"It was malice in wonderland at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
on Thursday as Bush Administration envoys insisted things are getting
better in Afghanistan, while angry lawmakers from both parties cited
facts and figures showing just the opposite. Even the senior Republican
on the panel, Senator Richard Lugar, found the Administration's claims wanting. "I'm not sure that we have a plan for Afghanistan," he said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080201/us_time/istheusfailinginafghanista...
...troops as allies) it is a hopeless cause. The reinforcements keep coming in from Pakistan. Pakistan is rather akin in function to what Laos and Cambodia were to the NVA. It will continue to be used as a "sanctuary" for Islamic extremists to recruit, train, and equip small units heading into Afghanistan looking for trouble. How the English were able to use Indian troops (especially from what is now Pakistan) to mount "punitive" expeditions into Afghanistan to deal with Afghan raiders coming from Afghanistan into the Indian plain is beyond my understanding. The world has certainly changed from the time they depended on segregated battalions of Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus to maintain their hold on India (and what became Pakistan). Now, our troops have to "watch their backs" at all times.
How the English were able to use Indian troops
There's a lot you don't understand. Recently I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now that you've opened your stupid mouth again I'm certain. You're stupid. That's why you don't understand.
Right, because what we really need is another front to this war.
We're already spread too thin on two fronts we don't need to drag more into it.
Lugar is a wussy.
Using Indian troops would create WWIII and would unite all of Islam against the US and NATO.
Currently Pakistan doesn't let the US come into Pakistan not to protect the extremists but to prevent an internal coup since many within Pakistan support the extremists.
As far as Afghanistan goes I wouldn't assess it as a "winning or losing" situation. In Afghanistan the definition of winning would be different than in Iraq because Afghanistan is an underdeveloped country.
Afghanistan is one of the world's largest opium producers. By getting more NATO countries to buy Afghanistan's opium for the legal medical opium trade we take a considerable source of funding from the Taliban. That leaves them with "jingle trucks" as their #1 source of income (BTW which can fully sustain their funding).
Jingle trucks are the way we move supplies in Afghanistan. So essentially the only way we can fight the Taliban is to pay them to move the equipment. This is the problem.
Unlike in Iraq the Taliban is internally sourced for both money and manpower. Iraq insurgents relied upon foreign men, training, and funding to survive. This means the struggle in Afghanistan will likely go on for not just years but generations and will likely outlive me (Depressing since I'm just shy of 30).
So the way to affect Afghanistan positively isn't more troops or more money it's better training. We already have trained our allies in Afghanistan for 20 years. By supporting them and training the next generation of the Northern Alliance only then will NATO find success.
MikeyA
...of the Northern Alliance? And is this something that either Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or internationalists, are likely to fund for that length of time?
The British Empire engaged in such activity because of, first, the India Company, and , later, because of the Crown. Back then, it was a matter of religion (missionaries followed the flag), and a weird ethical sense ("the white man's burden"). Now the taxpayer sees it for what it really is, an expense without any value to us. I think we'll bug out long before the job is finished.
Well the next generation of the Northern Alliance is ...dum da dah... the Northern Alliance.
The Northern Alliance is nothing more than a generic name for a grouping of tribes headed by sheiks. Most of them are farmers and grow poppies.
If the continuation of rerouting the poppy crops to legal medical opium then very little funding is needed as the industry will sustain the tribes.
Unfortunately the politicians and many of the Generals are remnants of the Cold War. They still fall into the belief that the only way to confront a problem is with more and bigger bases, more weapons, and more money. The last 6 years have been a reminder that this is not true.
Today's tactical officers and enlistee's know that the way to combat the current threat and future threats is not by building bases but relationships with the populace.
By learning who is key to an area or society and befriending them much more can be done for the common good of the society.
So to take into account the second part of your post it's not colonialism it's aid. When you view it as a mission of such the objectives change and the path to "winning" is much more clearer and attainable.
MikeyA
The proclamation came, once, that the Taliban was defeated and now here the fight is on with the group once more.
What job is it that the U.S. intends to finish? The U.S. turned away from Afghanistan in favor of the invasion in Iraq and here we are mired in both.
An idealogical war of concepts and thoughts and religions in a part of the world fractured by centuries of conflicts.
Reports from Basra in Iraq, tell of a return of conservative ways in the community and the same is happening in Afghanistan and yet we are there to find, capture or kill Bin Laden, or at least we were.
Nothing is clear anymore with the shifting sands of reasons for staying the country.
"What job is it that the U.S. intends to finish? The U.S. turned away from Afghanistan in favor of the invasion in Iraq and here we are mired in both."
This is an excellent question. It's not an easy one word answer either.
The easy answer is to keep extremists at bay.
The hard answer is to help aid a fractured society and give it the opportunity to move into the industrialized world.
However as I said in another post the US cannot change societies but it can change aspects of societies for the better and this makes more long term allies than any other action.
MikeyA
..opium as they now do with the lillicit sale. And would they make more if they sold to both legal, and illegal, channels. I would think farmers would want to grow rich, and the way to do this is to expand the market. Do we deceive ourselves with the belief that we could buy them off by just allowing, and limiting, their production to just the legal trade, especially if there are thosw who will pay them more for illegal production (plus provide security for the production of the crop).
There is more markup with it being illegal but the reason is because it needs to be smuggled with costs more.
Through legal means there isn't the high transportation costs. In fact in many instances they don't have to worry about transportation out of the country at all.
Where the problem comes in is India is the world's largest producer of medical opium. The UK is already using Afghanistan as it's main source of opium. However other NATO countries including the US have been reluctant to surpass India because India has had enormous growth and now that China's GDP isn't growing in as fast a rate India would probably surpass China in both GDP and population.
Afghanistan has to also produce things other than raw goods. By creating a manufacturing base they are less susceptible to falling into the African paradox where they see extreme periods of boom and bust which favor military and governmental instability.
Iraq on the other hand already has a thriving industrial base. Which is why we will be long gone from Iraq when we're still in Afghanistan.
MikeyA
... then the ago-old professions of "smuggler" and "tribal warrior" should die in Afghanistan. It has happened elsewhere ("smuggling" was a source of income to many in 17th Century England), but may not be as easy to stamp out as we would wish. It will be interesting to see if we can stamp out these cultural differences as easily as we would wish.