Analysis of the Obama Af-Pak war strategy

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

To begin with, I was impressed by the sober tone and frank assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan by President Obama. There was none of the jingoistic American cowboy crap for which the Bush-Cheney regime is infamous. He spoke to his audience of cadets and to Americans like intelligent adults. For this he is to be commended.

That said, one does not have to agree with every conclusion drawn by the president in his speech.

One certainly should not be swayed by the "post game show" media villagers and Beltway bloviators promoting their media conventional wisdom after the speech. Where were these newly minted cynics during the eight years they were actively cheerleading for the Bush-Cheney regime? And as if on cue, the right-wing media predictably went ballistic: "he didn't use the word victory," or "evildoers." Jingoism is their stock in trade.

The first part of the president's speech was a recitation of how we got into the war in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the president began his timeline with the terrorist attacks on 9/11 for dramatic effect. America's role in Afghanistan is far more complex.

American involvement in Afghanistan goes back at least to the support of the Mujahideen against the pro-Soviet Afghan government in the 1970s, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. This became known as the "Reagan Doctrine," under which the U.S. supported anti-Soviet resistance movements. Reagan himself called the Mujahideen "freedom fighters."

The Mujahideen attracted a number of foreign fighters from the Muslim world, including the son of a wealthy Saudi Arabian — Osama bin Laden. He became a prominent organizer and financier of an all-Arab islamist group of foreign volunteers known as "Afghan Arabs" in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was actually portrayed as an heroic figure in American media at the time. He was supported by the U.S.

The Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989 after its puppet regime in Afghanistan was deposed. The Soviet Union itself collapsed in 1991 under the financial burden of its military adventurism (a lesson yet to be learned by the U.S.), and Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of perestroika (reconstruction) and glasnost (transparency in government, individual freedoms).

The Mujahideen turned to fighting each other for control of Afghanistan in a civil war. A new radical organization which became known as the Taliban was backed by Pakistan's intelligence agency (ISI). Pakistan sought to expand its sphere of influence in the region to Afghanistan in its never-ending conflict with India.

In 1996, the Taliban backed by Pakistan and Osama bin Laden's Afghan Arabs, now known as al Qaeda, defeated the Mujahideen militias, who later became known as the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

As everyone knows by now, it was the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia to fight Iraq in the Gulf War (1991) that Osama bin Laden asserts turned him against the United States. Osama bin Laden's years of support for the eventual leaders of the Taliban government of Afghanistan, backed by Saudi money and Pakistan's intelligence agency (ISI), gave him a safe haven base of operations in Afghanistan.

What is important to remember is that after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S. abandoned the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, setting the stage for the above events. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney was largely responsible for the policy of neglect towards Afghanistan. Had the U.S. engaged in "nation building" at that time – so despised by Dick Cheney – the course of recent history may have been dramatically different. In all fairness, the Clinton administration continued Cheney's policy of neglect towards Afghanistan in its first term, only turning its attention to al Qaeda as a terrorist organization during its second term.

For those who believe that the U.S. can simply "declare victory and leave," as it did after the Soviets left Afghanistan, this recent history demonstrates that neglect of this region can prove deadly.

The next portion of President Obama's speech is a recitation of the Bush-Cheney regime's failure in Afghanistan and the distraction of the unnecessary war of choice with Iraq. Remarks by the President:

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan.  Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels.  A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

* * *

But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

* * *

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq.  When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.  And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. . .

This is a direct criticism of Dick Cheney who was the architect of the war with Iraq, and who is responsible more than any other individual for the failed policy in Afghanistan. President Obama also directly responded to Dick Cheney and his enablers in the right-wing media regarding his "dithering" on the decision regarding Afghanistan:

Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people — and our troops — no less.

This is a big "f#?k you, Dick."

Admiral Mike Mullen backed up President Obama's recitation of the Bush-Cheney regime's failure in Afghanistan and refuted criticism yesterday from that other architect of failure in Afghanistan, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In testimony before Congress on Wednesday, Admiral Mullen said:

"In my view when you under-resource an effort for an extended period of time, when you, in many ways, starve an effort, the impact – and I don't just mean with forces, because we've done it with training, we've done it intellectually, we've done it diplomatically, politically, you name it – we were focused on the other war [in Iraq] and that was the priority." 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Wednesday, December 2

This is a big "f#?k you, Don."

And let's not forget that Donald Rumsfeld was in charge when the Department of Defense made the critical mistake not to send American forces into Tora Bora after al Qaeda and the Taliban were routed, allowing them to escape into Pakistan. Senate report: Bin Laden was 'within our grasp':

Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.

The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.

The report: http://foreign.senate.gov/

An argument can be made that the war in Afghanistan, from the perspective of the Afghan people, was won quickly and decisively — in 2001. The brutal Taliban regime was overthrown and the Taliban and its al Qaeda supporters were forced to flee into neighboring Pakistan, their patron. The Afghans selected Hamid Karzai as interim president in a Loya Jirga in June 2002, and established a new form of government for Afghanistan. Karzai was elected president in October 2004. From the Afghan perspective, this was "mission accomplished." They were on the road to self-determination. The Afghans could reasonably ask, "why are you still here?"

As a result, Americans have gone from being liberators to occupiers in the eyes of Afghans in a region of the world that is fiercely independent and that has resisted foreign occupation since the days of Alexander the Great. Afghanistan has a well-earned reputation for being the place where empires go to die.

I don't get the sense that our military leaders fully appreciate this well-documented history. They appear to be adherents of "American exceptionalism" and a belief in military might. This is Neoconservative think.

They cannot explain how the military-industrial-congressional complex, whose annual budget exceeds that of every other nation in the world combined, has been unable to defeat a relatively small number of lightly armed insurgents after more than eight years of occupation and war. Americans rightly question how the most powerful military in the world is being stymied by a bunch of guys with AK-47 rifles hiding in caves.

The answer of course is that the Taliban enjoys popular support among the people of Afghanistan who see the ineffective and corrupt government of Hamid Karzai as no better than what they experienced under the brutality of the Taliban. It may not be accurate or reality, but we cannot dismiss the perception of the Afghan people. And the Taliban are their neighbors and fellow tribesmen, not a foreign power occupying their country. This is the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" axiom at work.

When President Obama said "we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency" he is mistaking the relatively small number of armed Taliban insurgents for the broader popular support of the Taliban. The Taliban is doing a better job than the ineffectual and corrupt Karzai government at winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. We are losing the battle for hearts and minds. Propping up the ineffectual and corrupt government of Hamid Karzai is a fool's errand. On this one point, it is reminiscent of Vietnam.

The next part of President Obama's speech has attracted the most commentary:

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — General McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.

Post-speech commentators from the left (e.g., Rachel Maddow) and the right (e.g., Mary Matlin) have cited this passage as evidence that President Obama is continuing the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war — going to war before threats emerge and pose an imminent threat to the U.S. I believe this reflects the bias of the commentators looking for anything to support their preconceived views.

President Obama directly rejected the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war later in his speech by addressing the Afghan people directly:

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

And in this later passage:

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated President Obama's rejection of the Bush Doctrine in testimony before Congress on Wednesday:

"Well, Senator Graham, I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving, but what we have done-and I think it was an appropriate position for the president to take-is to signal very clearly to all audiences that the United States is not interested in occupying Afghanistan, we are not interested in running their country, building their nation. We are trying to give them the space and time to be able to build up sufficient forces to defend themselves." 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Wednesday, December 2

President Obama's rejection of the Bush Doctrine is what has Neoconservatives like Dick Cheney and Sen. John McCain pitching a fit. They believe in a Pax Americana empire and American military dominance through client states. Military superiority and domination are essential elements of the Bush Doctrine. Leaving is never an option. Hence, Sen. John McCain was first out of the box to complain about setting an "arbitrary date" for an exit strategy in Afghanistan. President Obama addressed Neconservatives like Cheney and McCain in his speech:

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

It was the Bush administration which adopted a time table for withdrawal from Iraq, approved by both the governments of Iraq and the U.S. U.S., Iraqi Negotiators Agree on 2011 Withdrawal – washingtonpost.com (U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011.) The chicken little "the sky is falling" predictions from Neoconservatives like Senator John McCain and his BFF Senator Lindsey Graham have proved to be false. John McCain has no credibility on this issue.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice addressed this Bush Doctrine analogy directly as posed to her by Rachel Maddow on Wednesday's program 'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, December 2:

MADDOW: In terms of Afghanistan, specifically, if there are only very limited elements of al Qaeda there, if it is to prevent future safe havens for the Taliban and thereby, eventually, for al Qaeda in Afghanistan, is this a Bush doctrine war? Is this a preventative war to stop the threat that doesn't exist today?

RICE: No.

MADDOW: One from emerging in the future?

RICE: Absolutely not because the threat exists. It has manifested itself in the killing of 3,000 people here on 9/11. It's manifesting itself repeatedly in plots that we've recently just disrupted here in the United States. They were hatched in this border area to again.

MADDOW: Border area of Afghanistan?

RICE: Of Afghanistan and Pakistan, along that border. Well, it is a porous border, as you well know, having looked at this. Yes, there are different countries. Yes, we have very different approaches and strategies to them, but there is nothing different about that area. It is completely porous and people and fighters can and do move freely across that border.

And so, as we work to eliminate the safe haven in Pakistan, it's vitally important that the Taliban, which has nurtured and supported al Qaeda in Afghanistan, not gain control and not be able to establish large swaths of authority in the country in which al Qaeda can again have a safe haven.

President Obama is not launching a preemptive war of aggression based upon speculation as Bush did in Iraq. We are well into the ninth year of war in Afghanistan. We were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11, and they are committed to doing so again. The Taliban is the patron of al Qaeda; they are inextricably linked. There is nothing hypothetical or speculative about their desire or capability to attack U.S. interests around the world. They pose a clear and present danger to U.S. interests.

This is particularly true in Pakistan. In a worst case scenario, the Taliban with the assistance of elements within the Pakistan government could overthrow the Pakistan government in a coup d'état and gain access to its nuclear arsenal, despite assurances from the Pakistan government that this is not possible, and despite assurances from the U.S. government that we have special forces units on standby to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It is not difficult to imagine in this worst case scenario that it could escalate into a nuclear preemptive first strike by a nervous India, or by the United States. When the telemetry of nuclear missiles are being tracked by Pakistan's neighbors in China and Russia, things could quickly spiral out of control. Given the current state of affairs in Pakistan, this worst case scenario is not all that far-fetched.

Pakistan is our supposed ally. But it was Pakistan that created the Taliban and nurtured it and al Qaeda for its own political ends. And Pakistan, until only recently, was reluctant to move against the safe havens in western Pakistan. Pakistan entered into a series of non-aggression pacts with the Taliban over the years that essentially ceded large swaths of Pakistan to Taliban control. It was the wave of terrorist attacks in recent years against the Pakistan government itself that finally made the government realize it had created a monster that now wanted to destroy its creator. The recent efforts by the Pakistan military may be too little, too late. And there is always the uneasy suspicion that Pakistan's intelligence agency (ISI) remains a patron of the Taliban and al Qaida.

The U.S. chose not to invoke the doctrine of "hot pursuit" to pursue al Qaeda and the Taliban into western Pakistan after they escaped from Tora Bora. There is no evidence that the U.S. sought permission from our supposed ally Pakistan to insert U.S. forces into western Pakistan to cut off the escape routes into Pakistan. Had the U.S. gone "all in" using the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force in 2001 instead of the minimalist approach of Donald Rumsfeld, there would have been a quick and decisive end to al Qaeda and the armed elements of the Taliban. The war would have been over, and Afghanistan and Pakistan likely would not be threatened today by a resurgent Taliban.

President Obama is left with cleaning up the mess left behind by the gross incompetence of the Bush-Cheney regime. There are no good options, and no action may prove effective in the long term. But this is the plan approved by President Obama after extensive consultation with military and diplomatic leaders:

Our overarching goal remains the same:  to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan.  We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven.  We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.  And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest possible pace — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies.  Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility — what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.  Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul.  But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction.  And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable.  And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

* * *

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development.  We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

As I said earlier, propping up the ineffectual and corrupt Karzai government is a fool's errand. Karzai has little popular support. But Karzai will control our fate under this plan.

There is no reason to have any confidence that Karzai will change his ways. If President Obama is serious about holding "ineffective or corrupt" leaders accountable it must begin with Karzai and his brother. Afghanistan needs new leadership, but it must be effected by the Afghans themselves under their constitution.

It is my understanding that CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus's counter-insurgency strategy of a population-centric approach is to be used. General Petraeus’s “new thinking” emphasizes above all the protection of civilians over and above force projection – a radical turnaround in the way American forces are used. Instead of technology and firepower, the emphasis has been on bottom-up local security. His latest Counter-insurgency Guidance (published 8 July 2008) includes instructions like “Secure and serve the Population,” “Live among the People,” “Promote Reconciliation,” “Walk,” “Build Relationships,” “Employ money as a weapons system,” “Empower subordinates.” American Military Strategy: New Thinking and Complications – La vie des idéesThere are discussions that the U.S. will bypass the Karzai government to deal directly with local tribal leaders who are more influential and effective. This is certain to cause a rift between the U.S. and the Karzai government.

Strengthening Afghanistan's security forces is a tall order. Afghanistan is one of the poorest and least literate countries. Loyalties are to one's tribal clan. I have read reports that up to 25% of security forces already trained have abandoned their positions for various reasons. Building a professional, loyal and competent security force under these circumstances and conditions is unlikely to be achieved in 18 months.

The civilian strategy of rebuilding Afghanistan after more than 30 years of war is even less likely to be achieved in 18 months. The nations of the world are unlikely to invest in a country like Afghanistan. An agricultural policy intrigues me. An agricultural policy based on the U.S. model with direct payments to farmers to grow certain crops, price supports, access to international markets, a commodities exchange market, etc., could go a long way to weaning Afghanistan away from growing opium, the primary source of revenue for the Taliban. This means we would be subsidizing Afghanistan's farmers, but for how long? And President Karzai's brother is the reputed kingpin in the opium trade. The uncertainty of continued subsidies, corruption and traditional practices are likely to overwhelm any effective agricultural policy.

Pakistan is critical. Hopefully Pakistan now understands that we share a common enemy. Pakistan created this monster, now it must destroy its monster. The problem is that Pakistanis resent the U.S. for its incursions into Pakistan using predator drones, often with innocent civilian "collateral damage." Pakistan's suspicion of the U.S. prevents it from permitting U.S. forces into Pakistan. Militarily, a joint U.S./(Allied)-Pakistan offensive into the Taliban controlled western provinces of Pakistan to squeeze the Taliban in the middle and destroy them would seem to be the optimal approach. But despite a wave of terrorist attacks in Pakistan, the Pakistani people remain opposed to a U.S. presence in Pakistan. Such a move could even topple the Pakistan government.

We are forced to rely on Pakistan to hold up its end of the bargain. Given the history of Pakistan's intelligence agency (ISI) supporting and nurturing the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the demonstrated poor performance of its military, I have little reason to feel optimistic.

At best this is a short-term plan to buy some time and to stabilize conditions on the ground while waiting to see how things shake out. There will be adjustments and modifications to the plan in response to changing conditions on the ground. Secretary of Defense Gates testified Wednesday that there will be an assessment conducted beginning in December 2010 before going forward with the troop reductions scheduled to begin in July 2011. If there is no demonstrable sign of success, I suspect that Congress will move to cut off funding for the war as it did during the latter years of the Vietnam war.

President Obama said in his speech, "If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow." He tied our national security to our economic security and our ability to pay for our military commitments. President Obama may yet have to devise an honorable way to "declare victory and leave" based upon these considerations.

Something a Neoconservative ideologue like President John Sydney McCain would never, ever consider.