Obama's Afghan decision:

Obama's Afghan decision:
By Gerald Internet Anthropologist Think Tank

The resignation of U.S. Senior Civilian Representative Matthew P. Hoh,

over the handling of the Afghan war.

Mr. HOH resigned Aug 19, "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.”

And that is exactly what Obama is doing now.

Re-evaluating the Strategys.
It would seem Obama is having experts look
at exactly those concerns.

And is even waiting till the Afghan election
runoff is done to decide fully on the next step.

USA did abandon Afghan after their fight with the occupying Russians.
And the Taliban took over giving cover to al
Qaeda for the 911 attack.

I think a replay of that strategy is a bad idea.

Currently there is a disconnect between CIA and
Army doctrine on the Afgan War. CIA is running
counter Terrorism operation while the Army is moving to a counter insurgency effort.

Resulting in todays NYT lead story,
Brother of Afghan Leader Said to Be Paid by C.I.A.
The story has US Armys fingerprints all over it.
"General" says....

Seems the conflict between the CIA and Army is
coming into the open.
Army want 40,000 more troops to win hearts and minds ( counter insurgency ).
CIA doesn't need that to just kill Taliban, ( counter terrorism )

There in lies Obama's dilemma.

Question becomes how USA stays.

CIA and Army need to get on the same strategy page.

Seems CIA is working a counter Terrorism war and Army wants a counter insurgency effort.

Other point is about Afghanistan corruption.

The corruption in Afghanistan is so endemic, its population so poor and uneducated, and the solutions so complex, that even 40,000 troops might be vastly too few to turn the war's momentum.

Corruption may not be a problem, look to USA and the corruption between US Congress and

the Criminal banking Industry, and other than almost leading to a World financial credit melt down,

and the rape of the consumer by legalizing LOAN SHARKING, USA seems to be able to manage

the corruption even on a huge, massive scale, congress and the Federal Reserve gave the Banks

$2.7 TRILLION USD, and lets them cook their books.

So corruption, in and of its self, is not a prima facia evidence of inability to govern.

But the Taliban are at an advantage as there is no state.

They derive much power from the Pashtun area in border areas of

Afghan and Paki, and as we have posted before an Pashtun state

might make it easier to deal with the Taliban, they currently

enjoy a 'virual' state and a stealth border, the Durand Line.

Internet Anthropologist Think Tank: Durand Line, Talibans stealth border. Nov 17, 2007

Thomas P.M. Barnett's take on it.

Fear of a Pashtun state

ARTICLE: Pakistan's Pashtuns, looking for statehood, may look to Taliban, Christian Science Monitor, October 4, 2009

I don't think this pathway is bizarre in the least. As I've said earlier, I think some sort of soft border that allows for a Pashtun state is inevitable. The Durand Line is unsustainable because it's completely arbitrary.

If this is how we coop the Taliban, then I think we have a real chance.

Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett on October 27, 2009 5:38 AM | Permalink

Question becomes how USA stays.

Gerald

.

Related articles by Zemanta

• First US Official Resigns Over Afghan War; Says "It's Not Worth The Fight" (crooksandliars.com)
• Afghan president's brother denies getting CIA pay (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Afpak internal relationship. (warintel.blogspot.com)