Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 09 2019, @08:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the why? dept.

Documents Show U.S. Officials Misled Public on Afghanistan War

Documents show US leaders misled public on progress in Afghanistan War: report

Senior U.S. officials knowingly lied to the public about their progress throughout the 18-year war in Afghanistan, consistently painting a rosier picture of the state of the war than they knew to be true, according to a cache of documents obtained by the Washington Post.

In private interviews conducted by a watchdog that span the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations—which the Post obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request—U.S. officials frequently acknowledged a lack of understanding, strategy and progress in a war they regularly described publicly as being on the cusp of success.

“After the killing of Osama bin Laden, I said that Osama was probably laughing in his watery grave considering how much we have spent on Afghanistan,” retired Navy SEAL Jeffrey Eggers, a White House staffer in the Bush and Obama administrations, said in a private interview.

Interviewees also describe a deliberate disinformation campaign meant to spin discouraging statistics as evidence the U.S. was prevailing in the war.

“Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible,” Bob Crowley, an Army colonel and senior counterinsurgency adviser to U.S. military commanders in 2013 and 2014, said in an interview.

“Surveys, for instance, were totally unreliable but reinforced that everything we were doing was right and we became a self-licking ice cream cone,” he added.

In 2015, Ret. Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, who served as a top advisor on the war during the Bush and Obama administrations, told government interviewers, “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan — we didn’t know what we were doing,” according to the Post.

Lute went on to lament the deaths of U.S. military personnel that he blamed on bureaucratic entanglements between the State Department, the Pentagon and Congress.

Also at CNN.

The Afghanistan Papers - A Secret History of the War

A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.

[...]In the interviews, more than 400 insiders offered unrestrained criticism of what went wrong in Afghanistan and how the United States became mired in nearly two decades of warfare.

With a bluntness rarely expressed in public, the interviews lay bare pent-up complaints, frustrations and confessions, along with second-guessing and backbiting.


Original Submission #1, Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:43AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:43AM (#930941)

    They did, long before. Read about the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution [wikipedia.org] which set the stage for all of this.

    Essentially Ukraine has two very different groups within it. Ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians. The two groups don't tend to get along well in no small part because of WW2. Russians took horrific casualties defeating Nazi Germany. Ukraine took the opportunity to align themselves and collaborate with the Nazis. Crimea is primarily ethnically Russian. The democratically elected leader of Ukraine before the protests was Yanukovych. Yanukovych chose to start turning away from the EU and aligning Ukraine more with Russia. Following this event there were "protests" which many Ukrainians saw as an illegal foreign supported coup. The protests were ultimately successful and they put Turchynov in power and attempted to imprison the former president. Turchynov was the leader of the People's Front - a far right [ethnic Ukrainian] nationalist movement.

    Needless to say the coup had basically 0 support from the ethnic Russian regions in Ukraine, among them Crimea. So these regions now began protesting against the coup and leadership. This, in turn, led to the leadership of these regions declaring their intention to break off and join Russia following a referendum. This was mostly a formality because there was basically complete support for joining Russia (as later confirmed by Western pollsters including e.g. Gallup). And so Russia moved unmarked forces into the area to ensure the results of the referendum would be respected.

    As an aside, this is also why notions of "racism" in the US are so idiotic. Ukrainians and Russians are, on the surface, identical. They also speak nearly the same language - the languages are quite different but similar enough to ensure mutual that speakers of one or the other could converse with a speaker of the other, if they tried. They are effectively the same people, but the amount of animosity between them dwarfs any form of racism in the US. Skin color is a very distracting red herring that prevents us from ever tackling the real problem, which is cultural clashes.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:01PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:01PM (#931058) Journal
    Well, yes, that is the Russian propaganda version of what happened. You ignored the invasion of Crimea by Russia prior to said referendum and the peculiar absence of the considerably non-Russian minority from that vote.

    As an aside, this is also why notions of "racism" in the US are so idiotic. Ukrainians and Russians are, on the surface, identical.

    You do realize that there are Russians and Ukrainians in the US? And they don't so conflict in the US. The conflicts are driven by national interests not ethnicity.

    Skin color is a very distracting red herring that prevents us from ever tackling the real problem, which is cultural clashes.

    One doesn't resolve culture clashes by rationalizing tyranny.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @04:33PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @04:33PM (#931113)

      There was no "invasion" at any point in Crimea. Just to clarify, there were two big issues in Ukraine. In February after the coup, violent separatist movements broke out in eastern Ukraine around the Donbass region on the Russian border. This region has nothing to do with Crimea and is an entirely different issue. Around August Russia started providing direct (though unmarked) material support to the separatists. That conflict continues to this day, and Donbass is still a part of Ukraine. Crimea is an entirely different region in the south that's basically an island - they're connected to Ukraine through a tiny natural land bridge. What Russian presence there was positioned to ensure the referendum was able to be carried out without Ukraine simply stopping it by force of arms. Perhaps you might argue that was their right since Ukraine was their territory but on the other hand, would you not say that people have a right to self determination? If 80% of California wanted to secede and create their own little country, should they not be able to? As always, I am not asking rhetorical questions. I see that there are arguments for both sides, but I think people have more a right to decide their own destiny than a government has to "claim" them by self granted rights.

      As for the polls, everybody knew the referendum was going to pass by a landslide so there wasn't much point in participating if you didn't want the annexation. Nonparticipation could also be used to try to undermine the polls later (as we did). Regardless, the results stated by Russia have now been verified numerous times by various western agencies. This [forbes.com] article gives an overview of some of those polls. Gallup found 82.8% of all Crimeans stated that the decision to secede reflected the will of the people. 73.9% said it would make life better for them and their family, 5.5% said no.

      They also cover a German poll which found similar results. But they also asked an interesting question. They polled Crimeans on their perception of the honesty of the Ukranian media. 1% said they provide entirely truthful information, 4% said it was more often truthful than deceitful. Guess who's media representation of what happened in Crimea corresponds strongly with the Ukranian version? Russia has become the bogeyman since 2016 so it's easy to forget how regularly our media colludes when it comes to spreading propaganda for war, or otherwise furthering our geopolitical ends.

      ---

      The ethnic conflicts are caused because the Russians don't like what the Ukrainians are doing and the Ukrainians don't like what the Russians are doing. That was the point. Same issue in the US. There's no issue with e.g. blacks because they're black, the issue is a people that make up 13% of the population being responsible for the majority [fbi.gov] of murders with similar over-representation in many other forms of crime, particularly violent ones. That's a huge problem, probably attributable in no small part to 'hood culture' (in which I grew up). But you can't even critique this because doing so is labeled racism when it has nothing to do with race beyond the fact that e.g. blacks are disproportionately driven to these cultures. Ukraine and Russia will probably, sooner or later, sort out their issues - but that's only because they can actually focus on their issues instead of both sides just declaring the other racist.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 12 2019, @03:31PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 12 2019, @03:31PM (#931413) Journal

        There was no "invasion" at any point in Crimea.

        February 28, 2014 [ibtimes.com].

        Armed men of uncertain allegiance,” the New York Times called them in a dispatch from Simferopol, on Feb. 28: “Their military uniforms bore no insignia and it was not clear who they were or who was commanding them.”

        They were the mysterious figures who last Friday surrounded the main airport in Crimea, the Ukrainian autonomous region at the center of a standoff between Russian and Ukrainian forces that could escalate into war soon.

        But journalists on the scene didn’t take long to identify them as Russian soldiers. After all, elsewhere in Crimea armored personnel carriers with Russian insignia, as well as men wearing the uniform of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, had appeared. The Ukrainian air force base at Belbek had been surrounded by Russian soldiers.

        According to a Facebook post by Ukraine’s interior minister, Arsen Avakov, quoted by several Western media outlets, the men blocking the Simferopol airport may not have carried identifying insignia, but did not “hide their affiliation.”

        So, what was happening on the ground was clear: The Russians were taking over Crimea, although for now they have done so peacefully. The only shots reported so far have been Kalashnikov bursts in the air, fired by the soldiers surrounding Belbek as a warning to an approaching group of unarmed Ukrainians.

        But legally? Were the Russian troops in Simferopol acting outside of international law by not wearing insignia that identified their nation -- especially as the Kremlin reiterated over the weekend that it had not moved into Crimea? Was Ukraine’s president Oleksandr Turchynov justified in calling the men in Simferopol “terrorists with automatic weapons, judged by our special services to be professional soldiers”?

        That was written within a week of the invasion of which I spoke. When you're that wrong right out of the gate there's no point to writing any more. As to the referendum, who authorized it? Wikipedia alleges it was by the legislature of Crimea, but that was under Russian control [theguardian.com] at the time:

        Fears of a major regional conflict in Crimea pitting Russia against the west intensified on Thursday after pro-Russian gunmen seized the regional government and parliament building in a well co-ordinated military operation, while similar groups were on Friday morning controlling access to the airports of Simferopol and Sevastopol.

        Early on Friday morning about 50 armed gunman reportedly marched into Simferopol's airport after arriving in Kamaz trucks. They first cordoned off the domestic terminal and then moving on to other areas. Russia Today described them as similarly dressed and equipped to the "local ethnic Russian 'self-defence squads'" that seized the parliament and government buildings.

        [...]

        With gunmen controlling the building, Crimea's parliament voted to hold a referendum on the region's status on 25 May, the same day Ukraine goes to the polls in presidential elections. It also voted to sack the region's cabinet. The move puts the predominantly ethnic-Russian region on a collision course with Kiev's interim government and will fuel concern Ukraine is sliding inexorably towards break-up.

        What new lies shall we hear from you next?