rssNo ‘Victory’ to Be Had in Afghanistan. Good.
Friday, July 24, 2009 at 11:36 am
- 2 Comments
President Obama should be commended for his reality-based presentation of what the United States is after in Afghanistan:
ABC’S TERRY MORAN: Define victory in Afghanistan, or maybe that’s not the right word.
OBAMA: I’m always worried about using the word “victory” because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.
You know, we’re not dealing with nation states at this point. We’re concerned with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, al-Qaeda’s allies. So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like al-Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can’t attack the United States.
Now I think that’s going to require constant vigilance. But with respect to Afghanistan, what that means is — or Pakistan, for that matter. What that means is that they cannot set up permanent bases and train people from which to launch attacks. And we are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development so they have alternatives to the heroin trade that is now flourishing.
There is and should be a debate over whether whether that goal is in the national interest; whether that goal is achievable; whether that goal is achievable under the current counterinsurgency strategy; and, if those first three questions are affirmatively satisfied, whether that goal is properly resourced. But there shouldn’t be any debate over the fact that seeking “victory” is a category error in this context. al-Qaeda will not surrender or be made to surrender. We are not at war with either Afghanistan or Pakistan. The goal is to erode the capabilities of al-Qaeda so that it no longer threatens the United States or its allies. Therefore, as people who what they’re talking about on Afghanistan observe, because the path to eroding al-Qaeda’s capabilities runs through the active support of the Afghan and Pakistani people, stuff like the widespread corruption of the Afghanistan government is a strategic challenge to U.S. goals. Is “victory” a useful concept when applied to anti-corruption?
There is nothing defeatist or blinkered about this perspective. On the contrary. It’s the beginning — not the end, but the beginning — of strategic thinking about the war in Afghanistan.
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
2 Comments
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
I'll tell you exactly what the US and UK is after in Afghanistan.
$100B's in natural resources, a world-class copper reserve that China MCC won the bidding for, (which set off Cheney's “urge to surge” the next day!) and now the world-class iron ore reserve, gold, diamonds, uranium, nickel, chrome, 100 years of energy freedom for Afghans oil & gas reserves, which are being privately auctioned off by Gustavson Associates in Denver, right now!
Why not let the Afghans build their own oil refinery, for a piddling $1B that Karzai blows through every year, and let Afghans have 100 years of energy independence from their own oil & gas? Because US:UK intend to steal their resources, and leave Afghanistan a smoking moonscape narcostate, … and wasn't that the reason we are supposedly fighting in Afghanistan to prevent?
Once those resources are signed over to Freeport McMoran for 1c on the $1, the only thing that Afghans will have to trade Pakistan for gasoline will be grapes, firewood and child brides.
What, you thought there was a happy ending end game to “clear and hold”? Wake the f' up!
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
“And we are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development so they have alternatives to the heroin trade that is now flourishing.”
They asked Karzai last week what his “I Have a Dream” re-election speech will be and he said, “Peace, good relations with the West and Saudi (more baaksheesh), education (propaganda), roads (for the military), agriculture (as the only form of trade) and water (for Paki-Pepsi Co).”
NOT ONE WORD about the $500B in world-class natural resources, like the China MCC copper lease, which set off the US:UK “surge” hysteria when it was announced, or the iron & coke deposits, largest in Asia, or the 100 years of energy independence oil & gas deposits, if the Western blood suckers would let Afghans build their own oil refinery and keep their energy.
Anytime a Western government says it's going to “provide help” to you, hold onto your wallet. Look what IMF did to Argentina and Jamaica, look what they're doing to India and Pakistan! There are more IDFs (Internally Displaced Refugees) in Afghanistan-Pakistan than in all the other countries of the world combined. More than 1,600,000 orphans with no parents!!
AND NOT ONE WORD from the Karzai crime family, or his Obama:Brown Godfathers about the $500B in natural resources, which if publically auctioned for a fair return would ensure all Afghans the kind of “blessing of liberty” that we so triumphantly exceptionalist pretend to have.
The one thing there's more of than Afghan refugees, is Afghan “security” white papers. It's an OCS graduation requirement from the Naval PostGraduate School, to write a cogent analysis on Afghanistan, blaming the Taliban for poverty and fundamentalist religion and corruption.
Nothing on the West's in plain view looting, resource rape and UAV murder from 35,000 feet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
