It is time to get real about Afghanistan. Withdrawal is not a serious option. The United States, NATO, the European Union and others have invested massively in stabilizing that country over the past eight years, and they should not abandon it because the Taliban is proving a tougher foe than anticipated. But there is still a large gap between the goals the Obama administration is outlining and the means available to achieve them. This gap is best closed not by sending in tens of thousands of more troops but, rather, by understanding the limits of what we can reasonably achieve in Afghanistan.
The most important reality of the post-Sept. 11 world has been the lack of any major follow-up attack. That's largely because al-Qaeda has been on the run in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The campaign against terrorist groups in both countries rests on ground forces and intelligence. A senior US military official involved in planning these campaigns told me that America's presence in Afghanistan has been the critical element in the successful strikes against al-Qaeda leaders and camps. Were America to leave the scene, all the region's players would start jockeying for influence over Afghanistan. That would almost certainly mean the revival of the poisonous alliance between the Pakistani military and the hardest-line elements of the Taliban...
More at The Washington Post.
Comments
While not a fan of Zakaria, he may have a point when he advocates making deals and/ or bribing tribal level leaders (Pashtuns?) in order to generate a more peaceful environment.
Rep Jane Harman recently complained about the corruption in Afghanistan, focusing on that as the predominant reason we've not achieved "success".
If we accept that Afghanistan and its leaders will continue to operate in such a manner (which they do not necessarily see as "corrupt"), Zakaria may be on to something.
It would require, among other things, that we effectively communicate to our people here what we are doing and WHY. After all, US forces "making deals" with unfriendly tribal leaders and, in effect, working within the Afghan moral-cultural system might likely be viewed as morally repugnant to the average American. But perhaps the old adage of "...when in Rome.." is the way to go here given the type of society and culture we are dealing with. We're not dealing with a western-minded culture but with very old, embedded cultural norms that we are, clearly, not accustomed to. Deals and bribes may be worth considering if it creates a more secure environment.
Foust posted <a href="http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/09/13/fareed-zakarias-insidious-… brief, humorous reaction</a> to this latest "piece" by Zakaria.
The first sentence in this piece stated:
"It is time to get real about Afghanistan."
I dont know about how others feel about this, and the point that I am making is neither for nor against the current approach we are on now, strategy, tactics, or whatever in Astan.
But how in the hey has it not been "REAL" for the men and women who have fought, built, bled, and persevered in that place over the last eight years?
I mean I got it, Zakaria is a writer and pundit and he has to have his catchy lede and his point about "reality" was directed at the political establishment here in the US; but please show a little sensitivity to those on the ground who know exactly how REAL that place really is!
I wonder how that lede of getting REAL in Astan bounces off of a rifle LT operating in Helmand as we speak?
thanks
gian