Internet Anthropologist Think Tank: Obama's Afghan decision:

  • Search our BLOG

  • HOME
    Terrorist Names SEARCH:

    Wednesday, October 28, 2009

    Obama's Afghan decision:

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

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



    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    Labels: , ,


    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

    << Home