Posted on 08/21/2009 5:09:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
He was certainly brave, but was he crazy? That's what I wondered when I picked up Rory Stewart's "The Places in Between," an account of the Scotsman's 2002 solo walk across Afghanistan. That's right, he walked. Many Afghans doubted he would survive the journey. Just weeks after the fall of the Taliban, in the dead of winter, in some of the most remote and difficult terrain in the inhabited world, he went from village to village on foot. Relying on the tradition of hospitality, Stewart found welcome, sustenance, and shelter (mostly, but not always) graciously offered by people who had very little to share.
Stewart, a British Foreign Service officer, (he served in southern Iraq after the Iraq War -- the subject of another good book, "The Prince of the Marshes") and a Harvard professor, relied upon his knowledge of Farsi and Urdu, his understanding of Afghan history and culture, and his own hardy constitution to get him through. The portrayal of Afghanistan that resulted was illuminating and honest. He was unsparing about the deception and cruelty he witnessed, as well as the warmth and fellowship. I recall in particular the vignette about local children throwing stones at a dog for fun. For several years, Stewart lived in Kabul, where he established a charitable foundation seeking to promote local crafts.
So when Stewart raises a yellow flag about our escalating commitment to Afghanistan, we should take notice.
The rationale that President Obama has offered for our ramped-up engagement in Afghanistan, Stewart argues in a piece for the London Review of Books, runs as follows: We cannot permit the Taliban to return to power or they will revive the alliance with al-Qaida and will plot more catastrophic attacks on the United States. In order to defeat the Taliban, we must create a functioning state in the country, and in order to create a functioning state, we must defeat the Taliban. Obama seems keen to increase our role in Afghanistan to highlight the contrast with his predecessor. Bush, Obama ceaselessly repeats, fought "a war of choice" whereas Obama will fight only "a war of necessity."
Obama argues that Afghanistan represents such a war. But does it? In order to achieve the goal of a "stable" Afghanistan, President Obama has deployed (for starters) 17,000 more U.S. troops at a preliminary cost of $5.5 billion. His stated goals for this poor, decentralized, and shell-shocked nation match in ambition and grandiosity the claims that George W. Bush made for a revived Iraq -- but with arguably less foundation. "There are no mass political parties in Afghanistan and the Kabul government lacks the base, strength or legitimacy of the Baghdad government," Stewart writes. There is almost no economic activity in the nation aside from international aid and the drug trade. Stewart notes that while Afghanistan is not a hopeless case, it is not at all clear that it is "the most dangerous place on Earth" as advocates of a massively increased U.S. and British role argue. In fact, neighboring Pakistan, sheltering al-Qaida (including, in all likelihood, bin Laden) and possessing nuclear weapons, represents a far graver threat to our national security. Stewart believes that bin Laden operates out of Pakistan precisely because Pakistan, a more robust state than Afghanistan, restricts U.S. operations. Nor is it clear that Afghanistan poses more of a threat than, say, Somalia or Yemen. Obama promises a "comprehensive approach" that will promote "a more capable and accountable Afghan government ... advance security, opportunity and justice ... (and) develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs."
This is more than we have the knowledge or ability to accomplish, Stewart argues. As for the necessity, he is unconvinced that the Taliban should loom so large as a threat to the West. He thinks it unlikely that the Taliban will regain control of the entire country (though they do control some provincial capitals). Unlike the situation in 1996, the Afghans now have experience of Taliban rule. "Millions of Afghans disliked their brutality, incompetence and primitive attitudes. The Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek populations are wealthier, more established and more powerful than they were in 1996 and would strongly resist any attempt by the Taliban to occupy their areas." In any case, a more circumscribed foreign role should be sufficient to prevent the revival of terrorist training camps -- as it has since 2001.
One might have thought, listening to the opponents of the Iraq War, that a certain modesty about nation building would be axiomatic among liberals. Instead, we are witnessing something else entirely -- the approach is now brainlessly partisan. Your nation building is a war crime. My nation building is a national security necessity. Stewart's approach is refreshingly impartial and thought provoking.
Can we win in Afghanistan?
Yes, if we turn the job over to our military and get the hell out of their way and just let them do it.
Ya hear me stupid politicians? Obozo?
.....Can we win in Afghanistan?......
.....if we turn the job over to our military ......
The war began to find and destroy the terrorists operating there and bringing war within our ocean protection. We from the beginning used Afghan friends to carry out the military campaign. That war was won. Al Queda is gone, apparently fled to Pakistan or possibly Somilia or both.
The original enemy is gone but we are now engaged with our original allies to eliminate their enemy, the Taliban. They are the population of the country.
It is not possible to destroy the radical religionist, they can merely be contained. As long as they have the Islamic fanatic leadership they will have the will and some form of war will continue. There will never be a military victory.
There must be a religious victory from within the Afghan mosques
....I got my doubts on Afganistan....Iraq at least was a country....Afganistan is just a bunch of tribes.
Can we win in Afghanistan?
So “victory” is off the table, now we’re talking about “succeeding”, next will be “quagmire” or “Viet Nam”, followed by “retreat with dignity”, finishing up with Barry bowing to the next Jihadi leader of the country. Oh boy......
I didn’t hear any answers, just questions. If the Tall-e-bon can take over northern Pock-e-ston with little trouble, then it would seem that S. Afghanistan will always be vulnerable. The Tall-e-bon did a good job during the recent elections. So yes, we can win - if, and only if, we let the best military leaders define the strategy, rules of engagement, fund them, use drones, and pressure Pock-e-ston to stop funding the enemy, kick into high gear, and rip their heart out for good.
We should have focused on Afghanistan immediately after 9/11 and done what was necessary then.
bttt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THANK YOU. If we fight like we are in a WAR and stop moaning, groaning, and whining over every misstep or mistake that results in a civilian casualty of COURSE we can win the war.
I'm not suggesting that we should but we could kill every breathing soul in Afghanistan. The problem with American wars lately (since the 1970's) is that we fight like we are chipping away at a boulder with a 1 oz rock hammer instead of getting out the mechanical 1 ton sledge hammer and crushing the boulder. We shouldn't play.
We should kill the bad guys and leave. If a few innocents get in the way, that's a terrible NECESSITY OF WINNING.
By buzzing the enemy instead of bombing him
By sending more troops but not a whole lot of troops, for domestic political, not military, reasons
By prohibiting troops from attacking the enemy when they hide behind civilians
By releasing or giving Miranda rights to captured terrorists
By having our secretary of state lament that our combat troops are not subject to prosecution by the International Courts
By threatening to prosecute US officials who in 2002 worked as allies with an anti-taliban tribe who mistreated, in traditional cultural fashion, taliban POW’s
By not calling this a war and not calling the enemy terrorists
By the totally cool totally innovative US policy of offering “millions” of dollars to Afghan farmers to stop growing poppies
By continuing to characterize the “challenge” from al Qaeda in Iraq and the “challenge” from al Qaeda in Afghanistan- as two separate conflicts, one legitimate and one illegal
By emphasizing that our president has Hussein as a middle name and shows his muslim savvy by saying Pokky ston and the Tolly bon
By withdrawing the US from confronting al Qaeda in Iraq and stepping up fighting the taliban in Afghanistan.
(PS lefties- we know you like to say Iraq never attacked us so- did the taliban attack us on 9-11?)
The real question is, is it worth the blood and treasure?
THANK YOU. If we fight like we are in a WAR and stop moaning, groaning, and whining over every misstep or mistake that results in a civilian casualty of COURSE we can win the war.
I’m not suggesting that we should but we could kill every breathing soul in Afghanistan. The problem with American wars lately (since the 1970’s) is that we fight like we are chipping away at a boulder with a 1 oz rock hammer instead of getting out the mechanical 1 ton sledge hammer and crushing the boulder. We shouldn’t play.
We should kill the bad guys and leave. If a few innocents get in the way, that’s a terrible NECESSITY OF WINNING.
The rats, as usual, are feckless.
The war on drugs has been such a fantastic success. /s
As I understand it, that would crush the livelihoods of many villagers, therefore making them enemies. You can’t remove a revenue source without finding a way to replace it.
They are already the enemy. Where do you think the heroin produced from their poppy fields ends up? Screw them. I don’t give a crap if they all starve to death after we wipe their poppy fields off the face of the earth.
No, they aren't.
Where do you think the heroin produced from their poppy fields ends up?
Europe and parts of Asia. It's their problem.
I don’t give a crap if they all starve to death after we wipe their poppy fields off the face of the earth.
That's not really our mission there, is it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.