Ok, I'll give it a go. It seems to me that this article is sort of coming from a bridge from the total clusterfuck side to the rational solutions side. The President inherited a complete disaster that had been essentially ignored for years because the President who started it didn't want the messy job of trying to bring it to any kind of conclusion. He's been assembling experts to advise him since even before he took office, trying to get as good a handle as possible on the situation. He had a path, at least, to follow by the time he took office, as evidenced by the fact that some announcements on Afghanistan were made immediately. I think since then he and his war and security people have met with experts both military and civilian to try to find some way to unravel the Gordian knot.
What this article is saying to me, for the most part, is that the way things have been done is unacceptable. Before, we refused to talk to any and all Taleban? Well, maybe we need to be less absolute, and look again at who falls into that category and whether or not there might be people there who could help. Before, Americans were stirred up into a war frenzy and made to believe that there was such a thing as "winning" the war on terrorism, etc. Maybe we need to start working on changing Americans' understanding of what "victory" and "success" will actually look like, what we should actually be hoping for.
I do worry a little about Pakistan. I think it's only rational to understand that any sustainable solution in Afghanistan would have to have the cooperation of Pakistan, because otherwise, those who would unmake a new state in Afghanistan can have a safe place just across the border, and can get materiel easily from there. There are many Pashtun in Pakistan, and we have learned that that kind of ethnicity is for many people far more important than the nation state named on their passport. I wonder, though, if we can actually unravel the Afghanistan situation without having to address what is becoming the Pakistan situation. That part I do look upon with dread.
Of course, I could be wrong. I'm certainly no one's idea of an expert on the subject. From following the American and British news, though, and listening carefully to what the President says, these are the conclusions I can draw.
What this article is saying to me, for the most part, is that the way things have been done is unacceptable. Before, we refused to talk to any and all Taleban? Well, maybe we need to be less absolute, and look again at who falls into that category and whether or not there might be people there who could help. Before, Americans were stirred up into a war frenzy and made to believe that there was such a thing as "winning" the war on terrorism, etc. Maybe we need to start working on changing Americans' understanding of what "victory" and "success" will actually look like, what we should actually be hoping for.
I do worry a little about Pakistan. I think it's only rational to understand that any sustainable solution in Afghanistan would have to have the cooperation of Pakistan, because otherwise, those who would unmake a new state in Afghanistan can have a safe place just across the border, and can get materiel easily from there. There are many Pashtun in Pakistan, and we have learned that that kind of ethnicity is for many people far more important than the nation state named on their passport. I wonder, though, if we can actually unravel the Afghanistan situation without having to address what is becoming the Pakistan situation. That part I do look upon with dread.
Of course, I could be wrong. I'm certainly no one's idea of an expert on the subject. From following the American and British news, though, and listening carefully to what the President says, these are the conclusions I can draw.
Reply
Leave a comment