Ralph Peters: Wrong Mission

I'm a big fan of Ralph Peters and once again, in this NY Post op-ed, he comes out swinging. He doesn't think Washington, and the Miliatry High Command understand the Afghanistan situation. AFGHAN GRAVEYARD

As this column has pointed out repeatedly, Afghanistan's worthless in and of itself. Securing hundreds of premedieval villages means local progress at the cost of strategic paralysis. To fight a mobile enemy, we need to be hypermobile. The dirt doesn't matter.

That's where special-ops come in. Our efforts should concentrate on supporting our black-program professionals. It's their fight. We need fewer troops, but a clear vision and more guts.

McChrystal needs to question all the "givens." And he needs to dismantle the NATO pleasure-palace that only impedes the war effort. Our commitment must be streamlined, not fattened and diffused. We need to focus on what must be done, casting aside what just seems nice to do.

Getting it right in Afghanistan -- and across the frontier in Pakistan -- means digging fewer wells and forcing our enemies to dig more graves. I'll bet on McChrystal to get it right. If he's allowed to.

Abetting the Forces of Terror

Ralph Peters recommeneds that we dump Pakistan: Just walk away

... Move on to the integrity issue: We claim -- or used to claim -- that we're serious about combating terrorists and punishing their backers.

Yet, we've been abetting the forces of terror by supporting Pakistan unreservedly. Islamabad merrily sponsors terror attacks on India, knowing that America will step in and convince New Delhi not to retaliate.

Apart from the myriad Pak-backed terror strikes in Kashmir, we've seen gruesome attacks in New Delhi and, most recently, in Mumbai. Pakistan's intelligence services did everything but put up billboards announcing that they were behind the terrorists.

India prepared to strike back. But we stepped in every time.

As long as Pakistan's obsessed India-haters know there won't be any penalties for terrorism, they'll keep at it. The formula isn't hard to figure out.

Send Aid Money To Somalia?

Ralph Peters has some thoughts on recent foreign policy decisions from the Obama Administration. O'S FOREIGN FOLLIES

Our president was reluctant to authorize deadly force. Against pirates, for God's sake. Then, 24 hours after the Obama White House declared "Mission Accomplished," Somali pirates attacked another US-flagged ship.

This time, the pirates used rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns -- serious firepower.

Our response? The White House didn't send our Navy after the pirates. We're content that the attack was unsuccessful, with just some combat damage to our ship. Live and let live, folks.

Then, on Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced her solution to piracy: Send your tax dollars to Somalia in foreign aid.

That's rewarding criminality. It's tribute money. We're not asking for trouble. We're on our knees begging for it.

I'm going to be away from the keyboard most of the weekend. Have a good one!

Obama's Blundering in Turkey

Ralph Peter's points out the jaw dropping missteps that President Obama took in Turkey on his visit:

The Europeans don't want Turkey in their club. Because Turkey isn't a European state, nor is its culture European. And it isn't our business to press Europe to embrace a huge, truculent Muslim country suffering a creeping Islamist coup.

The Europeans were appalled by Turkey's neo-Taliban tantrum on-stage at last week's NATO summit. The Turks fought to derail the appointment of a great Dane, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as the new NATO secretary general. Why? Because he didn't stone to death the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Mohammed.

Which brings us to the even bigger problem: Obama has no idea what's going on in Turkey. By going to Ankara on his knees, he gave his seal of approval to a pungently anti-American Islamist government bent on overturning Mustapha Kemal's legacy of the separation of mosque and state.

Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party, the AKP, means headscarves, Korans, censorship and stacked elections. The country's alarmed middle class opposes the effort to turn the country into an Islamic state. Obama's gushing praise for the AKP's bosses left them aghast. Obama's embrace of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (now orchestrating show trials of his opponents) was one step short of going to Tehran and smooching President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Bush blundered his way through his diplomatic matters and it appears Obama is too. (Though in a much nicer way.) I wonder what on earth Obama was trying to accomplish with his talk? Ralph Peters compares him with Jimmy Carter.

It seems that his speech was made to be heard in Iran. Is this a move to try and open talks with them? Perhaps. Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure.

Ralph Peters: Our Cult of Negotiation Plays Into Fanatics Hands

Once again, Ralph Peters gives us westerners a smack in the face to tells us to wake up:

Now the terrorists have reached right across Pakistan to mount a frontal assault on a police academy. Give 'em credit -- that took guts.

And fervor. Fired by visions of serving an angry god, the terrorists are sure that they're bound to win, that all those of weaker belief will fall before them. Nothing short of death will make them quit.

The story isn't new. The US supported Muslim fanatics against the Soviets in Afghanistan. At the time, it seemed awfully clever. After all, the mujahedin were the baddest hombres in the Hindu Kush, willing to fight on after others quit.

Of course, we didn't take faith's power seriously. We still don't. Washington continues, frantically, to deny that belief has anything to do with religious terrorism.

(...)

Faith-inspired terrorists are not only willing but often impatient to die for their cause. That trumps working overtime in Washington.

When dealing with those who believe they're on a mission from their god, our cult of negotiations plays into their hands. They'll break any agreement, when the time is right. A deal isn't a deal. Unbelievers have no standing.

There still remains a misconception that jihadist fanatics are really just poor people, and if we send them enough aid money and hugs, they'll see the errors of their way and become good democratic, secular people.

Ralph Peters: Obama's Foreign Failures

Yesterday, I mentioned Obama's lack of street smarts when it comes to dealing with foreign governments. Today Ralph Peters piles on saying the administration "have set new records for instant incompetence."

China: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (you know that gal married to the Saudi hireling) crawled to Beijing to tell the party bosses that human rights don't matter. Our "relationship" is more important than freedom and human dignity.

Beijing's response? A staged military confrontation with an unarmed US Navy vessel; continued screw-America currency cheating; a renewed crackdown on dissidents and, yesterday, a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar.

Thanks, Hill. You're a sweetheart.

Pakistan: With viral corruption throughout and Islamist fanatics sweeping half of its territory, Pakistan's coming apart. Its Dem-adored prez tries to ban opposition parties and gut the judiciary. It has nukes and seethes with hatred of America. And Islamabad controls our primary supply route into Afghanistan, using it as an extortion tool.

Obama's response? Billions in new aid for Pak pols to pocket. We'd be better off handing the money to AIG to pay out more bonuses.

Afghanistan: Obama's Vietnam. Am I the only American who remembers that candidate Obama had a plan to capture Osama bin Laden and fix our previous "mistakes" in Afghanistan? President Obama doesn't have a clue.

Iran: Obama tried to reach out, to talk. After all, talking got him to the White House. But America-bashing is what keeps Iran's leaders in office, it's their political essence. After 30 years of fierce hostility, hasn't anyone figured out that the senior mullahs need us as an enemy? Without the Great Satan America to blame, they'd have some real explaining to do to their homies. So O got the left-hand finger.

He wanted to chat with the Taliban, too. They told him he could stick it where the sun don't shine.

He is dead on with Iran. For me, Ralph Peters' Wednesday column is always "must read." Even if I disagree with a lot of what he says.

Listen To Terrorists

After the 9-11 terrorist attacks, I found it a little disturbing that many in the west were quick to make excuses as to why the act was perpertrated. Ralph Peters asks us to listen to what the terrorists say first:

Yet, no matter how fiercely our enemies declare that their faith compels them to kill, our elected and appointed officials continue to insist that the terrorists don't understand themselves - that they're really driven by economic factors or our own foreign-policy missteps, that their savage interpretation of Islam is only a ploy . . .

Shouldn't we pay just a little attention to what our enemies say about themselves?
Radical Islam isn't just a smokescreen. Jihad is real. And it ain't about who got the Coca-Cola franchise in Khartoum.

As I seethe through DC meetings (always careful to wash thoroughly afterward), I'm continually disheartened by the contortions of "experts" determined to prove that enemies who regard death as a promotion aren't really devout, that they just need hugs and massive amounts of aid.

(...)

In the Greater Middle East, even lackadaisical Muslims have been molded by the legacy of 13 centuries of Islam. Thus Mom thinks it a splendid thing that her son strapped on a bomb and became a martyr by murdering 40 innocents in a market.

Her culture admires that "sacrifice." Ours doesn't.

Listen to the Gitmo Five. Unlike our Washington pols, they have intellectual integrity. They're telling us honestly who they are and why they seek to kill us.

Our response? "They don't know what they're talking about."

All the Trouble in the World

I'm a big fan of Ralph Peters. His manic style makes me think I should consider coke and steroids, grounded with a touch of smooth scotch to be able to write like him. (Talent would help as well.) Here he is in the New York Post about his concerns with the global crisis. (article)

Pakistan? A bad idea in 1947, it's a worse idea now. Home to the Islamic bomb and the world's safest haven for terrorists, this bankrupt, dysfunctional country is the strategic bookie's odds-on favorite to pose the greatest threat to global security in this generation (there's competition, though, so spread your bet - win, place or show).

Don't discount the possibility of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, either. India would win and move on, licking its brutal wounds, but Pakistan would dissolve into an Afghanistan without the charming scenery.

Then there's China, virtually a continent unto itself. For over a decade, I've argued that we should worry more about a failing China than a successful one (although the latter poses problems, too). The speed of China's uneven transformation shattered the age-old architecture of a society once so robust even Mao couldn't break it completely.

If you want a feel for where China could go, re-read "The Grapes Of Wrath," multiply the Okies by many millions, worsen their lot, then take away the Joad Family's jalopy - but give them arms. As a minimum, we'll witness grim repression.

Ralph Peters: Disneyworld on the Kabul River

Ex-US military intelligence officer Ralph Peters, comes out punching with his latest assessment of the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation. If you want nuance, read White House press releases. If you want the straight goods, go to to this (article)

After taking apart al Qaeda's base network and punishing the Taliban, we should have left the smoking ruins. This should have been a classic punitive expedition: We're not obliged to rehabilitate foreign murderers.

As for those who exclaim that "We would have had to go back!" - well, so what? Had we needed to hammer Afghanistan again in 2007 or 2008, that still would've been cheaper in blood (ours and the Afghans') and treasure than trying to build a "rule of law" state where no real state ever existed.

Staying left us with criminally vulnerable logistics - ever the bane of campaigns in the region. The Brits and the Soviets both learned the hard way that superior fighting skills don't suffice in Afghanistan: You need dependable, redundant supply lines.

(...)

They also want the new US administration to multiply foreign-aid bribes. (There isn't enough cash left in the country for Pakistan's elite to steal.)

Our response? We're paying up. Plus, dumber than dirt, we're turning to the Russians for an alternate supply line - after they bullied the Kyrgyz government into ending our access to a vital airbase north of the Afghan border.

But the central problem is the blind-alley mission. We kidded ourselves that we could conjure up a functioning rule-of-law state in the obstinately lawless territory known as Afghanistan, whose various ethnic groups hate each other unto death.

Instead of setting a realistic goal - mortally punishing our enemies - we decided to create a model democracy in a territory that hasn't reached the sophistication of medieval Europe.

Wow! Say what you want, but this is the free press in action. This is some of the best writing out there. I'm going to have to look into buying his book.

Tonight on CBC, President Obama was interviewed by Pete Mansbridge. On the Afghan mission, Obama talked about the need for using "diplomacy" and "development" as opposed to the merely, "military solutions." He should read Ralph Peters.

Ralph Peters: Planet Taliban

Ralph Peters, a former US army intellegence officer, gets creative in trying to describe the situation in Afghanistan. As he points out, US military and intelligence leaders are trying to project their values onto the Afghans, and therefore can never understand them. (read)

Regarding Planet Afghanistan, we still hear the deadly cliché that "all human beings want the same basic things, such as better lives and greater opportunities for their children." How does that apply to Afghan aliens who prefer their crude way of life and its merciless cults?

When girls and women are denied education or even health care and are executed by their own kin for minor infractions against the cult, how does that square with our insistence that all men want greater opportunities for the kids?

(...)

These alien tribes seek to destroy physical objects and systems valued on Planet America. They perceive time differently. They treat other life forms more harshly than we do. Their own lives are shorter, with different arcs. They quite like our weapons, though . . .

The point isn't to argue that Afghans are inferior beings. It's just that they're irreconcilably different beings - more divergent from our behavioral norms than the weirdest crew member of the starship Enterprise.

No Clear Goals or Strategy in Afghanistan

Ralph Peters has an excellent op-ed in the New York Post today. I don't agree with everything he says but the bottom line is important. Vietnam-like the US seem to be fighting without a big picture strategy and are not setting goals.

Will Afghanistan be President Obama's Vietnam, with Pakistan as Cambodia on steroids?

I like that line: "Pakistan as Cambodia on steroids."

The bitter truth (as in Vietnam) is that we still haven't decided what we really want to achieve. We babble about nation-building where there's no nation to build, just a premedieval mosaic of tribes that hate each other. And the Taliban are homeboys.

We want Afghans to be like us. They never will be. (Good morning, Vietnam!)

If we want to alter the strategic environment amid a foreign population, we must be clear on three things: what we want to achieve, what the target population wants - and how much of what we want that population's willing to accept.

Washington is vague and naive on all three points.

Another 30,000 US troops? Fine. As long as they have clear, achievable missions. More nonmilitary aid? OK. Tell us specifically what it will accomplish. And mark the bills.

We can't bear any more of the Bush-Clinton-Bush approach of sending troops and mountains of aid in the nebulous hope that something good will happen.

Can anyone in the Obama administration articulate what we intend to achieve in Afghanistan? The Bush folks couldn't. I doubt this bunch can either.

I agree with most of what he says, but later he thinks we should fight tougher and meaner. This is true but then you run into the "we had to destroy her to save her" paradox.

I've been posting a lot on this issue recently because I feel the issue is being swept under the rug by the government. Recently, diplomat Richard Holbrooke was appointed by Secretary of State Clinton as special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. At the press conference he was asked about the Pakistan issue, to paraphrase what he said: "That's a complicated issue that I can't get into." Oh.

The lessons of Vietnam are within recent memory, was nothing learned by them? The one lesson they did learn was to stifle the press. This is why this conflict has dragged on so long before people started noticing that it wasn't going well.