Get out of Afghanistan. We can't win there without fixing Pakistan ... and we can't fix Pakistan.
Raymond
and we can't fix Pakistan.
Afghanistan is and will remain an impossible sinkhole.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
By Dan Simpson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
There is a logic inherent in the current situation in Afghanistan and
Pakistan that says clearly to the administration of President Barack
Obama, "Don't go any further with this one."
It is simple. It is impossible to fix Afghanistan without fixing
Pakistan. It is impossible to fix Pakistan. Thus, Afghanistan is and
will remain an impossible sinkhole.
It will, in fact, be the same kind of quicksand for the United States
in terms of unwinnability that the Vietnam War was for more than a
decade.
The further implication for the Obama administration is that, as was
the case with the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, all
of its great objectives to meet the short- and long-term needs of the
United States at home will go over the falls as it wrestles to find
the resources and energy to contend with an expensive war that it
cannot win and does not have the courage to end.
So far, Mr. Obama doesn't seem to get it. He intends to increase U.S.
forces in Afghanistan by 17,000 to 53,000 by May. The end-game for
U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is supposed to be spelled out and
stated after the completion of what is supposed to be a comprehensive
policy review in Washington, perhaps later this week. There is no
reason to believe that the process or policy will come out as it
should -- with a decision to walk away.
It has been clear since the first U.S. military and intelligence
agency attempts to put al-Qaida and its Taliban hosts in Afghanistan
out of business in late 2001 and early 2002, highlighted in our
unsuccessful efforts to bag al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and
Taliban leader Mullah Omar, that the 1,500-mile mountainous eastern
border of Afghanistan with Pakistan, and the state of play in Pakistan
itself, meant that the conflict inevitably would become a cross-border
international affair.
A current parallel in North America is the fact that the Mexican drug
trade depends almost entirely on the American market for drugs, and
the violence under way in Mexico is waged with weapons bought by
Mexicans on the American "anything goes" gun market.What goes on in
South Asia is a Afghan-Pakistani affair; what goes on in North America
is a Mexican-American affair.
The front end of the U.S. effort to deal with the Pakistan part of the
problem in Afghanistan involved cooperation, largely military, with
the government of then-Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. It didn't
work because Mr. Musharraf's government and military were not able --
or not willing -- to control Pakistan's western border. This was in
spite of their receiving $10 billion in U.S. aid.
Pakistan's problem then was Pakistan's problem now. It is a very
divided and diverse country. It includes big, mostly peaceful
political movements, based for the most part on tribal and regional
differences. They are what has the current civilian government of
Pakistan, headed by President Asif Ali Zardari, a thoroughly crooked
scoundrel whom the United States nonetheless prefers to the
alternatives, in domestic political turmoil. Mr. Zardari's principal
civilian opponent is former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, equally
crooked and villainous.
The conflict between these two civilian politicians -- and others --
leaves Pakistan in such a state of civil disorder that the other
political force in the country, the military, which has seized power
at countless junctures since independence in 1947, always has a wet
finger in the air to determine whether it is time for it to carry out
another coup d'etat against another civilian government.
Then there are the divisions within the Pakistan military. There are
generals and generals and generals. There is the famous, or notorious,
Inter-Services Intelligence agency. America's current favorite is Gen.
Ashfaq Kayani, a former ISI leader who now heads the Army. But there
is no reason to believe that if Gen. Kayani or the ISI controlled the
action in Pakistan that matters would improve for the United States in
Afghanistan.
It was the ISI that with the United States initially supported the
mujahedeen, the predecessors of the Taliban, against Soviet forces in
Afghanistan in the 1980s. The Pakistan military had and still has
close ties to the Taliban. Pakistan also has a hearty number of
Islamic fundamentalists among its population and in its armed forces.
It is also important to remember that power is held in some of
Pakistan's border areas by armed tribal groups, many of which are led
by Islamists who are close to Afghan and Pakistani Taliban.
Top that with the fact that Pakistanis and their government are
angered by the U.S. bombing of parts of Pakistan with remote-
controlled aircraft and its sending of ground forces into Pakistan to
attack the Taliban and al-Qaida.
Bottom line: The United States is not going to get matters in Pakistan
under control.
Rest of the bottom line: If the United States can't get matters in
Pakistan under control -- and as even Mr. Obama's own special
representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Ambassador Richard
Holbrooke, has said, the problems in the two countries are
inextricably linked -- Mr. Obama's escalation of the conflict in
Afghanistan by adding thousands more U.S. troops simply is not going
to work.
If it is not going to work, there is no reason to pursue it, spending
more of our money and blood. Whoever in Washington wants this -- those
wishing to preserve the beloved heritage of one of President George W.
Bush's wars, supporters of Israel who might want to distract us from
pursuing a Middle East peace settlement, contractors and others who
make money off such wars or those who wish to save the hide of Afghan
President Hamid Karzai, should be told to stay out of the way while
Mr. Obama gets us out of this losing, lost contest.
Last word for Bush zealots who might scream bloody murder at the
thought: If the Afghanistan war was so important, how come Mr. Bush
abandoned it to invade Iraq? Don't say we didn't tell you.
Dan Simpson, a former U.S. ambassador, is a Post-Gazette associate
editor (dsim...@post-gazette.com, 412 263-1976). More articles by
this author
First published on March 25, 2009 at 12:00 am
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09084/957975-374.stm#ixzz0WbiMQJFd
amatbus2002
> Get out of Afghanistan. We can't win there without fixing Pakistan ...
> and we can't fix Pakistan.
> Afghanistan is and will remain an impossible sinkhole.
Nobody can "fix" Pakistan. Only Pakistanis decide who should
represent them in their government as well as the direction of their
nation. However, we the people of the United States and people of
Pakistan do share some common goals. Let's work on those. Maybe
along the way problems can be "fixed," situation alleviated, the
quality of life for the people raised, and the people can fulfill
their own dreams as well as their potential. Wouldn't that be good?
I base this on my gut feeling that in our heart of hearts, people
yearn improvement. Strength and Growth, let's put our muscles to work
for the common purpose.
Let us all believe in something.
It is as Kennedy said:
“We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power
and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength
with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in
our time and for all time the ancient vision of ‘peace
on earth, good will toward men.’ That must always be
our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always
underlie our strength.”
Really, my support on the troop surge, or not, depends on the
situation at Pakistan.
> Rest of the bottom line: If the United States can't get matters in
> Pakistan under control -- and as even Mr. Obama's own special
> representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Ambassador Richard
> Holbrooke, has said, the problems in the two countries are
> inextricably linked -- Mr. Obama's escalation of the conflict in
> Afghanistan by adding thousands more U.S. troops simply is not going
> to work.
"To preserve peace will no doubt be difficult, but by accomplishing it
we can show our wisdom and magnanimity, and secure to wour people the
enjoyment of a dignified repose by indulging which they will be
prosperous and happy." James Madison.
If troop surge won't work, we have to take a look at what will. Just
what does it take to make the situation better and stablize the
region?
Instead of saying what we are against, say what we are for? What
Values do we stand by?
God First, Country Second, Party Last.
==================================
ADS