Of course Ghani had to throw out 62 Generals - if he wanted to install his own, more U.S. oriented ones - and have his friends & family reap the benefits the Karzais had.
But why have you such a strong tendency to not discuss an obvious and vital element as drugs? We, that is the Afghan government and Americans, control one of the world,s richest veins of money Afghan dope. 80% of the world's heroin and a booming marijuana production is valued at hundreds of Billions of dollars Annually by the world authorities. Yes, Billions each and every year since we invaded in 2001.
The farmers have to grow it - for which the poppies alone bring them three Billion dollars a year. The vast bulk of it then has to be converted, transported, marketed around the world and guarded. That's where the big money is. An estimated 10% of the crop is the Taliban's and has been for years. The rest of those riches are worth as much as some neighbor's oil, except that it's all illegal and pays no taxes and has no NYSE shareholders to skim off the profits. All of that money goes into a large sub rosa racket system that requires all outsiders to keep their noses out of the books.
So who protects the silence? Who protects the production, transformation, shipping, and sales? Who keeps the Taliban away from the 90%?
Why do so very few with media access dare ask these questions?
But why have you such a strong tendency to not discuss an obvious and vital element as drugs? We, that is the Afghan government and Americans, control one of the world,s richest veins of money Afghan dope. 80% of the world's heroin and a booming marijuana production is valued at hundreds of Billions of dollars Annually by the world authorities. Yes, Billions each and every year since we invaded in 2001.
The farmers have to grow it - for which the poppies alone bring them three Billion dollars a year. The vast bulk of it then has to be converted, transported, marketed around the world and guarded. That's where the big money is. An estimated 10% of the crop is the Taliban's and has been for years. The rest of those riches are worth as much as some neighbor's oil, except that it's all illegal and pays no taxes and has no NYSE shareholders to skim off the profits. All of that money goes into a large sub rosa racket system that requires all outsiders to keep their noses out of the books.
So who protects the silence? Who protects the production, transformation, shipping, and sales? Who keeps the Taliban away from the 90%?
Why do so very few with media access dare ask these questions?
2
"... he [Obama] and the new Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, have an obligation to prove that the additional American investment will be worth it."
What does "worth It" mean?
"[T]he additional investment" means more billions of dollars and more US lives, but what does, "worth it" mean?
The die is cast. No one thinks the Taliban c can be kept from triumphing. Ghani's govt is already making overtures, looking for the best surrender scenario entailing the least vengeance. Then what is this "additional investment" for?
It is to prevent the collapse happening on Obama's watch. He's already had the ignominy of Iraq fall apart because he denied it the residual US forces that would have squashed ISIS before it gained a foothold. In Afghanistan the Taliban are already ubiquitous and unstoppable. There there is no question that 10,000 to 15,000 US forces can defeat the Taliban in the next 20 months when 100,000 Americans could not in the last 5 years. There it is just a matter of delaying their sweep into Kabul until Obama has left office. That is what "the additional American investment" is for. It is not to help Afghanistan, or the US, but Obama. To keep the ignominy of the defeat from falling directly on him.
But it should. He insisted that Bush had neglected Afghanistan but he would give it as many combat brigades as required, to win that "necessary war". He would make Afghanistan the central front in the war on terror, and win that fight.
What does "worth It" mean?
"[T]he additional investment" means more billions of dollars and more US lives, but what does, "worth it" mean?
The die is cast. No one thinks the Taliban c can be kept from triumphing. Ghani's govt is already making overtures, looking for the best surrender scenario entailing the least vengeance. Then what is this "additional investment" for?
It is to prevent the collapse happening on Obama's watch. He's already had the ignominy of Iraq fall apart because he denied it the residual US forces that would have squashed ISIS before it gained a foothold. In Afghanistan the Taliban are already ubiquitous and unstoppable. There there is no question that 10,000 to 15,000 US forces can defeat the Taliban in the next 20 months when 100,000 Americans could not in the last 5 years. There it is just a matter of delaying their sweep into Kabul until Obama has left office. That is what "the additional American investment" is for. It is not to help Afghanistan, or the US, but Obama. To keep the ignominy of the defeat from falling directly on him.
But it should. He insisted that Bush had neglected Afghanistan but he would give it as many combat brigades as required, to win that "necessary war". He would make Afghanistan the central front in the war on terror, and win that fight.
I'm surprised that Mr. Ghani's handlers let him give the game away by stating his "big visions," and furthermore that the NYT published them. It isn't the Afghan people who will be the main beneficiaries of the energy, transportation, telecom, and financial infrastructure he described; instead it will be the global corporations and their mercenaries, enabled by the bought-and-paid-for U.S. Congress, and ultimately supported by U.S. taxpayers and soldiers. As Trudy, in "The Search for Intelligent Life in the Universe" says, "No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up."
5
If we've learned anything about Afghanistan it's that we should stay out of it. Afghanistan has long been "the place empires go to die". We're not an empire but Afghanistan (with much of the Middle East) is sucking the life-blood out of the U.S.
All experience has shown that peace and stability can't be imposed in Afghanistan unless the "imposers" stay there indefinitely. I'm not willing to do that. Bring the troops home, asap. Afghanistan needs to write its own "next chapter", sans the Americans.
All experience has shown that peace and stability can't be imposed in Afghanistan unless the "imposers" stay there indefinitely. I'm not willing to do that. Bring the troops home, asap. Afghanistan needs to write its own "next chapter", sans the Americans.
2
I understand the motives behind using a neutral term like 'investment' to describe our interactions in Afghanistan, and I also understand that it is applicable to the cash we have spent there.
However, using the term in close proximity to the mention of American troops remaining in the country is, at least to me, somewhat offensive. Our troops are 'investing' time away from their families at the least, and their very lives at the extreme. I wonder how one calculates the Return on Investment for this sacrifice.
If we were sending bundles of cash only, that would be bad enough as the cash comes out of my, and every other taxpayer's, pockets. When we are sending my child, or my neighbor's child, over to a strange country to die to keep a foreign politician in office; well, that goes beyond bad all the way to immoral.
However, using the term in close proximity to the mention of American troops remaining in the country is, at least to me, somewhat offensive. Our troops are 'investing' time away from their families at the least, and their very lives at the extreme. I wonder how one calculates the Return on Investment for this sacrifice.
If we were sending bundles of cash only, that would be bad enough as the cash comes out of my, and every other taxpayer's, pockets. When we are sending my child, or my neighbor's child, over to a strange country to die to keep a foreign politician in office; well, that goes beyond bad all the way to immoral.
4
We have not been doing what is good for average Americans for decades, we have been led down the primrose path by special interests whether fighting an endless war for Israel and big oil in the Middle East, what is good for bankers on wall street or what is good for the insurance industry or big pharma with respect to health care, the posturing by various political factions is all a charade, it is all about money and what policies it buys period.
9
It has been reported many times that the U.S. has little to offer a tribal culture in Afghanistan. Our legal procedures are not in keeping with tribal needs whereas Sharia law fits their needs much better. Why is it we are hanging on in Afghanistan offering our one-size-doesn't-fit-all system when the populace has little use for it and much prefers their own approaches? Could it be we are far more interested in getting our hands on pipelines and natural resources than in working with the local people to help them develop and upgrade their educations and outlooks. For all our self-praise on our achievements in Afghanistan, ten or more years of expending the lives of troops and billions in dollars have little good to show for the waste.
5
One of the things that keeps us spending so much money and lives in Afghanistan is the value of all the minerals and such that are there. Sort like the oil fields in Iraq and other parts of the ME.
You referred to the "lawless border region" with Pakistan, but neglected to mention that it is the Prohibition-style anti-drug policy that creates a large criminal class in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is the source of most of the much-complained-about corruption. The U.S., and all members of the United Nations, should follow the example of Portugal and legalize and regulate most recreational drugs. Further, the U.S. should help Afghanistan and Pakistan build drug factories which can turn their poppies into already-legal medicinal drugs.
3
History will show, even if current propaganda denies, that Afghanistan will return to EXACTLY what it was before and our intervention. Our exploits in the region have been a complete non-adventure and waste of resources. We may have stayed longer, but just ask the British, ask the Russians, go back further and read your history.
We can stay longer, we can deploy more troops, we can provide more training and throw money at them to build governments, we can do anything we choose, but it will make absolutely no difference. Afghanistan is and will always remain a remote tribal region. It needs to be asked, who are we, who is anyone, to insist they change their ways?
The Next Chapter you ask? Afghanistan and the various tribes will simply return to how things were, it may take a bit of time, but it is inevitable.
We can stay longer, we can deploy more troops, we can provide more training and throw money at them to build governments, we can do anything we choose, but it will make absolutely no difference. Afghanistan is and will always remain a remote tribal region. It needs to be asked, who are we, who is anyone, to insist they change their ways?
The Next Chapter you ask? Afghanistan and the various tribes will simply return to how things were, it may take a bit of time, but it is inevitable.
20
For the past several years, I have been telling my friends that the U.S. taxpayers' money paid to Afghanistan and Pakistan helped Dubai grow.
4
I've just recently watched a Russian film 9th Company about the Russian "engagement" in Afghanistan which gives a pretty good view of how even the Russians were defeated there. One of the characters dully notes that the Afghans have never been defeated and in light of a long history, it certainly seems like a fools errand to continue to maintain a military presence when the outcome is going to be more body bags.
It would appear that the best and only way if the people to rise up and demand an end to violence, the same as they should be doing in the Middle East. The idea that the West can come to anyone's rescue is long overdue for the round file.
It would appear that the best and only way if the people to rise up and demand an end to violence, the same as they should be doing in the Middle East. The idea that the West can come to anyone's rescue is long overdue for the round file.
8
If and when we leave Afghanistan, it will snap back to what it would have been had we never gone there. It will probably be worse off, due to our toxic legacy of destruction. Just like Iraq. The politicians who have wasted trillions of US taxpayer dollars in these countries should be held accountable.
14
The editorial doesn't ask an important question about endless occupation of Afghanistan: exactly where is the money coming to PAY FOR this? I think Americans deserve a DETAILED response to this question. Not just "we will raise the money somehow". I want to know HOW and EXACTLY where the "pay for" comes from.
9
I'm afraid you'll have to use some version of your headline - "Afghanistan's Next Chapter" - in future editorials, as this thing just keeps dragging on. You say that the reason for the continued Western military presence is that "the Afghan government has stubbornly resisted taking most of the political, economic and military steps needed to put the country on a firm footing." This is a bit rich, and is part of the school of thought that says "we are doing everything we can to help these folks, but they don't want to be helped."
Nobody is forcing the United States and its allies to maintain its troops in Afghanistan, so don't blame Afghanistan for the fact that we have to stay there longer. The only people in Afghanistan demanding a continued military presence are the ones helped into power by the American government, the very ones who you claim are forestalling progress, and who seek to benefit personally from a Western occupation.
Nobody is forcing the United States and its allies to maintain its troops in Afghanistan, so don't blame Afghanistan for the fact that we have to stay there longer. The only people in Afghanistan demanding a continued military presence are the ones helped into power by the American government, the very ones who you claim are forestalling progress, and who seek to benefit personally from a Western occupation.
10
I'm very impressed by the insight in many of these comments. I'm surprised that Obama capitulated, but hopefully only to the end of the year.
Extreme optimism and not wanting to have wasted our efforts to date seem to be directing our policy. But, wanting success is not the same as achieving it. We expect "western values" to compete against centuries of tribalism and religious beliefs to no apparent avail. I curse the moronic, megalomaniacal leadership that got us here and pray that our current leadership will get us the hell out.
24
We have anther welfare state to take care of. They will continue to milk us of billions of dollars and go about their opium and other businesses and we will send taxpayers money to the corrupt country. Meanwhile our politicans will continue to order more bombs and planes and try to cut Americans infrastructure, medical and education. its insane but its what we do. Cruz, Rubio, Bush will all continue the welfare for our Military Industrial group by using force and war as our only foreign policy.
7
After 13 years of 'investment,' how exactly is worth proven? More career ops for the US military? More contracts for contractors? More budget for the Pentagon? Better feelgood propaganda? We're being taken for an appalling, endless ride. When we finally exhaust ourselves and leave, the Afghan people will still be there in their ravaged country.
12
When does all of this ever END? Billions of dollars into Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran. These are not our territories! We cannot feed, educate, employ, house our own people. Enough. Always Americans who will blather on an on about the poor countries over there. Right now the United States is on life support right here, leave your desks for a minute and realize it. Thirty five years of domestic neglect since Reagan's election in 80 and all people can continue on is this? You are effectively nuts.
9
Mr. Ghani appears to be honest and sincerely well-intentioned, if there is such a thing in Afghanistan. He may represent his country's last, best hope for progress. I hate to say it, but we may need to stick around for many more years.
1
Of course, Afghan history did not begin with the American war against the Taliban.The U.S. can claim that its war against the very same mujahedin it had once supported to overthrow a democratically elected Najibullah government has been worth every iota of effort and expenditure. Now a technocrat with deep U.S. ties has won the presidency, a smoother road ahead is predicted, with the usual proviso that the new government explicitly follow the U.S line. Karzai, once lauded, is now officially discarded. The Taliban, meanwhile, are resurgent, hence the need for a robust war-making presence. The string of broken nations following 9/11 includes Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now Yemen. Who can be sanguine that any of these countries will ever become independent functioning democracies? The blowback from the chaos unleashed in these countries will remain the compelling legacy that we in the west will have to face for perhaps decades to come. So much for rosy scenarios and "next chapters."
5
Unless the ethnic roots of the conflict in Afghanistan are addressed there is no possibility of any enduring military socioeconomic political educational solution. The 50 million Pashtun are about 42% of Afghans but most of them live in Pakistan where they are only 15% of the population. President Ashraf Ghani is a Pashtun while Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah is a Tajik (27%).
The nation state ethnic ambitions of the Pashtun are behind the Taliban. While the Taliban is Pashtun, not all Pashtun are Taliban. Bringing the other Afghan ethnic groups- Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara, etc.- into the national solution is essential. Afghan literacy is low and their health is poor. Focusing on diplomacy, socioeconomics particularly commerce, humanitarian aid and politics instead of military options would be wise.
After arming, financing and training the men and organizations that defeated the Soviet Union, America abandoned Afghanistan to the Haqqani Network, Pakistani Intelligence and the Taliban. On September 9, 2001 al Qaeda assassins sent by Osama Bin Laden killed Northern Alliance Tajik leader and American ally Ahmad Shah Massoud as a favor to Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Two days later was September 11, 2001.
The nation state ethnic ambitions of the Pashtun are behind the Taliban. While the Taliban is Pashtun, not all Pashtun are Taliban. Bringing the other Afghan ethnic groups- Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara, etc.- into the national solution is essential. Afghan literacy is low and their health is poor. Focusing on diplomacy, socioeconomics particularly commerce, humanitarian aid and politics instead of military options would be wise.
After arming, financing and training the men and organizations that defeated the Soviet Union, America abandoned Afghanistan to the Haqqani Network, Pakistani Intelligence and the Taliban. On September 9, 2001 al Qaeda assassins sent by Osama Bin Laden killed Northern Alliance Tajik leader and American ally Ahmad Shah Massoud as a favor to Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Two days later was September 11, 2001.
3
The first reports on Afghanistan after 9/11, depicted the Afghans as a proud people. Proud of having in their entire history thrown out every invading agressor, even Soviet Russia, proud of their culture and even of their backwardness. They were confident that if the US would invade their country, they would throw them out also. At the same time, like the Arabs, they were appalled by the Western way of life. So much so, that the Taliban confiscated every bit of Western goods, such as cassettes. The general mood was against the West, and our shiny toys didn’t appeal to them enough for compensation. Bin Laden was their hero.
15 Years of American presence and those shiny Western toys around the corner may have made many Afghans think different now and ready to pick them from the trees, like most african tribes did a hundred or so years ago, for their own disgrace.
African postcards from around 1900 show black people and mention their different nations. Marvellous types, proud in their traditional outfit and living their traditional way of life and without Ebola.
Is it strange that many Afghans refuse to go the same way, only to suit us, and be gobbled up by our ever increasing globalized market?
15 Years of American presence and those shiny Western toys around the corner may have made many Afghans think different now and ready to pick them from the trees, like most african tribes did a hundred or so years ago, for their own disgrace.
African postcards from around 1900 show black people and mention their different nations. Marvellous types, proud in their traditional outfit and living their traditional way of life and without Ebola.
Is it strange that many Afghans refuse to go the same way, only to suit us, and be gobbled up by our ever increasing globalized market?
1
"Mr. Ghani, an American-educated, former World Bank official who is widely perceived as more serious and responsible than his erratic predecessor..."
Translation from the Orwellian:
Mr. Ghani has demonstrated subservience to the west's interests in the middle east, and will likely bow to Washington's dictates.
Translation from the Orwellian:
Mr. Ghani has demonstrated subservience to the west's interests in the middle east, and will likely bow to Washington's dictates.
7
"Will the additional American investment prove to be worth it?"
Easy answer: No! Nothing we do is likely to have any lasting effect in Afghanistan. We've done our best to change things, but the Afghanis themselves have to want change enough to stand up for it, and not enough of them will.
Easy answer: No! Nothing we do is likely to have any lasting effect in Afghanistan. We've done our best to change things, but the Afghanis themselves have to want change enough to stand up for it, and not enough of them will.
7
Presence of ISAF (50% US troops) and now just US Troops has not done anything to reduce or control the Taliban. They are all over the country (not just in Kandahar) and are feared or respected by the locals (as opposed to the police and military). We lost that war from day one and to extend it again and again means we are losing that same war again and again. Time to grow up.
3
We've coddled Israel for decades. Afghanistan has become another Munchausen ependent, sitting waiting for another corrupt handout.
2
When Mr. Ghani said, “The problem, fundamentally, is not about peace with Taliban," but "about peace between Pakistan and Afghanistan,” he was acknowledging Pakistan's role in creating and supporting the Taliban.
Mr. Ghani may be sincere in wanting to have peace between Pakistan and Afgahanistan but what Pakistan wants is quite another story. Whether or not Pakistan will continue to use the Taliban to destabilize Afghanistan remains to be seen.
Mr. Ghani may be sincere in wanting to have peace between Pakistan and Afgahanistan but what Pakistan wants is quite another story. Whether or not Pakistan will continue to use the Taliban to destabilize Afghanistan remains to be seen.
2
Obama is criticized for leaving Iraq too soon. Now, he's criticized for not leaving Afghanistan soon enough. I tend to the latter view, but consider the nearness of the next presidency and of Obama's duty to hand the ship over as steady as is possible, especially with the rising winds blowing out of Iran on Afghanistan’s western border.
When Clinton took office, he inherited Somalia, and according to Richard Clarke, the Clinton transition team had been misinformed about US intentions there: before Clinton's inauguration, they were told, the UN would take over the Somalia operation. Even though he was a member of the Bush administration, Clarke put the Clinton team straight but at the eleventh hour. Clinton inherited a mess.
Obama knew much of what he was getting into in Afghanistan and Iraq. But he hardly knew he'd inherit a Stan McChrystal or an overly politicized officer corps. Likewise, he was hardly briefed on the corruption of the Afghan administration. If the current president of Afghanistan now asks, are we entitled to refuse all help? Not after the way we’ve reamed out Afghanistan.
As for the next POTUS, I expect team-Obama will be more forthright with the new team than team-41 was with Clinton. The next POTUS must surely be aware, even at this stage, of the intricacies of the region, and will have learned that there is no neo-con magic wand to sprinkle fairy dust on the problems.
When Clinton took office, he inherited Somalia, and according to Richard Clarke, the Clinton transition team had been misinformed about US intentions there: before Clinton's inauguration, they were told, the UN would take over the Somalia operation. Even though he was a member of the Bush administration, Clarke put the Clinton team straight but at the eleventh hour. Clinton inherited a mess.
Obama knew much of what he was getting into in Afghanistan and Iraq. But he hardly knew he'd inherit a Stan McChrystal or an overly politicized officer corps. Likewise, he was hardly briefed on the corruption of the Afghan administration. If the current president of Afghanistan now asks, are we entitled to refuse all help? Not after the way we’ve reamed out Afghanistan.
As for the next POTUS, I expect team-Obama will be more forthright with the new team than team-41 was with Clinton. The next POTUS must surely be aware, even at this stage, of the intricacies of the region, and will have learned that there is no neo-con magic wand to sprinkle fairy dust on the problems.
8
"there is no neo-con magic wand": Jeb Bush included Wolfowitz on his list of advisors...
3
There were few secrets about Afghanistan. Obama notoriously believed he knew better than his predecessor, remember? Events proved just as difficult for him as they were for everyone before him.
1
only a fool would putWolfowitz on anything but a garbage truck.
President Obama does some things well. But, his hawkish foreign policy, obsession with secrecy (and whistleblowers), horrible education leadership, bad trade deals will mire his legacy.
I'm less concerned with "value" than I am with cost.
To feed our war machine we should cut social security benefits, cut medicare, cut medicaid, cut education funding, cut food stamps, and anything else that benefits our citizens. Let them starve, die, live in poverty, and become unemployed because they have no job skills.
Then we can have a balanced budget, no debt, and our oligarchs and their underlings in the U.S. Congress can live without anxiety.
To feed our war machine we should cut social security benefits, cut medicare, cut medicaid, cut education funding, cut food stamps, and anything else that benefits our citizens. Let them starve, die, live in poverty, and become unemployed because they have no job skills.
Then we can have a balanced budget, no debt, and our oligarchs and their underlings in the U.S. Congress can live without anxiety.
2
"When the American troops withdraw
Let Zapata take the rest"
I heard Woodrow Wilson's guns
I heard Maria calling
Saying, 'Veracruz is dying
And Cuernavaca's falling'" ~ W. Zevon
Either we pay to build Samsung-type factories in a new, endlessly open U.S. Tax Payer wallet, like Korea, or watch Kabul fall.
Let Zapata take the rest"
I heard Woodrow Wilson's guns
I heard Maria calling
Saying, 'Veracruz is dying
And Cuernavaca's falling'" ~ W. Zevon
Either we pay to build Samsung-type factories in a new, endlessly open U.S. Tax Payer wallet, like Korea, or watch Kabul fall.
Afghanistan's next chapter means American soldiers being killed and wounded all for absolutely nothing! We no longer have a mission there and there is no critical interests that we are protecting.
We have been done In Afghanistan for many years, our mission accomplished, terrorist and thier leaders killed so now it's time, long over due, to get out!
Our continued presence in Afghanistan Iraq, Syria and other Aran nations are only causing increased terror threats for American boh at home and abroad.
We can't keep dropping bombs, shooting middles, ans massing our troops in these nations and expect their citizens to love us or even respect our effort. Their citizens are living in constant terror, in houses reduced to rubble, often without food, water or electricity. Their citizens are worse off now than how they lived under Saddam Hussien or the talaban
Just to put things in proper perspective, our founding fathers, then British colonialists fought our Revolutionary War for ideals and living conditions not even close to the squallor and terror that Afghan and Iraq citizens now face each day. So why would the Afghan or Iraq people want us there and not fight to get us out!
These wars are not our wars and are doing nothing to protect American interests or make us safer here at home!
Stop this insanity. Let the Middle East people fight thier own wars and or find their own peace!
We have been done In Afghanistan for many years, our mission accomplished, terrorist and thier leaders killed so now it's time, long over due, to get out!
Our continued presence in Afghanistan Iraq, Syria and other Aran nations are only causing increased terror threats for American boh at home and abroad.
We can't keep dropping bombs, shooting middles, ans massing our troops in these nations and expect their citizens to love us or even respect our effort. Their citizens are living in constant terror, in houses reduced to rubble, often without food, water or electricity. Their citizens are worse off now than how they lived under Saddam Hussien or the talaban
Just to put things in proper perspective, our founding fathers, then British colonialists fought our Revolutionary War for ideals and living conditions not even close to the squallor and terror that Afghan and Iraq citizens now face each day. So why would the Afghan or Iraq people want us there and not fight to get us out!
These wars are not our wars and are doing nothing to protect American interests or make us safer here at home!
Stop this insanity. Let the Middle East people fight thier own wars and or find their own peace!
3
I am extremely pessimistic that anything lasting or effective can be done to change the deeply entrenched ancient tribal culture in Afghanistan. The plight of women there is particularly sad.
1
Afghanistan is a country of tribes and the lords who rule them, a patchwork of sorts with a man cast as President in a drama that ends with a financially drained America with no benefit gained, and then China steps with a heavier hand to reap from the investment we made, politically and otherwise. We never learn. The Republican Congress has made matters worst, adding to our demise by injecting foreign policy as a political issue. Party differences could once be set aside when it came to what is obviously a region of complicated matters that have gone on for centuries due to their chosen tribal and chaotic governing system. Why do we believe the way we live will work in other places? To further complicate matters, in the United States, these issues are being exploited, overly simplified to a home base that doesn't read or care to know history. The right wing in America treats the conflicts in Israel, Afghanistan, North Korea respectively as if one President doesn't know how to handle them. When in fact the leaders of these countries don't know how to handle things, much less an American President. No one knows what to do. While we are fumbling in the dark, let's shut off the money spicket.
You will never make sense of this because the American idea of sense is really nonsense. They are only interested in power and the sense they are making is really media propaganda. Remember Vietnam. The lesson will be repeated over and over and nothing will be learned except the game must go on.
2
Here's a novel ideal for American foreign policy, let's let Afganistan find its own way.
You would think that by now a Washington would have realized that we cannot drag a feudal society into the 21st century, especially if they don't wish it.
Allow them the dignity of self determination.
You would think that by now a Washington would have realized that we cannot drag a feudal society into the 21st century, especially if they don't wish it.
Allow them the dignity of self determination.
2
We have been told for 13 years how we have to train the Afgan National Army and Security forces. We've been training them for over a decade and they still are not "trained"? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!
4
>
"The Afghans are a brave, hardy, and independent race; they follow pastoral or agricultural occupations only, eschewing trade and commerce, which they contemptuously resign to Hindus, and to other inhabitants of towns. With them, war is an excitement and relief from the monotonous occupation of industrial pursuits."
Friedrich Engels, 1857
"The Afghans are a brave, hardy, and independent race; they follow pastoral or agricultural occupations only, eschewing trade and commerce, which they contemptuously resign to Hindus, and to other inhabitants of towns. With them, war is an excitement and relief from the monotonous occupation of industrial pursuits."
Friedrich Engels, 1857
1
A modern, centralized government cannot be implanted upon a diffuse, village based tribal society. An indigenous enemy that recruits from within cannot be eliminated. That enemy cannot be weakened if they find safe harbor and material support in a neighboring country and are financed by wealthy donors. Corruption cannot be eliminated in a society where allegiance is sold to the highest bidder. The concept of self-sacrifice for the state does not exist in a place that never had a state. People that make their money producing heroin will not follow the rule of law.
All of these conditions define Afghanistan. For 14 years, we have refused to accept this reality. Instead, we apply brute force through the military in an attempt to change what cannot be changed. In doing so, we prevent Afghanistan from entering the next chapter. We are stuck in a never ending chapter of losses.
What will change by the end of 2015 or even 2016 that will put Afghanistan on a desired path? Nothing! Our refusal to accept that outcome is based in politics and nothing else.
The next chapter has to include a place at the table for the Taliban because they will never go away. That is, unless we intend to never leave.
All of these conditions define Afghanistan. For 14 years, we have refused to accept this reality. Instead, we apply brute force through the military in an attempt to change what cannot be changed. In doing so, we prevent Afghanistan from entering the next chapter. We are stuck in a never ending chapter of losses.
What will change by the end of 2015 or even 2016 that will put Afghanistan on a desired path? Nothing! Our refusal to accept that outcome is based in politics and nothing else.
The next chapter has to include a place at the table for the Taliban because they will never go away. That is, unless we intend to never leave.
2
"...financed by wealthy donors...Corruption cannot be eliminated in a society where allegiance is sold to the highest bidder. The concept of self-sacrifice for the state does not exist..."
For a second there, I thought you were talking about Washington.
For a second there, I thought you were talking about Washington.
What seems hopeless is the idea that American governments will ever learn the difference between a worthwhile military intervention and a useless one.
Remember the term, "peace dividend"? In practical terms it's a benefit you bequeath yourself as a nation by wising up about wars of choice.
Remember the term, "peace dividend"? In practical terms it's a benefit you bequeath yourself as a nation by wising up about wars of choice.
1
Right now, that "peace dividend" is sitting on the plates of some very powerful people who happen to be in charge of foreign policy and military policy, and they're not likely to give that up.
1
Some lessons take forever to learn.
Victory breeds enmity; the defeated live in pain. The peaceful live happily, avoiding both victory and defeat. - Buddha 500BC
Victory breeds enmity; the defeated live in pain. The peaceful live happily, avoiding both victory and defeat. - Buddha 500BC
1
The rest of the world isn't stupid.
They see how South Korea can develop a vibrant economy by having the US pay for and handle their security issues, see how Japan became a modern country the same way, see how Israel can do as it likes by playing the US Congress, if not the American people, see how the weapons sellers make sure they can sell via the same ownership of our Congress. See how North Korea can sustain its peculiar government via clever alteration of threats and acquiescence.
Being a thorn in US interests, or keeping US troops in your country, brings plenty of money, fancy killing machines, and is worth the minor annoyance of being periodically scolded by politicians who come and go but never make good on threats to leave.
The only loser in this deal is us.
They see how South Korea can develop a vibrant economy by having the US pay for and handle their security issues, see how Japan became a modern country the same way, see how Israel can do as it likes by playing the US Congress, if not the American people, see how the weapons sellers make sure they can sell via the same ownership of our Congress. See how North Korea can sustain its peculiar government via clever alteration of threats and acquiescence.
Being a thorn in US interests, or keeping US troops in your country, brings plenty of money, fancy killing machines, and is worth the minor annoyance of being periodically scolded by politicians who come and go but never make good on threats to leave.
The only loser in this deal is us.
7
President Obama is hedging (politically) his administration - and future Democratic presidential candidate - of repeating the mistake made in Iraq of total combat troops withdraw. In other words, not allowing the Taliban to take over the country again.
The bad news for the Afghan people is that a bloody civil war will continue unabated as American taxpayers money will continue to flow to Kabul politicians'pockets.
Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, made of one the most pathetic speeches ever at the US Congress. He thanked American politicians for the 'sacrifice' of invading his country, killing his people and destroying was left of Afghan society. Not a chance to survive in Kabul without American money and military protection.
The bad news for the Afghan people is that a bloody civil war will continue unabated as American taxpayers money will continue to flow to Kabul politicians'pockets.
Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, made of one the most pathetic speeches ever at the US Congress. He thanked American politicians for the 'sacrifice' of invading his country, killing his people and destroying was left of Afghan society. Not a chance to survive in Kabul without American money and military protection.
6
Ashraf Ghani's biggest challenge is to unite Afghanistan by narrowing the gap between rural and urban parts of the country. It's important for him to reach out to tribes in remote, rural areas and provide for education.
The current generation has gone through various stages of Afghanistan's transition from authoritarian rule under Communist regimes between 1978-1989, the Taliban till 2001. Under Hamid Karzai many lost their bearings, and they hold onto their tribal identities. That's why young Afghans are the hope of the country.
The current generation has gone through various stages of Afghanistan's transition from authoritarian rule under Communist regimes between 1978-1989, the Taliban till 2001. Under Hamid Karzai many lost their bearings, and they hold onto their tribal identities. That's why young Afghans are the hope of the country.
1
"Over the years, the United States has poured billions of dollars into Afghanistan to underwrite the government, the military and scores of other programs, with untold millions siphoned off by Afghans to buy homes in Dubai and millions more wasted." You forgot the billions siphoned off by American military commanders and contractors and AID officials. Of course the Afghans stole a lot, that's their culture and the CIA has admitted to encouraging that. We could have put better safeguards in place and enforced the contracts, but then the friends of Cheney would have been unhappy.
4
Why was the “expected resurgence of the Taliban in the spring fighting season” such a surprise to the Afghan players as well as to our own military and the president? Why do we believe that keeping troops in Afghanistan longer than we had planned will have the slightest effect on the strategic inevitability of Afghanistan being overrun by Taliban? How long have we been training Afghan defense forces, only to be constantly told that they’re not yet ready to defend their nation without our help, due to “desertions, discharges and an unsustainable number of combat deaths”? Why must our drone forces operate only out of Afghanistan as they seek to target enemy operatives in Pakistan? (Try asking India – they could find the prospect amusing.)
Mr. Ghani clearly is a man more serious, and perhaps more competent, than his predecessor at trying to cure the inherent and historical challenges of Afghanistan, but he may well be out of time. It remains that all the evidence suggests that to save Afghanistan for something better would require a generational commitment of blood and fortune by a sponsor who has gotten powerfully tired of the efforts taken so far in a country where our original objective was merely to spank the supporters of Al Qaeda for their complicity in the 9/11 atrocity.
Mr. Ghani clearly is a man more serious, and perhaps more competent, than his predecessor at trying to cure the inherent and historical challenges of Afghanistan, but he may well be out of time. It remains that all the evidence suggests that to save Afghanistan for something better would require a generational commitment of blood and fortune by a sponsor who has gotten powerfully tired of the efforts taken so far in a country where our original objective was merely to spank the supporters of Al Qaeda for their complicity in the 9/11 atrocity.
2
Maybe the status quo is the best we can hope for in the next 3 or 4 years.
2
Seems the critical statement is that two military bases would otherwise close, used by CIA and special forces for drone operations.
Are we paying Ghani incentives for military bases while he tries to put the money to better use for his country than Karzai did?
We're not known for self-sacrifice in the international arena, this isn't post WWII.
Are we paying Ghani incentives for military bases while he tries to put the money to better use for his country than Karzai did?
We're not known for self-sacrifice in the international arena, this isn't post WWII.
It seems Mr. Ghani has spent so much in America that he has lost his grasp of the nature of his own people's tribally localized inability to pursue "...economic, political and military" goals as a unified nation. While in this country he must not have even read the NYT articles and comments over the years that have made clear to many of us that Afghanistan is simply not a candidate to become a western style, modern nation by force of American military power.
4
The political landscape has undergone a tectonic shift ever since Ashraf Gahni was elected as the President. Mr.Ghani has realized hat the only way to bring about peace and stability in Afghanistan is by warming up to Pakistan. Pakistan has not only been a sanctuary for Afghan Taliban, but their intelligence wing the ISI has been providing arms and ammunition to the terror outfit for destabilizing Afghanistan through terror attacks. In a quid pro agreement with the Pakistani Army, Ghani has agreed to reign in Tehrik e Taliban, who have been indulging in various terror acts against Pakistan, including the terror attacks on the Army School in Peshawar, where over 180 innocent children had died. In return, General Raheel Sharif has agreed to use his influence on Afghan Taliban to negotiate with the new regime.
Te Afghan president has given his total support to the Chinese recommendation of creating a “peace and reconciliation forum,” where representatives from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Taliban, will find ways to restore peace and stability is the troubled region. China has considerable interest in the region and stability there would allow them to exploit its rich mineral deposits. Moreover, this move will weaken the Islamist militants, who are fomenting trouble in the Chinese region of Xinjiang.
This new development will bring Afghanistan closer to China and Pakistan and reduce the US and India's sphere of influence there.
Te Afghan president has given his total support to the Chinese recommendation of creating a “peace and reconciliation forum,” where representatives from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Taliban, will find ways to restore peace and stability is the troubled region. China has considerable interest in the region and stability there would allow them to exploit its rich mineral deposits. Moreover, this move will weaken the Islamist militants, who are fomenting trouble in the Chinese region of Xinjiang.
This new development will bring Afghanistan closer to China and Pakistan and reduce the US and India's sphere of influence there.
1
A long term goal is not always predictable especially when Israel and the Palestinians are working out a two-state solution. After years in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union disbanded it will take more than weaponry and poppy fields to give the Afghans their security while they are working out their issues in maintaining the military strength and at the same time creating economic growth. It will be feasible for Afghans to live like western civilization has done after we show them the ropes. Meaning they will have to supply the material while we supply the force.
You make it plain that it is time to retire the phrase, "security issues," as in "With America headed into a presidential election campaign in which Republicans are already taking a tougher line on security issues in general ..." It is idle to to keep discussing something which doesn't exist in this context. What we have instead are opportunities for hysteria to screen the Right's plunder of the American economy. And we need a newspaper.
12
One of the original justifications for the Afghan war was to get Bin Laden. The other was to fight "them" over there so we don't need to fight them here. Well did it ever occur to anyone that they can fight us from anywhere. We don't need to be in Afghanistan,they have proven to be,unreliable and unwilling to fight for their own country.
1
Obama and the Democrats are now afraid that they will be blamed for "losing Afghanistan" if they pull out our troops. The person who really lost Afghanistan was British Lord Auckland (the director of "Aukland's folly") in 1843 at the end of the First Anglo-Afghan War.
2
Most likely the real reason the president is keeping troops there. The last thing he needs is another embarrassing loss.
1
Ashraf Ghani is the Afghan leader the US needed five or ten years ago; it is difficult to overstate just how much was wasted and lost in the Karzai years. Does this all end with the Taliban retaking control of the country, if not this decade then next? For all his hopes and dreams, Mr. Ghani, sadly, might just be the man to preside over Afghanistan's eventual collapse.
Once again we're staying longer to once again try to bolster very weak defense forces, trying not to think what might happen when we do eventually leave. If the real if admittedly small gains for many Afghan women are sharply curtailed in a few years, those will be among the cruelest cuts of all.
Once again we're staying longer to once again try to bolster very weak defense forces, trying not to think what might happen when we do eventually leave. If the real if admittedly small gains for many Afghan women are sharply curtailed in a few years, those will be among the cruelest cuts of all.
1
The disaster of Afghanistan is the creation of two republicans, oddly enough both literal guy cheerleaders, who both dodged going to war.
It was Eureka College guy cheerleader WW II hero of the Battle of Beautiful Downtown Burbank, Ronald Reagan, who armed the Afghan fundamentalists who changed their name to Taliban, gave sanctuary to bin Laden and an entire country to Al Qaida.
Not to be outdone, Andover Prep guy cheerleader, Viet Nam dodger, Boy George Bush, invades Afghanistan, and, first thing, allows bin Laden to sashay, unmolested, out of Tora Bora.
It has been nothing but an obscene waste ever since.
It was Eureka College guy cheerleader WW II hero of the Battle of Beautiful Downtown Burbank, Ronald Reagan, who armed the Afghan fundamentalists who changed their name to Taliban, gave sanctuary to bin Laden and an entire country to Al Qaida.
Not to be outdone, Andover Prep guy cheerleader, Viet Nam dodger, Boy George Bush, invades Afghanistan, and, first thing, allows bin Laden to sashay, unmolested, out of Tora Bora.
It has been nothing but an obscene waste ever since.
9
In the 1990s I corresponded with the late President Gerald Ford and we both agreed the solution to Afghanistan's problems was economic support. Until that happens you can station all the troops you want there and nothing will change.
1
Part of the appeal of the Taliban to the general, ordinary public, and to those publics in other countries facing violent fundamentalist Islamic movements, is the promise to root out corruption. A less blase response to stolen US funds, for example those used to purchase homes in Dubai or stashed in offshore accounts, would serve to convince host populations that the US doesn't allow corruption either. I know our government turns a blind eye to this, but it's one time to put our well-practiced hypocrisy to better use.
Go after the thieves and make examples of them. Recover the funds and give them directly to charitable and development drives. It will help the effort.
Go after the thieves and make examples of them. Recover the funds and give them directly to charitable and development drives. It will help the effort.
4
Great idea! We should start here first and do the same thing! There's a list left over from the recent financial troubles that the Obama Administration won't even touch!
3
If a large American presence did not produce positive results in 15 years. What exactly is to be accomplished with keeping 9800 military personnel there? I know the conservative response, the boots on the ground are all volunteers, so they must like being there. And certainly, American defense contractors are estatic about the profits being made.
Now, these same politicans want to attack Iran. Follow the money and you've connected the dots as to the why. These are the same Republican legislators, who worry about the cost of Medicare and Social Security, but will spend billions on foreign military adventures.
They must believe that their is no limit to the stupidity of the American public, and that they can be conned out of their retirement income and medical insurance.
Now, these same politicans want to attack Iran. Follow the money and you've connected the dots as to the why. These are the same Republican legislators, who worry about the cost of Medicare and Social Security, but will spend billions on foreign military adventures.
They must believe that their is no limit to the stupidity of the American public, and that they can be conned out of their retirement income and medical insurance.
9
Regardless of whether we keep troops in Afghanistan for two more years or a hundred years, Afghanistan will likely be much the same decentralized, tribally governed area of the world it has always been when we leave, or are finally pushed out.... partly due to the geography and ethnic makeup of the country. Bringing in more weaponry, for training, fighting, killing, is a sad commentary on the country we have become.
Let the Afghan people work out their own issues and problems. It is very clear that after more than 13 yeas there, we have no clue as to what we are doing, no real understanding of the people, history and culture and we don't seem to realize that we, like all of the previous intruders over hundreds, if not thousands of years, are not welcome, or liked, except perhaps to pass out money to the local con men. Let Afghanistan evolve and modernize at its own pace and let us realize the limits of our influence and control.
We have serious needs in this country and we certainly ought to deal with our own dysfunctional government before we try to tell others how to run their own affairs. We are looking more and more like the Roman Empire in decline: over extended militarily, ignoring the home front, and broke.
Let the Afghan people work out their own issues and problems. It is very clear that after more than 13 yeas there, we have no clue as to what we are doing, no real understanding of the people, history and culture and we don't seem to realize that we, like all of the previous intruders over hundreds, if not thousands of years, are not welcome, or liked, except perhaps to pass out money to the local con men. Let Afghanistan evolve and modernize at its own pace and let us realize the limits of our influence and control.
We have serious needs in this country and we certainly ought to deal with our own dysfunctional government before we try to tell others how to run their own affairs. We are looking more and more like the Roman Empire in decline: over extended militarily, ignoring the home front, and broke.
2
It was always that change would be difficult.
But in 2003 when Bush abandoned our troops in Afghanistan with no mission, no leadership and no strategy, it was clear that every US life lost would be a life thrown away on the trash leap of history.
But in 2003 when Bush abandoned our troops in Afghanistan with no mission, no leadership and no strategy, it was clear that every US life lost would be a life thrown away on the trash leap of history.
1
"the additional American investment will be worth it." ?? Since none of our "investments" in the Middle East in the last 20 years have been "worth it", it is a pretty safe bet that "additional American investment will" not be worth it.
Remember these are wars of choice. We can choose not to engage. Let's so choose.
Remember these are wars of choice. We can choose not to engage. Let's so choose.
35
62 years of futile, self defeating waste beginning in '53 when Mossadecq was deposed in Iran.
4
One thing I notice in discussions of Afghanistan is the bizarre phenomenon of modern progressives making statements about the moral character and civilizability of Afghans that echo the racist sentiments of British imperialists in the 19th century.
1
Aren't our domestic problems actually caused by the longstanding diversion of scarce fiscal resources to "build" foreign nations? Since money is like water, doesn't diverting it abroad create urban deserts here?
Chicago and Illinois are bankrupt in all but name with lots of blame to go around. Start with our corrupt political culture. It robbed future generations by, among other things, legislating generous pensions for itself and public employees without raising taxes to fund those commitments. Two governors went to prison for bribery and our city, county and state governments are notorious for it. Even so, the principal culprit is neglect. Chicago's infrastructure is decrepit, rusting and rotting out. South of the Green line "EL" the city falls off a cliff, becomes a "Dodge City without the sheriff": a gang-infested free fire zone especially during the summer. In terms of horror stories Rikers Island has nothing on Cook County Jail. The public school system is a shambles. And that list just scratches the surface.
Since 1965 our government has wasted how many trillions of dollars on wars that it started and lost and defense contracting disasters like the A-12, F-22 and F-35? A mere slice of that waste could have saved Chicago and Illinois had Congress voted to invest taxpayer money here; but it didn't. Congress still votes to starve our cities and states to fund nation-building abroad as if domestic needs are illegitimate and ignoring them won't destroy America's future.
Chicago and Illinois are bankrupt in all but name with lots of blame to go around. Start with our corrupt political culture. It robbed future generations by, among other things, legislating generous pensions for itself and public employees without raising taxes to fund those commitments. Two governors went to prison for bribery and our city, county and state governments are notorious for it. Even so, the principal culprit is neglect. Chicago's infrastructure is decrepit, rusting and rotting out. South of the Green line "EL" the city falls off a cliff, becomes a "Dodge City without the sheriff": a gang-infested free fire zone especially during the summer. In terms of horror stories Rikers Island has nothing on Cook County Jail. The public school system is a shambles. And that list just scratches the surface.
Since 1965 our government has wasted how many trillions of dollars on wars that it started and lost and defense contracting disasters like the A-12, F-22 and F-35? A mere slice of that waste could have saved Chicago and Illinois had Congress voted to invest taxpayer money here; but it didn't. Congress still votes to starve our cities and states to fund nation-building abroad as if domestic needs are illegitimate and ignoring them won't destroy America's future.
2
Somewhere along the line, we ought to ask just what are we supposedly fighting for? The rationale was bogus from the start - even if Osama bin Laden did orchestrate 9/11, invading the country where he was hanging out would be like having the Air National Guard bomb Brooklyn because a gang of drug dealers was hiding out there with the full knowledge - and likiely support - of many residents.
We might also think very, very hard about why not only is there still fighting, but why the Taliban is recovering so much of its hold in the country. Fighting these kinds of wars is not a joy - I was in Vietnam with the Marines, and I know the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. But people - not only did we have a huge numerical advantage, the people we are fighting have no air power, no air mobility, no armor, no artillery, primitive communications and minimal logistical support - and they are winning, no matter how much we prolong this war.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves - perish the thought! - that just maybe this whole exercise has been an exercise in stupidity from the outset? And also why we should let the same group who took us there (and later into Iraq) drive us to war with Iran as well as more war in Afghanistan?
We might also think very, very hard about why not only is there still fighting, but why the Taliban is recovering so much of its hold in the country. Fighting these kinds of wars is not a joy - I was in Vietnam with the Marines, and I know the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. But people - not only did we have a huge numerical advantage, the people we are fighting have no air power, no air mobility, no armor, no artillery, primitive communications and minimal logistical support - and they are winning, no matter how much we prolong this war.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves - perish the thought! - that just maybe this whole exercise has been an exercise in stupidity from the outset? And also why we should let the same group who took us there (and later into Iraq) drive us to war with Iran as well as more war in Afghanistan?
1
As is true about most editorials and op-eds regarding Afghanistan, there are many objectives in Afghanistan's interest. But since Americans are dying in Afghanistan in pursuit of those goals, it is natural to ask, what is in our national interest? We have already paid a price in thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. What do we get for that? Could the "investment" been better spent on our own nation? Had we not engaged in this civil war, would our security have been strengthened or weakened?
The situation in Afghanistan and elsewhere is so murky that there is no certainty that we are more secure by fighting there. But it is certain that our nation would have been much stronger had we never wasted blood and treasure there.
Just consider how we might have spent those trillions on our homeless, on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, on education, and on medical research.
Trying to bring democracy to Afghanistan by force is a terrible mistake. We should withdraw from that country as quickly as possible. Staying there does not change it from a mistake to a good idea.
The situation in Afghanistan and elsewhere is so murky that there is no certainty that we are more secure by fighting there. But it is certain that our nation would have been much stronger had we never wasted blood and treasure there.
Just consider how we might have spent those trillions on our homeless, on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, on education, and on medical research.
Trying to bring democracy to Afghanistan by force is a terrible mistake. We should withdraw from that country as quickly as possible. Staying there does not change it from a mistake to a good idea.
5
In regard to the decision to keep troops there despite the promise to bring them home "Administration officials said it was a response to the expected resurgence of the Taliban in the spring fighting season".
However the fact is that the resurgence of the Taliban in the spring fighting season will go on as long as the Taliban are living in Afghanistan. And sooner or later the inevitable fight between the Taliban and the people in Afghanistan who do not want them in power will take place, where the opponents of the Taliban will have to fight on their own.
So what Obama is simply doing is to make sure that this fight does not happen in his watch. And like so many other things he is dumping the problems that have no easy solution on the next president.
However the bigger issue is, and this is something that America will have to decide on when the time comes, of what national security interest is to us if the Taliban take over significant parts of Afghanistan. They are not a terrorist group in that they have any designs on attacking us or the west, and by now al Quida has so much territory on which to set up camps that the Taliban does not pose any threat to us.
Every month that we are there US troops are killed and maimed, and another year means about 500 dead alone. So the President must explain what exactly it is that is worth it for them to die. He does not have the right to have troops die because he would rather kick the can down the road.
However the fact is that the resurgence of the Taliban in the spring fighting season will go on as long as the Taliban are living in Afghanistan. And sooner or later the inevitable fight between the Taliban and the people in Afghanistan who do not want them in power will take place, where the opponents of the Taliban will have to fight on their own.
So what Obama is simply doing is to make sure that this fight does not happen in his watch. And like so many other things he is dumping the problems that have no easy solution on the next president.
However the bigger issue is, and this is something that America will have to decide on when the time comes, of what national security interest is to us if the Taliban take over significant parts of Afghanistan. They are not a terrorist group in that they have any designs on attacking us or the west, and by now al Quida has so much territory on which to set up camps that the Taliban does not pose any threat to us.
Every month that we are there US troops are killed and maimed, and another year means about 500 dead alone. So the President must explain what exactly it is that is worth it for them to die. He does not have the right to have troops die because he would rather kick the can down the road.
1
Afghanistan's next chapter was written in the trail of debris left by the British Empire as bloodied and beaten the British Army retreated pell mell from Kabul in 1835. Britain has been evicted from Afghanistan four times since 1835. Russia twice, and now it is our turn.
The Afghan Soldiers who represent the Quisling Government in Kabul will no more fight their own people, than would the Vietnamese fight the Viet Cong, no matter how much American Leadership is inflicted upon them. Like Iraqi Troops post Saddam, they are just in it for a paycheck, because outside of poppy cultivation for heroin, there is nothing else. When push comes to shove they will fold, and why wouldn't they?
Afghanistan is the primary invasion route between Europe and Asia for the simple reason that it is a plain. Since the importance of the ancient Silk Road has been reinforced by the economics of gas distribution by pipeline to China and India, the West is back playing at the Great Game in order to trump Iran by ensuring that our TAP Line delivers gas to Asia, while at the same time blocking the Persian IPI gas pipeline from competing. Trillions of dollars are at stake, and everyone in Afghanistan knows this history, every bit as much as did Iraqis recognize that we didn't give them shock and awe for freedom and democracy, but rather to control their proven fossil fuel reserves.
If I were on the NYT Editorial Board which has produced this disingenuous, misleading essay, I would be embarrassed.
The Afghan Soldiers who represent the Quisling Government in Kabul will no more fight their own people, than would the Vietnamese fight the Viet Cong, no matter how much American Leadership is inflicted upon them. Like Iraqi Troops post Saddam, they are just in it for a paycheck, because outside of poppy cultivation for heroin, there is nothing else. When push comes to shove they will fold, and why wouldn't they?
Afghanistan is the primary invasion route between Europe and Asia for the simple reason that it is a plain. Since the importance of the ancient Silk Road has been reinforced by the economics of gas distribution by pipeline to China and India, the West is back playing at the Great Game in order to trump Iran by ensuring that our TAP Line delivers gas to Asia, while at the same time blocking the Persian IPI gas pipeline from competing. Trillions of dollars are at stake, and everyone in Afghanistan knows this history, every bit as much as did Iraqis recognize that we didn't give them shock and awe for freedom and democracy, but rather to control their proven fossil fuel reserves.
If I were on the NYT Editorial Board which has produced this disingenuous, misleading essay, I would be embarrassed.
6
"All through the war years, it was apparent that military action alone would never bring peace." Of course! The revolutionary in Afghanistan is US.
The US went into the country with the goal of creating a strong central government. Every tribe has and continues to be against that outcome. The US is fighting hundreds of years of history. The tribes have fought back with what we call corruption and they see as "taking care of their own."
"Afghanistan needs a government that can bring jobs, education, health care and justice to its people and undercut the lure of the Taliban." Government? No! Tribes, yes. Supporting the tribes--yes to $$ to the tribes--may yield the outcomes the central government now wants to institute, tribes working together.
Unlike the US, where Uncle is stronger than the governor, Mr. Ghani has little control over the tribes.
The US went into the country with the goal of creating a strong central government. Every tribe has and continues to be against that outcome. The US is fighting hundreds of years of history. The tribes have fought back with what we call corruption and they see as "taking care of their own."
"Afghanistan needs a government that can bring jobs, education, health care and justice to its people and undercut the lure of the Taliban." Government? No! Tribes, yes. Supporting the tribes--yes to $$ to the tribes--may yield the outcomes the central government now wants to institute, tribes working together.
Unlike the US, where Uncle is stronger than the governor, Mr. Ghani has little control over the tribes.
We need a national referendum on being there, and most certainly a war surtax to fund it.
25
This is a repeat of the decline of the British Empire.
The world's strongest country overextends by fighting multiple wars throughout the world, combating resistance to the imposition of its values and its sense of order in countries where those values and efficiencies do not not fit.
Through a combination of ego, patriotism and commercial interest, the over-commitments are extended until the national treasury is exhausted.
It is one thing to advocate for our values through diplomacy, with a very limited and extremely targeted use of force in extreme situations. It is entirely different to waste trillions of dollars and squander thousands of lives in the pursuit of folly. Bring our troops home now.
The world's strongest country overextends by fighting multiple wars throughout the world, combating resistance to the imposition of its values and its sense of order in countries where those values and efficiencies do not not fit.
Through a combination of ego, patriotism and commercial interest, the over-commitments are extended until the national treasury is exhausted.
It is one thing to advocate for our values through diplomacy, with a very limited and extremely targeted use of force in extreme situations. It is entirely different to waste trillions of dollars and squander thousands of lives in the pursuit of folly. Bring our troops home now.
5
It seems that there are three power entities: the Taliban, the US military, and it's step-child, ubiquitous corruption. We can hardly expect the corruptocracy to take on the Taliban once we leave, so it is rational to expect the Taliban to take over the country - Vietnam II.
The big question looming within the political jungle of the US is: Which President will have lost Afghanistan? Obama who is already being tarred and feathered by the Right for "losing Iraq", by pulling our forces out, knows that discontinuing military operations in Afghanistan, will surely result in loss number two being pinned to his legacy.
Mr Ghani's optimism and perceived ability provide good cover for Obama and the Pentagon to justify staying, and maybe even increasing the kinetics, past 2017. Thus passing the "who lost Afghanistan?" buck to the next administration, at least.
The big question looming within the political jungle of the US is: Which President will have lost Afghanistan? Obama who is already being tarred and feathered by the Right for "losing Iraq", by pulling our forces out, knows that discontinuing military operations in Afghanistan, will surely result in loss number two being pinned to his legacy.
Mr Ghani's optimism and perceived ability provide good cover for Obama and the Pentagon to justify staying, and maybe even increasing the kinetics, past 2017. Thus passing the "who lost Afghanistan?" buck to the next administration, at least.
The reality of which President lost the wars for Iraq and Afghanistan is that those wars were already lost when we started them.
I have lived and taught in Afghanistan for five years now. i would like to make three observations.
First, billions upon billions of dollars were thrust into Afghanistan at a time when the government did not have the capacity to manage the money. What did you think was going to happen? Corruption, of course. So it's a bit disingenuous to criticize the nation for corruption when that was created in large part by such insane infusions of cash.
Second, former President Hamid Karzai made enormous contributions to Afghanistan stabilizing its government and bringing consensus as the foundation for further development. Good leaders know that they must focus on critical success factors, not try to solve each and every problem. Mr. Karzai understood that. His commitment to his people is enormous, and nothing is to be gained by criticizing him. Remember that Reagan was often vilified in the media only to emerge as one of America's greatest presidents. Mr. Karzai's legacy will be the same.
And, finally, it will take decades to rebuild what was destroyed in Afghanistan. So if nations like America want peace and stability in Afghanistan -- and there is much to be gained by accomplishing that -- then suck it up, and be a constant, reliable supporter. Stop reacting to every point change in the polls.
I teach young Afghans in university classrooms. I can guarantee you that Afghanistan is going to emerge as a modern, productive member at the table of the world's nations. Give it time.
First, billions upon billions of dollars were thrust into Afghanistan at a time when the government did not have the capacity to manage the money. What did you think was going to happen? Corruption, of course. So it's a bit disingenuous to criticize the nation for corruption when that was created in large part by such insane infusions of cash.
Second, former President Hamid Karzai made enormous contributions to Afghanistan stabilizing its government and bringing consensus as the foundation for further development. Good leaders know that they must focus on critical success factors, not try to solve each and every problem. Mr. Karzai understood that. His commitment to his people is enormous, and nothing is to be gained by criticizing him. Remember that Reagan was often vilified in the media only to emerge as one of America's greatest presidents. Mr. Karzai's legacy will be the same.
And, finally, it will take decades to rebuild what was destroyed in Afghanistan. So if nations like America want peace and stability in Afghanistan -- and there is much to be gained by accomplishing that -- then suck it up, and be a constant, reliable supporter. Stop reacting to every point change in the polls.
I teach young Afghans in university classrooms. I can guarantee you that Afghanistan is going to emerge as a modern, productive member at the table of the world's nations. Give it time.
13
Red Monger's sentiments are noble but we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars contributing to what he calls "what was destroyed in Afghanistan." His plea to "give it time" will cost us hundreds of billions more.
2
Red Monger:
When you consider that political fortunes are made based on candidates positions for and against war, it's unlikely that Americans will "give it time." Democrats realized public opinion was turning against the Iraq War and changed their presidential campaign strategy to anti-war. Think about that.
When you consider that political fortunes are made based on candidates positions for and against war, it's unlikely that Americans will "give it time." Democrats realized public opinion was turning against the Iraq War and changed their presidential campaign strategy to anti-war. Think about that.
2
Including the women? Will they be modern, productive members of the world, free to express themselves and make their own life decisions? That's hard to believe.
1
There has to be more in it for Americans than a "stable" Afghanistan at this point. That ship has sailed. Let's talk US national security, "hub" opportunities, etc. In other words, what are our interests there?
Absent a clear strategy, we are likely to stumble along. Americans will continue to have to cobble together information from multiple sources -- the White House, the military, Congress -- to determine how things are progressing there. The president has a tendency to tell Americans what he wants them to hear, especially when he has another agenda (ex., an election). When we hear from generals, it's because things have gone off the rails. Maybe Congress' demands will result something resembling a goal.
Absent a clear strategy, we are likely to stumble along. Americans will continue to have to cobble together information from multiple sources -- the White House, the military, Congress -- to determine how things are progressing there. The president has a tendency to tell Americans what he wants them to hear, especially when he has another agenda (ex., an election). When we hear from generals, it's because things have gone off the rails. Maybe Congress' demands will result something resembling a goal.
3
We can't leave! There are still some people trying to make money there! Heavens! We can't interfere with all of that! Didn't anyone remember to tell the American people that? That we are not there for "Democracy" but for pipelines, and huge reserves of natural resources? And is this for the strategic advantage for the citizens of the US? I don't think so..but for the strategic advantage of a few multi-national corporations is more like it. Does anyone realize "our" defense industry types work for a lot of different countries? Not just ours?
33
But Carolyn -- Afghanistan doesn't have any oil for us to steal. Afghanistan has been a miserable pesthole since the time of Alexander the Great. Nothing to see here. Yet we're still stuck there and Obama has turned our remaining troops into sitting ducks for nothing.
1
Sharib5101….http://www.wanttoknow.info/020318chicagotribune
2
"the Afghan government has stubbornly resisted taking most of the political, economic and military steps needed to put the country on a firm footing."
It didn't, but it isn't fair to complain it stubbornly resisted. It couldn't and it still can't. It was and remains impossible.
It is only a puppet that "controls" only its capital, and that only by courtesy of the Americans really controlling it.
The so called government has no real power to decide or act anywhere, not even in its capital, where that is in American hands. It is barely present elsewhere, and that presence is only on sufferance, generally only in daylight with Americans around.
All that we invested failed. We need to "prove" this could now be different from all that went before. Otherwise, it is presumptive waste, just more of the same.
It didn't, but it isn't fair to complain it stubbornly resisted. It couldn't and it still can't. It was and remains impossible.
It is only a puppet that "controls" only its capital, and that only by courtesy of the Americans really controlling it.
The so called government has no real power to decide or act anywhere, not even in its capital, where that is in American hands. It is barely present elsewhere, and that presence is only on sufferance, generally only in daylight with Americans around.
All that we invested failed. We need to "prove" this could now be different from all that went before. Otherwise, it is presumptive waste, just more of the same.
43
As usual your points are well taken. Further, Mr. Ghani did not outright win the last election. There was election fraud and American arm twisting. The real winner of the election and the Afghanistan people want America out now, but American military power wants to stay. Why? The answer is horrifyingly simple: their past failures will not get them enough personal honors, and they are in denial of their incompetence in this matter. The last card they have is unfounded hope. The only legitimate national interest the United States has in Afghanistan is in a huge trillion dollar mineral assets of the country. In Iraq they wanted the oil drilling, here they want the minerals. Unfortunately, the minerals will not be mine-able until there is peace because like blowing up pipelines it is just too easy to sabotage their extraction .The comments of the Times editorial board seems reasonable on the surface. Theoretically, a change of a nation’s leaders could make a difference. But step up to the larger picture of a succession of failed foreign armed invaders in Afghanistan. Would America accept armed Russians or armed Chinese on their native soil, no matter how their glossy PowerPoints claim everything will work out great? Would the American taxpayer not demand the proof of value Mark is looking for? The editorial board has run to too far on unfounded hope themselves. Stop wasting money we need to solve our problems at home on more worthless war.
2
If every American read Dalrymples book "Return of a King," America would be out of Afghanistan in a month. The first Afghan War, instigated by the British from 1839 to 1842, in order to install the Shah Suja as a British Puppet in Kabul to forestall Russian encroachment upon the Raj, was ended by a popular uprising, which destroyed an entire British Army.
The next chapter for Afghanistan has already been written in serial defeats of Britain, and two defeats for Russia. We are about to lose just as they did, and for the same reasons. I can only assume that the members of the NYT editorial board were either born yesterday or they just don't read. Either way the subtext of this Editorial is that we should be prepared to believe complete nonsense. Most of us no doubt will because hardly any of us have the lives of our sons on the line.
The next chapter for Afghanistan has already been written in serial defeats of Britain, and two defeats for Russia. We are about to lose just as they did, and for the same reasons. I can only assume that the members of the NYT editorial board were either born yesterday or they just don't read. Either way the subtext of this Editorial is that we should be prepared to believe complete nonsense. Most of us no doubt will because hardly any of us have the lives of our sons on the line.
2
Ask Russia what the consequences of their war in Afghanistan were. Why on earth do we think we can make a difference in this backward, corrupt country? I guess we stay there---on and on and on---- so the multinationals can continue to soak up profits on the American taxpayers backs. When are we, the taxpayers, going to have enough?
It seems that we never did learn,
The Soviets were burned in their turn,
Our leaving is slowing,
More trouble is growing,
No wisdom here one can discern.
More bodies, more blood and more cash,
The failure to get out is rash,
No real whys or wherefores
To stay in Afghan shores
Don't slow down, get ready to dash!
The Soviets were burned in their turn,
Our leaving is slowing,
More trouble is growing,
No wisdom here one can discern.
More bodies, more blood and more cash,
The failure to get out is rash,
No real whys or wherefores
To stay in Afghan shores
Don't slow down, get ready to dash!
32
Larry--Afghanistan is a landlocked country.
2
mea culpa
President Ghani is our newest puppet in Afghanistan, more compliant than the Caped Crusader, Hamid Karzai, whose combination of hatred for the West, and his bi-polar disorder lead him to alternate between stuffing various Swiss bank accounts with green American money, and denouncing us to his people as the Great Satan, which, in a sense, we are, especially to ordinary Afghans, who watch with horror as we kill, maim and corrupt them.
Here is our Afghan foreign policy in 3 words: guns and money. That's it. We either bribe the officials there into letting us kill Muslim militants in their midst, or we kill, or otherwise remove, these officials as part of the problem we are trying to solve, which is that these countries are not enough like us. the greatest, most aggressive, capitalistic power on earth, formerly a Christian country, and still enough of one to qualify as 'infidels' to most Muslims, whether they are radicalized or not.
Afghanistan is a failed narco-state, a country in name only, and one of the biggest opium and heroin producers in the world. It is a beautiful land which is one of the poorest, most backward nations on earth. It hasn't changed much in 2000 years, and isn't going to change much as a result of our machinations there. It is the 'Graveyard of Empires', ours included. To continue the fiction that it is moving forward, and going to be self-sufficient is utter nonsense, said by Ghani to continue our huge influx of cash to his country.