|
August 19, 2009
The western media talk around Afghanistan is about the forthcoming presidential election, security, and the Taliban's intensifying military attempts to disrupt the presidential election or the forthcoming summer of violence. What of the longer term military strategy? It looks to be more of the same: further increase in US troops, a military surge, use of armed drones in west Pakistan and southern Afghanistan and more targeted assassinations with a "war on drugs".
That this war has been going on for nine years and there has been an escalation in the cycle of violence in Afghanistan, not an end to it. It has resulted the greatly improved capabilities of the Taliban paramilitaries. The neo-Taliban has two non-negotiable demands: the withdrawal of all foreign troops and a greater role for religious law in framing Afghanistan's legal and social structures. This indicates that it is no longer possible for western states to occupy countries in the middle east and southwest Asia.
The United States and its Nato allies have ended up in an Afghanistan quagmire and are now mired in Afghanistan. Time for a rethink---disengagement. How will that be achieved? A broad-based post-election consensus government that brings some of the Taliban into the Afghan government? That will be difficult as the Afghan body polity increasingly splits on ethnic lines.
The current US strategic rationale for an increased commitment in Afghanistan is the fear that if the Taliban isn't defeated in Afghanistan, they will eventually allow al Qaeda to re-establish itself there, which would then enable it to mount increasingly threatening attacks on the United States. The question should be asked: is the war in the interests of the U.S. and its allies?
The neo cons and military establishment in Australia give the impression that the enemy that the U.S. and its allies are fighting in Afghanistan are dedicated jihadis seeking to overthrow Arab monarchies, establish a Muslim caliphate, or mount attacks on U.S. and Australian soil. Their “safe haven” argument consistently downplays the insurgents concern with local affairs---eg., the political disempowerment of the Pashtuns and the illegitimate foreign interference in their country.Secondly, the argument assumes that the US, as a unipolar power has the power to reshape international relations.
|
The size and number of terrorist attacks against "Western" targets is low DESPITE America's role in Afghanistan, not because of it.
Keep pounding those drums and cranking up the fear machine!