Posted on 11/12/2001 2:06:17 AM PST by Ada Coddington
In addition, many of the Pashtun commanders in southern Afghanistan have distanced themselves from the Taliban and have expressed their willingness to join the Northern Alliance in forming an Afghanistan Loya Jirga to run the country after the demise of the Taliban is complete.
Things seem to be progressing along those lines, as well as can be expected after only a month or so of fighting.
Of course the whole thing could fall into the shitcan, but such is war.
Part of the problem is that Afghanistan has always been a country in name only - it makes the Balkans look like Kubaya country in comparison. IMO so far the United States has played this smart - weaken the Taliban, alter the political balance in the region, let some of the tribal players do the dirty work, and avoid large numbers of foreign ground troops - a factor that tends to united the different factions in Afghanistan. It requires a lot more finesse than just going in Soviet (or British) style with a large army to try and teach the tribes a lesson - but we've seen that the big-army approach generally doesn't work very well. Since bin Laden and most of Al Quida are foreigners, many warlords won't have a qualm about turning him over if they think they'll live to enjoy the bounty money - and if the Taliban is out of the picture, that becomes possible. You may consider that cynical, but that's basically the ground truth here - the United States has a mortal enemy holed up in Afghanistan, and we need to get to him and kill him. This isn't Kosovo, where the United States had no compelling national interest and no business in that region...
Well, the Marshall Plan was highly effective in rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII. And once again, this isn't like Kosovo and FRY, where there were many tempting targets for economic assimilation into the West - there isn't much in Afghanistan to venture the Soros' of the world - Marshall-Plan type programs probably work best when a country is completely destitute, a description that fits Afghanistan to a "T".
Justin, it must really suck when you write a column and it's OTBE'd by the time it gets posted on the Antiwar website. And you really should get off the demand for instant gratification while you're at it.
Huh? What sheet? Try what?
Hung with a new rope?
That's an expression, old bean. A colorful turn of phrase. Along the lines of, 'is the Pope Catholic?'
I'll translate: your missives seem generally unhappy with everything; you come across as rather testy.
Marshall-Plan type programs probably work best when a country is completely destitute, a description that fits Afghanistan to a "T".
How can you possibly say that, when the Marshal Plan targeted some of the most industrially-developed countries on earth at the time? Besides, most of the Marshal Plan was a political "denazification" plan, not the the physical rebuilding that most mistake it for. The Euros rebuilt their own continent for the most part after the war.
This wonderful new "Marshal plan" for Afghanistan will in the main go to bribe politicians and to pay high-priced American consultants. That has been the story of our aid to foreign countries and I have seen little to convince me that anything has changed.
The difference being we actually have a good reason for killing people in Afganistan. Retaliation for 911 is provincialism?
Absolutely spot on! You beat me to it; I was going to comment on that misunderstanding.
That's so funny: I was going to flag you on it for some back-up, because I knew I would be challenged on this. Historical revisionists love to point to the Marshal Plan as "we built Europe back from scratch." Not true from what I have read (and the knowledgable people I have spoken with).
By the time we were done bombing Japan and Europe, there wasn't much left of their industrial development. I have mixed feelings about an Afghani version of the Marshall Plan - but not because of the ability of America to carry out such a program, but because of my concerns about the willingness of the Afghani tribes to adapt to such a program. Pundits talk about twenty years of war in Afghanistan, but war has been part of Afghanistan since time immemorial. It's just a matter of who they're shooting at - outsiders or each other - and any economic development aid, under those circumstances, will accomplish little...
She probably doesn't care either.
Pundits talk about twenty years of war in Afghanistan, but war has been part of Afghanistan since time immemorial. It's just a matter of who they're shooting at - outsiders or each other - and any economic development aid, under those circumstances, will accomplish little...
What better argument can be made for getting in, getting the guys who bombed us, and then getting the hell out?
Of late you have been posting the most anti-war propoganda it has ever been my experience to have read. Do these articles reflect your particular mindset, or are you presenting these horrific "chicken little" tales in an effort to hold them up to the light of ridicule?
Your most humble and obedient,
Junior
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.