Charlie Rose

Gelles  03/29/2012 04:26 AM Report

Argandewal 03/27/2012 03:40 PM -- as posted below -- is true enough. Which tells me General Allen is OK too. The error lies with the critics of what Allen had to say. Or not?

I'm thankful for Allen and hopeful too.

jason  03/27/2012 10:49 PM Report

US tries to be First One if not Number One here. no country, in the course of human history, has ever "won" any wars in Afghanistan. but more significantly, US is trying to introduce a form of government with

1. western concept of equality for women - this is a country where 90% of population are deeply religious and deeply believing in treatment women in traditional islamic laws.

2. democracy as in one person one vote. this is a country where 83% of males, 97% of females are illiterate.

3. prevent and interdict terrorism. this is a country does not even have the resources to patrol her own borders.

good luck!!!

Argandewal  03/27/2012 03:40 PM Report

However there is a corrupt and irresponsible government in power in Afghanistan and most of the international financial help isn't being used to rebuild Afghanistan,even though,the majority of the people live in incredibly better conditions compared to 10 years ago when the Taliban regime was in power. Over 90 percent of Afghans are happy for the international peace keeping forces (NATO). Afghans, especially those living in the villages and suburbs are being abducted by Islamic extremists(Taliban) who come from Pakistan, they are using Islamic faith as a weapon to manipulate and brainwash the minds of the uneducated suburban Afghans, telling them to go against NATO forces as they are ‘’infidels “ . In any case, if an Afghan wishes to support NATO forces, they get recognized by the Taliban as a traitor and simply kill them and their families and whomever they are related too.

India in recent years has improved greatly in economic and military power. Pakistan who is an enemy to India has lacked in competition and has fallen back greatly compared to its rival. Pakistan is trying to regain its position in the world by trying to expand its borders to Afghanistan to use its natural resources (which has cost over $ 4 trillion), land, and territory for strategic purposes. Pakistan is secretly at war with Afghanistan and the Pakistani fighters are simply known as Taliban. Recent intelligence by the CIA has shown that the Pakistani secret service ISI has funded the Taliban for many years and would continue to do so until its goals have been reached. If U.S and NATO want to be successful in Afghanistan, they must cut the snakes head off (ISI) metaphorically speaking or the war against the Taliban will never end, and many Afghans will continue to suffer due to such actions taken by Pakistan for its own greed.

As a result, if U.S doesn’t want to lose its reputation and dignity in the area and around the world:

1. Stop Pakistan’s support which directly helps the Taliban. (If Pakistan stops helping the Taliban, tomorrow there will be no Taliban in Afghanistan.)

2. Change the current corrupt and irresponsible Afghan regime to a responsible and qualified government, which will rebuild Afghanistan and create jobs for the Afghan people.

finalfantasytown  03/27/2012 08:16 AM Report

General Allen's mind is concretely formed like a bull. The communist party and people need bull army because of the instinct of herbivore.

It is very interesting that last year Spain has bade farewell to bullfighting.

Gelles  03/27/2012 06:32 AM Report

American NATIONALISM is the target of the critics of General Allen's pursuit of security in today's period of transition from anarchy, terrorism and Islamist ambition to a more democratic outcome.

NATIONALISM has a bad name, as does American EXCEPTIONALISM, because Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are dead; and we assume God, alone, killed their efforts to corrupt civilization: American power can be isolated from global events -- so the critics think.

If they are wrong, we would really pay through the nose. Well they are wrong.

Obama sits in the middle. I sit with John McCain. More American power will save lives on all sides. Some war may be necessary. But I do side with the left when they demand more democracy and less plutocracy.

learnerWP  03/26/2012 10:20 PM Report

What's with this guy? He's obviously blowing smoke. It's disgraceful. I don't know how somebody like that can live with himself. I DON'T BELIEVE A WORD.

CraigL  03/26/2012 03:58 PM Report

I can't believe a word John Allen says!

The Iraq invasion was based on lies, deciet, propaganda, fear, bigotry and deception, It's a fraud and, by any standard, a failure!

There has been NO Oversight, Trasnparency or Accountability!

The cost is never mentioned by those crying about the deficit and social programs.

I would ask Charly Rose to do some homework and nextime, ...dig into oversight, transparency accountability and the Fraud, profiteering, torture, secret prisons, rendition, Mercinaries, Oil Contracts, Cheneys secret meetings etc., AND HOW ABOUT AN ACCOURATE DEATH COUNT!

737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire

...its oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the world.

How Arrogant, "we understand how people feel" Let his home be invaded and his family be dragged out at gunpoint in the middle of the night by foreign forces... then lets see how he feels!

Last Words: Wage Peace!

Dasein  03/26/2012 02:11 PM Report

Such a "good war!"

HaimK  03/26/2012 12:09 PM Report

Hi is the Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan and he sounds no different than any of the Washington's politicians.

Recycled rhetoric of the 60's, but then if he had spoken his mind he would be out of a job.

Charlie should have pushed him a little harder. It could have been interesting.

REMant  03/26/2012 11:31 AM Report

Yes, well this is the line, and the same one we heard during Vietnam. Charlie asked all the right questions, some several times over. Perhaps the Taliban will never drive Americans out, but it seems reasonably certain that unless the govt reforms, and tribal and regional differences are reconciled, things will remain unresolved. Now, the general believes they can and will do this, but you will note that before Congress and again here he gave two quite different reasons for the NATO mission: to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a haven for terrorists, AND, to protect the people from Taliban terror or Taliban "darkness," but if they are always to be considered terrorists, and can live safely in Pakistan and cross the border freely, then it would seem the will be no end, ever.

Such "sanctuaries" were the reason for the Cambodia Incursion in the spring of 1971, to buy time to build up the ARVN so that US departure could remain on schedule, a decision made three years before, after Tet appeared to reveal that much of what had been said up to that time was inaccurate. In the end none of that mattered, tho if we had stayed in force, assuming the public would have put up with another half-million men overseas indefinitely, it might have.

To what end, however, was never made clear, as it isn't being now. The "domino" theory of halting the spread of Communism was most often offered as the reason. I wouldn't doubt something of the same is in the back of minds today, just changing the Communism to Muslim, the general feeling tho of historians like Williams and Kolko being that the real reason is the extension of markets under the guise of democracy.

Nor will it matter how many "Chieu Hoi's" are repatriated if these divisions are not healed. They will just fight independently in an eventual civil war. Filkins, the other day, said they were preparing for just this eventuality. We never found them particularly reliable in Vietnam. And if you believe that the Taliban will not win out in such a situation, then you may as well withdraw now and let it happen, for it would be far cheaper. And since I'm sure the admin finds that repugnant, there must be some sense of "nation-building" somewhere.

It is also not clear to me that all "the ppl" are all that unhappy with the Taliban. The "Phoenix program" or whatever they call it there now, was in Vietnam, and no doubt still is, counterproductive, but the reason why NATO has to fight at night, is because the enemy does, and if they are denied that capability things will deteriorate rapidly, and some early mornings "advisors" will wake up, like they did in Plieku, to be mowed down, or in Saigon to be blown up.

Of course, most ppl believe the president's setting of a date for exit was entirely for domestic political consumption, despite his commanders' past and present desires, and may turn out as elusive as that light at the end of the tunnel, tho I can well believe no one wants to talk about that, and if his Republican opponent is either of the leading candidates, they may not have to.

marvingates  03/24/2012 02:51 PM Report

The general commented on how the VA is doing such a great job with PTSD and benefits. MY case has been on appeal in one form or another for over 31 years. I haven't heard a word from the VA about any resolution to these issues. Only excuses. Most vets I know are having problems. Trying to paint a pretty picture to hide the issues is only making things worse. I've been treated poorly by the VA and I wish others would speak up so these problems can or would be addressed.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/24/2012 03:35 AM Report

The General says, Less than 100 of al Qaeda in Afghanistan but it does not take much to create a launching pad for international terrorism.

Yes indeed. They spend only a dollar and we counter with $7M dollars.

Who is NOT on the payroll yet? 100 al Qaeda and a few thousand Taliban? And yet how many billions just disappeared in Iraq?

May I also suggest passing out money at the local mosques?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/24/2012 03:26 AM Report

Yes General on Iraq contributing oil—when, when, when?!

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/24/2012 03:23 AM Report

General, when Charlie asked you about General Kayani of Pakistan I think you lost your poker face.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/24/2012 03:21 AM Report

Charlie asks, Are we engaged in nation building?

The General responds, I don’t think so. Not a new nation but trying to keep stability.

However, the General says earlier that Afghanistan has no strong central government and we need to leverage provincial, district, municipal levels of government.

Sounds like we better get to nation building like yesterday soldier and start building the nation with the Afghan equivalent of "Eagle Scouts". If you can find any.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/24/2012 03:15 AM Report

IEDs are the principal means of attack so how are the IEDs activated?

Cell phones? How is our blocking technology coming along?

How about explosion absorption devices?

How about drones that are flying/driving in front of the troops to see and activate IEDs?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/24/2012 03:13 AM Report

Charlie, to answer your question, enemy initiated attacks are DOWN 17% February 2012 vs February 2011.

http://www.isaf.nato.int/images//20120320_isaf_monthly_data.pdf

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/24/2012 03:11 AM Report

General, please click here:

http://www.isaf.nato.int/troop-numbers-and-contributions/index.php

The link takes you to the map and to the troop numbers per country but where are the numbers for Afghanistan?

General, will you add the number of Afghanistan troops somewhere?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/24/2012 03:08 AM Report

General, on the leadership page—why no Afghans listed as leaders?

http://www.isaf.nato.int/leadership.html

I would like to see some Afghan faces please.