Fair questions, Slap. Playing the
debbil's advocate, let me flip 'em for disccussin' purposes.
Quote:
1-As long as we are fighting,dying and paying for the Government I think we have a legitimate interest in having some control of that Government.
An alternative question is: Is our interest in control of the government of 'X' legitimate enough for us to be fighting, dying and paying for that government? *
Quote:
2-As for focusing on the people of A'stan correcting the corrupt leadership of the country is focusing on the people of A'stan, isn't it?
If the people of A'stan do not look upon their methods of interchange and intercourse as 'corrupt,' do we have an obligation -- or even a right -- to decide for them that they are wrong?
More importantly, how much time and effort are we prepared to expend in the almost certainly very difficult if not doomed attempt to turn around several centuries of practice?
A practice that while technically illegal and frowned upon still exists and skews things in our own nation to an admittedly lesser but still pervasive extent? What does such an effort say to others about our being hypocritical and thus encourage them to ignore our preaching as we do indulge in the practice ourselves...
* I realize we are there and my question thus is marginal on the merits and 'what if' doesn't do it. I ask it not so much for Afghanistan which is on a course that is set and we will not, cannot, significantly affect but for consideration prior to embarking on future operations.
I don't know but my guesses would be that
- he hates being put on the spot about cleaning up corruption which is as Afghan as Nan (which is to say it migrated there out of Persia --as have so many things, including the Naan, or Nun as it is now...). It's an impossible dream.
- he hates being told, after only six years, to get his barely existent government moving to do things the US doesn't do well after 200+. Our impatience often comes across as hypocrisy. It always tends to bug other less driven cultures.
- he senses that the US wants out, badly, thus once again leaving Afghans in the lurch. We say we won't do that; history says we will and our opponents (to include some so-called Allies) point out Viet Nam, Panama, Somalia, as well as other times and places where we -- logically -- put our interests first * except they couch it as "You can't trust the Americans."
Enough to make anyone want to do or be something else... :D
* I have no problem with putting our interest first; I do have a problem with being smarmy and saying we'll do something we have no intention (or capability, not the same thing but has the same effect) of doing because it seems to perhaps, maybe, be something that might be in our interest in the near term...
Our electoral cycle poses numerous problems as well as even more benefits. The problem is not that cycle, it is the failure of planners to consider it.
Hey, Bob, Jeremy -- you guys see that??? :D
Perhaps if you looked at it from a different perspective?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
omarali50
cross posting: I had convinced myself that the US actually wants to leave a reasonable stable non-taliban Afghanistan after they successfully suppress the taliiban, but I am increasingly fearful that not only will the US be UNABLE to do so, it does not even WANT to do so. I cannot make out what they DO want, but it sure doesnt look good. ISI is back on top in Pakistan and crowing about "strategic victory". Everyone in Afghanistan (including Karzai) is busy trying to look beyond a US defeat. This may reach the point of no return sooner rather than later. The fact is, I can even understand why that may make sense from an American point of view. America will probably do fine without playing world cop all over the place. Unfortunately, the mess that now exists in that region will get much worse before it gets better if America leaves. But, I was wrong about US intentions, I hope I am wrong about that too....maybe things will actually get better with less American interference. But then again, expecting China, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia to behave sensibly and stay on even keel and manage to pay/manage the Pak army without encouraging millenial jihadi dreams, that seems like a tall order.....
I see a Taliban senior leadership breaking ties with their Pakistani masters, so much so that Pakistan is lashing out and rounding up large numbers to remind them that they have no intention of letting them quit this partnership for controlling Afghanistan.
I see an Afghan President finally recognizing that he can never defeat an insurgency in his own country until he is willing to create the perception that it actually is his own country and that he is actually the one in charge of it; and not some cabal of foreigners.
I see Afghans relying less of foreign constructs provided for them by that same foreign cabal and reaching out to the informal and formal leaders across Afghanistan in a series of Jirgas to discuss the concerns and desires of the people in a style viewed as legitimate here.
I see great discomfort, and also great understanding within the cabal of what is going on. Personally I agree with those who see promise in this, and find myself in good company, small though it may be. Those who are most uncomfortable are those who are least able to step back from their own paradigms.
Is Mr. Karzai crossing lines of polite politics? Certainly, but this is no time for polite politics, this is a time for action, and he understands that. One way or another the foreigners who lifted him to power are going to leave sooner than later, and he must decide what kind of solution he wants to have left behind: A Coalition Solution; a Pakistani Solution; or an Afghan Solution. I for one, will not find fault in the man for seeking the Afghan Solution.
I also think it is important to understand that military action only shapes conditions in insurgency, but that success and failure lay at the Governmental level. Populaction Centric approaches are a wise way to approach a populace that is all going to have to work together to be a part of the stable state that emerges from conflict; but it is Government Centric approaches (i.e., a recognition that one must address the true fundamental failings of government that give rise to such conflicts, which I believe are in the neighborhood of Legitimacy; Respect; Justice and trusted processess for the populace to address the same).
So I see things moving in the right direction; and I hope Mr. Karzai succeeds in his efforts; because no amount of foreign military or humanitarian action can solve a problem of this nature if he does not. I also recognize that if Mr. Karzai succeeds it may lead to him ultimately being replaced by some character not approved of by many supporting his government now; I think he recognizes that as well. But then, the only result that can be truly legitimate is one that is not also preordained or controlled.
"Proof" for the Karzai narrative?
This BBC report 'Italians held over Afghanistan 'assassination plot' alleging Italian NGO staff involvement in a plot to kill the Helmand governor is not good news and rather fits in with the Karzai narrative:
Quote:
Three Italian medical workers are among nine men arrested in Afghanistan in connection with an alleged plot to kill a provincial governor, officials say. The detentions came after suicide bomb vests and weapons were discovered at a hospital run by a Milan-based charity in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand.
Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8613801.stm
Peter Galbraith On Farid Zakari Today
Peter Galbraith was interviewed on Farid Zakari this morning. It is not on You tube yet so I can't post it, but it was a most interesting interview. It will replay again later in the day on MSNBC watch it if you get a chance. Ooops!!! it is CNN not MSNBC!!!!