Coll's View- India & Region
The thing that so many folks seem to overlook is that Pakistan is just one piece of the puzzle.
India, for itself, has direct reasons to actively engaged in the Taliban threat, as do other neighbors (China).
But Coll's pointing to India and other nations on the path to modernization highlights the fact that these movements were internally driven, and are inter-generational endeavors.
Steve
They're a nuisance and little more
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
John, David,take a look at all the attacks that he says AQ was resonsible for including the recent attack in India, that dosen't seem like an organization that is just a nusance.:eek: Seems like one that is becoming far more dangerous.
I'm sure they want to become more dangerous but the truth is they're becoming less dangerous.
Check the LINK. The boys in AQ are only number 30 on a list of terrorist organizations in India. The Assamese and the Communists do far more damage. The Mumbai attack was not AQ but another Muslim fundamentalist crew from Pakistan.
2 Attachment(s)
Ken's signs & the Indian Ocean
Of Ken's signs, I like this one (attached) - modified by some shooping artistry to show the order of magnitude difference between policy and strategy; and that policy can drive a diametrically opposed exit state from that suggested by the best strategy.
Where Steve Coll will end up with his series and his "yes or no" answer, I don't know. But, if we (US, and for that matter the various ISAF partners) are indeed considering the best policy; and, as a smaller part, a strategy for the Indian Ocean littorals; and, as a smaller part of that, a strategy for Astan, we should look to the map and the nations that have interests in that region.
I see at least a dozen regional powers on those littorals and the associated continental land masses - some are genuine global powers. I will agree with Coll that the US and the ISAF partners have "interests" in the Indian Ocean region. Labelling them "vital, deep, etc." is not especially helpful.
My take: The salient question is what are the relative interests of the countries we can see on the map - and the relative interests of those countries that do not appear on the map. To turn Marx on his head, from each according to his interests; to each according to his interests.
How do others here see the relative interests of the countries on the map - and the relative interests of those countries that do not appear on the map (e.g., the US and the ISAF partners) ?
You are right on the money, FSO.
Not only did the ESAF change over time but individuals did as well. I will be forever impressed and in awe of the American Ambassadors. the MILGP Commanders and those who worked for them, and, especially, the ESAF officers who with all their faults who fought a hard war, learned and changed and adjusted to peace.
Are there comparable military and civilian leaders in Afghanistan?
Cheers
JohnT
Ken's list and "nuisances"
Good point, the List of terrorist organisations in India. It illustrates the deficiency, if practice were applied to the rhetoric, of the term "GWOT".
As to AQ as a "nuisance", I suppose I agree based on a totally rational analysis from both the military and law enforcement standpoint. But, let us have one successful attack by AQ directly, or via an AQ-supported group, and the public perception will not regard "nuisance" as an appropriate term. I prefer the wording that AQ is a "threat".
Certainly, it is far from a threat to the nation's existence. By comparison, the US suffered over 113,000 accidental deaths in 2005. Those dwarfed the 9/11 totals. The folks' reactions to what is considered "normal" (accidental deaths) and what is considered "abnormal" (terrorist attacks) are quite different. And the folks' and their politicians' reactions are what drives policy.
Regards to all
Mike
And Ken, I missed your smiling persona for a few days. Thought I'd have to send out the St. Bernard (with brandy - yum, yum to me) or the Kentucky bloodhound (with I. W. Harper - also OK).
A little part of the picture
Not long ago, Steve (Surferbeetle) assigned me the task of looking at Astan governance and Rule of Law. As part of that task, I looked at a number of reports and assessments (most of which are pure agitprop, IMHO).
The Afghanistan Justice Sector Support Program (JSSP) issued three assessment reports on the justice systems in four fairly secure provinces in 2007:
Assessment of the Justice Sector in Kunduz Province, Oct 2007 (37 pages)
The State of Regional Justice Systems in Balkh, Herat and Nangarhar, Dec 2006 (79 pages)
Assessment of Provincial Defense Capabilities, Sept 2007 (70 pages)
The reports (which primarily focused on criminal justice - judges, prosecutors & police) were bleak. Since then, the JSSP has not updated the assessments; although it has released a number of PR "shorts".
The criminal portion of a justice system is important; but in the long term, the civil portion of the system is more important because it directly or indirectly affects far more people. Astan's 4 provinces in their formal justice system in 2007 flunked the criminal justice tests; the civil justice system seemed non-existent in any formal sense.
The ability of the two sheep barterers to resolve the "defective sheep" issue, or the issue of which rock marks the property line, is but a minor blip in the geo-political issues which are the major foci of interest. The comment by GEN McChrystal that the Taliban have set up "Shadow Governments" is not encouraging. If the Taliban can provide acceptable justice to the little sheepherders and property owners, it will go a long way to preempt the role of the national government.
So, in answer to JTF's question:
Quote:
Are there comparable military and civilian leaders in Afghanistan?
Not in the four provinces studied by JSSP.
No cheers about this, but it seems to be factual.
Mike
That's what I read, AQ it was...
One last comment on El Salvador
The only Afghan leader with whom I had sufficient interaction to form any evidence-based opinions was the former governor of Kandahar Province, Assadullah Khalid. Although I am in the minority, I liked the guy and thought he turned in a creditable performance in an impossible job. He certainly was better than the two persons who have held the job since he was replaced (due to pressure from the international community).