Before your eyes glaze over - keep reading. I know its weekend and I should come with a light frothy topic, but well, this Afghanistan/Pakistan thing is quite fascinating. I mean, I will or rather am in the midst of wading through the swamps of information, complications, twisted & intertwined relationships, corruption, deceit, double-standards, double-agents thing of a past and present state of this region.
It has all the makings of a Shakespearean drama. Its kind of like Richard II, Macbeth and Hamlet morphed into this one huge uber-complicated thing, with names you can´t pronounce, let alone remember the looooong list of characters.
So I am doing a sort of "Understanding Afghanistan for dummies".
Part I: What is going on in Afghanistan? Why are we there again?
Is a proliferation of forces in Afghanistan going to achieve that goal? Like......what goal is it exactly? Erasing the bad Taliban? Capturing Bin Laden? Democratizing Afghanistan? I don´t think anyone really even knows what the "mission" is......
And to tie in to my post yesterday, where I just threw out a statement " we should get the hell out of there", here my attempt to explain why I think we should.
(Various articles, podcasts and reports that I´ve read are posted at the end of this blog. )
Its my belief that wars in general are not such a great idea. But well, they happen , because some crazy fanatics, have in the past, wanted to rule the world. So, yes, engagement has been necessary to ultimately stop the madness, injustice, death, destruction ie hell on earth.
Ok.
Now, in the case of Afghanistan........why did we go there in the first place? Well, 9/11 happened. And Afghanistan was the breeding ground for those responsible. At the very least, the country harboring the terrorists along with its leader, OBL. So, understandably, we had to go in.
Gywnne Dyer, Canadian historian and columnist had this to say:
"The Americans were lured into Afghanistan by 9/11 attack
These tactics are taught at every military academy - you sucker the enemy into doing something you want them to do. (ok, that definitely sounds like Macbeth)
George Tennet - head of CIA at that time (9/11) was the only sensible head at that time - he said, no, lets not invade. We will bring down the Taliban without invading. Kabul fell Nov. 2001. Fewer than 1000 Americans were on the ground. The Regime was brought down without invading. It was all done before the Pentagon got its act together. "
Well, when the Pentagon got its "act" together, Iraq was the goal and focus of funds and troops. Afghanistan turned into a kind of sideshow. An afterthought. Even though OBL and Al Qaeda were hiding out there.
Ok. So - the seemingly never-ending problem in Afghanistan has been this:
Combat forces come in, conquer but then are unable to follow up with the securing and holding of won territory. So they withdraw again. Now, the reasons why they withdraw again are many and varying. And its not the first time this has happened.
Back in the late 80`s - the Charlie Wilson´s War era (a movie I highly recommend watching, giving a fly-on-the-wall insight as to how our government works besides shedding light on why the rise of the Taliban) - it was due to lack of interest on the US side to re-build a country, whose almost non-existent infrastructure prior to the Soviet invasion, was, after their retreat, totally obliterated. So the civilian population was left alone. Abandoned. The Afghanis fighting with American-financed weapons came back to their villages, finding everything destroyed, with no prospects. So fertile ground for the breeding of a fanatical terrorist doctrine. Enter OBL and AL Qaeda. 9/11 happens. And in essence, its been the same cycle, on a loop. Just the name of the protagonists change.
Eight years down the line, no OBL in sight. Taliban still all over the place, controlling large areas in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Now, focus&funds have shifted from Iraq (WMD anyone?) and more forces are in Afghanistan. An insurgence of allied troops - Thrust of the Sword - as its called and commenced July 2nd, 2009. The fighting against the Taliban-held areas has intensified. Sadly, the casualties have risen as well.
Its a country with impossibly rugged terrain. So the geography is a factor, in my opinion, a huge factor. Wars cannot be waged there in the conventional high-tech way modern warfare is associated with. I think we learned that in Vietnam. Hitler learned that in Russia and former Yugoslavia trying to crush the Partisans back in WWII. And the former Soviet Union's invasion in Afghanistan ultimately weakened that empire to the extent that, shortly after its retreat, it broke apart.
Some experts estimate that approx. 400,000 to 600,000 security forces are/will be needed to maintain stability in Afghanistan.
Currently, there are a total of 230,000 forces combined (NATO and Afghan National security and police).
That brings up the question: what to do? Send even more troops? How to finance? Is it even possible to finance during this economic crisis?
What I think would make more sense is to subsidize the Afghan National security forces. (The country itself is extremely poor, no rich oil reserves, like Iraq, therefore does need foreign resources)
From what I´ve been hearing and reading, supporting local forces with training and weapons would cost a lot less. And ultimately, hopefully, bring long-term peace and stability for this country that has been under siege for the past 30 years. These locals in the National Security forces know the terrain much better and have a much larger degree of public support. Makes sense, no? Who would you trust more? Some guy who doesn´t speak your language dressed in combat gear or a countryman who understands you and your culture? Even with the best of intentions we may have, its the continued help of the local army that has been crucial to any form of success.
So, thats why I think we should re-examine this and get the hell out of there. Maybe thats Obama´s objective. To be honest, I don´t know. And it seems to me nobody really does, as its such a mess.
In the US and Europe, with so many people struggling to either keep their jobs, find a job, worry about heath care (ok, only the US has to worry about that), paying the bills, just getting by day after day, what goes on thousands of miles away doesn´t generate much interest. Unless your son is fighting there. And I honestly do pray for everyone there.
Here's an analogy: a pot of stew left, well, stewing, on the stove and you go out to do something else. Eventually, it will boil over. Or go up in flames. Or whatever. The Afghan people need to do the cooking themselves. Lets teach them how to run their own kitchen. And watch the pot. Personally, I don´t think we need 40,000+ combat troops to do that.
And it should concern us and interest us what&why goes on around the world. In some way, seemingly unrelated events will always affect us. It already has. The costs these wars have incurred are affecting us now.
See budget deficit (um, yeah, blank checks for Iraq sure helped)
See debate on health care (see above. "Can´t afford it"? yeah, thats why)
See economic meltdown (see above)
See war on terror (should read: private contractors raking in millions with fear-mongering)
to end on another comment Gywnne Dyer made:
"If you are doing the wrong thing, do you think more of it is going to work? Stop digging. Its not what we think we are doing there, its what the occupied nation thinks we are doing there that counts. All our technology allows us to kill more people. Problem with that is it tends to annoy the relatives."
Links to related articles and podcasts:
It has all the makings of a Shakespearean drama. Its kind of like Richard II, Macbeth and Hamlet morphed into this one huge uber-complicated thing, with names you can´t pronounce, let alone remember the looooong list of characters.
So I am doing a sort of "Understanding Afghanistan for dummies".
Part I: What is going on in Afghanistan? Why are we there again?
Is a proliferation of forces in Afghanistan going to achieve that goal? Like......what goal is it exactly? Erasing the bad Taliban? Capturing Bin Laden? Democratizing Afghanistan? I don´t think anyone really even knows what the "mission" is......
And to tie in to my post yesterday, where I just threw out a statement " we should get the hell out of there", here my attempt to explain why I think we should.
(Various articles, podcasts and reports that I´ve read are posted at the end of this blog. )
Its my belief that wars in general are not such a great idea. But well, they happen , because some crazy fanatics, have in the past, wanted to rule the world. So, yes, engagement has been necessary to ultimately stop the madness, injustice, death, destruction ie hell on earth.
Ok.
Now, in the case of Afghanistan........why did we go there in the first place? Well, 9/11 happened. And Afghanistan was the breeding ground for those responsible. At the very least, the country harboring the terrorists along with its leader, OBL. So, understandably, we had to go in.
Gywnne Dyer, Canadian historian and columnist had this to say:
"The Americans were lured into Afghanistan by 9/11 attack
These tactics are taught at every military academy - you sucker the enemy into doing something you want them to do. (ok, that definitely sounds like Macbeth)
George Tennet - head of CIA at that time (9/11) was the only sensible head at that time - he said, no, lets not invade. We will bring down the Taliban without invading. Kabul fell Nov. 2001. Fewer than 1000 Americans were on the ground. The Regime was brought down without invading. It was all done before the Pentagon got its act together. "
Well, when the Pentagon got its "act" together, Iraq was the goal and focus of funds and troops. Afghanistan turned into a kind of sideshow. An afterthought. Even though OBL and Al Qaeda were hiding out there.
Ok. So - the seemingly never-ending problem in Afghanistan has been this:
Combat forces come in, conquer but then are unable to follow up with the securing and holding of won territory. So they withdraw again. Now, the reasons why they withdraw again are many and varying. And its not the first time this has happened.
Back in the late 80`s - the Charlie Wilson´s War era (a movie I highly recommend watching, giving a fly-on-the-wall insight as to how our government works besides shedding light on why the rise of the Taliban) - it was due to lack of interest on the US side to re-build a country, whose almost non-existent infrastructure prior to the Soviet invasion, was, after their retreat, totally obliterated. So the civilian population was left alone. Abandoned. The Afghanis fighting with American-financed weapons came back to their villages, finding everything destroyed, with no prospects. So fertile ground for the breeding of a fanatical terrorist doctrine. Enter OBL and AL Qaeda. 9/11 happens. And in essence, its been the same cycle, on a loop. Just the name of the protagonists change.
Eight years down the line, no OBL in sight. Taliban still all over the place, controlling large areas in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Now, focus&funds have shifted from Iraq (WMD anyone?) and more forces are in Afghanistan. An insurgence of allied troops - Thrust of the Sword - as its called and commenced July 2nd, 2009. The fighting against the Taliban-held areas has intensified. Sadly, the casualties have risen as well.
Its a country with impossibly rugged terrain. So the geography is a factor, in my opinion, a huge factor. Wars cannot be waged there in the conventional high-tech way modern warfare is associated with. I think we learned that in Vietnam. Hitler learned that in Russia and former Yugoslavia trying to crush the Partisans back in WWII. And the former Soviet Union's invasion in Afghanistan ultimately weakened that empire to the extent that, shortly after its retreat, it broke apart.
Some experts estimate that approx. 400,000 to 600,000 security forces are/will be needed to maintain stability in Afghanistan.
Currently, there are a total of 230,000 forces combined (NATO and Afghan National security and police).
That brings up the question: what to do? Send even more troops? How to finance? Is it even possible to finance during this economic crisis?
What I think would make more sense is to subsidize the Afghan National security forces. (The country itself is extremely poor, no rich oil reserves, like Iraq, therefore does need foreign resources)
From what I´ve been hearing and reading, supporting local forces with training and weapons would cost a lot less. And ultimately, hopefully, bring long-term peace and stability for this country that has been under siege for the past 30 years. These locals in the National Security forces know the terrain much better and have a much larger degree of public support. Makes sense, no? Who would you trust more? Some guy who doesn´t speak your language dressed in combat gear or a countryman who understands you and your culture? Even with the best of intentions we may have, its the continued help of the local army that has been crucial to any form of success.
So, thats why I think we should re-examine this and get the hell out of there. Maybe thats Obama´s objective. To be honest, I don´t know. And it seems to me nobody really does, as its such a mess.
In the US and Europe, with so many people struggling to either keep their jobs, find a job, worry about heath care (ok, only the US has to worry about that), paying the bills, just getting by day after day, what goes on thousands of miles away doesn´t generate much interest. Unless your son is fighting there. And I honestly do pray for everyone there.
Here's an analogy: a pot of stew left, well, stewing, on the stove and you go out to do something else. Eventually, it will boil over. Or go up in flames. Or whatever. The Afghan people need to do the cooking themselves. Lets teach them how to run their own kitchen. And watch the pot. Personally, I don´t think we need 40,000+ combat troops to do that.
And it should concern us and interest us what&why goes on around the world. In some way, seemingly unrelated events will always affect us. It already has. The costs these wars have incurred are affecting us now.
See budget deficit (um, yeah, blank checks for Iraq sure helped)
See debate on health care (see above. "Can´t afford it"? yeah, thats why)
See economic meltdown (see above)
See war on terror (should read: private contractors raking in millions with fear-mongering)
to end on another comment Gywnne Dyer made:
"If you are doing the wrong thing, do you think more of it is going to work? Stop digging. Its not what we think we are doing there, its what the occupied nation thinks we are doing there that counts. All our technology allows us to kill more people. Problem with that is it tends to annoy the relatives."
Links to related articles and podcasts:
- http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_619184.html
- http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13980912
- http://www.economist.com/search/search.cfm?rv=2&qr=the+surge+in+Afghanistan&area=1&x=15&y=10
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/11/taliban-tactics-analysis
- http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive#Show-25---The-Dyer-Outlook
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/8035691.stm
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040602931.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
- http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=170706
- http://pakobserver.net/200904/06/Articles01.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment