There is no doubt that we are not winning the so-called “war” in Afghanistan. There is a new National Intelligence Estimate coming out that will remain classified until the after the election in November and even then it may not be released. This NIE is being described as painting a very “grim” picture of the situation there. Yes, presumably aware of this grim situation, both major party candidates insisted on saying we need to add thousands more troops into Afghanistan to fight the supposed “war on terror”. This death trap war is unwinnable — just ask Russia — yet our country’s best and brightest minds insist we continue on fighting it until “victory” is achieved. Victory in this case is not just elusive, it’s improbable unless we do something drastic. It’s that “something drastic” that everyone dreads.
Even just adding more troops to the situation will mean hundreds more civilian deaths in a country that is being destroyed by decades of constant invasions and wars being perpetrated by foregn countries. How would we react if the Unites States or one of our official allies was repeatedly invaded and bombed? I think we would react very badly and violently, and that reaction would be defended as “patriotic”. The biggest downfall of some Americans seems to be an inability to put themselves in someone else’s position, to be empathetic and try to understand where others are coming from. Just a few minutes of thinking about it would explain so much to people who would otherwise support this terrible plan to increase the number of soldiers fighting and killing people in this war-torn country — shared by both McCain and Obama. Betting that Americans will lean patriotic rather than empathetic is how they keep the citizens supporting the “war on terror”. This is from RCP:
What a Surge Can’t Solve in Afghanistan
September 28, 2008
By David Ignatius
WASHINGTON — If there was one foreign-policy issue on which Barack Obama and John McCain agreed during Friday night’s debate, it was that the United States should send more troops to Afghanistan. The bipartisan enthusiasm for this surge is so strong that there has been relatively little discussion of whether this strategy makes sense.So here’s a skeptical look at the issue, drawn from conversations during a visit to Afghanistan this month with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Rather than more troops, the real game-changer in Afghanistan may be Gates’ plan to spend an extra $1.3 billion on surveillance technology to find and destroy the leadership of the insurgency.
The case for more troops was made forcefully by the new U.S. commander, Gen. David McKiernan. He said in a briefing in Kabul that to cope with rising violence, he needs three more combat brigades, in addition to the extra brigade already promised for early next year. That could add at least 15,000 more troops to the current force of about 35,000. Other senior officers made similar pitches in briefings at Bagram and Jalalabad.
But the commanders’ description of the enemy that these troops will be fighting was fuzzy. The adversary isn’t al-Qaeda; it’s not even the Taliban. It’s what McKiernan called a “nexus of insurgency,” and what other officers described as a “syndicate” of insurgents and criminal groups. It’s not clear that this nexus, or syndicate, or whatever you want to call it, poses a mortal threat to the United States — or even, necessarily, to the government of Afghanistan.
The “insurgent syndicate” was detailed in a PowerPoint briefing by Brig. Gen. James McConville, who is the deputy commander for the area in eastern Afghanistan where U.S. troops are fighting. One of his slides showed a circle of nine interconnected groups — including the forces of Islamic warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the “Haqqani Network” of tribal leader Jalaluddin Haqqani, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and other mafia-like groups. Al-Qaeda is part of the syndicate, in theory. But from what I’ve heard from U.S. commanders during three visits to Afghanistan this year, al-Qaeda’s presence remains minimal.
. . . . .
As Gen. McKiernan says, “It’s not just boots on the ground” that will bring success in Afghanistan, but a range of factors such as governance, economic development and relations with neighboring Pakistan. The idea that we can saturate that vast country with enough American soldiers to provide security for the population seems unrealistic, to put it mildly.
Recent Comments