KP Week-End Notes II: As we await Mr. Obama's Speech on Afghanistan
Afghanistan continues to worry me. What is unfortunate is that all the "tea leaves" are pointing to an increased committment to Afghanistan based on Mr. Obama's pronoucement that he intends to "finish the job". I will be anxious to hear what Mr. Obama's criteria for finishing the job is going to be.
I welcome the committment that the Adminstration has made that U.S. Committment to Afghanistan is not open-ended. As I have said here and in KP's sister site, Outsider Views, the problem is the people that are supposed to be the partner in this whole endeavor. When something is rotten at the core, throwing more money at it is simply not going to cut it. If the figure of 30,000 troops is in fact what it is, the number will actually be double that. The question I have is if the Soviets could not do with 500,000 troops, what will prompt the U.S. and NATO to finish the job with 130,000 troops? Can America afford another Vietnam? Why can't we learn from history?
The eye-opening reporting in a recent edition of the Nation Magazine, Really Long Link outlined how the United States is actually funding the Taliban. What I also found even more disturbing was how a tight circle of the Afghan Elite is getting rich at the expense of the American Tax Payer who really does not know if it has a job tomorrow. Although some within the neo-con community want to fight for the sake of fighting, at some stage the fighting will have to give way to meaningful accomodation for the sake of the 27 Million Afghans who have known nothing but war for over 27 years. Will reason prevail?
On a side note, there is an apparent agreement between Iran and Afghanistan about cooperation on drug trafficking and terrorism. I laughed that the Government of Afghanistan even has the nerve to come to such an agreement when it can't even control her own Capital City. The words of Tariq Ali on Afghanistan are ever more true:
I welcome the committment that the Adminstration has made that U.S. Committment to Afghanistan is not open-ended. As I have said here and in KP's sister site, Outsider Views, the problem is the people that are supposed to be the partner in this whole endeavor. When something is rotten at the core, throwing more money at it is simply not going to cut it. If the figure of 30,000 troops is in fact what it is, the number will actually be double that. The question I have is if the Soviets could not do with 500,000 troops, what will prompt the U.S. and NATO to finish the job with 130,000 troops? Can America afford another Vietnam? Why can't we learn from history?
The eye-opening reporting in a recent edition of the Nation Magazine, Really Long Link outlined how the United States is actually funding the Taliban. What I also found even more disturbing was how a tight circle of the Afghan Elite is getting rich at the expense of the American Tax Payer who really does not know if it has a job tomorrow. Although some within the neo-con community want to fight for the sake of fighting, at some stage the fighting will have to give way to meaningful accomodation for the sake of the 27 Million Afghans who have known nothing but war for over 27 years. Will reason prevail?
On a side note, there is an apparent agreement between Iran and Afghanistan about cooperation on drug trafficking and terrorism. I laughed that the Government of Afghanistan even has the nerve to come to such an agreement when it can't even control her own Capital City. The words of Tariq Ali on Afghanistan are ever more true:
Mike Pouraryan
