeze to have a clear "exit plan." In Israel's view, the freeze is a confidence-building measure that must be matched by reciprocal steps from the PA and Arab states. If these fail to materialize, Israel wants an American guarantee that it will not oppose renewed building.

Following their meeting, Mitchell and Netanyahu issued a brief joint statement saying that "good progress" had been made, and the talks would continue.

However, the statement also included that the two "agreed on the importance of restarting meaningful negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians and working toward a comprehensive peace, and that all sides need to take concrete steps toward peace."

At his press conference, Netanyahu reiterated that good progress had been made at the meeting, but said some issues remained unresolved. The goal, he said, is "to strike a balance" that would meet the settlers' basic needs while also enabling peace talks to resume.

Responding to Palestinian reports that Abbas had expressed willingness to meet with him at next month's UN General Assembly session in New York, Netanyahu said that if Abbas "is behind this declaration, that would be progress. This is a positive thing, a positive first step."

Until now, Abbas has refused to meet with him unless he first imposes a total freeze on settlement construction.

Netanyahu said he is willing to discuss all the well-known final-status issues, such as Jerusalem, borders and the refugees, but also intends to raise issues of his own - primarily the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and that any agreement explicitly declare the conflict over and bar any further claims.

"We also have core issues, and the issue of recognition is core, in my view," he said. "If we insist on the recognition, there will be a peace agreement."

Netanyahu is scheduled to meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday for talks on efforts to reach a peace agreement in the Middle East.

The premier met with German head of state Horst Koehler on Wednesday, after talks with Mitchell in London.

On Netanyahu's agenda are garnering European support for a tougher stance against Iran and reaching a deal on settlement construction in the West Bank, the cessation of which is a key Palestinian precondition for going back to the negotiating table.

Netanyahu is due to meet German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier in the morning before being greeted by Merkel in the chancellery in the afternoon.

Merkel preceded the visit by calling for a greater readiness for compromise on Netanyahu's part, in an interview with German television.

Merkel told the N24 broadcaster on Wednesday that "we shouldn't let the window of opportunity pass," and renewed calls for the so-called two-state solution to be implemented.

"The time is absolutely right. Let us do everything to use it," Merkel said.
---------
Two Step:Netanyahu offers 9-month settlement freeze By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent Tags: Israel News
Netanyahu on Wednesday presented a proposal for resolving the ongoing Israeli-American dispute over construction in the settlements. In a meeting with Mitchell, Netanyahu suggested a temporary freeze, reportedly for nine months, on construction in the West Bank, a government source said.

Netanyahu also said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' reported
willingness to meet with him was "a positive first step."

The Americans are slated to respond to Netanyahu's proposal at a meeting in Washington next week between Mitchell and two Israeli officials: Netanyahu's envoy, attorney Yitzhak Molcho, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Mike Herzog.
Advertisement
Mitchell himself will return to Jerusalem in the second week of September with the goal of finalizing an agreement.

The new Israeli proposal will exclude some 2,500 housing units on which construction has already started.

Additionally, in special cases where it is necessary to keep "normal life," Netanyahu wants to be able to erect public buildings in the settlements - mainly kindergartens and schools.

Finally, Israel wants the freeze to have a clear "exit plan." In Israel's view, the freeze is a confidence-building measure that must be matched by reciprocal steps from the PA and Arab states. If these fail to materialize, Israel wants an American guarantee that it will not oppose renewed building.

Following their meeting, Mitchell and Netanyahu issued a brief joint statement saying that "good progress" had been made, and the talks would continue.

However, the statement also included that the two "agreed on the importance of restarting meaningful negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians and working toward a comprehensive peace, and that all sides need to take concrete steps toward peace."

At his press conference, Netanyahu reiterated that good progress had been made at the meeting, but said some issues remained unresolved. The goal, he said, is "to strike a balance" that would meet the settlers' basic needs while also enabling peace talks to resume.

Responding to Palestinian reports that Abbas had expressed willingness to meet with him at next month's UN General Assembly session in New York, Netanyahu said that if Abbas "is behind this declaration, that would be progress. This is a positive thing, a positive first step."

Until now, Abbas has refused to meet with him unless he first imposes a total freeze on settlement construction.

Netanyahu said he is willing to discuss all the well-known final-status issues, such as Jerusalem, borders and the refugees, but also intends to raise issues of his own - primarily the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and that any agreement explicitly declare the conflict over and bar any further claims.

"We also have core issues, and the issue of recognition is core, in my view," he said. "If we insist on the recognition, there will be a peace agreement."

Today, Netanyahu will meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The main topics of discussion will be the Iranian threat and Israeli-Palestinian talks.

---------------
Song and Dance: U.S. says it's closer to Israel-Palestinian talks By Barak Ravid and Chaim Levinson, Haaretz Correspondents, and The Associated Press Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu
The State Department says its Mideast peace envoy is getting closer to winning agreement by the Israelis and Palestinians to resume peace talks.

Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters Monday that scheduled talks Wednesday in London between peace envoy George Mitchell and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not necessarily produce a breakthrough.

But Kelly said the process of laying the groundwork for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks is moving closer to fruition. Pressed to explain what has moved the process forward, Kelly declined to offer any details.
Advertisement
A point of contention has been Israeli resistance to a U.S. demand that it freeze construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Netanyahu is expected to tell Mitchell on Monday that Israel will not accept any limitations on its sovereignty over Jerusalem, and will allow settlers to continue to live in the West Bank.

Netanyahu arrived in London on Monday, where he will meet with Mitchell in order to continue the discussion on the Obama administration's demands for confidence-building measures between Israel and the Arab world.

The U.S. is demanding that Israel freeze temporarily construction in the settlements, and is asking the Arab world to begin normalizing ties with Israel immediately.

Israeli government officials say a compromise being discussed could see Israel freeze building except for 2,500 units currently under construction. They spoke on condition of anonymity because details of
the talks between Israel and the U.S. are secret.

The number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank - home to some 2.5 million Palestinians - has more than doubled since the mid-1990s and now stands at around 300,000.

Netanyahu has compromised some since taking office in March, after winning an election on a hard-line platform.

But the settlement watchdog group Peace Now said Sunday that there had been no real slowdown in construction and that settlers could keep building indefinitely, using plans that have already been approved.

Netanyahu has meanwhile taken steps to improve life for Palestinians in the West Bank. With the territory enjoying a period of calm, some Israeli military checkpoints have been lifted, permits for importing raw materials are being granted, and there are other signs that life there is assuming a semblance of normalcy.

Netanyahu would like to resume direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority following the United Nations General Assembly meeting in late September.

The Palestinians, however, have refused to renew talks until the Israelis
freeze settlement construction.

Veteran Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who has headed the Palestinian delegations at most negotiations with Israel since 1991, will be a guest of Haaretz Q&A on Tuesday, August 25, at 11 A.M. Israel time.
Click here to send questions.

U.S. seeks role of 'active mediator' in Mideast talks

Meanwhile, a senior political source in Jerusalem told Haaretz Sunday that the U.S. has informed Israel that it is interested in assuming the role of "active mediator" during the talks, and "have a place at the negotiating table."

However, Netanyahu's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, told reporters Sunday that he sees no chance of peace.

"In the 16 years since the Oslo Accords, we haven't managed to bring peace to the region, and I'm willing to bet that there won't be peace in another 16 years, either. Certainly not on the basis of the two-state solution," Lieberman said.

Sources close to the prime minister said they hope that if an understanding is reached regarding settlement construction, a tripartite meeting could be held with President Barack Obama and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations.

PM to meet Mitchell

Netanyahu told the cabinet during its weekly session Sunday that his meeting with Mitchell in London is not expected to be the final one, and stressed that more meetings will be necessary before peace talks can begin. "The discussions with Mitchell are just the beginning of a series of talks and exchanges that have been going on intensively recently, and in good spirits," the prime minister said.

"There has been some progress, even though there is no absolute agreement. There is an attempt to minimize the degree of disagreement and discuss matters in a much more positive atmosphere. There is a wish to hold direct talks between us and the Palestinians, even though this depends on the understandings with the Americans and the Palestinians," Netanyahu told his cabinet colleagues.

The U.S. would like to be given guarantees by Israel that it will freeze settlement construction for at least a year, while Israel is offering a six-month hiatus. A political source in Jerusalem estimated that a compromise of 9-12 months will be reached for construction in the West Bank, but will not include East Jerusalem or most of the 2,500 housing units whose construction has already commenced.

Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman is due to visit Israel next week to meet with political leaders.

Netanyahu spoke with Jordan's King Abdullah Sunday afternoon, and greeted him for the Holy Month of Ramadan, which commenced on August 22. The King reiterated the significance of the Arab Peace Initiative and said that "the negotiations must be resumed as soon as possible in order to resolve the dispute."

The prime minister is traveling to London at a time when domestically the political scene is relatively calm and his coalition appears to be stable. In the Forum of Six, the group of senior ministers in which sensitive political-security issues are discussed, there is unusually vocal opposition, and some of the participants are even urging Netanyahu onward toward progress on the diplomatic front.

The "doves" in the forum comprise Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Dan Meridor. Barak is keen to see progress on a regional settlement in line with U.S. plans. Barak supports a temporary freeze of settlement construction, in return for steps toward normalization of ties with the Arab world. Meridor is also keen to see the tension in Israel-U.S. ties pass by, and for the resumption of negotiations on a peace plan for the Middle East.

The most "hawkish" member of the forum, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, is for the time being giving Netanyahu plenty of leeway. Speaking to reporters, Lieberman said that he does not believe it will be possible to reach a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians in the foreseeable future, but also said that he does not intend to undermine the prime minister's political efforts.

'Unrealistic goal'

"The establishment of a Palestinian state within two years is an unrealistic goal," Lieberman noted, refering to the vision of U.S. President Obama. "There are some who believe this is possible, and I do not want to interfere. I am ready to grant time so that there will be another effort to reach a Palestinian state, but I will not take on tasks that I do not believe in," he said.

However, in an address at Ariel before students there, Lieberman objected to the possibility that any sort of restriction be placed on Jews building or living in East Jerusalem. "I have said that there are 7,000 Arabs living in West Jerusalem. Can you imagine that the state would prevent the Arab citizens from finding apartments on Ben Yehuda Street, but to do so to Jews is permissible?" Lieberman asked.

"This double standard must not be accepted; we are not looking for confrontations or conflicts, but we will defend our national honor," he promised.

The other two hawks, Moshe Ya'alon and Benny Begin, are opposed to the resumption of negotiations, but both are keeping a relatively low profile as far as their public criticism of the prime minister is concerned.

------------

When it comes to credibilty....I am sorry for this adminstration that effectively used the Internet to get elected....,

They forgot what got them there may get them out of office as it is getting harder to believe what the Current Administration Says and What it Does.

The World saw Cowboy or Texan diplomacy with Bush, and while humurous, they knew he would easily use Force and did in fact have a Foreign Policy no one liked but everyone knew what it was.

Sadly, with the naivete of President Obama and lack of direction or decsiveness, the world politicians have realized how easy it is to use President Obama for thier own agendas.

The Song and Dance is going on, and while the President knows how to dance, he doesn't hear the music being played to him.

Michael James Stone

Underground? Like Revelation said:US triples MOP "bunker buster" bombs order, wants them fast

US triples MOP "bunker buster" bombs order, wants them fast

DEBKAfile Special Report

September 1, 2009, 7:27 AM (GMT+02:00)

MOP: Twenty-one foot long "bunker buster" bomb

MOP: Twenty-one foot long "bunker buster" bomb

In view of new information about Iran and North Korea's underground nuclear facilities, the US Air Force has asked to speed up the delivery of 10 to 12 giant Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster bombs, according to Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford.

Unusually, DEBKAfile's military sources report, the order has been trebled in less than a year after Congress was first asked for $68 million to buy four MOPs by the US Pacific Command which covers the Korean area and US Central Command which oversees Iran. On Aug. 3, the Pentagon announced a decision to accelerate delivery and again on the 30th for the order to be filled as soon as possible by July 2010 at latest.

Gen. Shackelford said: "These are purchases beyond just those needed to test their capability. In other words (the military is seeking to) build a small inventory of, I believe, 10-12 bombs."

The MOP, using GPS and inertial guidance to find its target, can penetrate 200 feet underground, and is the last of a line of American super bombs.

Discipleship is Evangelism

Discipleship is Evangelism


Thus far in my series on reevangelizing the church I have addressed the problem of gospel reductionism, a condition that has reduced the gospel to nothing more than the privatized plan of salvation. In response, I have sought to recover the broader historical understanding and implications of the gospel of the kingdom and, in light of this, explain how the church should best express this gospel. I have offered a threefold approach for expressing the gospel of the kingdom that is drawn from Scripture.


I have written that the church must first manifest this good news of the kingdom by demonstrating what life looks like under the reign of God within a distinct community: the church, a community characterized by its radical love for one another (see John 13:34, 35; John 17). Second, this unique community manifests the gospel by serving the world through acts of service, compassion, and mercy, working to reverse and/or mitigate the effects of sin (see Matt. 5:16, 22:39; Eph. 2:10; James 2:14–26).

I now turn to the third and final aspect: proclamation of the gospel. How and what do we tell others about Jesus and this kingdom that has come into the world? The modern approach to this question seems to have gravitated, almost exclusively, toward highly simplistic and formulaic expressions of the gospel story. What I mean is that we have tried to condense the gospel to the most basic “facts” about Jesus, formulate simplistic mediums or tools for the conveyance of these facts, and then send folks out among strangers in an organized and frequently impersonal fashion.

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying the Lord can’t use these means to accomplish his ends. He can and often does. However, the commission that we were given by Jesus (and that which we should take as our guide) was to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19, 20, ESV). Clearly, the process of making disciples involves more than simply sharing some propositions about Jesus. Also notice that Jesus actually places disciple making ahead of conversion, which is then followed by their being joined to the church through baptism. Today we almost always speak of discipleship as something that follows conversion, a program whereby we acquaint new converts with the basics-more facts-of the Christian faith, church doctrines, and so forth, often in four weeks or less!

The New Testament usage of the Greek noun math¯et¯es (commonly translated “disciple”) is key to understanding the Great Commission. In the original Greek, math¯et¯es referred to a student who would attach himself to a teacher in order to acquire theoretical and practical knowledge in a certain discipline (e.g., philosophy, medicine, a trade). In other words, the student strived to become a follower of said teacher, to think and act like the teacher.

Following Jesus as a disciple means that we are bound to live according to his teachings as well as to pass on his teachings to others. The link between discipleship and teaching is clear in the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18–20. Moreover, in this text, Jesus’ fundamental expectation of his disciples is evident-specifically, that his disciples will “observe all [things]…I have commanded you” (verse 20). Thus obedience to Jesus’ commandments is essential to living as his disciple.

Taken in light of the fact that the gospel-or good news-is the announcement of God’s in-breaking reign (i.e., the kingdom) in which he is making all things new, and recalling that Jesus stressed repentance and obedience as being essential to entry into the kingdom (see Matt. 7:21–23), disciple making involves instruction in the principles of the kingdom and obedience to Christ’s commands. In other words, making disciples is a relational activity that involves instruction about new life in the kingdom of God under the lordship of Jesus Christ. The goal is one of action: changed thinking that animates changed behavior that reorients the life of the believer to Jesus’ kingdom-oriented goals and activities.

Discipleship is preparation for citizenship in the kingdom, which we actively prioritize (see Mathew 6:33). There is an expectation implicit in discipleship that culminates in the convert’s participation in the redemptive mission of Christ. This participation is anything but passive. Jesus calls us to action, to take up the cross, to follow him, to live like him, to present ourselves as a living sacrifice (see Romans 12:1, 2) into the hands of God who empowers us for use in his redemptive purpose in creation. The follower of Christ-or disciple-seeks first to advance the rule and reign of Jesus Christ with all vigor (see Matthew 11:12).

Where discipleship precedes conversion it is evangelism; where it follows conversion it serves sanctification. The man or woman moved by God will receive this instruction, becoming a follower of Christ, whereas the natural man will reject these things. We don’t convert people through arguments or persuasion; Christ alone receives credit for the conversion of human souls.

Again, we are called to make disciples-and making disciples, unlike proselytizing, is intensely relational, hard work that requires grace and perseverance. Loving your neighbor, as Christ commanded, is the genesis of disciple making as evangelism. It can be talking with your neighbor about life and the world in which he lives, offering the biblical truth of reality applied to the particulars of his life whenever possible after you have earned the right to speak into his life by first loving him. This could be offering answers relative to his marriage, how he raises his kids, financial problems, and on and on.

As Christians who are biblically informed, we have real and substantive answers to the questions of this life; we posses a wisdom and understanding of reality that the lost do not; we live with the hope of a better future when all things are finally and forever made new. Our engagement in the lives of our unchurched neighbors should compel them to ask why we posses this hope! It is here that we tell them about this Jesus, what he did for us, and what he desires to do for them; we tell them, “Repent and enter his loving kingdom where you will find peace and rest!”

Losing Interest, Losing Lives, Losing Money and Losing the Reason to be there: Afghanistan

Why the US Will Scale Down Its Goals in Afghanistan

A U.S. helicopter in Afghanistan
A U.S. helicopter in Afghanistan
Rahmat Gul / AP

The Pentagon has made clear that the U.S. will leave Afghanistan when the ragtag Afghan security forces have been beefed up to the point at which they can keep the peace without help. "Significantly expanding [Afghanistan's national security forces] is, in fact, our exit strategy," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told U.S. troops in Kandahar last week. But that's a strategy that couldleave U.S. forces in Afghanistan for quite some time to come. The economy of impoverished Afghanistan is unlikely, for the foreseeable future, to be able to sustain an army big enough to guarantee the country's security. And that's just one of several thorny issues likely to make success in Afghanistan harder to achieve than in Iraq — unless the U.S. scales back its ambitious goals for the country. Such a rethink may be in the cards, U.S. military officers say, as internal U.S. reviews and President-elect Barack Obama give the seven-year war a fresh look.

U.S. military officers are already making clear that many of the additional 20,000 U.S. troops bound for Afghanistan in the coming year won't be headed to the Afghan-Pakistani border, where the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies are launching regular and deadly attacks against U.S. and allied troops. Instead, they'll be concentrated on defending the capital, Kabul, from Taliban attacks and also on reinforcing British troops in Helmand and other parts of the south. That will do little to assuage the criticism that the limited U.S. and NATO deployments in Afghanistan have left Afghan President Hamid Karzai with little more real authority than the mayor of Kabul or alter the reality that the Taliban currently enjoy the momentum. (See pictures of Afghan police forces in training.)

The U.S. troop surge in Iraq may have helped restore relative security there, but the same period has seen a shocking deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan: the Taliban, which controlled 54% of Afghanistan in 2007, now controls about 72% of the country, according to a new study from the Paris-based International Council on Security and Development, one of the few independent groups that keeps full-time staffers in the country. That's why U.S. and civilian casualties have spiked in Afghanistan lately, after years of being eclipsed by the bloodshed in Iraq. There are currently about 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The U.S. scattered the Taliban in the invasion launched a month after the 9/11 attacks but then turned its attention and resources toward Iraq. "As seven years of missed opportunity have rolled by, the Taliban has rooted itself across increasing swaths of Afghan territory," the independent report says. "The increase in their geographic spread illustrates that the Taliban's political, military and economic strategies are now more successful than the West's in Afghanistan. Confident in their expansion beyond the rural south, the Taliban are at the gates of the capital and infiltrating the city at will."

U.S. military officers, speaking privately, concede that the bleak outlook in Afghanistan will probably prompt a scaling back of U.S. goals for the country. The desire to build a strong central government with a large army is likely to be de-emphasized in favor of a provincial structure that relies more on local militias to provide security. "There's a widespread belief in national-security circles that the Bush Administration's goals for Afghanistan were too ambitious," says Stephen Biddle, a military expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "If George W. Bush had served a third term, my guess is that he would be re-evaluating his aims too."

Biddle recently returned from a trip to Afghanistan at the invitation of Army General David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander. Biddle estimates that Afghanistan will need about 500,000 soldiers and police of its own to keep the peace, but U.S. plans call for a force level of about 215,000 (there are roughly 160,000 now). And although the international community will pay for the Afghan security forces while war continues, it won't do so afterward, he says.

Biddle says the military personnel he spoke with in Afghanistan didn't seem to have spent much time assessing how big an army Afghanistan could support. "It seemed like a new question to a lot of people," he says. "They hadn't spent time computing projected Afghan GDP and the likely percent of GDP they could spend on security and how many troops that would allow them to support." Biddle says that because Afghanistan can't support a unified force big enough to defend itself, provincial authorities and their militias will have to pick up the slack. "Going to a decentralized Afghan end state — with local authorities providing their own security — means the national government's security apparatus can be much smaller," Biddle says. The bad news, of course, is that many such provincial officials are little more than warlords, who often profit from trafficking in opium. The United Nations estimated last month that the Taliban and its allies — including some of those provincial officials — could clear nearly $500 million in the drug trade this year. If the U.S. and its allies need to find a way to bring home their troops while leaving behind a modicum of security, they may find themselves forced to settle for something less than a happy ending.

Time to Get Out of Afghanistan~George F. Will

Time to Get Out of Afghanistan

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

"Yesterday," reads the e-mail from Allen, a Marine in Afghanistan, "I gave blood because a Marine, while out on patrol, stepped on a [mine's] pressure plate and lost both legs." Then "another Marine with a bullet wound to the head was brought in. Both Marines died this morning."

"I'm sorry about the drama," writes Allen, an enthusiastic infantryman willing to die "so that each of you may grow old." He says: "I put everything in God's hands." And: "Semper Fi!"

Allen and others of America's finest are also in Washington's hands. This city should keep faith with them by rapidly reversing the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan, where, says the Dutch commander of coalition forces in a southern province, walking through the region is "like walking through the Old Testament."

U.S. strategy -- protecting the population -- is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about "deteriorating" (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible.

The U.S. strategy is "clear, hold and build." Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.

Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country -- "control" is an elastic concept -- and " 'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime." Just 4,000 Marines are contesting control of Helmand province, which is the size of West Virginia. The New York Timesreports a Helmand official saying he has only "police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for 'vacation.' " Afghanistan's $23 billion gross domestic product is the size of Boise's. Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development depends on security, and that security depends on development. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production for opium comes from Helmand. In what should be called Operation Sisyphus, U.S. officials are urging farmers to grow other crops. Endive, perhaps?

Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan's recent elections were called "crucial." To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against American "success," whatever that might mean. Creation of an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had one. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hopes for a "renewal of trust" of the Afghan people in the government, but the Economist describes President Hamid Karzai's government -- his vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker -- as so "inept, corrupt and predatory" that people sometimes yearn for restoration of the warlords, "who were less venal and less brutal than Mr. Karzai's lot."

Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan's "culture of poverty." But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, thinks jobs programs and local government services might entice many "accidental guerrillas" to leave the Taliban. But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to preventreestablishment of al-Qaeda bases -- evidently there are none now -- must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?

U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered.

georgewill@washpost.com