President Obama has repeatedly called the US occupation of Afghanistan a "war
of necessity", in contrast to the war of choice his predecessor waged (and of
course is still ongoing) in Iraq.
While I am no mind-reader, I'm not sure the president really still believes
that, or he may want to come up with a different way to describe the situation
in Afghanistan and the region. Certainly there are grave problems in Afghanistan
and in neighboring Pakistan that deserve attention and resources from the US,
other countries in the region and the global community.
Sometime in the
reasonably near future,
President Obama will undoubtedly address the American people on
whatever decision he makes about the war in Afghanistan. Every sign
indicates that he will hew to Washington's political wisdom about what
a war president can do in this country.
Undoubtedly,
the President's speechwriters are already preparing the text for his
Afghan...
WASHINGTON -- The Nobel Peace crown lies uneasy on President Barack Obama's head as he ponders the next U.S. move in Afghanistan, with hints and leaks showering down to tell us that he will eventually send thousands more troops there.
His decision -- which could be announced soon -- was triggered by the request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal for 40,000 more troops to secure the cities and protect the citizens of Afghanistan, in addition to the 68,000 U.S. troops there now.
If President
Obama has ever heard of William L. Shirer, chances are it's in
connection with Nazi Germany. Nowadays, you can't make assumptions
about what people under 50 know and don't know, but it's a safe bet
Obama recalls Shirer's most famous book, "The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich," even if he hasn't read it.
Kabul, Afghanistan -- Every morning, dozens of trucks laden with
diesel from Turkmenistan lumber out of the northern Afghan border town
of Hairaton on a two-day trek across the Hindu Kush down to
Afghanistan's capital, Kabul.
As the world awaits Barack Obama's decision on Afghanistan, a lethal
myth has spread. It says that standing up to the military will doom him
to be a single-term president.
This week begins with a significant new straw in the political wind for President Obama to consider. The California Democratic Party has just sent him a formal and clear message: Stop making war in Afghanistan.
Overwhelmingly approved on Sunday by the California Democratic Party's 300-member statewide executive board, the resolution is titled "End the U.S. Occupation and Air War in Afghanistan."
Or should we call it "Again-istan?"
Some people never learn.
The arrogance of empire? Ignorance of history? Political opportunism?
Or cowardice to confront the global challenges we face?
These
factors probably all contribute to the current incredible situation, in
which the United States is debating whether to escalate its military
presence there or maintain a lower-level intensity, relying on
mechanical warfare in order to focus the war instead in Pakistan.
Neither option makes any sense.
Before the Obama
administration buys into General Stanley McChrystal's escalation
strategy, it might spend some time examining the August 12 battle of
Dananeh, a scruffy little town of 2,000 perched at the entrance to the
Naw Zad Valley in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province.
Dananeh is a textbook example of why counterinsurgency won't work in
that country, as well as a case study in military thinking straight out
of Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland.
s it just me, or is the pontification of Western leaders about
corruption in Afghanistan growing rather tiresome?
There is something very Captain Renault about it. We're shocked,
shocked that the Afghans have sullied our morally immaculate
occupation of their country with their dirty corruption. How
ungrateful can they be?
But perhaps we should consider the possibility that our occupation of
the country is not so morally immaculate - indeed, that the most
corrupt racket going in Afghanistan today is the American occupation.
