Getting It Right
This news might surprise you:
The Afghan government believes that al Qaeda is not present in Afghanistan in any significant numbers. Foreign military commanders, often advised by U.S. Army Special Forces operators who have been working in the country since late 2001, tend to agree. Al Qaeda’s problem in Afghanistan is that they are greatly disliked.
If there’s hardly any al Qaeda in Afghanistan, then isn’t sending thousands more soldiers there a “distraction” from more important struggles in the heart of the middle east?
The situation in Pakistan is quite different, of course — but that’s what intel, tiny groups of Special Forces, and some very smart bombs are for. And putting 17,000+ more troops in Afghanistan, as I’ve noted before, let’s Russian put our logistical danglies in a vice. So we’ve got an ill-defined mission, a growing presence, a potentially worsening support situation, and an emboldened rival.
On the other hand, just because I’m not sure President Obama is making the right call, doesn’t mean I know what the right call is. Mostly, just hope this is one decision that really isn’t above his pay grade.
Well, I’m no expert either, but the situation reminds me of those identical Russian dolls that nest inside one another. The main problem in Afghanistan, I hear, is the extremists trying to take control. I think that in turn is related to the power/land grab of the Taliban in Pakistan. Which in turn, if successful, could create a lovely, welcoming atmosphere for al Qaeda once again. (This time with access to nuclear weapons, perhaps.)
Anyway, that’s the first thing that occurs to me. But I certainly could be wrong.
Let’s not obsess over Al Qaeda. The original problem with Afghanistan was a rogue regime that provided sanctuary to terrorist organizations, one of which was AQ.
We need to ensure that Taliban 2.0, AQ Lite, or some other wanna-be terror group doesn’t gain control of the country.
BTW, Lynne, most Afghan and Paki groups can’t stand AQ, since the latter are generally Arabs who look down on their brethren in southwest Asia. If you follow the link and read the entire article, you’ll get a feeling why this is so.
If you haven’t visited them before, strategypage.com is an excellent reference on world affairs, especially the dodgy stuff.
Stephen, I’m not sure treating Pakistan like a failed state is a good strategy. Not yet, anyway. I think we Americans fail to appreciate the difficulty many multi-ethnic countries such as Pakistan face when they try to resolve issues such as local autonomy vs. international responsibility. This would also include the challenges Iraq faces with the Kurds in the north with respect to Turkey.
I believe that a casual dismissal of the national Pakistan government as incompetent, or a failed state, misses the point. We here in the United States used to have that problem, back when we said “the United States are,” not “the United States is.” It took the bloodiest war in our history to lay that demon to rest, and despite your ire with Governor Perry I still think the Civil War pushed us too far over to the Nationalist side of the question. Local autonomy is, and should be, a legitimate question in the United States today.
I believe that most folks over here don’t understand the implications of their expectation that the Pakistan government should just “lay down the law” to the local tribes, logistics aside. It is a natural human trait to resist the idea of fighting one’s kin; most modern Americans really don’t understand the old concept that “blood is thicker than water.” For them, relatives are people you mail Christmas cards to, and not much else. The Pakis hold to an older standard.
We see the same problem in Iran. The majority of the population is under 30, and most of them don’t have much use for the more-radical Imams, but they would just as soon not get into any blood fights with their crazier kin. Again, it’s easier to criticize when you don’t have skin in the game.