TW: I suspect folks would prefer to think about alternative topics, if so there are roughly a million other websites one can visit. Alternatively I could rant about what a vapid, venomous dick Cheney is but he is yesterday's news, thankfully.
Below is a piece by James Fallows at Atlantic, Fallows tends to be fairly balanced observer:
"The NYT op-ed page that has just gone up, for tomorrow morning's paper, has as concise a paired description of options in Afghanistan as anyone could want. Each of the articles is by an American writer with experience in the region. One says we should send more troops; the other says that would be a mistake. Each is clearly written with a brief passage that distills the outlook and sensibility.One says:
"The United States was born of our ancestors' nationalistic resentment of a foreign power whose troops we saw as occupiers, not protectors. The British never fathomed our basic grievance -- this was our land, not theirs! -- so the more they cracked down, the more they empowered the American insurgency....
"We have been similarly oblivious to the strength of nationalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, particularly among the 40 million Pashtuns who live on both sides of the border there. That's one reason the additional 21,000 troops that President Obama ordered to Afghanistan earlier this year haven't helped achieve stability, and it's difficult to see why 40,000 more would help either."And the other says:
"During 10 days spent in Afghanistan at the invitation of Gen. David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, I observed that a difficult task has been further complicated by the checkered results of the Afghan election. But what seems to be conspicuously absent from the conversation in the United States is the realization that Afghanistan's corruption problem, like its security problem, can be best addressed by additional troops.
"Given what I saw and heard on my visit, I believe it is indeed possible to get Afghanistan's politicos to do a better job -- you just have to watch them closely.... Poor governance is an argument for, not against, a troop surge. "
The writers' identities are after the jump. I'm concentrating on the arguments themselves because I think they represent an extraordinarily pure Rorschach test. There are cases where you can listen to various sides and think, "Well, they've all got good points." But in this case, I bet most people will think: one of these perspectives rings true, and one sounds tragically deluded"
TW: The writers are Nick Kristoff from NYT and Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations. I do not care for either. Kristoff is a standard bleeding heart liberal, Boot a neo-con who would have us blow up more or less everyone who crosses us. But Kristoff misses a fundamental point. What happens if we de-escalate? Practically no one addresses this challenge. Folks so many time fall into a "this is too hard" camp or "by god we are 'Mericans, and folks better do as we say or else".
In retrospect we should not have been in Iraq or Vietnam. But no one can define for me, why leaving AfPak to let the Pashtuns have at each other, whilst concurrently serving as a petri dish and launching pad for radical Islamists and de-stabilizing what has become a highly critical region of the world, is a viable strategy. Until someone does I am going to keep pounding the table about the need for the U.S. to engage aggressively.
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/a_rorschach_test_on_afghanista.php
No comments:
Post a Comment