12-05-2018, 11:54 PM
*** 6-Dec-18 World View -- New head of US Central Command says Afghanistan war is unsustainable
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
****
**** New head of US Central Command says Afghanistan war is unsustainable
****
![[Image: g181205b.jpg]](http://Media.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g181205b.jpg)
An Afghan command and a US Special Forces soldier scan the horizon for enemy movement in Afghanistan, on May 24, 2018. (Military Times)
According to Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the incoming head of the US
Central Command, the death rate among Afghan government security
forces is unsustainable. He said he doesn’t know how long it will
take to develop an Afghan force capable of defending its own country.
Speaking at a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday,
McKenzie said that the war is currently stalemated:
<QUOTE>"They’re not there yet. If we left precipitously
right now, they would not be able to successfully defend their
country.
Their losses have been very high. They are fighting hard, but
their losses are not going to be sustainable unless we correct
this problem."<END QUOTE>
However, he did not spell out what changes are necessary to correct
this problem. Also, he said he doesn't know know how long it will
take to develop an Afghan force capable of defending its own country.
Long-time readers will not be surprised by this at all. In 2009, when
president Barack Obama announced a "surge" of troops into Afghanistan,
mimicking president George Bush's successful troop surge into Iraq, I
wrote that the Afghanistan troop surge would not be as successful as
the Iraq troop surge. The Iraq troop surge was to eject foreign
jihadists from Iraq, and it was successful because the Iraq Sunnis
also wanted to eject foreign jihadists from Iraq. ("Iraqi Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq (01-Apr-2007)")
But the Taliban are not foreign fighters. As I've explained many
times, Afghanistan's last generational crisis war was the extremely
bloody Afghan crisis civil war, 1991-96, which mostly pitted the
ethnic Pashtuns, who are Sunni Muslims and later formed the Taliban,
versus the Northern Alliance of Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks in northern
Afghanistan. Now, twenty years later, Afghanistan is in a
generational Awakening era, and a new young generation of Pashtuns is
coming of age, raised on stories their parents told them about the
atrocities committed by the Northern Alliance, and they're looking for
revenge.
But you don't have to know anything about generational history to
understand what's going on. You just have to understand that there
was an extremely bloody, violent civil war in 1991-96, pitting the
Pashtuns versus the Northern Alliance of Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks in
northern Afghanistan. And you have to know that the Taliban are
Pashtuns, and that young Pashtuns are looking for revenge for
atrocities committed in the 1990s.
That's why the government cannot possibly control the Taliban, and why
trying "peace talks" with the Taliban doesn't even make sense. Even
if the Taliban leaders agreed to some settlement, it would not satisfy
their sons and daughters, who are not going to be deterred in their
search for revenge. That's the way the world works.
The Taliban have repeatedly and consistently said that they will not
agree to any peace deal until after the Nato troops have withdrawn.
There are some 16,000 American and Nato troops in Afghanistan, acting
in a support role to the Afghan army. McKenzie said the U.S. and its
allies need to keep helping the Afghans recruit and train forces to
fight the Taliban’s estimated 60,000 troops. The 60,000 figure is
considerably higher than previous estimates, which were around 20,000.
Military Times and AP
****
**** Political opposition to Afghan strategy grows
****
At the Senate hearing, an angry Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich, said:
<QUOTE>"We’ve been at it 17 years, 17 years is a long time.
What are we doing differently when it comes to the Afghan security
forces that we haven’t done for 17 years while being focused on
this?"<END QUOTE>
McKenzie said that it's different this time because we have a key, new
strategy in Afghanistan: peace talks with the Taliban. I guess he's
forgotten numerous attempts at peace talks in the past, all of which
have failed for the reasons that I just gave. McKenzie said:
<QUOTE>"I don’t know how long it will take. I do know that
we’re working it very hard. I do know that they are making
improvements. I do know that today it would be very difficult for
them to survive without our and our coalition partners’
assistance. And we should remember that NATO and other nations are
with us on the ground in Afghanistan."<END QUOTE>
That last point is true. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says
that the Nato countries have reaffirmed their commitment to
Afghanistan's "long-term security and stability" despite mounting
Afghan casualties.
<QUOTE>"Sometimes there is an uptick, an increase in violence
because different parties try to gain the best possible position
at the negotiating table. So it may actually become worse before
it becomes better."<END QUOTE>
What this obscure statement apparently means is that the "uptick" in
violence is a GOOD thing because it means that the Taliban want to
gain an advantage before they negotiate peace.
As I've written in the past, there may be a dynamic going on.
President Donald Trump's foreign policy is totally baffling to the
mainstream media and most politicians, but as a I keep pointing out,
everything makes perfect sense once you understand that he believes
(correctly) that the US is headed for a world war against China and
Pakistan. So there's undoubtedly a larger purpose in not withdrawing
from Afghanistan. As war with China and Pakistan approaches,
president Trump wants to keep American troops active in Afghanistan,
and to continue to maintain several American military bases in
Afghanistan, including two air bases in Bagram and Kandahar
International Airport. These bases will be valuable in any future war
with China. Under these circumstances, having troops in Afghanistan
is what matters, whether the Taliban are defeated or not. Stars and Stripes and RFE/RL and Foreign Policy
Related Articles:
****
**** DJIA plunges 800 points on Tuesday
****
![[Image: g181205c.png]](http://Media.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g181205c.png)
Tweet from someone who lost everything in the 800 point plunge on Tuesday (ZeroHedge)
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) plunged 800 points on Tuesday.
The S&P and Nasdaq indexes fell by equivalent amounts. Undoubtedly
many people are like the person whose tweet is shown above who lost
his own life savings, but also the life savings of his parents in a
single day.
As I'm writing this on Wednesday evening, the Dow Futures Index are
down -250 points. Although it may recover in time for the market
opening on Thursday morning, this once again reminds us that a
full-scale stock market crash is not just possible -- it's absolutely
certain. It may happen this week, next month, next year, or
thereafter, but it's going to happen.
The S&P 500 price/earnings ratio is around 20, down from 25 a year
ago. The historical average for the P/E ratio is 14, meaning that the
stock market is in a huge bubble, and this huge bubble will have to
pop. The P/E ratio fell to the range of 5-6 three times in the last
century, in 1919, 1949 and 1982, and it's overdue to do so again.
When that happens, the DJIA will fall to around the 3000 range.
And let's not forget Bitcoin, which was the darling, trendy, highly
stylish investment of about a year ago. Bitcoin is an asset with
nothing backing it but hot air, and it could well become totally
worthless in the next few months.
In the time it's taken me to write that last two paragraphs, the Dow
Futures index has fallen further to -360. That's not to say that it
won't pop up again, and may even go positive by morning. But what
happened on Tuesday is very real, and it could happen to you or to
anyone. ZeroHedge
Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Afghanistan, Taliban,
Kenneth McKenzie, Gary Peters, NATO, Jens Stoltenberg,
China, Pakistan, Bagram, Kandahar International Airport,
Dow Jones Industrial Average, DJIA
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- New head of US Central Command says Afghanistan war is unsustainable
- Political opposition to Afghan strategy grows
- DJIA plunges 800 points on Tuesday
****
**** New head of US Central Command says Afghanistan war is unsustainable
****
An Afghan command and a US Special Forces soldier scan the horizon for enemy movement in Afghanistan, on May 24, 2018. (Military Times)
According to Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the incoming head of the US
Central Command, the death rate among Afghan government security
forces is unsustainable. He said he doesn’t know how long it will
take to develop an Afghan force capable of defending its own country.
Speaking at a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday,
McKenzie said that the war is currently stalemated:
<QUOTE>"They’re not there yet. If we left precipitously
right now, they would not be able to successfully defend their
country.
Their losses have been very high. They are fighting hard, but
their losses are not going to be sustainable unless we correct
this problem."<END QUOTE>
However, he did not spell out what changes are necessary to correct
this problem. Also, he said he doesn't know know how long it will
take to develop an Afghan force capable of defending its own country.
Long-time readers will not be surprised by this at all. In 2009, when
president Barack Obama announced a "surge" of troops into Afghanistan,
mimicking president George Bush's successful troop surge into Iraq, I
wrote that the Afghanistan troop surge would not be as successful as
the Iraq troop surge. The Iraq troop surge was to eject foreign
jihadists from Iraq, and it was successful because the Iraq Sunnis
also wanted to eject foreign jihadists from Iraq. ("Iraqi Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq (01-Apr-2007)")
But the Taliban are not foreign fighters. As I've explained many
times, Afghanistan's last generational crisis war was the extremely
bloody Afghan crisis civil war, 1991-96, which mostly pitted the
ethnic Pashtuns, who are Sunni Muslims and later formed the Taliban,
versus the Northern Alliance of Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks in northern
Afghanistan. Now, twenty years later, Afghanistan is in a
generational Awakening era, and a new young generation of Pashtuns is
coming of age, raised on stories their parents told them about the
atrocities committed by the Northern Alliance, and they're looking for
revenge.
But you don't have to know anything about generational history to
understand what's going on. You just have to understand that there
was an extremely bloody, violent civil war in 1991-96, pitting the
Pashtuns versus the Northern Alliance of Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks in
northern Afghanistan. And you have to know that the Taliban are
Pashtuns, and that young Pashtuns are looking for revenge for
atrocities committed in the 1990s.
That's why the government cannot possibly control the Taliban, and why
trying "peace talks" with the Taliban doesn't even make sense. Even
if the Taliban leaders agreed to some settlement, it would not satisfy
their sons and daughters, who are not going to be deterred in their
search for revenge. That's the way the world works.
The Taliban have repeatedly and consistently said that they will not
agree to any peace deal until after the Nato troops have withdrawn.
There are some 16,000 American and Nato troops in Afghanistan, acting
in a support role to the Afghan army. McKenzie said the U.S. and its
allies need to keep helping the Afghans recruit and train forces to
fight the Taliban’s estimated 60,000 troops. The 60,000 figure is
considerably higher than previous estimates, which were around 20,000.
Military Times and AP
****
**** Political opposition to Afghan strategy grows
****
At the Senate hearing, an angry Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich, said:
<QUOTE>"We’ve been at it 17 years, 17 years is a long time.
What are we doing differently when it comes to the Afghan security
forces that we haven’t done for 17 years while being focused on
this?"<END QUOTE>
McKenzie said that it's different this time because we have a key, new
strategy in Afghanistan: peace talks with the Taliban. I guess he's
forgotten numerous attempts at peace talks in the past, all of which
have failed for the reasons that I just gave. McKenzie said:
<QUOTE>"I don’t know how long it will take. I do know that
we’re working it very hard. I do know that they are making
improvements. I do know that today it would be very difficult for
them to survive without our and our coalition partners’
assistance. And we should remember that NATO and other nations are
with us on the ground in Afghanistan."<END QUOTE>
That last point is true. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says
that the Nato countries have reaffirmed their commitment to
Afghanistan's "long-term security and stability" despite mounting
Afghan casualties.
<QUOTE>"Sometimes there is an uptick, an increase in violence
because different parties try to gain the best possible position
at the negotiating table. So it may actually become worse before
it becomes better."<END QUOTE>
What this obscure statement apparently means is that the "uptick" in
violence is a GOOD thing because it means that the Taliban want to
gain an advantage before they negotiate peace.
As I've written in the past, there may be a dynamic going on.
President Donald Trump's foreign policy is totally baffling to the
mainstream media and most politicians, but as a I keep pointing out,
everything makes perfect sense once you understand that he believes
(correctly) that the US is headed for a world war against China and
Pakistan. So there's undoubtedly a larger purpose in not withdrawing
from Afghanistan. As war with China and Pakistan approaches,
president Trump wants to keep American troops active in Afghanistan,
and to continue to maintain several American military bases in
Afghanistan, including two air bases in Bagram and Kandahar
International Airport. These bases will be valuable in any future war
with China. Under these circumstances, having troops in Afghanistan
is what matters, whether the Taliban are defeated or not. Stars and Stripes and RFE/RL and Foreign Policy
Related Articles:
- Iraqi Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq (01-Apr-2007)
- Afghanistan's president Ghani announces ceasefire with Taliban (20-Aug-2018)
- Obama's Nobel Prize speech defends a 'just war' in Afghanistan (12-Dec-2009)
- Afghan Taliban launches multiple terror attacks, then declares farcical ceasefire (10-Jun-2018)
- Brief recent generational history of Afghanistan (25-Jul-2017)
****
**** DJIA plunges 800 points on Tuesday
****
Tweet from someone who lost everything in the 800 point plunge on Tuesday (ZeroHedge)
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) plunged 800 points on Tuesday.
The S&P and Nasdaq indexes fell by equivalent amounts. Undoubtedly
many people are like the person whose tweet is shown above who lost
his own life savings, but also the life savings of his parents in a
single day.
As I'm writing this on Wednesday evening, the Dow Futures Index are
down -250 points. Although it may recover in time for the market
opening on Thursday morning, this once again reminds us that a
full-scale stock market crash is not just possible -- it's absolutely
certain. It may happen this week, next month, next year, or
thereafter, but it's going to happen.
The S&P 500 price/earnings ratio is around 20, down from 25 a year
ago. The historical average for the P/E ratio is 14, meaning that the
stock market is in a huge bubble, and this huge bubble will have to
pop. The P/E ratio fell to the range of 5-6 three times in the last
century, in 1919, 1949 and 1982, and it's overdue to do so again.
When that happens, the DJIA will fall to around the 3000 range.
And let's not forget Bitcoin, which was the darling, trendy, highly
stylish investment of about a year ago. Bitcoin is an asset with
nothing backing it but hot air, and it could well become totally
worthless in the next few months.
In the time it's taken me to write that last two paragraphs, the Dow
Futures index has fallen further to -360. That's not to say that it
won't pop up again, and may even go positive by morning. But what
happened on Tuesday is very real, and it could happen to you or to
anyone. ZeroHedge
Related Articles
- Bitcoin bubble and China's Belt and Road bubble both appear to be crashing (28-Nov-2018)
- Wells Fargo receives laughable 'punishment' for massive criminal fraud (29-Sep-2016)
- 'The Big Short' - an infuriating movie about the financial crisis (26-Dec-2015)
- Reader comments on 'The Big Short' and the financial crisis (27-Dec-2015)
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Afghanistan, Taliban,
Kenneth McKenzie, Gary Peters, NATO, Jens Stoltenberg,
China, Pakistan, Bagram, Kandahar International Airport,
Dow Jones Industrial Average, DJIA
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
