Why are we in Afghanistan?
I do not know what to do about Afghanistan. Though I was in high school when this question arose about another war, I did not know what to do about Vietnam either, but I did learn a few things watching what happened and reading about it for many years since.
And it is this: deciding what to do is not helped by politicians announcing what they would do or suggesting that anything other than saluting and doing exactly what some field commander is treasonous, wimpy or surrender. What follows is not for those of you, admirable though your sentiments may be, for whom war is never warranted. This is not for those who believe---who still believe---that the United States should pretend the rest of the world has nothing to do with us. It is definitely not for those who think there is nothing about Afghanistan that should be of concern to those of us living safely over here.
You are entitled to your opinion and in some ways I respect how you come to these views, if that is anything other than simple reflex. I do not agree with them, anymore than, had I been alive in the 1930s, I would like to think I would have urged American involvement in the European mess before our involvement was forced upon us. (That reminds me to note, by the way, that Pat Buchanan, mirroring the views of his 1930s counterparts, is one of those who see nothing of importance for us in Afghanistan. That should be enough to convince you how wrong a view it is, but suspect it does not.)
Well before 9/11 we knew what the Taliban were all about. We heard about ancient Buddhist shrines being destroyed. We knew of the systematic torture of their opponents, and the gross subjugation of women. We saw the evil there, but as in Darfur and Serbia and Cambodia well before that and so on, we did nothing. There was no oil in any of those places. We have our own problems. We can just look the other way, turn the page, tut-tut-tut, if we would like, and think about Ryan Secrist (whoever he is).
Since then, we have read and loved The Kite Runner but the ugly story it tells about life with these thugs does not seem to resonate here in a country once the haven for the oppressed but now obsessed with how to punish "illegal aliens."
Even after 9/11, when there were, apparently, next to nobody involved in these matters who did not know that those attacks were launched by people who were permitted to exist, and train and recruit and plan by the Taliban which controlled Afghanistan, many in the United States government, including, tragically, the throughly incompetent President of the United States and the shortsighted Secretary of Defense, had no interest in ridding Afghanistan of these evil people. Richard Clarke tells us that the Defense Secretary wondered what purpose there was in making the rubble bounce, and the President grabbed Clarke by the lapels to tell him, in essence, I don't care about Afghanistan; I want Iraq.
So half-heartedly we marched off to Afghanistan, largely abandoning it, as is our custom, as soon as we could pay attention to something else: the phony, immoral, pigheaded and racist insistence that Muslims are Muslims, and an attack by Afghani harbored Saudis can be fought by attacking Iraq.
So the Taliban are back in parts of Afghanistan, and spreading into Pakistan. We are told that we can fight Al Qaeda, but let the Talib back into control of Afghanistan, a terrifying prospect, it would seem to me. Yes, we know that Afghanistan is impervious to foreign invaders. In fact, it appears that there really is no "Afghanistan" at least in the terms of what was established in the aftermath of World War I but simply many ethnic groups with an antipathy toward those who are different from them (sort of like pockets of this country, but worse.)
In 1967, Norman Mailer published a book called Why are We in Vietnam. It was not a polemic, nor did it debate the issue of the day (at least overtly). It was a novel about a hunting trip in Alaska, including an American businessman who wanted to shoot a grizzly bear and apparently thought of little else. But though the book used the word Vietnam once, and on its last page, it was about war for the sake of proving one's masculinity rather than for reasons of true security. In 1967, Norman Mailer was in a gross minority, swimming against a strong national tide in the opposite direction.
And yet so many of the heirs of that permanent blight on our national history, that blow to our national psyche that torments us today and makes rational discussion of the prospect of war so difficult, engage us in the same foolish approach to this issue: that what the general says is what we must do, our honor is at stake, the men and women who have given their lives deserve as much, we can't just run and turn tail, blah, blah, blah.
Just read some of this prattle:
Sen Lindsey Graham (R-McCain Land):
Sen James Inhofe (R-Global warming is a hoax):
Congressman John Boehner (R-Crazyville), House Minority Leader:
Yeh, that's a great idea. Let's have the military challenge the civilians elected to run our government and start yet another war in our country over who determines our foreign policy. And, here's another great idea: let's question the manliness of anyone who wants to carefully consider whether pouring more troops into a country theoretically governed by a corrupt group with little support among the people. Yes, General Westmoreland, I can see that light at the end of the tunnel. Yes, President Thieu, you can dictate the shape of the table before we begin to find a way out of this mess.
Have we learned nothing?
Apparently not:
Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and former prisoner of war:
2003:
2009:
Are you kidding me, Senator? I know you did not get newspapers while you were in North Vietnamese custody, but you have been back for awhile. Is that what you learned from Vietnam?
Another Vietnam veteran in the Senate seems to have a different view:
I am very proud of our President and, frankly, of our election of him to that office. As Rachel Maddow and the Times have explained, the Nobel Prize does not raise questions about whether the President "deserves" it, but demonstrates the extent to which the hopes and perhaps lives of so many around the world are wrapped up in his unlikely presidency, and the new direction he has put us on.
I am grateful that he is in charge of the executive branch of our national government and that he will determine the basis upon which these important decisions will be made. There is no easy answer and almost anything we do will be the wrong thing in at least some respects. That is a given.
That is why these decisions cannot be the product of political jockeying. Senator Vandenburg's famous iteration of the idea that politics stops at the water's edge is really misleading. It doesn't and shouldn't except that military decisions must be made by civilians, not generals, and they must be made with the best interests of the nation in mind, not the political capital that must be spent or may be reaped. The Bush administration's "roll out" of their war in Iraq just before off year elections is the modern proof of this. Senator Vandenburg's support for the President of a different party when he told Gen MacArthur that he would not be permitted to drag the United States into a war with China, is perhaps a more stark vindication of the rule.
Had President Kennedy allowed the military to determine how to respond to the Cuban missile crisis, it is possible there would be no world to worry about anymore. Fortunately, by then the President had learned the folly of just doing what the military suggests, since they steered him wrong at the Bay of Pigs.
I do not know or have the answer and, frankly, I suspect there is none to be gotten. I think that American acquiescence in the return of the barbarous Taliban to Kabul is immoral and that expecting that Al Qaeda will not expand its writ in a Taliban controlled Afghanistan is a fool's errand. I agree that the scarier situation is in Pakistan and that the current governments in Kabul and Pakistan are not the best, or most trustworthy of allies. Our military is stretched very thin right now and its ability to protect us may be seriously compromised already, not to mention how much worse it will be by a prolonged fight in Afghanistan.
So, what to do?
I don't know.
All I know is that we have a wise man in the presidency and one element of his intellect is that he will listen to all the voices there are before deciding what he wants to do next. Presumably, Congress and the American people, such as they are, will have some input in all of this, unlike during the almost regal presidency we just ended where what the President said was supposed to be the law.
But in that debate, the question cannot be how things will look, or whether our manhood has been vindicated, or General McChrystal repudiated.
The question must be what is best for us, for Afghanistan, and for the world at large, knowing that whatever we do, it will be done to further those ends, whether it works or not.
And it is this: deciding what to do is not helped by politicians announcing what they would do or suggesting that anything other than saluting and doing exactly what some field commander is treasonous, wimpy or surrender. What follows is not for those of you, admirable though your sentiments may be, for whom war is never warranted. This is not for those who believe---who still believe---that the United States should pretend the rest of the world has nothing to do with us. It is definitely not for those who think there is nothing about Afghanistan that should be of concern to those of us living safely over here.
You are entitled to your opinion and in some ways I respect how you come to these views, if that is anything other than simple reflex. I do not agree with them, anymore than, had I been alive in the 1930s, I would like to think I would have urged American involvement in the European mess before our involvement was forced upon us. (That reminds me to note, by the way, that Pat Buchanan, mirroring the views of his 1930s counterparts, is one of those who see nothing of importance for us in Afghanistan. That should be enough to convince you how wrong a view it is, but suspect it does not.)
Well before 9/11 we knew what the Taliban were all about. We heard about ancient Buddhist shrines being destroyed. We knew of the systematic torture of their opponents, and the gross subjugation of women. We saw the evil there, but as in Darfur and Serbia and Cambodia well before that and so on, we did nothing. There was no oil in any of those places. We have our own problems. We can just look the other way, turn the page, tut-tut-tut, if we would like, and think about Ryan Secrist (whoever he is).
Since then, we have read and loved The Kite Runner but the ugly story it tells about life with these thugs does not seem to resonate here in a country once the haven for the oppressed but now obsessed with how to punish "illegal aliens."
Even after 9/11, when there were, apparently, next to nobody involved in these matters who did not know that those attacks were launched by people who were permitted to exist, and train and recruit and plan by the Taliban which controlled Afghanistan, many in the United States government, including, tragically, the throughly incompetent President of the United States and the shortsighted Secretary of Defense, had no interest in ridding Afghanistan of these evil people. Richard Clarke tells us that the Defense Secretary wondered what purpose there was in making the rubble bounce, and the President grabbed Clarke by the lapels to tell him, in essence, I don't care about Afghanistan; I want Iraq.
So half-heartedly we marched off to Afghanistan, largely abandoning it, as is our custom, as soon as we could pay attention to something else: the phony, immoral, pigheaded and racist insistence that Muslims are Muslims, and an attack by Afghani harbored Saudis can be fought by attacking Iraq.
So the Taliban are back in parts of Afghanistan, and spreading into Pakistan. We are told that we can fight Al Qaeda, but let the Talib back into control of Afghanistan, a terrifying prospect, it would seem to me. Yes, we know that Afghanistan is impervious to foreign invaders. In fact, it appears that there really is no "Afghanistan" at least in the terms of what was established in the aftermath of World War I but simply many ethnic groups with an antipathy toward those who are different from them (sort of like pockets of this country, but worse.)
In 1967, Norman Mailer published a book called Why are We in Vietnam. It was not a polemic, nor did it debate the issue of the day (at least overtly). It was a novel about a hunting trip in Alaska, including an American businessman who wanted to shoot a grizzly bear and apparently thought of little else. But though the book used the word Vietnam once, and on its last page, it was about war for the sake of proving one's masculinity rather than for reasons of true security. In 1967, Norman Mailer was in a gross minority, swimming against a strong national tide in the opposite direction.
And yet so many of the heirs of that permanent blight on our national history, that blow to our national psyche that torments us today and makes rational discussion of the prospect of war so difficult, engage us in the same foolish approach to this issue: that what the general says is what we must do, our honor is at stake, the men and women who have given their lives deserve as much, we can't just run and turn tail, blah, blah, blah.
Just read some of this prattle:
Sen Lindsey Graham (R-McCain Land):
If you send troops in, we'll have a second chance at governance. You need to put Karzai's feet to the fire, or the next government's feet to the fire, to do a better job. But it's impossible to bring about better governance without security.
Sen James Inhofe (R-Global warming is a hoax):
At a time when the sacrifices of our American and allied forces in Afghanistan are increasing, we should give the utmost priority to listening to our commanders on the ground. We owe it to all those who have lost their lives, the thousands who are fighting there today, and all the families, to provide our forces with the adequate number of troops to accomplish the mission that they set out to do....
Politics, indecision, or ambivalence has no place in this process when we are clearly at a crucial stage of the war where time and decisiveness are critical. As many have recently said, time is not on our side in Afghanistan. Indecision and delay only embolden our enemy while losing the support of our allies and those we are there to protect.
Congressman John Boehner (R-Crazyville), House Minority Leader:
"I am deeply troubled, however, by reports that the White House is delaying action on the General's request for more troops and questioning its strategy after the President endorsed 'an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency strategy' six months ago. If these reports are accurate, and General McChrystal believes that without timely reinforcements our efforts in that country may end in failure, then the Obama Administration must act quickly to give him the resources he needs to achieve our goals. It's time for the President to clarify where he stands on the strategy he has articulated, because the longer we wait the more we put our troops at risk.
"I also believe it's important that the American people and Members of Congress hear directly from General McChrystal about the situation on the ground, and soon. General Petraeus' testimony before Congress about his strategy for stabilizing Iraq and achieving success there was critical in helping Congress make informed decisions, and I believe testimony from General McChrystal would provide similar value regarding Afghanistan today."
Yeh, that's a great idea. Let's have the military challenge the civilians elected to run our government and start yet another war in our country over who determines our foreign policy. And, here's another great idea: let's question the manliness of anyone who wants to carefully consider whether pouring more troops into a country theoretically governed by a corrupt group with little support among the people. Yes, General Westmoreland, I can see that light at the end of the tunnel. Yes, President Thieu, you can dictate the shape of the table before we begin to find a way out of this mess.
Have we learned nothing?
Apparently not:
Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and former prisoner of war:
2003:
"There has been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border. There has been some increase in U.S. casualties. I am concerned about it, but I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I'd be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that -- in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan."
2009:
"Despite our successes in Iraq and the hard won understanding we have gained about what it takes to defeat an insurgency, it seems we now, regrettably, must have the same debate again today with respect to Afghanistan. In all due respect, Sen. Levin, I've seen that movie before."
Are you kidding me, Senator? I know you did not get newspapers while you were in North Vietnamese custody, but you have been back for awhile. Is that what you learned from Vietnam?
Another Vietnam veteran in the Senate seems to have a different view:
"Nobody is talking about just leaving. Nobody is talking about just a counterterrorism strategy," said Sen. John Kerry , D- Mass. , the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee .
Kerry, however, like other Democrats, said questions about the honesty and legitimacy of the Afghan government in the wake of its tainted recent election and reports of widespread corruption demanded rethinking whether even more U.S. troops could win popular support against the Taliban and secure the country.
"Until those questions are satisfactorily answered, it would be irresponsible to make a choice about committing troops to harm's way," Kerry said. "The troops deserve a strategy that is every bit as good as the sacrifice they're being asked to make."
I am very proud of our President and, frankly, of our election of him to that office. As Rachel Maddow and the Times have explained, the Nobel Prize does not raise questions about whether the President "deserves" it, but demonstrates the extent to which the hopes and perhaps lives of so many around the world are wrapped up in his unlikely presidency, and the new direction he has put us on.
I am grateful that he is in charge of the executive branch of our national government and that he will determine the basis upon which these important decisions will be made. There is no easy answer and almost anything we do will be the wrong thing in at least some respects. That is a given.
That is why these decisions cannot be the product of political jockeying. Senator Vandenburg's famous iteration of the idea that politics stops at the water's edge is really misleading. It doesn't and shouldn't except that military decisions must be made by civilians, not generals, and they must be made with the best interests of the nation in mind, not the political capital that must be spent or may be reaped. The Bush administration's "roll out" of their war in Iraq just before off year elections is the modern proof of this. Senator Vandenburg's support for the President of a different party when he told Gen MacArthur that he would not be permitted to drag the United States into a war with China, is perhaps a more stark vindication of the rule.
Had President Kennedy allowed the military to determine how to respond to the Cuban missile crisis, it is possible there would be no world to worry about anymore. Fortunately, by then the President had learned the folly of just doing what the military suggests, since they steered him wrong at the Bay of Pigs.
I do not know or have the answer and, frankly, I suspect there is none to be gotten. I think that American acquiescence in the return of the barbarous Taliban to Kabul is immoral and that expecting that Al Qaeda will not expand its writ in a Taliban controlled Afghanistan is a fool's errand. I agree that the scarier situation is in Pakistan and that the current governments in Kabul and Pakistan are not the best, or most trustworthy of allies. Our military is stretched very thin right now and its ability to protect us may be seriously compromised already, not to mention how much worse it will be by a prolonged fight in Afghanistan.
So, what to do?
I don't know.
All I know is that we have a wise man in the presidency and one element of his intellect is that he will listen to all the voices there are before deciding what he wants to do next. Presumably, Congress and the American people, such as they are, will have some input in all of this, unlike during the almost regal presidency we just ended where what the President said was supposed to be the law.
But in that debate, the question cannot be how things will look, or whether our manhood has been vindicated, or General McChrystal repudiated.
The question must be what is best for us, for Afghanistan, and for the world at large, knowing that whatever we do, it will be done to further those ends, whether it works or not.
Advertisement
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09252009/watch.html
October 10, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I am not sure he is saying much different from what is written here.
October 10, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I am not sure he is saying much different from what is written here.
October 10, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound like me and Grouch and a bunch of others here at TPM.
I am grateful that he is in charge of the executive branch of our national government and that he will determine the basis upon which these important decisions will be made. There is no easy answer and almost anything we do will be the wrong thing in at least some respects. That is a given.
I spose I could just recopy your entire post, which I probably will do on word anyway.
THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS. There were some, at least, easy answers with regard to these issues eight years ago.
But I cannot damn My President after only 9 months.
You have stated as your conclusion that we--per our elected representatives--must strive for the best conclusion to all this.
Always good to read your posts Barth. Always look forward to it.
October 10, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/opinion/31iht-edbearden_ed3__3.html
October 10, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
For an excellent assessment by a native of the region and a long time expert on the Taliban, the Wapo piece by Ahmed Rashid is worth reading. His view is not extreme nor ideological, but dispassonate and well informed from personal experience.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402277.html
Others who are well informed may disagree as to the exact level of our engagement in Afghanistan or the specific goals we should prioritize - e.g., civilian infrastructure balanced against security concerns. I doubt that among informed opinion, one would find anyone providing evidence supporting disengagement in the near future, although eventual disengagement, probably several years down the road, would be something all would hope to be practical.
October 10, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. And you beat me to the punch on the Taliban and any "love" that Afghans may have for them.
October 10, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're still there for reasons similar to Iraq---we fucked it up and have to try and redeem our actions. We may (probably will) fail. But we do have to try.
October 10, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it, our mission in Afghanistan was to destroy Al Qaeda, not to free the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban, who they seem to like just fine. Al Qaeda isn't in Afghanistan anymore, so why are we?
They are in Pakistan, so we either have to figure out how to get Pakistan to let us to go in and get them, or have them get them for us, or be patient and wait for them to go where we CAN go to get them.
How can it be any more complicated than just leave? It isn't a loss, because we weren't fighting the country...
As for Al Qaeda...they have gotten away from us for the moment thanks to Bush and Co. taking their eyes off the ball. So now we wait. Not quit. Just wait.
I can't believe we are even CONSIDERING staying for 10 years and trying to "change" Afghanistan. That lesson has been learned before, by others...must we learn it again, ourselves? God, I hope not.
October 10, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli - I respect the idealism that's part of your pseudonym, but you are wrong about the Taliban. There is almost total agreement by observers of all persuasions that the Taliban are almost universally hated by the Afghan people (very different from Vietnam). While it is true that relieving Afghans from Taliban oppression can't be our primary goal, it would be an important benefit to seek even as wwe pursue our primary goal to prevent complete Taliban domination of Afghanistan, which, through providing an Al Qaeda santuary from pressure in Pakistan, would threaten the stability of Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons coveted by the terrorists.
The moral argument, although not overriding, is not trivial, because to the extent we are forced by pragmatism to abandon ordinary Afghans, we will betray an implied commitment we made by bestowing on them a brief respite from oppression via our successful 2001 effort. They still remember that for one brief period, girls could at last go to school, everyone could listen to music, and men could walk the streets without fearing death or injury because their beards weren't proper.
Neither we nor the Afghans want us there for ten years. Both we and they want us to stay long enough to permit a transition from security provided by outsiders to security provided by indigenous Afghan forces. Most estimates suggest a 3-5 year range.
October 10, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you are saying, Fred is at odds with a discussion on Hardball on either Thursday or Friday, and I wish I could remember who the guests were. Their consensus was that the Afghan people do not dislike the Taliban badly enough to basically go to war with them, but they wouldn't mind so much if we took care of them for them...How can we possibly do that?
If Russia got bogged down there, how can we believe we wouldn't? And how can we pay for it? And where is the manpower going to come from? And do we really want to spend American lives for something the people aren't willing to do for themselves?
If we could go zap! and it was done, or if there was a major commitment from the rest of the world to send their troops and spend their money, I'd be all for it...but under these circumstances? I vote no.
October 10, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is what you're remembering -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33241481/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/
October 10, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's it...thanks for the assist! This guy has been there and he says the Afghan people don't feel particularly threatened by the Taliban...
October 11, 2009 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the heart of your argument is:
"The brutality and oppressiveness of the Taliban is hardly disputed by any authoritative sources I've seen. Among them is Pakistani journalist and Taliban expert Ahmed Rashid, who actually lived among the Taliban for an interval and is intimately familiar with them and other Afghans. He reports not only that the Taliban are uniformly hated and feared, but that most Afghans do not want us to leave; rather, they are frustrated that we have not yet provided them with greater security. That indeed is a goal Obama will be striving to reach."
My problem with what you say is that you posit two choices: life under the hated Taliban and life with greater security provided by the US armed forces. You conveniently omit in the second scenario the government that would exist under the American armed umbrella. The corrupt, yes hated, despised, Karzai government. There is no sign that I know that the Karzai government sans American occupation is significantly more popular than the Taliban. Even calling it a government is a misnomer since the warlords control large swaths of the country. And how popular are they? Seriously. I do not know, but think they are also tainted with extreme cruelty, backwardness. Afghanistan is a mess; the Taliban are a distasteful, despicable lot. But in the end I think we will have to negotiate with them; they will have to have significant political power; they have won it on the battlefield; if we weaken them it will be by building up the country through diplomatic aid rather than strengthening them on the battlefield. I think you have things backward, as did Bush-Cheney, as it appears does Obama.
October 11, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will leave it to others whether they believe I have things backward; I think the evidence we must remain engaged is compelling. However, I don't disagree with you that some negotiations with the Taliban should be part of the effort. More important, Obama also thinks so, and has stated so publicly.
October 11, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again you say we must be engaged in Afghanistan. How? Militarily? What evidence? The evidence is compelling that a major part of the problem is the American military presence. The evidence is compelling that a major part of the problem is the Karzai government. Please do give us the compelling evidence.
October 11, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The brutality and oppressiveness of the Taliban is hardly disputed by any authoritative sources I've seen. Among them is Pakistani journalist and Taliban expert Ahmed Rashid, who actually lived among the Taliban for an interval and is intimately familiar with them and other Afghans. He reports not only that the Taliban are uniformly hated and feared, but that most Afghans do not want us to leave; rather, they are frustrated that we have not yet provided them with greater security. That indeed is a goal Obama will be striving to reach.
I believe it does a disservice to the hundreds of millions of oppressed people today and throughout history for anyone to suggest that the reason they remain oppressed is because throwing off their oppression is something "they aren't willing to do for themselves". Many do try, and lose their lives, but there's an implacable logic to brute force that is not always overcome simply by the will of the oppressed.
I have no doubt that we will remain engaged in Afghanistan, simply because Obama is not an ideologue, and therefore will therefore make decisions based on the reality of circumstances, including the catastrophe that would ensue if we withdrew precipitously, And so, we will stay, but not indefinitely. Rather, we will strive to provide security while the indigenous forces are trained to replace us, and at the same time we will ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become an Al Qaeda haven, including a haven for terrorists to move back and forth into Pakistan, creating instabilities that would threaten the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. We really don't have any choice.
October 10, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, I don't disagree with why Afghanistan cannot be vacated, leaving a failed state to fend for itself. But I think it's obvious that the US and western allies cannot be successful there, even when successful is described in minimal terms.
This op/ed in the CS Monitor by Arif Rafiq offers A Muslim Solution:
Getting the World Bank and the IMF to help in funding accomplishes several goals and the US could contribute more to help pay for it's part in bringing about this mess. (My thoughts, not the author's).
China has already called for US withdrawal. With SCO financial involvement, it could also help with funding for security, nation building, etc. It's in China's interests to do so in order to maximize its investments in Afghanistan. Same for Russia. Iran and Russia have plans for a pipeline to run through the country, which would bring much needed revenue to the country on a long-term basis.
A solution is needed. But we have to look outside the US as a military and occupying force to find it. It is very doubtful that a coalition of Muslim states would have agreed to such a proposal under the Bush admin. I believe that an Obama admin proposal would have different results.
October 11, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I do not trust "a coalition of Muslim states" would effectively retard fundamentalism in any way since we have seen little to no signs of anything like it anywhere else.
October 11, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
So your conclusion is that it's only Islamic fundamentalism that produces terrorism?
October 11, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the problem of this discussion is the word Taliban. While some of the insurgency is composed of Taliban proper, there are many other groups/militias that are not the Taliban. We call them the Taliban anyhow because the media is incurious and our intel lacks specificity.
From what I have researched, there are militant elements that are not part of the Taliban. They are associated with the latge number of political figures who attempted to run against Karzai in that sham of an election. They are against the US because of our Polymetheus-esque approach the their homeland... And our unwavering support of an oil industry puppet. Karzai IMO is no better than Chalabi in terms of reliability and no better than Diem in terms of authority. But he was/is an oilman and his naion borders two countries (formerly under Soviet rule) that contain the largest remaining untapped oil deposits in the world. His blind support of all things petroleum is crucial to the CentCom Chess game. Our military/diplomatic playbook has been stuck in this graveyard spiral for decades. We install and protect corporate-friendly dictators in spite of overwhelming evidence that the resulting friction is destabilizing an increasingly armed world.
Obama has to navigate the straits of Magellan:
1. A different playbook. Help to fairly elect a suitable government. So many candidates indicates to me that a decentralized city/state model would probably work. Anything larger is prone to repressive measures rooted in the worst of tribal laws.
2. Move us away from the twin dangers of oil dependency and black market drugs. Both of these policies leave us vulnerable to terrorism, overconsumption, and homegrown fascism. Examining the rise of our own evangelical Taliban should give us insight into how Afghanistan came to be where it is today.
3. If we are going to attack Al Qaeda we need better and less ideological intel. Obama has to develop a trusted chain of information in each branch of the armed forces and CIA. This is tougher than it sounds. Bush left us infested with partisans who want nothing better than to spread disinformation in order to benefit the oil/weapons industries. The media is an all too willing accomplice in spreading anomymous disinformation that drives the public discourse into a partisan ditch.
4. Adopt rules of engagement/escalation of force procedures that emphasis reconnaisance. I am noticing that our Army is in a stupidity spiral. We are told that there are only 100ish Al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan. They get intel that 1 or 2 of them are in X 8 digit grid. We bomb the shit out of the grid. There goes a village. We lose international and local credibility. We need these villages to inform and ostracise these elements, not reject our existence.
5. Tell the truth about what the Taliban is and isn't. Quit elasticisng Taliban to encompass every angry Afghan who wants the US out. This is the same lack of specifity that undermined Viet Nam. Politics generalizes the enemy in order to maximize clout. We need less politics and more ethics.
October 11, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also:
Israel should accept the olive branch offered years ago by the rest of the Middle East:
Return to its 1967 borders and be formally recognized. Admit to and dismantle its nuclear stockpile. Not only allow but fiscally support Palestinian statehood.
October 11, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is, Zipperupus, there is some evidence that the Taliban and the other militant forces, have figured out from AQs mistakes in Iraq that blowing up Muslims is not the best way to get the population on your side. A related theory on the blowing up of Western occupiers has not similarly emerged that I know of, and the populations of both countries have not voiced much of an opinion against it, either.
Take away the Western occupiers and replace them with Muslim coalitions working toward peace and the militant forces, including AQ, lose legitimacy as insurgents.
(Whether or not we are in there as occupiers is very much beside the point. There is no doubt amongst Muslims that that's exactly what we are.)
100% agreement with the value of Israel accepting the olive branch.
October 11, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink