I heard Obama on Afghanistan and Pakistan. It does sound like more war and not much else. He did not address the main problem with the war effort--that it alienates the civilian population with its bombings and attacks on "insurgent" hideouts that then turn out to be peasants with a large admixture of women and children.
If I were a peasant in either country, and my family was killed "inadvertently" by American or Nato troops, I'd be pretty receptive to the seduction of any "insurgents" who came along.
|
It's probably true that the Taliban are pretty nasty people; it's probably true that they don't really offer anything positive to the people of either country--the same could be said for the Republicans in Congress--but I don't see the US, realistically, being able to offer some alternative. Only their own people can do that.
In Afghanistan: when you push one way, Afghans are likely to push back, something they have been doing to foreigners meddling in their affairs since Alexander the Great, and in modern history since the Russian and British Empires tangled there in the 19th century.
Obama's re-emphasis on helping Pakistan is welcome, however. That country is key. But if, as some were predicting, the US begins to bomb (using Predator drones) in Baluchistan, then all bets are off.
After all, the Pakistanis did suffer colonialism, and they are wary of westerners taking over their country again. If we bomb in Baluchistan, we're striking at areas directly governed by the fragile democratic government, not in the tribal no-man's land of the FATA. I wonder if American aims would survive the outrage such bombings could unleash.
It's true that the Taliban and Al Qa'ida are murderous gangsters, distinguished from groups like the Mafia only by an ideology that justifies their violence. But the fact that they are like gangsters leads me to wonder: wouldn't it be better to treat them like gangsters, esp. their leadership? That would mean hunting them down in places like Peshawar, imprisoning them, and trying them for the crimes they have committed.
|
How would New Yorkers feel if the government decided to go after drug cartels in New York City by bombing their houses?
Mayor Rizzo tried that against MOVE in Philadelphia, do you remember? A whole block went up in smoke; people were not pleased.
But that's, in essence, the tactics we're proposing to escalate in Afghanistan and Pakistan. How would we have reacted if, instead of Mayor Rizzo, it had been the British, the Russians, or the UN who bombed the MOVE house?
I agree that Obama faces some hard choices in Afghanistan, but I think he's made a grave misjudgment in choosing to only slightly modify (and build upon) the predominantly military strategy and tactics there.
I've advocated some of the policies Obama has outlined: increased aid to both Afghanistan and
Pakistan,
more of a civilian role to improve people's lives, and I agree that the key to providing such aid is to first provide enough security so that aid workers, teachers, students, farmers are safe from attacks by insurgents trying to stop and destroy any development. I also agree that that is a tall order.
The problem with just quitting (after 7 years), is that, as Obama pointed out, al Qaida could step right into the breach, and would be poised to aid its Taliban allies in taking over Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.
While popular resistance to Taliban rule could be broad, their tactic for takeover does not require popular support, only effective terror. The prospect of a Taliban-al Qa'ida ruled Pakistan is daunting. After all, it has The Bomb. So, I agree, we can't just quit.
But I feel that Obama has chosen the wrong option; it should be police and development, not the military formula of "disrupt, dismantle and destroy."
