Five Years Later in Afghanistan
"Building a new nation is never a straight, steady climb upward."
By AcademicElephant Posted in War — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Five years ago today, the US and coalition forces invaded Afghanistan. After a brilliant, lightening campaign through the country to Kabul, the Taliban were toppled and al Qaeda was seriously degraded. Five years later the country is struggling through the transition to a constitutional government under Hamid Karzai, and despite the many challenges the Afghan people face, there are concrete signs of progress. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has an op-ed in the Washington Post to mark the occasion, and some of his metrics may surprise you. Mr. Rumsfeld notes that:
Building a new nation is never a straight, steady climb upward. Today can sometimes look worse than yesterday -- or even two months ago. What matters is the overall trajectory: Where do things stand today when compared to what they were five years ago?
In Afghanistan, the trajectory is a hopeful and promising one.
This is an important point that is all to frequently lost in current assessments of Afghanistan. Where was that country five years ago? What does it have the potential to become today? Many are predicting a bleak future for Afghanistan and there is reason to be concerned, but then again there is reason to argue that as this generation of more highly-educated Afghans grow up accustomed to democracy and a growing economy in a country where the infrastructure is improving instead of crumbling, that is far from a certainty. Five years ago, those children had no future. Now they do. It remains beholden on us to help them as they realize it, but make no mistake: Afghanistan is not a lost cause, nor is it being ignored by this administration.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Limits of Humanitarian War — Comments (36) »
Five Years Later in Afghanistan 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The huge problem I have with the the way the US is dealing with this conflict is the stupid, stupid war on poppies. What you you rather have, people growing poppies or supporting terrorists? But no, because of the idiotic and fruitless 'war on drugs' they have strong-armed the Afghan government into trying to destroy the poppies. So the Taliban, no fools in that area, tell the farmers that they will protect thier cash crop and the farmers become Taliban supporters. Whoever is responsible for this misplaced set of priorities needs to be kicked in his rear.
There is no question that Afghanastan would be hard to deal with in the best of times - this foolishness with poppies makes things that much more complicated.
building a country's enconomy around illicit drug trade does not make a solid foundation for the future. A better bet is the Coca Cola factory (referenced in Rumsfeld's article) and other such ventures.
Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
One coke factory does not compare to the scale of money that can be generated for all the farmers who grow poppies. The Afghans did not create the demand for heroin - they are just responding to it. They have been doing this for years and they are good at it. If there was something that they could do that would make them just as much money - some other cash crop - I would say give them all seeds for whatever it was and let 'em go. But this is not the case. As much as I supported both wars, this one is going backwards because of the stupidity over this issue.
There are plenty of medical uses for opiates. Why not work to provide tax privileges and the like to those pharmaceutical companies that buy from Afghan farmers? Having legitimate, non-evil customers would take away their incentive to turn a blind eye to when the Taliban sets up shop.
is that they're just so darn resilient. That said, we need to re-double our efforts and expand the poppy eradication program, not end it.
This question:
"What you you rather have, people growing poppies or supporting terrorists?"
reveals a certain degree of misunderstanding regarding the symbiotic relationship between growing poppies for heroin production and the financial support for the Taliban and al-Qaeda that is generated by the resultant heroin trade.
In otherwords, growing poppies finances terrorism and terrorist operations.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
is failing in Latin American, and it's failing in Afghanistan as well. The locals, in whose hearts we all know is where the battle for the country lies, cannot support themselves without the crop, and when we/the government destroy the only method with which they can feed their families, a message of, "But we brought you democracy!" fails to inspire them to leave off support of the Taliban in Afgahnistan.
The only reason that the poppy trade gives money to terrorists and the Taliban is because the US has caused it. The US backed government is blackmailed by the US into pushing for poppys to be destroyed. The Taliban and the terrorists protect the poppy growers in exchange for some of the profit. It would be better for someone to tell the Afghan government to turn a blind eye to the poppy trade - to only go after those growers who support the Taliban. Those who fight to keep the Taliban out of their areas - leave their crops alone. But no - it's more important to some of these idiots to worry about heroin than terrorists.
As much as I support both wars - and even more so the Bush Docritne - count me among those who want Rummy to go.
with this statement:
"The only reason that the poppy trade gives money to terrorists and the Taliban is because the US has caused it."
That part of the heroin trade originating in Afghanistan funded the Taliban and supported al-Qaeda's terrorist operations long before September 11, 2001.
Advancing formal education for the young and developing marketable skills for the elders throughout the tribal regions of Afghanistan is key to ending poverty, not "looking-the-other-way" and leaving the illicit drug trade in place.
We must insist the international community honors their financial commitments to Afghanistan, especially that which has been designated for reconstruction. Funding public-works projects throughout Afghanistan, I can't belive I said fund public-works, would be one incentive for the tribesmen to end poppy production.
That said, education is the primary key to ending abject poverty and providing hope for the future of Afghanistan.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
that Mr. Rumsfeld is correct and things are going in the right direction. Seems he is a pretty distinct minority on this one.
FTR, one my primary reasons for opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning was because I believed that Afghanistan was the true touchstone that could achieve what the Administration was looking to do. And it could have been achieved with far less opposition.
If we fail in Afghanistan I will lay that completely at the Administration's feet.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You are, of course, correct that Secretary Rumsfeld is in a minority on this. By now approximately 150 million retired generals have appeared on television calling for his resignation, which clinches it for the other side.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
If Rumsfeld is in the minority, it's only because the media has created the negative impressions otherwise.
When judging other conditions closer to home, people can make their own judgements and often do not allow media hype to overrule. However, the problem with judging the situations in Afghanistan and Irag is that most Americans have to rely totally on the press for any information; they have no first hand observation or experience with which to decide for themselves. Hence, the power of the media is greatly magnified.
In fact, it's ironic that among those who do have firsthand knowledge, namely those in the US military, the impressions are distinctly different than those created by the media.
As to the long term goal of promoting democracy in the Middle East, it is hopelessly naive to think reforming Afghanistan would have accomplished that.
If Rumsfeld is in the minority, it's only because the media has created the negative impressions otherwise
So if anyone disagrees with Rumsfeld it's because the media has tricked them?
owever, the problem with judging the situations in Afghanistan and Irag is that most Americans have to rely totally on the press for any information; they have no first hand observation or experience with which to decide for themselves. Hence, the power of the media is greatly magnified
So who is it we should listen to? Field troops who have no knowledge of anything outside of their operational environment?
As to the long term goal of promoting democracy in the Middle East, it is hopelessly naive to think reforming Afghanistan would have accomplished that.
Yet Iraq is the fertile ground that could achieve this?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
We should honestly take a lesson from WWII nation building. Well the question should be asked: Do we want to directly help Afghanistan with its economy or let them do it all on their own with our "aid" (money)? Look at Japan and Germany post war, two of the largest powerhouse economies of the West. We can do it in these countries if we really put our minds to it. We just need to seriously win the war in Iraq so we can focus on nation building in both countries just like WWII.
God Bless America
Captain America
will ever be able to stop it. We would save money by buying the poppys ourselves and then burning the crops or use it in pain medications.
It's funny how no one in the media harps on all of the problems in Kosovo...oh yeah...that was Clinton's doing, and so the media can't possibly have any critical analysis of that...
Of course Rumsfeld is correct, but the media has done a great job creating false expectations of instant perfections in most people's minds. The media's de facto viewpoint on both Iraq and Afghanistan is that if things aren't perfect now, then something is wrong with US leadership. Of course, that's ridiculous, but that's the assumption that the media has trained people to buy into.