Inkwell Institute
International Studies Desk
That is the question that I have asked from the second year onward….and I am NOT alone….many people are starting to ask that very same question and so far, like me, have not had a good answer to the question……
We have heard that we are in Afghanistan to rid the world of al Qaeda but yet there are fewer than a 100 in the country….or we are there to keep the Taliban from regaining power and let the cycle begin again as it did in 1989 when the Russians vacated the country, but which Taliban? There are many versions of the movement, some terror related and others just a local movement. Or we are there to help stabilize a volatile part of the world….would that be a political solution? In other words we are nation building?
The Congress has just voted on a funding project for Afghanistan…
The last two weeks have thrown an especially harsh light on the war effort, with new reports of corruption in President Hamid Karzai’s government, and a change in the commander of U.S. forces and multinational forces in Afghanistan.
The House-approved bill includes nearly $4 billion in economic aid to Afghanistan and its neighbor, Pakistan.
Still it seemed a wonder the new money for the unpopular war got through the House at all, after long arguments among Democratic lawmakers over whether and how to do it. They set up a complicated series of votes in which the non-military spending passed 239-182, while the part containing the war funding passed 215-210.
Just what is the end game for declaring a victory in Afghanistan and bringing the troops home? Just what is the “real” reasons that we and our allies are still forcing our troops into such hardships?
If it is the AQ thing, then there are more within the borders of Pakistan than there are in Afghanistan….should not our focus be on Pakistan then? That will NOT happen!
Okay then, is it the Taleban? There are about as many Taleban organizations as hair on the back of your hand….some are hard core terrorists, some are just pissed that we are an occupying force and then there are those that are just fundamentalist religious types….which one of these are we fighting? Is it the word Taleban that we are fighting? Why not eliminate the hard core and then work with the others?
And then there is the “political” side of the reason for war……let us be honest…the popularly elected (a point of contention) president of Afghanistan, Karzai, is little more than the mayor of the capital, Kabul.
So what is the end game in Afghanistan? Politicians cannot answer that simple question, then who has the answer?
I imagine that’s because there is no answer. However, such an enterprise cannot truly have a definitive objective – there are objectives (plural) along the way and no doubt some of those will have to be modified along the way.
Yes, the Karzai regime is almost certainly corrupt, but then such a society as theirs funtions on what we call corruption and who are we to criticise something most of us can’t even begin to understand? Then again, what is the definition of corruption? Would deciding every political position from the the Presidency on down in the country based primarily on who is the highest bidder be considered corrupt by many? Is that not effectively how the US does it?
To me, the whole subject of such pontificating as the Geneva Convention is simply yet another example of daft legalese jargon and bureaucratic idiocy. If you are operating a police force in a democracy, then you obviously want fairness (if and where possible – or at least a good effort at providing it) and only the guilty punished etc., but war is nation fighting nation and it’s entirely different – you simply cannot pussy-foot around like this.
The whole thing was ill conceived from the start. We should have gone in MUCH harder and faster at the start, or stayed out altogether. It’s too late now of course and I suspect you’re right that we’ll be there for a long time to come. We are at war or we’re not – silly ideas about “limited response” are simply a stupid idealist dream and our guys are paying the price.
Incidentally, I agree with Steele on one thing – what the hell are we doing fighting a ground war in Afghanistan??? It just hands the advantage back to the Taliban on a plate!
First of all Steele is a moron…….while I agree with you on the original incursion…fast and hard and go home would have been the best policy….and we still have NO answer to the end game……if it is democracy…..I laugh loudly…….if it is to eliminate the Taliban….I laugh loudly again…….if it was to eliminate AQ in Afghanistan then we have pretty much succeeded and time to come home…….
Someone has got to have the end game in sight….but who would that be?
The end game is endlessly changing and yes, Steele is a moron for getting it all wrong, but history of the region does suggest that the small part of his statement that implied that a ground war is possibly unwinnable may well be scarily prophetic.
I know that AQ has not been eliminated in is across the border and that brings up another game altogether……yep, he may have gotten part of it wrong and now the GOP is busy trying to circumvent him as the spokesperson for the party……history would say that we are pissing up a rope in Afghanistan…….the numbers will contiue to rise and the American people will continue to think that it is winnable…..so sad and so misinformed…..
PS: AQ hasn’t been eliminated – it’s to a large part just moved! They’re probably located in America somewhere now… 😆