Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Friday lashed out at the United States for failing to fully cooperate with an investigation into the massacre of 16 Afghan villagers by a U.S. staff sergeant and questioned whether only one soldier could have been involved. . .
"The army chief has just reported that the Afghan investigation team did not receive the cooperation that they expected from the United States. Therefore these are all questions that we'll be raising, and raising very loudly, and raising very clearly," Karzai said.
Karzai appeared to back the belief of the villagers, and many other Afghans including the country's parliament, that one gunman acting alone could not have killed so many people, and in different locations some distance apart.
"They believe it's not possible for one person to do that. In (one) family, in four rooms people were killed, women and children were killed, and they were all brought together in one room and then put on fire. That one man cannot do," Karzai said.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Reuters Reports from Afghanistan
Reuters reports on the recent massacre in Kandahar province, Afghanistan:
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Afghanistan Messier than Ever for Obama
First, please note that several posts have gone up by me on The Daily Capitalist. You may click HERE, HERE and HERE for them or go to the first 'HERE' and scroll down.
Next, several news items are out showing how uphill the Obama surge is in Afghanistan. First, from Reuters:
Afghanistan's political crisis worsened Saturday with lawmakers voting to sack the five most senior judicial officials and international consternation growing after a presidential tribunal threw out a quarter of parliament.
The special court, set up by a decree of Afghan President Hamid Karzai after parliamentary elections last year were marred by fraud, ruled Thursday that 62 lawmakers would have to be replaced because of alleged poll fraud.
Karzai did not immediately comment, perhaps because he is in Iran attending a security conference. Hmmm . . .
And speaking of Iran, they're quite the wonderful country with which and in which to feel secure. Here is today's news out of Iran from the Guardian:
Prison guards in Iran are giving condoms to criminals and encouraging them to systematically rape young opposition activists locked up with them, according to accounts from inside the country's jail system.
A series of dramatic letters written by prisoners and families of imprisoned activists allege that authorities are intentionally facilitating mass rape and using it as a form of punishment.
And getting back to Afghanistan, of course there are many reasons for lack of military success (perhaps the main reason is that military force can't defeat a popular insurgency), but here's one that would have been utterly marvelous news 70 years ago:
German Soldiers Can’t Shoot
Leaked reports question the competence of the German army, which has thousands of troops serving in Afghanistan.
June 26, 2011 10:30 PM EDT
“German soldiers mostly don’t know how to use their weapons.” They “have no or little experience driving armored vehicles.” For German field commanders, “the necessity and ways [to protect their units from roadside bombs] are to a large extent either unknown or incorrect.”
These are quotes from a series of secret internal reports on the German army, the Bundeswehr, whose 5,000 soldiers in the northern Kunduz sector of Afghanistan were supposed to help the U.S. rout the Taliban and stabilize the country over the past 10 years.
Out now.
Next, several news items are out showing how uphill the Obama surge is in Afghanistan. First, from Reuters:
Afghanistan's political crisis worsened Saturday with lawmakers voting to sack the five most senior judicial officials and international consternation growing after a presidential tribunal threw out a quarter of parliament.
The special court, set up by a decree of Afghan President Hamid Karzai after parliamentary elections last year were marred by fraud, ruled Thursday that 62 lawmakers would have to be replaced because of alleged poll fraud.
Karzai did not immediately comment, perhaps because he is in Iran attending a security conference. Hmmm . . .
And speaking of Iran, they're quite the wonderful country with which and in which to feel secure. Here is today's news out of Iran from the Guardian:
Prison guards in Iran are giving condoms to criminals and encouraging them to systematically rape young opposition activists locked up with them, according to accounts from inside the country's jail system.
A series of dramatic letters written by prisoners and families of imprisoned activists allege that authorities are intentionally facilitating mass rape and using it as a form of punishment.
And getting back to Afghanistan, of course there are many reasons for lack of military success (perhaps the main reason is that military force can't defeat a popular insurgency), but here's one that would have been utterly marvelous news 70 years ago:
German Soldiers Can’t Shoot
Leaked reports question the competence of the German army, which has thousands of troops serving in Afghanistan.
June 26, 2011 10:30 PM EDT
“German soldiers mostly don’t know how to use their weapons.” They “have no or little experience driving armored vehicles.” For German field commanders, “the necessity and ways [to protect their units from roadside bombs] are to a large extent either unknown or incorrect.”
These are quotes from a series of secret internal reports on the German army, the Bundeswehr, whose 5,000 soldiers in the northern Kunduz sector of Afghanistan were supposed to help the U.S. rout the Taliban and stabilize the country over the past 10 years.
Out now.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Afghanistan Full of "Stuff", But It's Their Stuff: Time to Leave
U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan (New York Times).
Another reason to leave.
The Muslim world is already assuming ulterior motives for the U. S. surge in Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq.
They're their minerals. We can compete for the development. The tattered U. S. reputation all over the world will decline more if we now are perceived as "surging" for the lithium etc. in one of the poorest countries in the world.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2010
Another reason to leave.
The Muslim world is already assuming ulterior motives for the U. S. surge in Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq.
They're their minerals. We can compete for the development. The tattered U. S. reputation all over the world will decline more if we now are perceived as "surging" for the lithium etc. in one of the poorest countries in the world.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Why Are We in Afghanistan?
Ninety-Four Percent of Kandaharis Want Peace Talks, Not War is the title of a piece that makes a strong case that Barack Obama is a deliberate war-monger in Afghanistan. Even only polling non-Taliban-controlled areas proved a few months ago that the people prefer the Taliban to the Karzai government, and they likely prefer the Karzai crowd to us. So much for the Peace Prize.
The U. S. have lived for years in a world with a lot of enemies and even more "bad guys". But until now, we haven't gone after them. The latest Iraq war at least had the virtue of overthrowing a hated leader who had engaged in an unprovoked war several years earlier on some of our allies. So far as we can tell, though, the Taliban are now an indigenous force in Afghanistan. It looks as though the "foreigners" are in Pakistan.
Sometimes you just have to suck it up. Let's rebuild Detroit rather than destroy and then rebuild Kandahar or bring "progress" to Marja--such as roads and electricity.
When you have no one in the country you are fighting for, either you have little reason to engage in a protracted war or you have to plan to take control for a long time. Mr. Obama perhaps believes that his popularity in certain parts of the world is enough to make the Afghans turn against the Taliban and toward us and our favored group. Quite a gamble. And meanwhile the deficits keep mounting.
Copyright (C) Long Lake 2010
The U. S. have lived for years in a world with a lot of enemies and even more "bad guys". But until now, we haven't gone after them. The latest Iraq war at least had the virtue of overthrowing a hated leader who had engaged in an unprovoked war several years earlier on some of our allies. So far as we can tell, though, the Taliban are now an indigenous force in Afghanistan. It looks as though the "foreigners" are in Pakistan.
Sometimes you just have to suck it up. Let's rebuild Detroit rather than destroy and then rebuild Kandahar or bring "progress" to Marja--such as roads and electricity.
When you have no one in the country you are fighting for, either you have little reason to engage in a protracted war or you have to plan to take control for a long time. Mr. Obama perhaps believes that his popularity in certain parts of the world is enough to make the Afghans turn against the Taliban and toward us and our favored group. Quite a gamble. And meanwhile the deficits keep mounting.
Copyright (C) Long Lake 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Afghans and Americans Similar in Preference for Less Government
In Afghan official who will govern Marja pays first visit, makes plea to residents, the Washington Post incidentally supported the Tea Party. The piece begins with a description of officaldom making its case to its fellow Afghans to support the Kabul government with goodies from America. Then it says:
But several residents said they were less interested in government services than being left alone. The principal cash crop in Marja is opium-producing poppy, and many farmers are wary that the establishment of local governance and a police force will put an end to what has been a lucrative way of life for them.
Polls show that Americans think that the Federal government wastes vast amounts of money. Afghans know what their government is about, as the article continues:
Halfway through the meeting, one participant stood and proclaimed himself a Talib. "I have nothing against the Americans, but I don't like our government," farmer Ali Mohammed said to Zahir. "It steals all the money that the foreigners give us."
Nice to know that they think we are more honest than their own government.
Home rule, small government, freedom to operate small entrepreneurial enterprises, that's the preferred Afghan way.
At least in this regard, our government should listen to the Afghan people rather than killing them.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2010
But several residents said they were less interested in government services than being left alone. The principal cash crop in Marja is opium-producing poppy, and many farmers are wary that the establishment of local governance and a police force will put an end to what has been a lucrative way of life for them.
Polls show that Americans think that the Federal government wastes vast amounts of money. Afghans know what their government is about, as the article continues:
Halfway through the meeting, one participant stood and proclaimed himself a Talib. "I have nothing against the Americans, but I don't like our government," farmer Ali Mohammed said to Zahir. "It steals all the money that the foreigners give us."
Nice to know that they think we are more honest than their own government.
Home rule, small government, freedom to operate small entrepreneurial enterprises, that's the preferred Afghan way.
At least in this regard, our government should listen to the Afghan people rather than killing them.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2010
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Pave We Must
The WSJ shows that Barack Obama likes road work in the U. S. and in Afghanistan in Surge Focus is Roads, Police:
The troop surge in Afghanistan will focus on expanding and connecting safe areas of the country, and on revamping the troubled Afghan police, the U.S.-led coalition's day-to-day commander said in an interview.
"There are pockets of security -- but they are not connected," Gen. Rodriguez, who heads the newly established International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, said during a visit to Herat. "Afghan people need, in addition to being secure, to be able to move to places that are important to them, such as to sell farm produce. We've got to be able to expand the secure areas for the people, and improve their freedom of movement."
It's apparently not enough to "stimulate" our economy by doing road work. Perhaps the poorest country in Asia needs the same, it appears. But where is the money coming from for us to do all this? China or thin air? And when these roads are built, can't the Taliban use them for easier transit as well?
The Democrats who claimed to detest nation-building in Iraq love it now. But there had been no great financial crisis then. There has been one now. What appeared affordable looks much less so now. Changing times call for changing strategies. Many people expected more creativity from President Obama than they are getting. We can hope for the best, but this continues to look to Viet Nam-like to make this old anti-war protester comfortable.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
The troop surge in Afghanistan will focus on expanding and connecting safe areas of the country, and on revamping the troubled Afghan police, the U.S.-led coalition's day-to-day commander said in an interview.
"There are pockets of security -- but they are not connected," Gen. Rodriguez, who heads the newly established International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, said during a visit to Herat. "Afghan people need, in addition to being secure, to be able to move to places that are important to them, such as to sell farm produce. We've got to be able to expand the secure areas for the people, and improve their freedom of movement."
It's apparently not enough to "stimulate" our economy by doing road work. Perhaps the poorest country in Asia needs the same, it appears. But where is the money coming from for us to do all this? China or thin air? And when these roads are built, can't the Taliban use them for easier transit as well?
The Democrats who claimed to detest nation-building in Iraq love it now. But there had been no great financial crisis then. There has been one now. What appeared affordable looks much less so now. Changing times call for changing strategies. Many people expected more creativity from President Obama than they are getting. We can hope for the best, but this continues to look to Viet Nam-like to make this old anti-war protester comfortable.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
JFK Adviser Compares Afghanistan to Viet Nam
This financially-oriented blog has focused on the Pak-ghanistan war(s) because of my belief that escalation there could lead to as much inflation at home as the guns-and-butter strategy of LBJ led to with his escalation in Viet Nam. An informative, interesting and brief post has appeared by John F. Kennedy's closest adviser, Theodore Sorenson, titled America's Next Unwinnable War. I recommend it is a good read from a variety of standpoints.
Mr. Sorenson makes the case that Afghanistan is close to being Barack Obama's equivalent of Lyndon Johnson's Viet Nam.
The U. S. historically has only had significant inflation during major wars or in the aftermath of the few losing ones, such as Viet Nam.
With the entire force of government and its creation the Fed committed to steadily destroying the real purchasing power of the dollar you have in your wallet, gold cannot lose nominal value in the very long run unless they fail miserably in that goal; but gold can be a poor investment nonetheless.
If the U. S. ramps up much further in Afghanistan, and continues to bribe/coerce Pakistan to do the same internally, look for domestic price increases to exceed expectations.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Mr. Sorenson makes the case that Afghanistan is close to being Barack Obama's equivalent of Lyndon Johnson's Viet Nam.
The U. S. historically has only had significant inflation during major wars or in the aftermath of the few losing ones, such as Viet Nam.
With the entire force of government and its creation the Fed committed to steadily destroying the real purchasing power of the dollar you have in your wallet, gold cannot lose nominal value in the very long run unless they fail miserably in that goal; but gold can be a poor investment nonetheless.
If the U. S. ramps up much further in Afghanistan, and continues to bribe/coerce Pakistan to do the same internally, look for domestic price increases to exceed expectations.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
More Bad News from Afghanistan
Courtesy of a Naked Capitalism link, please read American troops in Afghanistan losing heart, say army chaplains, from the London Times Online. The article claims that the chaplains were speaking out because the soldiers could not do so under military rules. Here is one section of the article:
The chaplains said soldiers were seeking their help in unprecedented numbers. “Everyone you meet is just down, and you meet them everywhere — in the weight room, dining facility, getting mail,” said Captain Rico. Even “hard men” were coming to their tent chapel and breaking down.
The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban, because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,” said Specialist Mercer.
“It’s a very frustrating mission,” said Lieutenant Hjelmstad. “The average soldier sees a friend blown up and his instinct is to retaliate or believe it’s for something [worthwhile], but it’s not like other wars where your buddy died but they took the hill. There’s no tangible reward for the sacrifice. It’s hard to say Wardak is better than when we got here.”
Captain Masengale, a soldier for 12 years before he became a chaplain, said: “We want to believe in a cause but we don’t know what that cause is.”
Yours truly has a flexible record regarding American wars and military efforts. I participated in several major anti-Vietnam War rallies; supported the Reagan "peace through strength" military build-up to exhaust the USSR (clearly a success), supported Bush I's Gulf War, thought Bush II's Iraq War was highly elective but "OK" assuming that a clear plan for the future had been covertly worked out with the other powers in Iraq (obviously false), strongly supported the Iraq surge on the Colin Powell "Pottery Barn" theory that since we broke Iraq, we owned it and therefore needed to make a real effort to leave the country better than it was pre-surge.
The Afghan adventure looks to have been better thought out by the Bush team than by the Obama team. Candidate and then President Obama need not have "surged" and used strong rhetoric as recently as August 2009 in favor of victory in Afghanistan. But he did it. As a result . . .
President Obama looks like a deer trapped in the headlights on Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda appears to have decamped to Pakistan and points west; the Karzai government is crooked; the actual fighting may be primarily a civil war between rival gangs of narcotics traffickers; the country has no economic value; and the U. S. Government is already spending vastly more than its income on domestic issues and thus will have to restrict that spending to ramp up further in Afghanistan.
Guns and butter. It failed once. Mr. Obama does not want to be an LBJ. Please read the linked article.
Save Afghanistan?
What about California?
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
The chaplains said soldiers were seeking their help in unprecedented numbers. “Everyone you meet is just down, and you meet them everywhere — in the weight room, dining facility, getting mail,” said Captain Rico. Even “hard men” were coming to their tent chapel and breaking down.
The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban, because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,” said Specialist Mercer.
“It’s a very frustrating mission,” said Lieutenant Hjelmstad. “The average soldier sees a friend blown up and his instinct is to retaliate or believe it’s for something [worthwhile], but it’s not like other wars where your buddy died but they took the hill. There’s no tangible reward for the sacrifice. It’s hard to say Wardak is better than when we got here.”
Captain Masengale, a soldier for 12 years before he became a chaplain, said: “We want to believe in a cause but we don’t know what that cause is.”
Yours truly has a flexible record regarding American wars and military efforts. I participated in several major anti-Vietnam War rallies; supported the Reagan "peace through strength" military build-up to exhaust the USSR (clearly a success), supported Bush I's Gulf War, thought Bush II's Iraq War was highly elective but "OK" assuming that a clear plan for the future had been covertly worked out with the other powers in Iraq (obviously false), strongly supported the Iraq surge on the Colin Powell "Pottery Barn" theory that since we broke Iraq, we owned it and therefore needed to make a real effort to leave the country better than it was pre-surge.
The Afghan adventure looks to have been better thought out by the Bush team than by the Obama team. Candidate and then President Obama need not have "surged" and used strong rhetoric as recently as August 2009 in favor of victory in Afghanistan. But he did it. As a result . . .
President Obama looks like a deer trapped in the headlights on Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda appears to have decamped to Pakistan and points west; the Karzai government is crooked; the actual fighting may be primarily a civil war between rival gangs of narcotics traffickers; the country has no economic value; and the U. S. Government is already spending vastly more than its income on domestic issues and thus will have to restrict that spending to ramp up further in Afghanistan.
Guns and butter. It failed once. Mr. Obama does not want to be an LBJ. Please read the linked article.
Save Afghanistan?
What about California?
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Trends and Friends
There is much discussion in the blogosphere about the course of the U. S. dollar vs. other currencies. Sentiment is said to be wildly in favor of dollar weakness, which is then said to be bullish. It would appear that there are many such contrarians, however!
Regular readers may know that EBR pays little attention to the value of one fiat currency against another, though in a less correlated world it might be interested in that topic. If one lives in America, one buys food in dollars. The global non-fiat currency is gold. Regardless of one's interest in the dollar vs. other fiat currencies and/or vs. gold, one might be interested in "on the margin" news that might buoy the dollar.
EBR is not a political site, but all financial sites must be aware of what's going on in politics. Fundamentally dollar bearish is the increased drift re U. S. policy in and toward Afghanistan, as discussed in a disheartening WSJ piece tonight titled Gates Doubts U.S.'s Afghan Strategy:
President Barack Obama met with senior counselors for three hours Wednesday to launch his review of Afghan war strategy, amid indications that his defense secretary -- the key link between the White House and the military -- is among those undecided about the right approach.
As Yogi Berra advised, when you come to a fork in the road, take it. Think of a deer blinded by headlights. Think of a tennis player at the net who can't decide whether to go left or right and ends up going nowhere. Commodity and currency traders see indecisiveness and invest/trade accordingly.
This pervasive indecision is dollar bearish. No ifs, ands, or buts. It's not determinative, but it is amazing how in a bull or bear market, an accumulation of news and data can paint a picture that can extend and prolong a trend.
For now, dollar bearish (weak dollar) trends are said to be good for the American stock market, at least as priced in weakening U. S. dollars. The stock market averages have risen 7 months straight. Looking Ahead After 7 Consecutive Positive Months is worth a read. A quick summary of it is that historically, optimism has been the generally correct strategy after such strength.
I would add to those who read it that the current period reminds me of 1975, and per the linked article, the one horrible month following 7 consecutive up months was indeed 1975.
Finally, it is not breaking news that Ken Lewis is leaving BofA as CEO at yearend. He may be facing criminal charges. Such a legal situation, which has not happened yet, would not be dollar bullish, either. Readers who want a hard-edged take on the Lewis situation may want to check on Mish at Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com tomorrow; with no knowledge I suspect he will have a hard-hitting post. In the past, he has been all over this story. His point of view in the past has stood in contrast to that of the MSM and may once again be worth considering.
Finally, for people who think that an individual company's stock price means anything, consider CIT. Simply by following through on its pre-bankruptcy actions of a month or two ago, the stock fell 45% Wednesday and may be worthless. 16 months ago the stock was "worth" $60/share and now is trading slightly above $1/share.
Anyone who looked at the longer-term chart of CIT would have been warned that the major trend was down.
The dollar may be at its all-time bottom and gold may be at its all-time top, but there is no evidence of that; au contraire. Gold may have problems over the next 4-6 weeks as it laps the decline it suffered into November 10 2008, when it finally sold off during the massive liquidation in all asset classes except Treasuries and other such issues. But the current ease at the Fed and the Afghan disarray first at the Obama White House and now the Gates Defense Department are gold-friendly. The potential for a melt-up in gold must be considered. The same is true for stocks, but gold is in a clear structural bull market and stocks are in at best a structural neutral market despite having outperformed gold the past half year.
Gold remains the friendliest trend EBR can see.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Regular readers may know that EBR pays little attention to the value of one fiat currency against another, though in a less correlated world it might be interested in that topic. If one lives in America, one buys food in dollars. The global non-fiat currency is gold. Regardless of one's interest in the dollar vs. other fiat currencies and/or vs. gold, one might be interested in "on the margin" news that might buoy the dollar.
EBR is not a political site, but all financial sites must be aware of what's going on in politics. Fundamentally dollar bearish is the increased drift re U. S. policy in and toward Afghanistan, as discussed in a disheartening WSJ piece tonight titled Gates Doubts U.S.'s Afghan Strategy:
President Barack Obama met with senior counselors for three hours Wednesday to launch his review of Afghan war strategy, amid indications that his defense secretary -- the key link between the White House and the military -- is among those undecided about the right approach.
As Yogi Berra advised, when you come to a fork in the road, take it. Think of a deer blinded by headlights. Think of a tennis player at the net who can't decide whether to go left or right and ends up going nowhere. Commodity and currency traders see indecisiveness and invest/trade accordingly.
This pervasive indecision is dollar bearish. No ifs, ands, or buts. It's not determinative, but it is amazing how in a bull or bear market, an accumulation of news and data can paint a picture that can extend and prolong a trend.
For now, dollar bearish (weak dollar) trends are said to be good for the American stock market, at least as priced in weakening U. S. dollars. The stock market averages have risen 7 months straight. Looking Ahead After 7 Consecutive Positive Months is worth a read. A quick summary of it is that historically, optimism has been the generally correct strategy after such strength.
I would add to those who read it that the current period reminds me of 1975, and per the linked article, the one horrible month following 7 consecutive up months was indeed 1975.
Finally, it is not breaking news that Ken Lewis is leaving BofA as CEO at yearend. He may be facing criminal charges. Such a legal situation, which has not happened yet, would not be dollar bullish, either. Readers who want a hard-edged take on the Lewis situation may want to check on Mish at Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com tomorrow; with no knowledge I suspect he will have a hard-hitting post. In the past, he has been all over this story. His point of view in the past has stood in contrast to that of the MSM and may once again be worth considering.
Finally, for people who think that an individual company's stock price means anything, consider CIT. Simply by following through on its pre-bankruptcy actions of a month or two ago, the stock fell 45% Wednesday and may be worthless. 16 months ago the stock was "worth" $60/share and now is trading slightly above $1/share.
Anyone who looked at the longer-term chart of CIT would have been warned that the major trend was down.
The dollar may be at its all-time bottom and gold may be at its all-time top, but there is no evidence of that; au contraire. Gold may have problems over the next 4-6 weeks as it laps the decline it suffered into November 10 2008, when it finally sold off during the massive liquidation in all asset classes except Treasuries and other such issues. But the current ease at the Fed and the Afghan disarray first at the Obama White House and now the Gates Defense Department are gold-friendly. The potential for a melt-up in gold must be considered. The same is true for stocks, but gold is in a clear structural bull market and stocks are in at best a structural neutral market despite having outperformed gold the past half year.
Gold remains the friendliest trend EBR can see.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Taliban Reportedly Out-Foxing U.S. in Afghanistan
In Taliban Surprising U.S. Forces With Improved Tactics, the Washington Post adds to the accumulation of news that victory in Afghanistan will be a very expensive proposition:
The Taliban has become a much more potent adversary in Afghanistan by improving its own tactics and finding gaps in the U.S. military playbook, according to senior American military officials who acknowledged that the enemy's resurgence this year has taken them by surprise.
Meanwhile, the WSJ reports on another ominous example in Warlord's Defection Shows Afghan Risk:
HERAT, Afghanistan -- Ghulam Yahya, a former mayor of this ancient city along the Silk Road, battled the Taliban for years and worked hand in hand with Western officials to rebuild the country's industrial hub.
Now, Mr. Yahya is firing rockets at the Herat airport and nearby coalition military headquarters. He has kidnapped soldiers and foreign contractors, claimed the downing of an Afghan army helicopter and planted bombs in central Herat -- including one that killed a district police chief and more than a dozen bystanders last month.
Every day, in every way, Afghanistan looks more and more like Viet Nam. At this point, there appears to be a complicated civil conflict in a mostly-primitive tribal society that the U. S. does not and will never understand and where it is already widely disliked.
Financially, the only beneficiaries of a big war--which has not arrived and may not come-- will be gold and military stocks.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC
The Taliban has become a much more potent adversary in Afghanistan by improving its own tactics and finding gaps in the U.S. military playbook, according to senior American military officials who acknowledged that the enemy's resurgence this year has taken them by surprise.
Meanwhile, the WSJ reports on another ominous example in Warlord's Defection Shows Afghan Risk:
HERAT, Afghanistan -- Ghulam Yahya, a former mayor of this ancient city along the Silk Road, battled the Taliban for years and worked hand in hand with Western officials to rebuild the country's industrial hub.
Now, Mr. Yahya is firing rockets at the Herat airport and nearby coalition military headquarters. He has kidnapped soldiers and foreign contractors, claimed the downing of an Afghan army helicopter and planted bombs in central Herat -- including one that killed a district police chief and more than a dozen bystanders last month.
Every day, in every way, Afghanistan looks more and more like Viet Nam. At this point, there appears to be a complicated civil conflict in a mostly-primitive tribal society that the U. S. does not and will never understand and where it is already widely disliked.
Financially, the only beneficiaries of a big war--which has not arrived and may not come-- will be gold and military stocks.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The NYT May Be Turning Against the President on Afghanistan
Sometimes small changes herald big ones. The New York Times politely but clearly is exploring a stand of skepticism about the President's policies on Afghanistan. In Seven Days That Shook Afghanistan found in the widely-read News of the Week in Review section of the Sunday edition, the heavyweight journalist Dexter Filkins reports on military problems but especially highlights the apparently widespread voting fraud in the recent first round of the election for President. The article concludes by quoting the leading contender to President Karzai, former Foreign Minister (and ophthalmologist) Abdullah Abdullah:
“If people decide that we could not give them anything through the democratic process, then the insurgency will be strengthened,” Mr. Abdullah said. “And then the United States will need to bring more troops and more resources here — and for what?”
That’s a question that President Obama, General McChrystal and, ultimately, the American people, will have to decide.
There is daylight between the Times and Barack Obama on Afghanistan.
The Times appears to have carefully begun to favor the Viet Nam analogy. The operative terminology is the Times' choice to highlight Abdullah's question: "And for what?"
There is no rush to change asset allocations, but investing in a guns and butter economy is very different from investing in a butter-only one.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
“If people decide that we could not give them anything through the democratic process, then the insurgency will be strengthened,” Mr. Abdullah said. “And then the United States will need to bring more troops and more resources here — and for what?”
That’s a question that President Obama, General McChrystal and, ultimately, the American people, will have to decide.
There is daylight between the Times and Barack Obama on Afghanistan.
The Times appears to have carefully begun to favor the Viet Nam analogy. The operative terminology is the Times' choice to highlight Abdullah's question: "And for what?"
There is no rush to change asset allocations, but investing in a guns and butter economy is very different from investing in a butter-only one.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Gold's Price Rise and Troubles in Afghanistan
With speculation having returned in a substantial way to the financial markets, ECRI bullish on the economy and now on housing prices, what can go wrong economically? EBR continues to follow the Pak-Ghanistan (Af-Pak) region, and takes as a troublesome sign that even an opponent of the Obama surge in Afghanistan, Sen. Feingold of Wisconsin, can't admit something obvious to Afghans. From the WSJ op-ed by the senator today, The Road Home From Afghanistan:
In light of their country's history with great powers, it should come as no surprise that Afghans are increasingly skeptical of our military presence. A 2007 poll (conducted by ABC News, the BBC and ARD German TV) showed most Afghans in the Southwest no longer support the presence of foreign troops, and a poll this year (conducted ABC News and the BBC) found that nationwide a plurality of Afghans want troop levels reduced, not increased. . .
Announcing a flexible timetable for when our massive military presence will end would be one of the best things we could do to advance our national security interests in Afghanistan. By doing so, we would undercut the misperception of the U.S. as an occupying force that has propped up a weak, corrupt and unpopular government, while at the same time removing a tremendous strain on our troops and our economy.
What's that about a misperception? From an Afghan and perhaps an "objective" perception (if such exists), is not the U. S. and its allies propping up a weak, corrupt and unpopular government? Are the large number of NATO troops not effectively occupying the country?
The economy will do much better, and inflation and interest rates will be much better behaved, if Afghanistan does not become Viet Nam 2. The more it smells like it, the more attractive gold becomes and then less attractive bonds become. It's too soon to draw conclusions, but it's high on my radar screen.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
In light of their country's history with great powers, it should come as no surprise that Afghans are increasingly skeptical of our military presence. A 2007 poll (conducted by ABC News, the BBC and ARD German TV) showed most Afghans in the Southwest no longer support the presence of foreign troops, and a poll this year (conducted ABC News and the BBC) found that nationwide a plurality of Afghans want troop levels reduced, not increased. . .
Announcing a flexible timetable for when our massive military presence will end would be one of the best things we could do to advance our national security interests in Afghanistan. By doing so, we would undercut the misperception of the U.S. as an occupying force that has propped up a weak, corrupt and unpopular government, while at the same time removing a tremendous strain on our troops and our economy.
What's that about a misperception? From an Afghan and perhaps an "objective" perception (if such exists), is not the U. S. and its allies propping up a weak, corrupt and unpopular government? Are the large number of NATO troops not effectively occupying the country?
The economy will do much better, and inflation and interest rates will be much better behaved, if Afghanistan does not become Viet Nam 2. The more it smells like it, the more attractive gold becomes and then less attractive bonds become. It's too soon to draw conclusions, but it's high on my radar screen.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Viet Nam War Errors Being Reprised in Afghanistan?
As national passions are rising in the usually slow summer re health care reform, or health insurance reform, or something, let us remember that the Obama strategy is to ramp up a land war in Asia while pushing for a major enlargement of the medical social safety net with the promise that it will cost little. Remembering what the drawn-out and costly loss in the war that LBJ escalated cost, let us update what's happening in the current escalating war in the Af-Pak region. From Foreign Policy, Saigon 2009:
For those who say that comparing the current war in Afghanistan to the Vietnam War is taking things too far, here's a reality check: It's not taking things far enough. From the origins of these North-South conflicts to the role of insurgents and the pointlessness of this week's Afghan presidential elections, it's impossible to ignore the similarities between these wars. The places and faces may have changed but the enemy is old and familiar. The sooner the United States recognizes this, the sooner it can stop making the same mistakes in Afghanistan. . .
Legitimacy in Afghanistan over the last thousand years has come exclusively from dynastic and religious sources. The fatal blunder of the United States in eliminating a ceremonial Afghan monarchy was Afghanistan's Diem Coup: afterwards, there was little possibility of establishing a legitimate, secular national government.
It doesn't matter who wins the August elections for president in Afghanistan: he will be illegitimate because he is elected. We have apparently learned nothing from Vietnam.
The New York Time reports in an article the title of which sort of says it all: U. S. Fights Taliban With Little Aid From Afghans.
Regardless of Pakistan knocking off a few Taliban, who they regard as country bumpkins and do not fear, the U. S. effort in Afghanistan is troubled.
With the Fed joining other central banks including that of Sweden (which has a negative interest rate for retail savers) in overtly wishing for inflation, a ramped-up war in Afghanistan will cause ruinous inflation, as was associated with the Viet Nam War. If so, this will be a major victory for al Qaeda, the plan of which was to topple the Towers in lower Manhattan as a metaphor for the toppling of the U. S. economy. So far, it's not clear that their plan was not brilliant.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
For those who say that comparing the current war in Afghanistan to the Vietnam War is taking things too far, here's a reality check: It's not taking things far enough. From the origins of these North-South conflicts to the role of insurgents and the pointlessness of this week's Afghan presidential elections, it's impossible to ignore the similarities between these wars. The places and faces may have changed but the enemy is old and familiar. The sooner the United States recognizes this, the sooner it can stop making the same mistakes in Afghanistan. . .
Legitimacy in Afghanistan over the last thousand years has come exclusively from dynastic and religious sources. The fatal blunder of the United States in eliminating a ceremonial Afghan monarchy was Afghanistan's Diem Coup: afterwards, there was little possibility of establishing a legitimate, secular national government.
It doesn't matter who wins the August elections for president in Afghanistan: he will be illegitimate because he is elected. We have apparently learned nothing from Vietnam.
The New York Time reports in an article the title of which sort of says it all: U. S. Fights Taliban With Little Aid From Afghans.
Regardless of Pakistan knocking off a few Taliban, who they regard as country bumpkins and do not fear, the U. S. effort in Afghanistan is troubled.
With the Fed joining other central banks including that of Sweden (which has a negative interest rate for retail savers) in overtly wishing for inflation, a ramped-up war in Afghanistan will cause ruinous inflation, as was associated with the Viet Nam War. If so, this will be a major victory for al Qaeda, the plan of which was to topple the Towers in lower Manhattan as a metaphor for the toppling of the U. S. economy. So far, it's not clear that their plan was not brilliant.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
What Are We Doing in Afghanistan? (And How Will the Answer Affect Your Investments?)
The increasingly expensive effort in Afghanistan could spin into a Vietnam-style mess, which is why a financial web site is paying attention to it. History suggests that if the U. S. stays at peace, the economy will trend upwards without inflation. A little war will be insignificant to the giant U. S. economy, but another Iraq-style war will be meaningful. It will distort production to armaments and raise the inflation level while crowding out important spending, such as on health care. Consider U. S. increasing counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan from the L. A. Times, which begins:
The U.S. government is deploying dozens of Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Afghanistan in a new kind of "surge," targeting trafficking networks that officials say are increasingly fueling the Taliban insurgency and corrupting the Afghan government.
The move to dramatically expand a second front is seen as the latest acknowledgment in Washington that security in Afghanistan cannot be won with military force alone. . .
The Obama Administration should directly inform the American people what its strategy and objectives are in Afghanistan. What would prevent an escalation from mimicking LBJ's in 1965, though he posed as the peace candidate in the 1964 election? It's a large leap from preventing another 9/11 - the original reason to send troops to Afghanistan in 2001 or capturing UBL- from intervening in the drug trade in one of the poorest countries in Asia. We need to know the exit strategy, what an acceptable result is, what the U. S. does if the pitiful Kabul "government" does not step up to the plate, and the like.
The future of your investments will turn on matters that are not now on the front page. Everyone and his/her brother/sister "knows" that the "recession" has either ended (Merrill Lynch and others) or is ending soon (ECRI and almost everyone else) or soon enough (Roubini). You cannot make a dime investing thusly. If you believe that all these guys are wrong and the economy will keep shrinking well into next year, you can make a fortune shorting stocks and not getting jerked out of your bear positions on the up-move(s). I propose that a less risky way to conserve and increase your net worth is to follow the issues that are not on the front burner.
Watch the Af-Pak region. The more it looks like a quagmire into which the U. S. gets sucked, the more you should sell all Treasury securities other than shot-term bills and instead buy gold, oil and the other stuff that worked when Viet Nam and Iraq were hot enough to matter. If things go our way, then tend to invest in the opposite direction.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
The U.S. government is deploying dozens of Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Afghanistan in a new kind of "surge," targeting trafficking networks that officials say are increasingly fueling the Taliban insurgency and corrupting the Afghan government.
The move to dramatically expand a second front is seen as the latest acknowledgment in Washington that security in Afghanistan cannot be won with military force alone. . .
The Obama Administration should directly inform the American people what its strategy and objectives are in Afghanistan. What would prevent an escalation from mimicking LBJ's in 1965, though he posed as the peace candidate in the 1964 election? It's a large leap from preventing another 9/11 - the original reason to send troops to Afghanistan in 2001 or capturing UBL- from intervening in the drug trade in one of the poorest countries in Asia. We need to know the exit strategy, what an acceptable result is, what the U. S. does if the pitiful Kabul "government" does not step up to the plate, and the like.
The future of your investments will turn on matters that are not now on the front page. Everyone and his/her brother/sister "knows" that the "recession" has either ended (Merrill Lynch and others) or is ending soon (ECRI and almost everyone else) or soon enough (Roubini). You cannot make a dime investing thusly. If you believe that all these guys are wrong and the economy will keep shrinking well into next year, you can make a fortune shorting stocks and not getting jerked out of your bear positions on the up-move(s). I propose that a less risky way to conserve and increase your net worth is to follow the issues that are not on the front burner.
Watch the Af-Pak region. The more it looks like a quagmire into which the U. S. gets sucked, the more you should sell all Treasury securities other than shot-term bills and instead buy gold, oil and the other stuff that worked when Viet Nam and Iraq were hot enough to matter. If things go our way, then tend to invest in the opposite direction.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Doing Business in Afghanistan
In DynCorp, Fluor get $3 B pact for Afghanistan work, the AP reports:
Defense contractors DynCorp International Inc. and Fluor Corp. received a combined $3 billion contract from the Army to provide a wide-range of support services to U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
The task orders -- worth $1.5 billion a piece -- were awarded Tuesday as part of the next phase of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or Logcap, according to a government notice. Combined the two contracts could ultimately be worth up to $15 billion -- or $7.5 billion each -- if the Army opts to extend each pact for another four years.
Apparently much of this money is to build bases.
Methinks it is very important to get Afghanistan right, nearly 8 years after 9/11 and many, many years after the Soviet Union was kicked out by forces affiliated with Osama bin Laden and others. Given how poor Afghanistan is, perhaps it would be wiser to spend less on our military and more helping the people improve their lot in life. The President could channel JFK rather than LBJ the Viet Nam "surger" and recall the great success of the Peace Corps. What about a modern Peace Corps for Pak-ghanistan, Iraq, and many other places?
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Defense contractors DynCorp International Inc. and Fluor Corp. received a combined $3 billion contract from the Army to provide a wide-range of support services to U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
The task orders -- worth $1.5 billion a piece -- were awarded Tuesday as part of the next phase of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or Logcap, according to a government notice. Combined the two contracts could ultimately be worth up to $15 billion -- or $7.5 billion each -- if the Army opts to extend each pact for another four years.
Apparently much of this money is to build bases.
Methinks it is very important to get Afghanistan right, nearly 8 years after 9/11 and many, many years after the Soviet Union was kicked out by forces affiliated with Osama bin Laden and others. Given how poor Afghanistan is, perhaps it would be wiser to spend less on our military and more helping the people improve their lot in life. The President could channel JFK rather than LBJ the Viet Nam "surger" and recall the great success of the Peace Corps. What about a modern Peace Corps for Pak-ghanistan, Iraq, and many other places?
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Marines to Protect Afghans From One Another
As the eighth anniversary of the U. S. military action in Afghanistan approaches, echoes of a failed land (and air, and swift boat) war in Asia are surfacing. In U.S. Marines Try to Retake Afghan Valley From Taliban, the New York Times reports that:
Almost 4,000 United States Marines, backed by helicopter gunships, pushed into the volatile Helmand River valley in southwestern Afghanistan early Thursday morning to try to take back the region from Taliban fighters whose control of poppy harvests and opium smuggling in Helmand provides major financing for the Afghan insurgency. . .
“We do not want people of Helmand Province to see us as an enemy; we want to protect them from the enemy,” Captain Pelletier said, The A.P. reported.
The goal of the operation is to put pressure on the Taliban militants “and to show our commitment to the Afghan people that when we come in we are going to stay long enough to set up their own institutions,” he said.
Even more than in Viet Nam after the Tet offensive destroyed the Viet Cong as a fighting force and left North Viet Nam to carry on the war effort, what is going on in Afghanistan is a civil conflict.
The last thing the insular Afghans want is Christians protecting them from their brethren. And our main interest in opiates originating overseas should be to dry up domestic demand through a variety of peaceful domestic initiatives.
The U. S. has never had significant consumer price inflation in the absence of a major war. If this one heats up, Treasuries should be sold and gold bought. For now, the wind-down in Iraq and the limited nature of U. S. involvement in the Af-Pak region is not sufficient to overcome the huge slack in the domestic economy. I watch Pak-ghanistan regularly, including a good local Pakistani free online daily, www.dawn.com.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Almost 4,000 United States Marines, backed by helicopter gunships, pushed into the volatile Helmand River valley in southwestern Afghanistan early Thursday morning to try to take back the region from Taliban fighters whose control of poppy harvests and opium smuggling in Helmand provides major financing for the Afghan insurgency. . .
“We do not want people of Helmand Province to see us as an enemy; we want to protect them from the enemy,” Captain Pelletier said, The A.P. reported.
The goal of the operation is to put pressure on the Taliban militants “and to show our commitment to the Afghan people that when we come in we are going to stay long enough to set up their own institutions,” he said.
Even more than in Viet Nam after the Tet offensive destroyed the Viet Cong as a fighting force and left North Viet Nam to carry on the war effort, what is going on in Afghanistan is a civil conflict.
The last thing the insular Afghans want is Christians protecting them from their brethren. And our main interest in opiates originating overseas should be to dry up domestic demand through a variety of peaceful domestic initiatives.
The U. S. has never had significant consumer price inflation in the absence of a major war. If this one heats up, Treasuries should be sold and gold bought. For now, the wind-down in Iraq and the limited nature of U. S. involvement in the Af-Pak region is not sufficient to overcome the huge slack in the domestic economy. I watch Pak-ghanistan regularly, including a good local Pakistani free online daily, www.dawn.com.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Of Pirates and Pakistanis
In life and in the (small) subset of life known as investing, it is important to pay attention to other matters than "they" want you to watch. Thus, the so-far successful diversion of the public's attention to some AIG executives to cover up AIG's disclosure of its (the Government's) payment of tens of billions of dollars to counterparties for unclear reasons. On a bigger picture, everyone knows about the economic banana and the difficult financial position of the large financial companies. One of the areas that has largely receded from the consciousness of investors is, however, geopolitics.
It is thus worth pointing out how strong a correlation geopolitics, and especially military (mis)adventures, has with the economy and investing.
Here's a brief summary.
In a "relief rally" after the end of hostilities after WW I, the U. S. boomed. Unfortunately, Germany had been subject to literally unending "reparations", monies the U. S. "lent" it so that gold could flow to England and France. As this crisis came to a head in the early 1930s, Germany began to remilitarize and the world's financial system fell into chaos due in part to massive indebtedness similar to what has happened recently.
After the U. S. dominated a suddenly peaceful world (Korea excepted), the geopolitics were great for America. Its population had real physical needs, money and resources were plentiful and cheap, and the economy and stock market boomed.
The Dow Jones peaked, adjusted for inflation, in 1965, more or less exactly as LBJ pushed through both the Great Society programs and a major escalation of war in Viet Nam. Alone, the Great Society was not especially inflationary, but the prolonged and very expensive war broke the camel's back. The other major geopolitical event that worked against the U. S. was another Cold War-related event, the 1973 war between the U. S. proxy Israel and the Soviet Union Arab proxies, led to the oil embargo and the sharp recession of 1973-75. The Soviet Union was on the march, and the U. S. economy managed to grow only with the help of massive money-printing.
No one could know it at the time, but by 1982, the geopolitics were beginning to go the way of the U. S., and the stock and bond markets embarked on sustained rallies along with the real economy. By the triumph of the West with the breakup of the Soviet Union and conversion of most of Eastern Europe to capitalism, the 1990s were fated to be a time of prosperity. When technology in general, and the formerly military technology of the Internet started booming in the mid-1990s, the stage was set for one of the greatest stock and investment bubbles in history.
With the 9/11 attacks and the twin wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the geopolitics changed; all readers are familiar with recent political and market events.
Where are we now?
One the one hand, war against African pirates is a "Good War", and presumably a winnable one. Victory will increase corporate profits, increase national security, and certainly feel morally right. These sorts of wars cement American prestige and leadership, with the civilized world once again following our lead. USA! USA! (Obviously, execution of a successful plan is key to victory.)
On the other hand, there is a more important War going on in Pak-ghanistan (or, "Af-Pak" theater), which has the potential to be another Viet Nam. It is expensive enough to fight a war in a mountainous, almost roadless country of 25 million (Afghanistan); it is another to begin an aggressive drone war in a populous, nuclear-armed neighboring country.
If you want to understand Afghanistan, you should consider reading "Caravans", by James Michener. Great powers have quarreled over this tribal country for a long, long time. The people are far more conservative than Iraqis. The average American has no idea what life is like there, and really doesn't care.
EBR's investment advice: Watch what is going on in Pak-ghanistan closely to see how much it will or will not resemble another Viet Nam. Because "everyone" is watching the economic banana unfold, there is little your also watching it will do to provide you a competitive advantage in the investment front. Just as those who caught on early to the debt bubble (of which the housing bubble was the key part) were appropriately bearish on the economy and the markets, the smart money is going to be the money that correctly identifies trends that are not yet priced into the markets.
What goes on in North Korea is of little investment interest (absent war). If the stock market sells off allegedly due to some routine news item out of North Korea, that would tend to be a "buy" point.
On the other hand, America and its money were horribly harmed by a land war in Asia that Charles de Gaulle warned JFK against pursuing. One may have noticed little European enthusiasm at the recent London G20 meeting for the Obama ramp-up in Pak-ghanistan.
Victory by the U. S. against the Taliban/fundamentalists in the Af-Pak region will bring no great riches a la Arab oil or the productivity of the conquered Japan and Germany following WW II, but a draining war or a loss will be quite bad. Thus, EBR is concerned about the early risk-reward of the escalation from an investment standpoint, whether or not it is the "correct" strategy from a national security standpoint.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)