Obama's Very Own Quagmire
Obama is continuing the policy, started by his predecessor George W. Bush, of bombing suspected Taliban hideouts in Pakistan. As well, the U.S. has sent about 70 military "advisers" into that country.
We shouldn't be surprised. When he was campaigning for the presidency, Obama promised to vigorously pursue the Taliban into their Pakistani sanctuaries. At the time, he was criticized as naive. The smart money said he'd never follow through. Apparently, the smart money was wrong.
In fact, Obama's Afghan strategy seems remarkably similar to that of Bush. Bush, too, embraced the so-called three D's, defence, development and diplomacy, all of which have been U.S. and NATO orthodoxy since 2003.
It's true that in the early years of the war Bush focused solely on force of arms. As then defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously noted, America wasn't in the business of nation-building.
But by 2003, that began to change. As the Taliban regrouped, the U.S. realized that it was caught in a full-scale insurgency that required a more sophisticated response.
punditman says ... It is nice to see some honest analysis of the Afghanistan situation within the mainstream media. Given the economic position that the US and Canada and the entire western world finds itself in, it seems rather counter intuitive to spend even more money on another hopeless war. People need to stop putting Obama on a pedestal and take a hard look at his actual policies rather than his rhetoric. Is there any difference between his and Bush's approach to the Afghan quagmire? Punditman can't see it, at least not so far.
Walkom's take is interesting but a bit naive. He claims the strategy was for NATO to secure the villagers. We've never had a tenth of the force that would have been needed for that job. That's why we all hunker down in garrisons, a tried and tested way of losing a guerrilla war.
ReplyDeleteI think the future of American and NATO involvement in Afghanistan may be shaped by the Afghan elections in August more than anything else.
The Taliban are gaming this beautifully. While they haven't won over the population, they have driven a solid wedge between the public and the Kabul government. They have managed to goad Western forces into causing enough carnage to turn the people against them - and to blame the central government for the air strikes and artillery barrages.
Now, in the run-up to the August general elections, the Taliban are publicly stating they're willing to work with all other groups (tribes) in Afghanistan to negotiate a peaceful future - WHEN - all Western troops are gone.
We've utterly lost the support and trust of the Afghan people. Even NATO admits that now. The locals feel we're making their lives worse, less secure, not better. Now the Taliban presents them with an offer they can't refuse - peace if only their government sends us packing.
We have played this wrong at every turn, every one, for the past eight years. The Taliban has played it right, straight by the book. They've waged a classic political war while we've stupidly chosen to fight a military war. They have made us lose the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.
What will be our approach to a national unity government that tells us to leave?
I agree 100% with you, MoS.
ReplyDeleteSee the post I just published (at 2:30 PM) ...