"Success" uh, occurred (?) in Iraq. The popular myth is that it was due to brilliant COIN and surging. However, the reality is that it was due to the fact that [often brutal] ethnic cleansing separated the main combatants in the civil war[s] that erupted in the vacuum after Saddam was removed. Had it not been for that hate-fueled migration inside (and adjacent to) Iraq, we'd still be losing lots of lives and treasury there, too.
We can't afford to wait for such an accidental solution to occur in Afghanistan. What we seek to achieve in Afghanistan is unprecedented in recorded history.
We've recently learned really why we're still there. It's not our arrogance, it's not [just] the right wing's Neo-Crusadism, it's our corporate greed for raw materials - minerals under Afghani soil. I would have far, far more respect for the President if he would state that control of those resources is in 'our national interest.'
Although I'd argue it's not, at least it would be refreshing honesty (along with the standard finger jabbed in the eye of progressives). I expect Obama believes if all the tribes and sub-groups in Afghanistan can hold hands, then those resources wouldn't get exploited by _____. Problem is, they aren't going to hold hands.
So if the President wants to make sure things go well with those minerals, then I suggest setting up a base within striking distance, and pull everyone else out of their policeman role.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment