 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . |  |
. |
Military Matters: U.S. losing Afghan war
Washington, April 17, 2009 With the usual fanfare, the Obama administration in the United States has proclaimed a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan. On the surface, it does not amount to much. But if a story by Bill Gertz in the March 26 edition of The Washington Times is correct, there is more to it than meets the eye. Gertz reported that "the Obama administration has conducted a vigorous internal debate over its new strategy for Afghanistan." Gertz wrote: "According to two U.S. government sources close to the issue, senior policymakers were divided over how comprehensive to make the strategy. ... "On the one side were Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg, who argued in closed-door meetings for a minimal strategy of stabilizing Afghanistan. ... "The goal of these advocates was to limit civilian and other non-military efforts in Afghanistan and focus on a main military objective of denying safe haven to the Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists. "The other side of the debate was led by Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy for the region, who along with U.S. Central Command leader Gen. David H. Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton fought for a major nation-building effort. "The Holbrooke-Petraeus-Clinton faction, according to the sources, prevailed. The result is expected to be a major, long-term military and civilian program to reinvent Afghanistan from one of the most backward, least developed nations to a relatively prosperous democratic state." I have not seen similar stories in other papers, so it is possible Gertz is not correct. But if he is, the Obama administration has just made the Afghan war its own -- and lost it. Ironically, the reported decision duplicates the Bush administration's error in Iraq, another lost war. The next phase in Iraq's Sunni-Shiite civil war is now ramping up. The error, one that no tactical or operational successes can overcome, is setting unattainable strategic objectives. Short of divine intervention, nothing can turn Afghanistan into a modern, prosperous, democratic state. Pigs will not only fly, they will win dogfights with Boeing F-15 Eagles before that happens. The most Afghanistan can ever be is Afghanistan: a poor, backward country, one where the state is weak and local warlords are strong, one that is plagued with a drug-based economy and endemic low-level civil war. That is Afghanistan at its best. Just achieving that would be difficult for an occupying foreign power, whose presence assures that war will not be low-level and that no settlement will be long-term. In fact, even the minimalist objectives reportedly urged by Biden are not attainable. The U.S. government cannot deny safe haven in Afghanistan for the Taliban because the Taliban are Afghans. They represent a substantial portion of the Pashtun population. The most the U.S. government can hope to obtain in a settlement of the Afghan war is the exclusion of al-Qaida. That is a realistic strategic objective because al-Qaida is made up of Arabs -- that is to say, foreigners -- whom the Afghans dislike the same way they dislike other foreigners. The Taliban's commitment to al-Qaida is ideological, and the right combination of incentives can usually break ideological commitments. Instead of a pragmatic, realistic approach to attaining that limited objective, it seems we are committed to a quixotic quest for the unattainable. Again, that guarantees the United States will lose the Afghan war. No means, military or non-military, can obtain the unattainable. The circle cannot be squared. Here we see how little "change" the Obama administration really represents. The differences between the neoliberals and the neocons are few. Both are militant believers in Brave New World, a globalist future in which everyone on earth becomes modern. In the view of these ideologues, the fact that billions of people are willing to fight to the death against modernity is, like the river Pregel, an unimportant military obstacle. We just need to buy more Predators. Meanwhile, the money is running out. The ancien regime syndrome that doomed the ancient monarchy of Kings Louis XV and Louis XVI in 18th century France looms ever larger: The U.S. government not only maintains but increases foolish foreign commitments at the same time that debt is piling up, those willing to lend are becoming fewer and the U.S. government is reduced to debasing the currency. Historians have seen it all before, many, many times. It never has a happy ending. It appears Afghanistan will be the graveyard of yet another empire. (William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation.) Share This Article With Planet Earth
Related Links News From Across The Stans
NATO soldier killed in Afghanistan
Kabul (AFP) April 16, 2009A soldier serving with NATO-led forces in eastern Afghanistan was killed in a bomb blast, the alliance said Thursday. |
|
|
| The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2007 - SpaceDaily.AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA Portal Reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement |
del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
YahooMyWeb
Google
Facebook