« Concealed Weapons in National Parks | tlees2's Blog | Sen. Feingold says that preventive detention is unconstitutional »

What should our Afghanistan policy be in the future


Ok, Josh asks the question:

"It comes back to the same question: how critical is it whether terrorist capos can hide out, with the passive approval of the government, in caves in Afghanistan? And should this be the center-piece of our counter-terrorism effort or even our whole foreign policy?"


So let's have a go at it, especially since Obama is making it, perhaps, the center-piece of our foreign policy. Were we correct to say attacking Iraq made no sense, but attacking Afghanistan did?  In my opinion, we were.  Is it still correct given what has happened in Afghanistan, given the corruption in the Afghan government, given the number of civilians being killed, given the Vietnam-like quagmire we could be headed for, given the state of our economy, etc.

Is there a smarter way of dealing with the situation in Afghanistan?

16 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I believe that the justification for going into Afghanistan was that Osama BinLadin was there hiding out. He is now gone, and so I don't think we serve any purpose by staying. We are not protecting the people, since we have been blowing them up a lot lately. We are just managing to get yet another country to despise America.

In the scheme of things, the US can't do everything, and if Afghanistan needs help from other nations it should be through the UN only. Russia threw everything they had at it, and we helped defeat them by arming the people who are now shooting at us. It is a hole into which no more blood or treasure should be poured in my opinion.

user-pic

I don't think helping Afghanistan is our number one priority.

Isn't the argument that were we to leave Afghanistan the Taliban would 1) reassert governmental control and 2) provide a safe haven and training ground for terrorists (al Qaeda being only one of a number of such organizations). And that we'd have to go back in at a future date, anyway.

Is that argument wrong?

user-pic

Who knows? We can't go everywhere with the excuse that the Taliban/Al/Qaida might set up shop. The latest spot I heard of that these people are hunkering in on is Somalia. What are we supposed to do? Suppress by force every single country that our sworn enemies want to call home?

Maybe we could just live our lives and respond when appropriate instead of appointing ourselves the arbiters of the world, and maybe listen from time to time and learn something. Maybe we could spend the trillions of dollars on our own infrastructure and health care. We just had 8 years of abuse, where Cheney's and Bush's false friends profited obscenely by the wars they started.

It is time to act like grownups who have kids to put through college, and the "toys" of the Cheney/Bush administration need to be deep-sixed!

user-pic

I agree with the part about "live our lives and respond when appropriate instead of appointing ourselves the arbiters of the world". Current policy isn't working. These countries, (Afghanistan and Somalia for example), are extremely poor. Wouldn't it be easier, (and cheaper), to attempt to gather intelligence regarding potential terror activities transpiring within their borders than occupying them by military force? At some point do we ever walk the walk? Terror is a reality of this world. Other countries have been dealing with it for decades without invading other sovereign nations.

user-pic

I'd suggest reading "Three Cups of Tea" to get a good idea of the kind of people and villages we're impacting. There's a scene in there about an Indian bombing raid on the same area of Pakistan that we're trying to reach and it's impact on two little sisters in a remote village and their terror that will tear your heart out.

We've pushed Pakistan into running tens of thousands of civilians out of their remote villages. And we think nothing of it. We just don't give a damn. How many of these people do we have to terrorize before we've had enough retribution?

user-pic

I've read it - great book. My school helps to raise money for some of the schools mentioned in the book.

user-pic

How 'bout a title for this blog post, tlees2.

user-pic

I know - I messed up - lot of family stuff going on here.

Can I rectify that easily?

user-pic

I have -- but can't remember how I did it -- and I did it before there were any comments posted -- if that fact matters.

user-pic

Goto:
Blog Now --> Manage --> Entries

DoubleClick on this post (it's probably the first one, and the "title" attribute will be blank).

Enter your choice of title in the title form, and save.

user-pic

Thanks!

user-pic

We've pushed Pakistan . . . .

Yes; credit where credit is due, but let's not go and get all narcissistic.

The Taliban embarrassed the Pakistani PTB when it violated the recent agreement and entered Buner and Nir. I suspect this response has more to do with the army's self-esteem than it does with anything Obama and Adm. Mullen said.

user-pic

I don't doubt it but the Pakistan government itself can't control the territory. They have to evict the population just to attempt to engage in conflict with the Taliban.

user-pic

So Josh asks the importance of "terrorist capos" who "hide out...in caves in Afghanistan"? Has he been taking lessons from the AntiSemantic Right-Wing, and is now showing off his A Game on the court with dialectic dribbling? He's driving agenda with inapt imagery.

A capo is the head of a criminal syndicate. He's a high-risk venture capitalist, whose business model is to maximise profits through delivering goods and services that are illegal, acquiring monopolistic control over a market through coercion, and marketing fraudulent insurance instruments by creating artificial demand for, as well as owning the complete supply of them. A capo might engage in acts which under post-911 predicates are defined as terrorism, but they avoid high-profile and/or large-scale actions within this category, because they are very bad for business. Capos are also at the top of a well-defined static organisational hierarchy.

True terrorist organisations, and their leadership are not static entities, but are instead amorphous.Often, almost as soon as a terrorist gains enough fame, and (s)he is perceived to be in a hierarchical leadership position, they are relegated to roles of public-facing fronts, and propaganda assets. They no longer retain active operational control. Terrorist organisations are not primarily profit motivated. They are driven by ideological zealotry, and perceive the accumulation of wealth as a means, not an end. Primary traits of their action plans are high-profile and large-scale.

Josh is attempting to grayscale the resident evil of terrorist leaders with this capo designation.

Then he tossed into that mix, an image of these grayscaled persons holing up out of fear for their continued existence in dark, damp and dingy caves, sitting atop guano heaps. The reality is much different, at least in the Afghan/Pakistan frontier. These caves are not small dark holes, they are instead large habitable systems, which have been used throughout human history. These structures have been vastly expanded and improved for effective usage by smugglers, bandits and resistors to invaders. Historically, Afghanistan has been the arpit at the very edge of an empire's expansion, yet at the same time, an important fulcrum point caught between existing powers. These cave structures have served as refuge for Afghans. Even the worst of them are very livable by their standards, and since the 80's the best have been improved with modern technology, funded by foreign covert operations, and international financing for terrorist organisations. Some have received concrete reinforcement, blast doors, self-contained power supplies, and satellite communication links. These are not "caves", but instead modern underground control centers.

user-pic

If the main goal of the military actions against the Taliban is to cripple their ability to reassert control of the Afghan state, then the highest priority is the sustainability of an Afghan state governed differently than the Taliban have done.

To accomplish that goal is obviously not a condition that foreign powers can bring about without a political development within Afghanistan driven by people who want that sustainability for themselves.

These parameters suggest that aid to help change the conditions in Afghanistan is the central policy issue to ponder and that military operations need to be a part of the greater strategic plan to do just that.
But the way "aid" is being provided is a rudderless ship. The lack of a clear strategy about the task of nation building has turned the whole enterprise into a boondoggle up to its opium poppies in graft and corruption.
Meanwhile our campaign against the Taliban is being read by a large number of Pushtuns as a war against Pushtuns.

Moving beyond the Bush doctrine is not just an abrogation of prerogative but the return to the idea that failure probably means you were really stupid about something at some point.

Maybe it is true that any attempt to intervene only makes things worse. Maybe the interventions are only the schemes of self interested parties. I suspect that we can never approach those maybes as a matter of policy if the overt foreign policy that is executed is allowed to be essentially without coherence.

user-pic

A well stated differentiation between what should be policy towards Afghanistan, and the GW Bush policy towards Afghanistan, which was nothing more than a necessary stepping stone on the way to Wage War Upon Iraq, the truth notwithstanding.

America owes Afghanistan to give them a leg up into a proper government. This is not derived from any empiric fantasy, but from propriety in rectifying the harm The Nation has caused them over the last three decades. We used Afghanistan as a tool against the Soviet in the 80's, and after the Soviet had been defeated, we discarded the tool and walked away with our backs turned, as it fell into a dark, bloody civil war, in which the Taliban emerged victoriously. In the process we trained the future progenitors of international terrorist organisations in the dark arts of effective insurgency, armed them with modern weaponry, and deified them as "Freedom Fighters". In the aftermath of 911, the US invaded Afghanistan, falsely expressing proper cause, yet in truth viewing it as only the means to Wage Immoral War Upon Iraq, as America turned it military might away from the good fight, against our real enemies at Tora Bora in December 2001, and once again walked away from Afghanistan, leaving a task done half-assed and incomplete..

I completely agree that America's actions towards Afghanistan have been evil, wrong, and brought Afghans immeasurable hardship, yet do not believe this is a proper reason for disengagement. The is no honour walking away one more time without mitigating the damage we have done.

An Afghanistan deceit from the Reagancomdey:

The Afghan freedom fighters -- the mujahidin -- remind us daily that the human spirit is resilient and tenacious, and that liberty is not easily stolen from a people determined to defend it. The Afghan people are writing a new chapter in the history of freedom. We Americans salute their magnificent courage.
[. . .]
The history of independent Afghanistan goes back more than 2,000 years and is far from being finished. My deepest hope is to speak of freedom restored to Afghanistan by this time next year. In this season when people of good will everywhere turn their attention to the greatest blessing a nation can enjoy -- peace at home and abroad -- we will not forget the people of Afghanistan who are struggling to live once again among the free nations of the world. These brave people will continue to have the support of all Americans in their noble struggle.

Ronald Reagan, "Statement on the Fifth Anniversary of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan", December 26, 1984

Leave a comment

tlees2

user-pic

Following: 150
Followers: 19

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Location PA
  • Party DEMS (but likes GREENS also)
  • Politics Very liberal!

Favorites

  • Favorite Blogs TPM of course. Paul Krugman's blog.
  • Favorite Books INHERIT THE WIND ANIMAL FARM TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
  • Favorite Quotes "This man wishes to have the same privilege as a sponge. This man wishes to think." -INHERIT THE WIND "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. -ANIMAL FARM

Bio

History teacher at a Friends School.

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address