Posted by DipNote Bloggers on Jul 17, 2008 - 09:01 AM
Dems Call for State To Investigate Iraq Oil Deals [AP]
Iraq Wants To Have Security Control of All Provinces by Year-End [LAT]
U.S. Launches Civilian Rapid Response Force for World Hotspots [AFP]
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Kirk in Kentucky writes:
Despite the great news about the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, I'm have growing concerns about our actual goals there. I want to see the Afghan people safe and happy, and I think they do too, but it seems like they've been in this situation before. In the late 70s, didn't we covertly encourage the Russians to invade Afghanistan? Wasn't the policy to create or influence conditions that would cause the communist regime to invade? A proposition that would bog them down in the quagmire of the "Afghan trap" and bleed them for as long as possible? Didn't some people call it the USSR's own Vietnam? We equipped, trained, and instigated the mujahideen in order to provoke the invasion. I'm not saying it was right or wrong, since it certainly seemed effective in crippling the soviets, but our current actions have placed us in the almost exact reversal of those roles! We're stuck in there, lured in by Osama Bin Laden, which was a well crafted military strategy to "bring the enemy to you." Sun Tzu said that to be sure of victory defend what is impossible to attack, and when a force has the advantage of terrain... well. Now we're trying to quickly build the state up to a level where it won't create a power vacuum when we leave (if we leave), but in the meantime Russia is biding her time, not engaged in any costly conflict, quietly re-building the military and economy, and other nations who are not our true allies are sending in more insurgents to "bleed us for as long as possible." It looks like it's working, too, because now we are beginning to shift our forces away from Iraq into Afghanistan and our economy is crumbling beneath us. Even if we pacified the entire country, the insurgents would just scatter to the surrounding states, bide their time, build their support base, and slink back in when we leave or let our guard down.
So what are we doing there? And how long are we going to stay? Have we forgotten our own history and now doomed to repeat the same mistakes our rivals made?
President Karzai did indeed win the election, but weren't the odds a little stacked in his favor by virtue of him being named leader of the interim government and by his ties to the CIA? That sounds only moderately different from the soviet installment of Babrak Karmal. I'm not saying we did anything in volition of the principals of fair elections, but only that if you throw seeds on the ground and then sprinkle some water on them, don't be surprised if they sprout flowers. The Taliban were an inept and brutal regime which quickly lost its popular support so surely they would have imploded on their own. Ok, since it was a haven for a collection of people who hated America and actively tried (and tries) to do us harm, something had to be done. But did we take the best path? Why didn't we do something craftier like, I don't know, insert agents that could track Osama discreetly instead of us going full force and turning him into the modern day Poncho Villa?
Personally I think that the current administration didn't consider the full ramifications of our actions because they had their eyes so glued on Iraq. Afghanistan seemed only like a stepping stone, a place to park their army, before the moved towards their long time goal of taking Iraq. But that's all just speculation, so I hope the other more informed bloggers here can speak up and state the facts.
What are we doing to differentiate ourselves from what the soviets did in the 70s? They ultimately failed so what are we doing different? What is really going on and why won't the government unveil the true aim of our long-term strategy? Or isn't there one? I am confused about our current strategy and hope some one can throw a little light on the subject.
Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008
Despite the great news about the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, I'm have growing concerns about our actual goals there. I want to see the Afghan people safe and happy, and I think they do too, but it seems like they've been in this situation before. In the late 70s, didn't we covertly encourage the Russians to invade Afghanistan? Wasn't the policy to create or influence conditions that would cause the communist regime to invade? A proposition that would bog them down in the quagmire of the "Afghan trap" and bleed them for as long as possible? Didn't some people call it the USSR's own Vietnam? We equipped, trained, and instigated the mujahideen in order to provoke the invasion. I'm not saying it was right or wrong, since it certainly seemed effective in crippling the soviets, but our current actions have placed us in the almost exact reversal of those roles! We're stuck in there, lured in by Osama Bin Laden, which was a well crafted military strategy to "bring the enemy to you." Sun Tzu said that to be sure of victory defend what is impossible to attack, and when a force has the advantage of terrain... well. Now we're trying to quickly build the state up to a level where it won't create a power vacuum when we leave (if we leave), but in the meantime Russia is biding her time, not engaged in any costly conflict, quietly re-building the military and economy, and other nations who are not our true allies are sending in more insurgents to "bleed us for as long as possible." It looks like it's working, too, because now we are beginning to shift our forces away from Iraq into Afghanistan and our economy is crumbling beneath us. Even if we pacified the entire country, the insurgents would just scatter to the surrounding states, bide their time, build their support base, and slink back in when we leave or let our guard down.
So what are we doing there? And how long are we going to stay? Have we forgotten our own history and now doomed to repeat the same mistakes our rivals made?
President Karzai did indeed win the election, but weren't the odds a little stacked in his favor by virtue of him being named leader of the interim government and by his ties to the CIA? That sounds only moderately different from the soviet installment of Babrak Karmal. I'm not saying we did anything in volition of the principals of fair elections, but only that if you throw seeds on the ground and then sprinkle some water on them, don't be surprised if they sprout flowers. The Taliban were an inept and brutal regime which quickly lost its popular support so surely they would have imploded on their own. Ok, since it was a haven for a collection of people who hated America and actively tried (and tries) to do us harm, something had to be done. But did we take the best path? Why didn't we do something craftier like, I don't know, insert agents that could track Osama discreetly instead of us going full force and turning him into the modern day Poncho Villa?
Personally I think that the current administration didn't consider the full ramifications of our actions because they had their eyes so glued on Iraq. Afghanistan seemed only like a stepping stone, a place to park their army, before the moved towards their long time goal of taking Iraq. But that's all just speculation, so I hope the other more informed bloggers here can speak up and state the facts.
What are we doing to differentiate ourselves from what the soviets did in the 70s? They ultimately failed so what are we doing different? What is really going on and why won't the government unveil the true aim of our long-term strategy? Or isn't there one? I am confused about our current strategy and hope some one can throw a little light on the subject.
Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008
Page 1 of 1 pages