[WaPo] U.S. officials misled public about Afghan war, confidential documents reveal

[Anonymous Bosch]

I think this may well be one of the most important pieces of journalism I've read in quite some time, so I strongly encourage everyone to read the following article in full:

AT WAR WITH THE TRUTH
U.S. officials constantly said they were making progress. They were not, and they knew it.

Insiders detail what went wrong in longest armed conflict in U.S. history

• For nearly two decades of fighting in Afghanistan, U.S. leaders have sounded a constant refrain: We are making progress. They were not, documents from government interviews show, and they knew it.
• The Post obtained records from more than 400 of the interviews after a three-year legal battle. The documents reveal that people who were directly involved in the war could not shake their doubts about the strategy and mission.

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.

The documents were generated by a federal project examining the root failures of the longest armed conflict in U.S. history. They include more than 2,000 pages of previously unpublished notes of interviews with people who played a direct role in the war, from generals and diplomats to aid workers and Afghan officials.

It's utterly galling to contemplate all of the blood and treasure wasted on such a reckless facade, though hardly surprising.

[Isgrimnur]

[hepcat]

Fantastic read. Thanks!

[Holman]

Time to quote one of the only pithy things I've ever said here.

Gorbachev: Afghanistan is America's Afghanistan.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's utterly galling to contemplate all of the blood and treasure wasted on such a reckless facade, though hardly surprising.

Wasted? Several people got very rich off that war. Plus all those Pentagon budgets got beefed up. Isn't that what war is all about?

[malchior]

Can you imagine how corrupt we would be if we dumped $3M a day into infrastructure? This was a nightmare averted.

[Kraken]

Having only read part 1 so far, I wish I could muster some shock or outrage. Nothing there surprised me. Will read the other five parts later.

[El Guapo]

Ok ok, I'm sure that the *next* counterinsurgency war waged by the U.S. will be well done and the relevant military leaders will be completely honest at all times. Third time's the charm.

[Grifman]

It's utterly galling to contemplate all of the blood and treasure wasted on such a reckless facade, though hardly surprising.

Wasted? Several people got very rich off that war. Plus all those Pentagon budgets got beefed up. Isn't that what war is all about?

The Pentagon really doesn't fight wars for budgets. The money for wars generally goes into operations - food, fuel and ammunition - and invariably cuts into funding for more better ships/planes/tanks, etc.. That latter is what general and admirals would prefer money would go to. No, all the operational money wouldn't go to hardware, but it does crowd out money for hardware.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's utterly galling to contemplate all of the blood and treasure wasted on such a reckless facade, though hardly surprising.

Wasted? Several people got very rich off that war. Plus all those Pentagon budgets got beefed up. Isn't that what war is all about?

The Pentagon really doesn't fight wars for budgets. The money for wars generally goes into operations - food, fuel and ammunition - and invariably cuts into funding for more better ships/planes/tanks, etc.. That latter is what general and admirals would prefer money would go to. No, all the operational money wouldn't go to hardware, but it does crowd out money for hardware.

The generals and admirals don't authorize spending (or wars), it's not about what they want.

Military budgets are feeding troughs. Infrastructure money is as porky as hardware money. Oink oink.