Thomas Ricks, over at Foreign Policy, has a lot to say about it. The context here is the NY Times reporting on the opposition to the surge--the opposition coming from our ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry. Ricks writes:
Eikenberry makes a lot of well-reasoned argument about why he thinks McChrystal is wrong. But as I read them, I had the nagging feeling that he was mounting exactly the same set of arguments that Eikenberry's long-time friend Gen. John Abizaid made against the Iraq surge back in the fall of 2006, along with Gen. George Casey and just about everybody else in the leadership of the U.S. military establishment. "Rather then reducing Afghan dependence, sending more troops, therefore, is likely to deepen it, at least in the short term," Eikenberry writes. "That would further delay our goal of shifting the combat burden to the Afghans." Yes, that was indeed the Casey plan in Iraq, too.WTF is going on, eh. We are bleeding blood, bleeding money, bleeding time, with unemployment in the double digits at home, .... and all we have is continuation of the messed up foreign policy and interventions that began eight years ago?
But then there is the troublesome role played by Pakistan. Eikenberry argues -- I think correctly -- that:
More troops won't end the insurgency as long as Pakistan sanctuaries remain. Pakistan will remain the single greatest source of Afghan instability so long as the border sanctuaries remain, and Pakistan views its strategic interests as best served by a weak neighbor.Good argument. On the other hand, how different is that really from the role that Iran is playing in Iraq, especially in the goal of having a weak, pliable neighbor?
And, oh yeah, the elections that were supposed to have been held in January will now be in March. Last November, I told my class to watch out for the Iraqi elections .... I hope they were paying attention to me .... but then nobody listens to me anyway :)
No comments:
Post a Comment