The Misreported War in Afghanistan
Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 12:49AM Bottom Line Up Front: The war in Iraq isn't the only engagement misrepresented by the media. Progress in Afghanistan is also overlooked and misreported.
U.S. GEN Dan McNeill, now NATO commander in Afghanistan, sat down with Bill O'Reilly in that country and said the media isn't accurately portraying the successes of the war. GEN McNeill was commander of 18th Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, basically the daddy of the 82nd, 10th Mountain Division, etc., when we were at Bragg in 2000-2004.
GREAT VIDEO:
Apparently things are going much better in the war on terror in Afghanistan than is reported in the media. Go figure. On the Reilly Factor, McNeill described to Bill O’Reilly what he called “dramatic signs of progress”:
- development of national Afghan Army
- U.N. said 2-3% of Afghans in 2002 had health care; figure is 80-83% today
- more Afghan children are in school today than in the history of Afghanistan
O'Reilly brought some headlines from American newspapers saying Taliban attacks are escalating. McNeill's response:
“It’s confusing me as well, because the Taliban hasn’t done that much attacking. The international security assistance force and the American coalition has done all of the attacking.
“There’s a much better story here than is generally portrayed.”
Media bias?
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1395214
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (11)
However respectfully so, I disagree with the assessment conveyed.
Tried sending a trackback unsuccessfully.
Taliban resurgence from a lack of unified vision and strategy
Storm, you disagree with whose/what assessment?
Per the trackback, you can always click on "My Repsonse is on my own website" just above the area to enter your name when you comment and enter the info that way. It's essentially the same thing and is good if a trackback fails.
Amy, I disagree with the assessment that things are going well in Afghanistan. As for the TB, I didn't realize that there was an alternative method.
Thanks.
I trust GEN McNeill. We were quite familiar with him as he commanded 18th Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg when we were with the 82nd and I have no reason to doubt his assessment, but every reason to doubt the media's.
That may be the case, but I am not basing the point of view on the "media." I trust my sources, as I trust my own analysis of the situation (I know that there's no reason for you trust my analysis)...but when people like Doug Farah and others whose input and analysis I trust (for very good reason), I listen.
My concerns about A-stan revolve around 2 things: Yon's conviction that the billions the Taliban collects from the opium trade gives it strength and staying power which will outlast Western half-hearted involvement, and Karzai's deep and disturbing compromises with the warlordism of the traditional power structure which corrupts virtually every aspect of governance there.
Not to mention the fundamentalism of the Pashtun plurality which is insignificantly different from Talibanism.
The opium windfall profits are a clear sign of the weakness of the Afghan gov't. Karzai is IMO, lucky to still be alive. And strewn around my blog statements of my distrust of the Pashtun. While you won't necessarily see objectivity in the media, the recent Washington Post article and some of the related support material from Farah and other true experts (myself excluded of course) point toward a crumbling of the Karzai government. Furthermore, the concessions made by Musharraf to the Taliban on his side of the "border" only make stability in Afghanistan more tenuous.
Who is Doug Farah and what does he have to do with Afghanistan? What sources should be more trusted than the military personel who sacrifice their lives (in many ways) to give Afghans a stable country? There's no reason not to trust GEN McNeill. You simply do not like his answer and are looking for a second opinion. That doesn't mean his professional assessment is wrong.
Doug Farah is a respected CT expert. Doug writes extensively on Afghanistan and the geo-terror landscape. I didn't say I didn't like the General's answer and I am not looking for a second opinion (I have mine and those of experts already - I've probably written a dozen posts on Afghanistan, and another dozen on Pakistan in the last year or so). I think that the General's perspective is wrong. I think that Afghanistan is backsliding faster than Pakistan. Afghanistan hasn't been a good situation since almost the beginning. The Taliban was never eliminated. Many reports (not media) have the Taliban in control of large swaths of the country. The warlords have more influence than the central government. Aside from that, NATO has, by many accounts and opinions, fumbled the ball. A while ago I had a long running debate with "NATO guy" who insisted that the Taliban was gone, dead and buried. That having been said, there is an acknowledged difference of opinion between the military and intelligence folks re: Afghanistan.
Amy: If you don't know who Doug Farah is, how about Evan Kohlmann? Or NEFA? These are not that so-called "mainstream media" or liberal press. I'm not going to suggest a reading list, but FOX is pretty limited in perspective.
The point is that my position is that the NATO position of Afghanistan being in "good state" is belied not only by my own continuing analysis, but more importantly by non-media sources who are experts in the counterterrorism field.
I respect you and what you're doing. And you do a good job of getting yourself out there. Most of the time, I tend to agree with you. On this one...nope!