Question, maybe in the wrong place...
I posted this comment on "land of 10,000 wars": http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...of-10000-wars/ and was wondering where I would post such a query on this discussion board?
"I am curious to know if most people here agree with boatspace? What "accomodation" would allow the US to leave?
In my personal opinion (based on zero inside information), the real issue is not Afghanistan, its Pakistan. Lets imagine that the US leaves Afghanistan in disarray, right down to the iconic helicopter takeoff from the Kabul embassy roof (maybe with Karzai hanging on to the rope ladder); even in that scenario, the real loss is loss of face. There is no oil in Afghanistan and no easy way to have a functional modern country in the foreseeable future. Taliban ruled Afghanistan would become a haven for the world's adventure seeking jihadis, but the taliban would not have peace. The Northern alliance has been revitalized and will continue to get Indian and Iranian (and probably Russian and American) support and will hold the North. The rest will be one big mess, Somalia X 10, occasionally bombed and cruise-missiled as the need arises. How many international terrorist plots have been launched from Somalia? probably zero. Without Pakistan, the jihadis have nothing except endless brutal war in the world's poorest country.
The real prize is Pakistan.
My question to you is this: do you think the US has finally flipped the Pakistani army or can the Pakistani army go back to training and arming jihadis?
If they dont go back to being jihad central, isnt the job in that region pretty much done? (And I will admit I am trying to start a conversation and learn, these are not necessarily my final views). The Pakistani army could be fighting the jihadis for decades, but as long as they hold the major cities and control the ports and airports, how is that any worse than what is happening now?
It will probably be very bad for the Afghans if the US leaves soon, but is it really that bad for the US?
lets not judge so quickly..
I am the farthest thing from an alqaeda or taliban sympathizer, so lets not jump to conclusions here!
I will say that from several years experience on other email groups, I do expect massive misunderstanding in the first few exchanges. We all use heuristics that are generally useful but may be totally wrong in particular cases. Patience is the only real solution since no single email can present all the assumptions that underlie a particular position. Things will get clearer with time.
In any case, as I said upfront, the main purpose was to start a discussion and try to get a clearer sense of what people think the US is doing in afghanistan and what may or may not be its essential interests in that region. If the conversation continues, we will get there.....
America's "Pakistan problem"
I was just sent this article (
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/917tltdv.asp) and I think it gets the background right and correctly points out that the biggest reason for staying and winning in Afghanistan is Pakistan. Such a victory would force a complete overhaul of "national security thinking" in Pakistan, while US defeat in Afghanistan would confirm to the generals that their assessment was correct and having beaten their second superpower, they can go back to plan A (you would be surprised at the speed with which the supposed "revenge to the tenth generation" business evaporates and corps commanders are again hugging taliban commanders on TV).
Some of the other suggestions are weak tea. They are also (in my opinion) misdirected. The US (or any superpower) with interests in the region is not going to win hearts and minds by doing good deeds and paying journalists to highlight them. They should still DO good deeds, but the expectation that you can spend X dollars on some hospitals and "everyone" will love you in return is not correct. They will love you in return IF their perceived national interest is aligned with yours OR if they have NO "strategic issues" to do with you. Thus, its easy for, say, Cuba to buy goodwill. Its operating on neutral ground and 8 doctors and a mobile hospital earned it tons of goodwill in 2005. But India cannot earn similar goodwill with 800 doctors. ..and so on.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/917tltdv.asp
Sec Clinton brings love and hate to Pakistan
I'd like to know what everyone thinks about Sec Clinton's remarks in Pakistan. Personally, I think it is a good thing. She is being direct about the (or lack of) responsibility and accountability of the Pakistanis to secure areas of their nation-state and hunt down al Qaeda.
Highlights include:
Quote:
“I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are, and couldn’t get to them if they really wanted to,” she said to a group of Pakistani journalists on her second day here. “Maybe that’s the case; maybe they’re not gettable. I don’t know.”
“Slowly, but insidiously, you were losing territory,” Mrs. Clinton said. “If you want to see your territory shrink, that’s your choice. But I don’t think that’s the right choice.”
“I am more than willing to hear every complaint about the United States.” But she said the relationship had to be a “two-way street.”
Best
Mike
Hillary Clinton urges openness
Here's an interview where she explains her actions.
I did this on a very micro-level (just one village). I'd acknowledge the US failures during the initial years of the Iraq war, but I would follow it up quickly that our missteps did not give the villagers the right to:
- Behead/murder/displace their neighbors.
- Steal from each other.
- Blow up their roads.
- Refuse to vote and then complain that they were not represented in the government.
It was a different tactic, but it worked.
Here's what the Sec had to say:
Quote:
She referred to the experience of former President Bill Clinton. "I watched in the '90s as my husband just kept pushing and pushing and pushing, and good things happened. There wasn't a final agreement, but fewer people died, there were more opportunities for economic development, for trade, for exchanges. It had positive effects, even though it didn't cross the finish line. So I think that being involved at the highest levels sends a message of our seriousness of purpose."
Clinton said it's time to "clear the air" with a key U.S. ally. She added, "I don't think the way you deal with negative feelings is to pretend they're not there."
"I think it's important, if we are going to have the kind of cooperative partnership, that I think is in the best interest of both of our countries, for me to express some of the questions that are on the minds of the American people,"
"No, no," she said. "What I was responding to is what I have been really doing on this trip, which is there exists a trust deficit, certainly on the part of Pakistanis toward the United States, toward our intentions and our actions. And yet we have so much in common, we face a common threat. We certainly have a common enemy in extremism and terrorism, and so part of what I have been doing is answering every single charge, every question."
Trust "is a two-way street," she added. While Pakistan's military operation has been "extremely courageous in both Swat and now in South Waziristan, success there is not sufficient," she said. "... I just want to keep putting on the table that we have some concerns as well. And I think ... that's the kind of relationship I'm looking to build here."