It's no secret that if the U.S. and its NATO partners want to secure Afghanistan in the coming year, one of the most important elements is going to be defending the civilian population. This is going to mean that Afghans--particularly on the village level--need to feel safe in saying "no thanks" to Taliban fundamentalism. This isn't going to be an easy task, but it will be necessary if the U.S. wants to purge the Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan.
In approximately six months, the Obama Administration plans to double the presence of American boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Just down the grape vine, I've heard a few of these on-the-ground goals:
1. Secure the road from Kabul to Kandahar.
2. Rely less on air strikes that have a bad habit of killing civilian bystanders.
3. Convince the average Afghan that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are NOT on the rise.
So yeah, it's going to be a hell of a year in Afghanistan.
But we know all this. And it seems like almost everyone is in agreement that sending more troops and engaging in something just short of an Iraqi style of population-centric counterinsurgency will do the trick. But will it?
I don't know how I got on the list, but I am, and know I now receive emails from a new and engaging foundation called Rethink Afghanistan. They argue mostly what I have argued for in Afghanistan: Keep a light footprint and push for a regional solution that creates an environment where an Afghan police state is not needed. Victory would be a credible yet limited government in Kabul with allies across the country's more ungovernable regions.
Rethink Afghanistan focuses on part military strategy, but also on the fact that the U.S. is in an economic meltdown and sending more troops to this Central Asian country that most Americans couldn't point out on a map is simply absurd.
So take a look at the website and sound off in the comments. Is it really a good idea to be sending all these troops into a country that has a reputation for breaking nations? And besides, no one learned how to fly a plane into the WTC from rural Afghanistan anyways.
(They also have a fancy new movie you can watch on line.)
4 comments:
I went on the web site. And, I think that a light footprint is only one good option. Another, is to forget about the rural areas -- allow the Arab countries only to offer infra-structure aid and social support. Secure two of the larger urban centers, and modernize through a jobs program funding by US. Provide protection in these areas.
Game over.
Hmmm, ok. Why the Arab countries? Cuz they have money? The only Arabs in Afghanistan are Jihadists like bin-Laden. Many Afghans don't like the Arabs because they see them as pompous.
The Soviets did something to what you are suggesting: focus on the urban level while neglecting the rural. While this conventional approach must have sounded good in Moscow and other nations that have invaded the Stan, it is not exactly how Afghanistan works. The problems in this place always bubble up from the rural level and always seem to cause a tremendous headache for civil administrators in Kabul or wherever.
Jobs are good too. But Afghanistan--unlike Iraq--has to start from scratch. For many Iraqis it was like returning to something. For many rural Afghans, a national jobs program is new and would connect the country in a way that has never been done. Though it sounds like it would fix a lot of our problems, and likely it would, it is much easier said than done. And besides, what will the American taxpayer get for this investment in rural Central Asia? A discount on turbans?
As I keep saying, the more we show that we are going to bail out Afghanistan, the more the non-insurgents are going to relax because they know we will do all the work.
So what about the poppy trade? Think our light footprint can deal with the multi-million dollar industry and its growing demands? Perhaps we need to solicite the Golden Triangle for some help?
That Rooster sure thinks a lot about the "high" points of foreign policy. Strut on.
Post a Comment