The U.S. And NATO CAN’T STOP The Inevitable!
It is Impossible FOR A FINAL Afghanistan Victory,
So how long should U.S. wait to withdraw Forces?
Depends on how valuable staying is to our Security!
There IS NO Islamic Country from Pakistan to Morocco,
That is more rugged and mountainous than Afghanistan,
It’s impossible for a ruler to unite its many tribal Factions!
The Soviets discovered it’s impossible to win military Victory,
Obama Will have to Decide how Valuable it is to U.S. Security,
I suspect foreign forces will be leaving sooner than Advertised!
February 22, 2009
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
I was in favor of invading Iraq and taking it over only long enough to get rid of Saddam Hussein one way or another, and then pulling out to let the Kurds, Sunni, and Shiites slug it out for control. I was in favor of going into Afghanistan, helping the non-Taliban factions unite to defeat the Taliban, and then staying long enough for them to be able to keep the Taliban from taking over the country again.
How long that will take is the question Obama will have to decide.
I have believed since I was in my twenties what General Douglas Macarthur stated concerning military activity on the Asian mainland. He did not believe it possible to sustain a permanent victory on the Asian mainland.
But this was not the primary reason for what I favored in the preceding paragraph.
I must confess my main reason for my viewpoint was that prophetic interpretation of end time Scriptures had convinced me Afghanistan and Pakistan would fall in line with the Antichrist following Jerusalem’s fall, and become part of his Caliphate, which I have outlined in numerous previous Blogs.
Begin Excerpt from Middle East Online via World News
Obama and the AFPAK Trap
February 21, 2009
By Patrick Seale
One of the most difficult foreign policy questions facing US President Barack Obama is what strategy to pursue in Afghan
istan and Pakistan. In a word, he will have no option but to withdraw from Afghanistan – and the sooner the better, says Patrick Seale.
One of the most difficult foreign policy questions facing US President Barack Obama is what strategy to pursue in Afghanistan and Pakistan — or AFPAK, as Washington now calls this war-torn region.
During his election campaign, Obama adopted a hard line against the Taliban and Al-Qaida, no doubt wishing to show that on matters of national security he was as tough as anyone. He spoke of shifting America’s military effort away from Iraq to Afghanistan, which he described in harsh terms as the “central front against terrorism.” This bellicosity suggested that he was in danger of falling into an AFPAK trap.
He still is in such danger, although a somewhat softer tone is now being heard from parts of the new American administration.
Obama is under pressure to announce his strategic guidelines in the coming weeks, possibly even before the NATO Summit of 3-4 April.
He is clearly not allowing himself to be rushed. Instead, he is sounding out a wide range of advisers.
AFPAK is the subject of intense debate in Washington, both in government agencies and in allied think-tanks, like the Center for New American Security — a rival to the neo-conservative think-tanks, which were so dangerously influential during the Bush era.
Obama has a wide range of advisers working on the AFPAK puzzle: Richard Holbrooke, 67, his ‘special representative’ to Afghanistan and Pakistan, has a reputation as a robust negotiator and is something of a hawk. He has just completed a 10-day tour of both countries, and is busy preparing his strategic plan.
But so are Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the chiefs of staff; General David Petraeus, the CENTCOM commander; General David McKiernan, the top US commander in Afghanistan; Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence; and Bruce Riedel, a former CIA counter-terrorism and Afghan expert; to name only some of the more prominent.
All these advisers are due to submit their reports to the President in the coming weeks. All recognise that the situation is grim: The governments of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari are weak and ineffective. Their writ does not run far beyond their capital cities. The Taliban, meanwhile, mount increasingly daring raids in the south, east and north of Afghanistan, and clearly enjoy rising public support. In both Afghanistan and Pakistan, opposition to US and other foreign troops is growing sharply, largely as a result of civilian casualties caused by air and missile strikes.
Winter is drawing to a close in the Afghan mountains. With the approach of spring, the Taliban/Pashtun insurgency is bound to intensify. Tribal insurgents have already more or less obliterated the border between the Afghanistan and Pakistan — the famous, British-drawn Durand Line — and are extending their control to large parts of both countries.
Kabul itself is now unsafe.
This month, Taliban suicide bombers attacked government buildings in the heart of the city, killing 26 people and spreading panic in the expatriate community. Three of the four highways into the city are under regular Taliban harassment. It is feared that Afghan presidential elections, due on 20 August, may not be able to be held, such is the widespread insecurity. Military supply routes into Afghanistan are under threat. Some Western commentators go so far as to say that the war is already lost.
General McKiernan asked for an extra 30,000 men, no doubt hoping that an Iraqi-style ‘surge’ could be replicated in Afghanistan. But it has been widely noticed that Obama is taking his time. He has not yet agreed to send large numbers of troops to Afghanistan. McKiernan may have to make do with little more than half that number.
The suggestion is that Obama shares the view of Defence Secretary Robert Gates that there is no military solution to the complex problems of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where insurgents thrive in tribal areas largely outside government control.
According to Washington sources, Obama’s instinct is to declare an end to George W Bush’s ‘Global War on Terror’. He would rather engage in a dialogue with America’s enemies — in Iran as much as in Afghanistan — rather than seek to subdue them by military force, which in Afghanistan is a seemingly hopeless task. There is much talk in Washington of attempting to separate ‘moderate’ Taliban from Al-Qaida. Certainly, the Taliban movement is heavily fractured, with more than a dozen commanders each running a district of their own.
But because they feel the war is going their way, none of these commanders is in a hurry to talk to America. The only subject they would like to discuss is a Western withdrawal.
Perhaps because of his childhood in Indonesia and his mixed-race background, Obama may be better prepared to understand how fervently the Pashtun tribes are attached to their independence, to their Muslim faith and to their tribal traditions. If there is to be reconciliation, let alone peace, these must be respected. It would be wiser to put the focus on reconstruction and institution-building rather than on combat operations.
Some, at least, of Obama’s advisers will tell him that, to win hearts and minds, the population in the war zone will need to be protected, rather than attacked and killed in large numbers by missile strikes from CIA drones — as is, unfortunately, still happening.
In a word, the United States and its allies will have no option but to withdraw from Afghanistan. They should look for an exit strategy — and the sooner the better.
Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by
the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.