Afghanistan's Descent

[babylonsister]

Afghanistan's Descent
New Book Explains the U.S.'s Nation Building Failure
By Spencer Ackerman 07/14/2008


As U.S. casualties continue to climb in Afghanistan, an American public distracted by the war in Iraq can be forgiven for wondering: what happened? How did a war that seemed won in late 2001, just months after the Oct. 7, 2001 air campaign against the Taliban, suffer this sharp reversal fortune in less than seven years?

A new book by one of the most respected journalists of Afghanistan and Pakistan contends that the years between 2002 and 2007 were as crucial to the stability of the region as they were squandered by the Bush administration. A combination of lassitude and ignorance on the part of President George W. Bush and his war Cabinet -- fueled by, paradoxically, the initial, rapid success of the Afghanistan war -- led to a vicious circle of both Afghan and Pakistani corruption, violence and instability.

"Descent Into Chaos" by the prolific Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid chronicles how Afghanistan went from being a success story to a more dangerous place than Iraq; how Pakistan went from being a stalwart U.S. ally to a "bolt hole," in Rashid's words, for Al Qaeda, and the relationship of each to the other. It argues that Central Asia, rather than Iraq, is the major front on the war on terror; and methodically documents the success over the last six years of the forces of extremism, violence and terror. And it raises the uncomfortable prospect that, after nearly seven years in Afghanistan and billions of dollars spent supporting proxy governments in Kabul and Islamabad, the U.S. might be at greater danger from the region than at any time since Sept. 11, 2001.

With both presidential candidates attempting to checkmate the other on national security, Rashid's book raises an uncomfortable question: can anything be done to reverse the region's anti-American trends?

Over the last 15 years, Rashid has emerged as the West's principal journalist in Central Asia, publishing two acclaimed books, "Jihad" and "Taliban," that explained the phenomenon of rising extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan when few outside those countries paid them any attention. One of the most respected reporters in the region, Rashid has an unparalleled group of contacts -- he interviewed everyone from Taliban leaders to U.S. military commanders to Pakistani opposition figures to Afghan President Hamid Karzai for this latest book.

The key mistake of U.S. strategy in central Asia, from Rashid's perspective, was to confuse momentary success for lasting stability. Pakistan and Afghanistan are inextricably linked -- their border, the so-called Durand Line, is an unsealable fiction of the map drawn by British imperialists in the 19th century -- and yet U.S. policy-makers treated them as distinct problems.

more...

http://washingtonindependent.com/view/afghanistans-descent

[enid602]

1. USSR

Afghanistant brought down the USSR.

[bemildred]

2. Maybe the whole "World Domination" thing was stupid to start with?

I don't want to bash this guy, but let's look at the larger picture. Did it ever make any sense to think that we could dominate the whole world? If there was EVER a time to do that, it was right after WWII, when we really did bestride the whole world like a colossus, 50% of the world's industrial capacity, and we tried, but we could not do it even then? So why would the weak, decadent, corrupt, disaffected, and disfunctional post-Clinton USA be able to pull it off?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Interesting what Lindburgh said in my sig line..... can't say I

disagree.

[panader0]

3. As always, when I click on one of your posts

I know I will be informed. Thanks.

[Ghost Dog]

5. Here's the lowdown on this:

...Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato’s secretary-general, the Brookings Institution in February that the continuing occupation had less to do with good governance than with the desire to site permanent military bases (and nuclear missiles?) in a country that borders China, Iran and Central Asia. Contributors to the organisation’s house magazine, Nato Review, have argued that the preservation of Western hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region requires a permanent military presence.

Confirmation for this aim can be found in Monday's Washington Post, which buried an article on a funding bill passed by Congress for bolstering the key American base in Bagram. The Pentagon has been forthright in its view of the base's permanent importance. As the WP notes, the funding request states clearly that "as a forward operating site, Bagram must be able to provide for a long term, steady state presence which is able to surge to meet theater contingency requirements."

And that anti-war hero Admiral Fallon was even more up-front about the base's long-term imperial function, calling Bagram "the centerpiece for the CENTCOM Master Plan for future access to and operations in Central Asia." The American military intends to have a "forward presence" in Central Asia for a long, long time.

/... http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1564/135/

[Tutonic]

6. Why is Obama calling for 65,000 more troops for Afghanistan?

Did Jesse Jackson succeed in what he threatened to do? What gives with the double speak Obama? I could have voted for Hillary if I wanted to annihilate Iran!!

[bluebloodwarrior]

7. I agree with you

Although I honestly oppose the war in Iraq with much more intensity than in Afghanistan, for obvious reasons.

[babylonsister]

8. Have you even attempted to do any research before making assumptions?

It has nothing to do with Iran, for starters. Google is your friend; try using it, because it's there if you're that curious.