Posted on 08/14/2009 3:33:20 AM PDT by Scanian
OUR troops are performing superbly in Afghanistan. They can seize any objec tive or defeat any enemy on the battlefield. And it doesn't matter.
Using Afghan bases to strike al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan is the right fight. But defending the disastrously corrupt and despised Kabul government is the wrong war.
We've thrown our blood and treasure behind the latter.
Next week, Afghanistan will stage another national election. Given the machinations of President Hamid Karzai, his henchmen and warlord clients, the vote is on track to make Iran's recent balloting look like a model of probity. Even if a dark-horse candidate miraculously unseats Karzai, the result will be further internal polarization, not a sudden blossoming of national unity.
We are witnessing the postmodern take on our Cold War-era policy of supporting strongmen because they were "ours." But the shah of Iran or Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines at least delivered for decades. In Afghanistan, our troops are fighting magnificently to extend the reach of the criminal enterprise known as the Kabul government -- which works against our interests.
One example: A well-placed US official states bluntly that "Karzai's brother in Kandahar is directly benefiting from opium production."
Karzai's sibling is the regional opium czar. And "our man in Kabul" has no interest in interfering. Because the alternative would be for a political opponent to seize control of the opium trade. Eliminate poppies? You'll see bikinis in Afghan villages first.
Is it genuinely to our advantage to send our incomparable soldiers and Marines to give blood for a government of thieves that's despised by the population it loots and neglects?
In recent discussions with military officers, I've found some more optimistic than others. A few see value in our current policies. Others shake their heads.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Ralph, I normally agree with you, but not in this case. What do you want to do, hand the Afghan government back over to the Taliban?
Where is the outrage from the other side on these 3 wars now that their guy is in the White House.
Hipocrats, ALL OF THEM!! (crickets)
Tribes, Clans, Opium, uneducated masses = BASKET CASE.
The alternative to Karzai is not the Taliban. That’s not the dilemma. The issue is that we shouldn’t put all the cards on Karzai alone. Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah and Finance Minister Ghani are both running also for Presidency, both who have expertise that is needed for Afghanistan. Karzai has many shortcomings. Like in Iraq with the Alavi-Jafari-Maliki situation, there could be Afghanistan also a better President in the making.
Whatever passes for government there will be as repressive and corrupt because the only real authority Afghans recognize is tribal and anyone who is not in the tribe is a temporary ally or a target. Sometimes both at the same time.
It's a mess, it's always been a mess, it will always be a mess.
I against my brother. My brother and I against our uncle. The family against the foreigner.
They've been happily shooting each other for hundreds of years -- taking temporary timeouts to shoot at Brits, Russians and now us.
When we leave -- as will have to happen eventually -- they will go right back to cheerfully shooting at each other and not a single thing will have changed.
Not all problems have solutions.
I agree. We probably need to just get the hell out. The former Soviet Union found out they couldn't complete the job. There is way too much corruption and no way to straighten it out without dropping the BIG one several times.
Just my humble opinion.
So what is the solution if Al Qaida under Bin Laden again uses it as a base of operations
I’ve heard this argument before, concerning South Vietnam. And we know how well that turned out.
And the last time we abandoned Afghanistan, we wound up with it becoming an Al Qaeda base, from which the September 11th attacks were launched.
Militarily, now would be a good time to crack down on heroin use in Europe and the US. Not because we can wipe it out, but because we CAN cut into the drug lords profits - their main weapon - at a time they are vulnerable. Anti-heroin crackdowns reinforce our troops in Afghanistan without having to deal with the deplorable logistics there or the lack of European political will to send actual troops there. Cut down their cash flow and a lot of their corruption disappears. Hold it down long enough and some self sustaining bits of a real government may appear.
Peters is right.
I said it before, in a comment to a previous article: we ARE losing in Afghanistan. And the problem is not with the troops on the ground, but with the strategic vision which is lacking. Even lower enlisted Soldiers see that their leaders don’t know what they’re doing, why we’re there, or how to go about achieving victory (if such is even possible in Afghanistan).
This isn’t Iraq, guys. Iraq had a (relatively) well-developed road infrastructure, ready access to sea transport (via the Gulf), great potential oil wealth, and a better communications system. Afghanistan has NOTHING — NOTHING. It is a MESS over there. There is a desolation, poverty, and misery you cannot imagine. I grew up in a Third World country in the middle of a civil war, so I know poverty and deprivation like 99% of the American population has never experienced. Even I was taken aback at what I saw in Afghanistan.
The strategy has to change. The first step may be accepting that we cannot do for Afghanistan what we did for Iraq. I don’t think we can “save” Afghanistan anymore than we can “save” Somalia. The basic components of a nation-state are just not there, never mind the physical infrastructure of one. Unless we mean to make Afghanistan into a colony or territory and pour massive amounts of money into re-building the country as a part of the United States (with American military, police, and administration), then none of this will work. Alternatively, we can get out and focus on a Special Forces-type of covert strategy to kill individuals or small groups so as to “contain” al Qaeda and the Taliban.
>>”Why are they still over there fighting an illegal war?”
Remember that this is the “liberal’s war.” They were always saying, We LUV the troops, but only in Afghanistan. Bush started a war-of-choice in Iraq, just to make money for Halliburton, and his friends in the oil business. Iraq is a distraction from the REAL war, in Afghanistan. Bush just ignored UBL. If we were in charge, we would focus on Afghanistan. We could easily find UBl, and bring him to trial in the US. We need to take more troops out of Iraq, and send them to Afghanistan. That’s the real war.”
“More troops! More troops! We LUV our troops, but only in Afghanistan.”
Now Afghanistan is THEIR WAR. They got exactly what the asked for. and their earlier boasts ring hollow.
And yes, this is the same “logic” that we heard about Vietnam. To libs, backward, little, brown people don’t deserve FREEDOM, they NEED a brutal, totalitarian government
Words (at least words which won’t get me banned) fail me.
(/RANT)
DG
What an incoherent hedging of bets.
Either the election in Afghanistan is going to make Iran’s look honest OR the opposition candidate has a chance to win; NOT both.
>>”I want them home.”
Two words: Cambodia. Genocide.
DoorGunner (/s)
KEEP YOUR WORD BRING THEM HOME!
I agree.
Plus the rules of engagement are stacked against us.
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.