2 years ago
|"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now."|
September 24 2009 Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Double-Edged Swords Swung In The Halls Of Congress During A Desperate Attempt To Emasculate ACORN For Giving Good Tax Advice To A Hooker
[Pop Out Player? Click Here]
Prefer An MP3 Playlist?
It's Here: [192kbps VBR 10:32 Minutes]
Other Audio Formats Available [ Here ]
Twitter This Commentary
“I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way– you know, sending a message that America– is here for– for the duration,” (source)...but not ready to pull out of the country. Expect a decision within the next couple of weeks... More.
At the moment, US policy toward Afghanistan consists of several levels:Da Buffalo has a comment in regard to one detail mentioned about what the US is attempting to do in Afghanistan now that our back's against the "Both Feet In or GET OUT!" 'wall'.
# development aid
# state-building and giving the Kabul government greater bureaucratic capacity
This includes working to improve the civilian bureaucracy
As well as training up 400,000 military troops and police
# counter-insurgency-- defeating the guerrilla groups of Gulbadin Hikmatyar, Jalaluddin Haqqani, and Mulla Omar, in the eastern and southern Pashtun regions
# counter-terrorism -- destroying the small Arab terrorist cells that exist in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, which security analysts fear are directing plots in London, New York, and so forth.
This multi-level approach is a disaster. You can't do development aid very effectively in a country beset by guerrilla violence. Moreover, counter-insurgency requires a legitimate, effective Afghan partner that can compete with the Taliban and their allies for Afghan hearts and minds. And, if counter-terrorism is really the goal, then you don't need a 60,000-man army in a country notoriously inhospitable to foreign armies.
The Obama administration seems to be considering whether these four levels can be usefully unentangled.
In particular, incumbent president Hamid Karzai's clumsy attempt to steal the election and his continued seeming inability really to take charge in the country he de jure rules, appears to have provoked the Obama team to wonder whether they could in fact work with Karzai.
Personally, I think Biden is right (Nb. More drones, less boots on the ground, focus on al Qaeda//Da Buffalo) and that if the administration will bet on him, they'd put us 2 or 3 years ahead of the curve.
I have for some time been saying that I can't imagine that what most Pashtuns really want is to have more US troops patrolling their villages...
"...working to improve the civilian bureaucracy..."
Apparently US foreign policy makers are ignoring the simple fact that the so-called "civilian bureaucracy" is a DIRECT THREAT to Afghanistan's culture and social system.
It's EXACTLY the reason (but undoubtedly not the only one) the Talib are so successful recruiting people and the US is being reduced to crass bribery, which BTW will work even worse, and make even MORE enemies, than it did in Iraq.
We're continually insulting these people in the name of our own self-interests.
In this case, the self-interest is what a "civilian bureaucracy" will garner us in the way of trade and resources, even more than an ally in the region, because the Afghan people will most likely hate us for a long, long time due to our government's childish, self-serving, arrogant attempt to, essentially culturally assimilate them from a distance.
|I B Bad. I'm The 897,186,093 Richest Person On Earth!|
Discover how rich you are Here!