Is US Strategy Working in Afghanistan?
It is four years since the fall of the Taleban regime. The United States has spent billions of dollars on its operations in Afghanistan - but what does it have to show for it? Click to read.
Also read about Afghanistan's Parliament. Click here.
See Time Magazine's Afghanistan Today. Click here.
61 Comments:
I think that there are two many factors working against the US strategy in Afghanistan. The first is that it is almost impossible to support one side of a civil war within another country and come out victorious. Unfortunately the US has not learned from the failures of Korea, Vietnam and what will certainly be in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It is unbelievable that the US won its own war of independence for similar reason, we were fighting for our own land. The same is true now for Afghanistan we will never be able to create an army that will fight if that is not what they really want. Furthermore, it is hard to build up another country's forces because as soon as we leave it is likely to fall to pieces. I also don't believe teh US will be successful because of the legacy of colonialism which plays out in many middle eastern countries. Afghanistan is a border drawn around an area that has many different ethnic groups or tribes, as the conflict played out in Parliament reveal that will be heard to work out so many difference in order to get anything done.
I believe in what we are doing in the Middle East. I am reluctant to listen to all the biased media and propaganda because I know that progress is being made, and it takes time. I am willing to stay the course to support America, and the job we are doing both in Afghanistan and Iraq. They’re military is being built up, schools were created, and parliament has been created. These are major achievements, and should not be looked down upon. It is so easy to criticize the current situation because it was put on some restricting timeline in the minds of American citizens. Our democracy was not created in just a few years, implementation takes patience and time. It will be difficult no doubt, to get their army up to the highest standards, but it can be done. All the cut and run talk is doing nothing but hurting our morale in the armed forces. We obviously cannot just leave, and I believe it is dangerous to say that we will fail. That is only encouraging more insurgents to cross the borders from tumultuous regions surrounding. The thousands of soldiers in the Middle East will not die in vain, and the US will leave not only when sufficient progress has been made, but when each country can support the changes they have made.
I am angered by the contradicting opinions on progress between the U.S. official story and the story of people doing the 'dirty work' on the ground. I'm always inclined to listen to the people who are actually part of a system, as opposed to analyzing it from the outside. I would never ask a highschooler about college life, in the same way I wouldn't ask an american politician about real progress on the ground in Afghanistan. I feel like US figure heads are always appealing to U.S. taxpayers by saying, "of course what we are doing is working and is morally right." Saying otherwise would be admitting a failure or a wrong doing, and of course our politicians are infallible, or at least they try to be.
12/3/05
The US strategy is working in Afghanistan a little. I feel that the strategy that is being implemented will take a long time to get a full affect. It is hard to help change a country where there are groups inside of it that will not let it happen. For example people who are still for the Taliban or the Northern Alliance. Yes, the US has helped Afghanistan with developing a new government and constitution. They have helped implement articles for women especially dealing with their rights and education. Yes, women are still being faught everyday by those who believe women should not be anything more then a wife and are still being a abused and killed. But if you did not notice that there are I think 68 women in the lower part of the govt which is more then and other country. This is coming from a country who had very very strict rules for their women. So again I believe that the strategy that the US is implementing in Afghanistan is working, but its hard to really see because when it moves forward someone is there to move it back two steps. Eventually I feel this strategy will finally come full force and US troops will be removed and the Afgahns will be able to handle everything on their own without any problems.
Rumsfeld said that Iraq is "several years behind" ... so I guess that exit strategy won't be for a few more years? Saying that we're going to fail won't encourage insurgents. That's an incredible misconception. Insurgents are encouraged enough by the murders of service men and women - that's their objective (other than to cause chaos and disconent among Afghans), and they're succeeding. If every single American voiced their support of the war in Afghanistan, I don't think insurgents would be any more or less encouraged.
In response to what someone else wrote about democracy taking time to develop, yes, it does take time, but it takes a lot less time if that's what the people want to develop. People in Afghanistan was food, water, and peace. For them, this war may have alleviated social and political ills, but much of the country is still out of control and there are people suffering more now than they were before the war. A country's government must be organic. Countries collapse after we leave because they are not made of the country. We go in, put together an image of ourselves, then expect it to stand? Impossible.
I could not agree more with you Rebecca. One major flaw that this administration has in regards to trying to create democracies in the Middle East is that we expect them to be exactly like us. The US model would not hold up in any country other than the US. Even those countries who do attempt to model their democracies after the US will always be different because of differences in population, size, needs, etc. And to make a comment in response to a previous one made, just because someone does not support the war and thinks that US should leave a country to create themselves does not discourage the morale of the troops (well it may for some), but I have a lot of friends who are in the Marines or in the army and many of them do not agree with what we are doing either. They are obviously serving their county, but that doesn't mean that they agree with it. Part of the US tradition is the right to disagree and speak freely. We must always be critical of our society, government, etc. If we do not, one day we may wake up and realize we are in a pseudo-monarchy under the guise of a democracy.
This post has been removed by the author.
I'm entirely in agreement with Nicole. There are so many people within the United States who simply assume that democracy is best for everyone; that every country should want to model themselves after us, as the great beacon of rights and freedom. This simply isn't the case. Our model of democracy won't work in Middle Eastern countries such as Afghanistan, in part because of their strong religious affliation. While we have freedom or and from religion within the United States, Afghanistan's new constitution classifies the country as a religious democracy. No constitutional law can go against the laws of Islam, which will always inevitably signifigantly limit the freedom of certain groups within society, women in particular. Do I think that Afghanistan will one day be legitimately free, and the United States will be able to withdraw its forces from a stable, democratic nation? Perhaps. Anything is possible. But do I also realize that we saw this experiment in democracy fail miserably over thirty years ago in Vietnam? And do I realize that we could be looking at the same situation in Afghanistan, and now Iraq as well? Yes, yes I do.
Jessica Blackwell 12/4
This comment is about the last post on Mr. Jinnah:
In response to Tom's comment, I couldn't agree more! I really felt like Mr. Jinnah was such an idol to the people of Pakistan because he was a successful model for globalization as a person. Individually, he stepped across cultural borders and embraced new ideas and practices that were foreign to many Pakistani customs in such a way to indue national and gloabl change. I think one of his most prominent actions in the attempt to integrate ideas was marrying a Hindu. Muslims and Hindus as we all know have always had fundamental disagreements and their differences were responsible even for the breaking up of India and Pakistan. That is a significant custom to try to change in the way Mr. Jinnah did. by taking a Hindu wife, he was taking a risk of turning many of his Muslim followers away, but instead he was an idol, a symbol for globalization in an area not exactly enthusiatic about local integration of global ideas. I think even the picture provided for this post stands as a pretty powerful illustration of who Mr. Jinnah was. He does not look the way one would expect a traditional Pakistani man to look, but instead he looks like globally influenced icon.
I completely agree with Jessica. Democracy is the most effective form of government, however certain fit for it. The United States looks at itself as a babysitter who has to go in a regulate countries political problems. Countries like Afghanistan are just not ready to the democracy we have imposed on them. There are many people in the world who want to live their life according the sharia, Islamic law, and they feel insulted when people do not understand that. The growing number of suicide bombings by the insurgency proves the discontent among many people. I think it is ridiculous that the United States can say the improvements are being made when this year there were the most deaths in Afghanistan since 2001, the year we went there. I am not quite sure what the outcome in Afghanistan will be. When we leave, the democracy has to be well established; otherwise the militants in the country will take back power.
Megan O'Toole 10/4/05
I think that it is a long an arduos task to rebuild afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban, and I think it is innappropriate and critical to expect the first attempts to be a perfect and mature establishment. These things take time, and they also take some failures to learn from. I think that the article on the parliment is an interesting one. It is hard to support a parliment that we expect is full of delegates with criminal associations; but the US has backed many villians in the past. Was this good, or not? Was it beneficial at the time, or do the problems presented later outweigh the original benefit? I think that the latter is most likely true, but it may not mean that supporting this parliment will result in such catastrophies as Sadaam or Castro. I feel that these instances were different because there was more power placed in one individual, and here we are discussing a group...the parliment...who is a lesser part of a transitional government. I do think that if the Afghan people are unhappy and worrisome about the delegates chosen, that changes should be considered, especially by the new president and even changes that they themselves as Afghan citizens can commence in their new government. I think that we should not just accept whomever for the reasons that its just new, and anything is better thabn the Taliban, but I do think that perhaps this article was overcritical.
Many people feel the United States is forcing democracy on countries in the world where democracy is not wanted and, as a result, the progress in places like Afghanistan and Iraq are not advancing as quickly as expected. Aside from the success of the presidential elections last year, the author is extremely skeptical of current U.S. tactics in the region and feels not much has changed in four years and billions of dollars later. I think whether you agree or disagree with U.S. involvement, you must at least recognize the significant changes that have occurred and understand that four years is not a long time when the task is rebuilding an entire country. When the U.S. entered Afghanistan they made a decision, and now, for better or worse, they must follow through until some form of stability can be achieved. Although billions of dollars in aid is an extremely large amount, it is hard to put a price tag on safety and national security. Without intervention four years ago, there is no telling what other tragedies involving terrorism may have occurred in the U.S. and abroad.
Michael Donahue 12/4
There are several things that surprised me in these readings about the condition of Afghanistan. I was pleasantly surprised by the number of women representatives in the Parliament. In a country known for its violations of women’s rights I did not expect women to be so fairly represented in the new government. This is especially striking when you think of it in contrast to number of women in Congress here in America. For a nation so advanced and focused on equality, there should be many more women represented in Congress. Yet in the undeveloped country of Afghanistan about 27 % of the Parliament is female. I think that this shows positive advancement of the views of women in their country. It also shows hope for the future of politics there. Women are more likely to fight more aggressively for several issues such as women’s and human rights.
I was also surprised to see how many aid workers have been killed in Afghanistan. It disturbed me to see that aid workers were often the targets of violence there. How can we expect to make improvements in Afghanistan if those qualified to help may be too frightened to go there at a risk to their lives? It is also unsettling that Afghans are killing people who have come there to help their country. This shows the opinion of some of the Afghan people about US involvement in their country. Obviously this group does not want us there in any way, even for relief efforts. This is very disconcerting.
The fact that the "official U.S. view" is that security is continuing to get better every day and Donald Rumsfeld is saying that Afghanistan is a model for Iraq in term of progress seems very scary after reading this article. When the number of deaths from bombings an shootings has increased from the previous year and Afghanistan police officers are very worried and claiming that "the Taleban and al-Qaeda tactics are getting more threatening" does not seem like a sign of progress to me. It would seem like a better idea to listen to the people who live there that are part of the rebuilding process because I would believe that they would have a better overall understanding of the progress that has been made. I think that it should be up to them to decide what it is that needs to be done because it is their country and what is best for the U.S. may not resemble what is best for Afghanistan. The U.S. trying to push a mirror image of its government does not seem likely to work because it doesn’t seem like it is what the people of Afghanistan necessarily want.
The newly formed Afghanistan parliament, appears to be quite an unstable mix of people. There are ex-mujahideen and Taleban commanders and drug dealers, some of whom should be convicted as war criminals for human rights violations. In addition, many of these people seem to be fellow Karzai supporters, who are quite conservative. There does not appear to be a good representation of the people. On the other hand, this parliament does hold many women, who if given and are allowed to have a strong voice, may help this new government become more progressive and assist Afghanistan to develop more democratic ways; something that the US would like to see take place through their objective of democratization for those non-democratic governments. Hopefully this new parliament will show that a democratic government in the Middle East can work well. Also, just as important, if all goes well Afghanistan could assist in fighting the war on terror and make it more difficult for the formation of terrorist groups in the Middle East.
Noah Abrahams: 12/04/05
When will we totally withdraw our troops from Afghanistan? I am usually an advocate that change can not happen over night, that a major transformation similar to that of Afghanistan has to take its time. After all, the US democracy in which we live in today did not take a brief moment to develop into its full potential. However, there comes a time when one must weigh the benefits to the costs. As of now, “bombings and shootings continue almost daily in the south and east,” as noted by Andrew North. Insurgency is still on the rise throughout much of the country and terrorist groups such as, al-Qaeda may be reorganizing within its borders. Due to the high levels of violence and crime, NGOs and UN workers are unable to provide the aid assistance, which is essentially needed to get this country moving on the right track. Additionally, the Afghan troops that the US, British, and French have trained are still not strong and efficient to take on the challenge themselves. There becomes a time when our help does not produce security and stability, eventually we have to allow Afghanistan to work out its own issues and dilemmas without our intervention. How else will they be able to learn how to work out problems on their own? Our time maybe up.
Noah Abrahams: 12/04/05
This post has been removed by the author.
I think that the stragety in Afganistan is, as opposed to the stragety in Iraq, working. We started out there on solid ground with a large multi-national force, which remains today, and we had a much higher degree of support in the international community. Now with transition much closer to happening than in Iraq we see that there are many problems. There is no peace though there is a fledging democracy and general support for the administration. I think that a withdrawl of American troops in the country would be a poor move. Stability in Afganistan is on the horizon and without the support of the American government and American forces the country would surely fall back into the control of "radicals" like the Taliban. If these "radicals" are elected, then I see no problem with them ruling the country, but we want to avoid civil war at all costs in Afganistan.
Obviously there are flaws in the US strategy concerning Iraq. This is proven by the high death toll this year, the highest since the original year, 2001. However, I was impressed by the high number of women in Parliament. I would not have expected that. What concerns me is the fact that humanitarian workers are being targeted and being made victims. I think this is because of the blurred lines between the humanitarian worker and the soldier. Soldiers today do more than shoot guns and win wars, in places like Afghanistan they help build infrastructure too. Although rebuilding is a great thing, it blurs the lines. I think this problem should be addressed by the United States military, to make sure the soldiers who are working on such construction jobs stay clearly dressed in military uniform. as some do not while carrying out such missions, to help lower the number of humanitarian victims. It would be nice to say as long as one does not wear a uniform they will not be targeted, but the reality is as long as the insurgents know some of these workers are of the military they will target them.
I think that there are many factors working against US strategy in Afghanistan. First of all the United States cannot force democracy on a country that does not want it. Yes democracy is right for the United States, but it is not right for all countries. Must people in the United States have a misconception of the Middle East. Edward Said defines these misconceptions in his Idea of Orientalism. Orientalism emerged during the 19th century in writing that defined the Middle Eastern people by geography, science, literature of the empire. Orientalism justified colonialism because the Middle Eastern people were different then us, therefore weaker then us. People still have this view today that the United States knows what is best for the Middle East which is democracy, but do to different cultures, values, interests, and religion democracy might not be the best thing for Afghanistan.
Stacey Closterman, 12/4
I think there are several reasons why our progress in Afghanistan seems so slow, including ones mentioned in previous blogs, but I think a huge factor in all this is Iraq. US foreign policy seems to be completely focused on the Iraq conflict and huge part of our military/resources is being sent there. After 9/11, the "war on terror" has changed from targeting Osama to catching Saddam, and from fighting terrorists to building democracy in Iraq. I think part of the problem is that we've spread ourselves too thin and that to build a strong, stable government in both Iraq and Afghanistan is a huge, nearly impossible, task.
I also find it hard to believe that our presence in Afghanistan is enforcing protection and stability for civilians. And while I don't think an immediate exit strategy is a smart idea, I think there needs to be some clear-cut plan for pull out relatively soon. U.S. military is a target for the insurgency, resistance fighters and terrorists, causing conflict and violence and civilian deaths. If we are so devoted to promoting stability in the Middle East, we should leave before we continue to breed more hate and anti-American sentiment.
Caitlin Ginley
I definitely think the US has become involved with something that cannot simply be solved through military intervention or the “creation” of democracy. I think that the situation in Afghanistan, and the entire Middle East, is far more complex than the US has been treating it. I think too many US politicians thought that our military could make huge “progress” in quickly converting Afghanistan to a democracy and thereby solving all of the country’s problems. Unfortunately, the US rushed into Afghanistan and now has little to show for it. The BBC article consulted people working in the field, and not surprisingly, their opinions reflect the growing concerns for the stability of the country. Terrorism and the insurgency have not been thwarted, and the country still remains incredibly underdeveloped. All the billions of dollars of international aid and the work of international organizations have not contributed to the development of Afghanistan. As the article says, security issues are blocking aid to villages and communities outside of major cities. But when US politicians report on Afghanistan to the American public, we hear about wonderful things with democracy, all primarily focused on the bubbles of security (mostly in cities) in which US troops and aid organizations are operating. Obviously, the US has been unsuccessful for the majority of Afghan people.
Stephen Stolte
12/5/05
My paper for this class addresses the need for an organic government based on the desires of the people. Our administration's biggest problem is their arrogance in thinking that the American way of life is the ONLY good way of life. They continue to have a problem of "lack of imagination". We discussed this issue in class - the difficulty to jump from a developing nation to an advanced industrial/post-industrial nation is daunting at best and cannot occur overnight. A country must be ready to make the jump, and Afghanistan and Iraq are not there. I don't think "democracy" (like our little republic) is the best form of government for these two countries. I'm not sure what IS the best form of government, I'd have to do a lot more research, but it's clear that the leaders must "think outside the box". To address another point someone made, one of the main rasons there are so many women in Parliament is because there were spots allocated to women. If there were only 30 women running for 30 seats, they all "won". I'm not saying that there wern't a lot of women running - most Muslim nations have a FAR HIGHER percentage of women in government than the US (we have a very poor gender ratio compared to most countries and we've NEVER had a female head of government - what does that say about us? Are we less advanced than most Muslim countries?).
Many people have commented on the fact that if democracy is not wanted, it won't work in Afghanistan. I think this is true because you would not have the required support and instead you would have more people fighting against you. It's fine if democracy has worked for America but maybe it isn't an option for Afghanistan. The test of whether democracy is an option will be if the parliament is succesful. I don't think that the parliament is starting off right if people are uncomfortable with who is in the parliament, such as the war lords, but if the parliament can last that, then Afghanistan may be able to survive the transition into Democracy.
For parliament, I think it is a good thing that women are involved because women's issues will now be a concern and women will have a voice in the government.
Jenna Douglass 12/4/05
Many people have commented on the fact that if democracy is not wanted, it won't work in Afghanistan. I think this is true because you would not have the required support and instead you would have more people fighting against you. It's fine if democracy has worked for America but maybe it isn't an option for Afghanistan. The test of whether democracy is an option will be if the parliament is succesful. I don't think that the parliament is starting off right if people are uncomfortable with who is in the parliament, such as the war lords, but if the parliament can last that, then Afghanistan may be able to survive the transition into Democracy.
For parliament, I think it is a good thing that women are involved because women's issues will now be a concern and women will have a voice in the government.
Jenna Douglass 12/5/05
The US strategy always looks good on paper and, in ideal circumstances, could have possible worked, however, like Nicole said, there are too many factors working against them. The biggest one, of which, is the fact that one cannot force out a political ideology over night. A democratic culture cannot simply be created when opportune; it must come from years and years of work. People see all this money and the death tolls and immediately begin to question our progress, but in all truth, true progress is still many years away. The election of the President is a good indicator as to the direction of the country, but a properly planned coup could over turn it and welcome American back into war. The people who held power are not going to relinquish it easily, so the American people can expect to deal with Afghanistan for a while to come.
Several of the preceding blogs have mentioned that democracy may not “work” in Afghanistan. In response, I think that it is important to define what we mean by a “working” democracy. If the United States leaves, the Afghanis may democratically elect an insane, war-hungry leader who may not have the best interests of the people in mind (Wow, that sounds incredibly familiar, where else has that happened?). The new leader could turn out to be equally anti-American as the previous governing body. This would, in fact, still be classified as a “working” democracy. The people would have all been allowed to freely express their opinions in order to collectively elect the candidate who they believed could best govern their country. However, the U.S. would undoubtedly see the election as a democratic failure. Our definition of a “working” Afghani democracy would include that the new government be pro-American and abide by our standards of how we think a country should be run. So Yes, I agree with previous blogs that by those guidelines, the U.S. will probably never see our desired results in Afghanistan. I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I am certain that changes must be made both in our tactics and way of thinking.
True, Afghanistan elected president Karzai which may be interpreted as steps towards democracy. However, Karzai was supported by the U.S. government. Had a powerful man who opposed U.S. ideology run for office, would the U.S. allow elections to take place? No, they would probably label him a terrorist and put another pro-U.S. puppet in his place. Although that may seem harsh, I don't believe we can judge advancement of democracy based on such a monitored election. For those who claim democracy takes time before arrival, how much death/ cultural destruction is needed to take place before one realizes maybe U.S. democracy will not fit Afghan democracy or even government? Yes we have built schools and achieved a form of government, but under U.S. scrutiny. How much value and pride can a person have in ones country if there is no sense of history or evolution from within? When an external source is structuring a country under their principals, natives are being forced to swallow them. Would one vest more trust in a government based upon internal creation or alien establishment. True the U.S. acts as a mediator between different groups, but its not just mediating, its also creating guidelines. This sense of alienation will lead to the de-structuring of the current system after U.S. troops withdraw.
I hope that the strategies in Afghanistan are working. I was pleased to read that there were 68 women MPs that are being part of the government. I feel that this is advancement for gender inequality in the Middle East. I was saddened to read the fact that security is not quite as effective as needed. NGOs and other groups are not able to expand because of the insecure situation. The death toll is still very high. I think a new approach is definitely necessary for security reasons. No more American men or women should die in the Middle East. By training an Afghanistan army perhaps the security situation will become more positive. If the army is highly trained it is possible that the use of American soldiers may not be as essential. Peace is the main goal to be achieved and I am hopeful that this goal will be achieved in the near future.
December 5, 2005
I agree that we need to help train (and help raise) the Afghan army, but when you think about the situation it's very ironic. Last time we trained and armed a force in Afghanistan we ended up fighting them ... this time lets make sure we don't go to war against American trained soldiers and American-made/provided equipment. The irony of our soliders being killed by American arms and American trained fighters is too much.
This post has been removed by the author.
I definitely agree with Andrew that the U.S. can not continue to force our "alien establishment" upon the Afghanis. I came up with an analogy for the situation, and although a bit corny, I think it works: The U.S. is like a person trying to teach someone else to ride a bike. Although we mean well, and we hold the seat to steady Afghanistan on the "Bicycle of Democracy", at some point we must let go. They will most likely fall down the first few times and scrape a knee or two, but the only way they will learn to ride alone is by making their own mistakes. If they continue to fail, perhaps we need to reassess our teaching methods, or perhaps the bike that we have given them does not fit.
Although i would like to agree with langley about the intentions of the United States, i cannot. Who is to say that the US is not just occupying this country in order to investigate the attacks on the world trade center over four years ago. The US might try backing off for once becasue in the case of Afganistan, i dont think that their strategy is working. We are trying to wage wars on terror all around the globe; trying to stop the problem before it happens. This is somewhat different because of the attacks in New York. But, I think that four years and billions of dollars is a bit excessive. Although this "war" has been overshadowed by the deaths of soldiers in Iraq, still it is very seldom mentioned on the news becaus ethe progress we are making, especially for the amount of money we have pumped into the effort, is minimal. The US needs a new strategy.
Matt Linder 12/6/05
Yet again, the media is a whirlwind of truths. I am inclined to believe the negative. The story that coincides with the suicide bombings and the senseless murders of relief workers. It seems as if Afghanistan is fighting its own war that democracy is trying to fight. I can only hope that when Parliament does meet, those who are hiding under the security of democracy with the hopes of tearing it down, are brought to the light and seen for what they are. I don't think that it would have been realistic for people to believe that Afghanistan was going to fix itself quickly. The corruption and hate was too deep for that. But maybe we can put some faith in the spin that our media is putting on Afghanistan today. Since their Parliament is home to the ideas of many, maybe a democratic state will prevail. And when the government grows in strength, I have to hope that the insurgency will die down. There is a long road ahead of the Afghan people still but I do believe that this US strategy has merit. No one should have said that it would be a miracle. Centuries of war have plagued the Middle East and hopefully this new Afghanistanian government can control the insurgency long enough to institute purposeful reform.
Forgot- Lauren Price 12/6/05
One major thing I learned from all the articles on the blog this semester is that media is extremely biased. People have to read articles from all involved countries in order to make their own judgements about the matter. In these specific articles, it is interesting to see how reps from the US think there is great progess, while people IN Afghanistan are actually worried about the lack of it. Like many people said before, a democracy closely modeled after the US might not be ideal for Afghanistan. However, I believe that they are on the right track. A change had to be made. No one thought it was going to happen overnight...even though many people on the ground in Afghanistan could be losing hope after seeing little progress after 4 years. I was surprised to read about the high number of women in parliament...and think this only foreshadows good things to come. Afghanistan has potential to become a better country. There are still serious flaws in the system (such as the presence of mujahideen leaders in parliament). Hopefully it won't be another four years until US troops are able to withdraw and Afghanistan can take control by itself.
Marissa Brescia 12.6.05
It is hard to determine whether the US strategy is working in Afghanistan. In a nation where the average life span for men is 40 and women 43, that has been crippled by civil war for the past twenty years, leaving thousands blind and maimed, any intervention is positive.
In just four years it is difficult to say exactly where the country is headed, although I support the US's intervention. Since the US presence there have been schools built, governments established, and with the new election of Hamid Karzai, hopefully better policies enacted. Most Afghanistans do not represent the single issue terrorism attacks on the country, and with the Taliban regime still a threat to the nation, I feel the US should remain. For if this generation is lost then hopefully there children or children's children will live in stability.
This post has been removed by the author.
It is really unfortunate to see things going so poorly in Afghanistan. The morality of the war we are fighting in Iraq is debatable, but I can not imagine how we could have left the Taliban in power. There was probably no worse place to live in the world in 2000 than Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Beheadings in soccer stadiums, hangings on street corners, widows left to starve, men having their beard length measured, it was an awful state. And now the people of Afghanistan are caught in the middle of a war. I wonder how the war would have gone if we had commited more troops. Would the war be over if 60,000 troops had been committed? The Bush Administration says Afghanistan is a model for Iraq, I guess it is; a growing insurgency getting bolder, border countries whose intentions are not totally clear (Pakistan-Iran and Syria), at least Iraq doesn't have former warlords to contend with. In retrospect it seems fighting two wars at once is to much given the resourses alotted to the military. I still support this war, I just don't think there are enough troops there. It is also awful that the Taliban are going after aid workers, this in itself shows why we need to win this war. The Taliban is more concerned with reimplementing their extreme form of Islam, that with people in need of medical help.
forgot 12/5. Does this count as another bog entry?
It does not suprise me that things have not improved much in Afghanistan since the occupation by America began. It also does not suprise me that the US is either lying or is in denial about the successes that have been made there. Just like Iraqis, Afghans are ready to see the US troops leave. Holding Afghanistan up for Iraq as model is also a bad idea because, I feel, that just like holding up the States as a model for Iraq, the people do not want another country's culture to be inflicted upon them. Afghanistan has its own laundry list of problems, it is not, by any means, the 'model child' that America is making it out to be. I feel that insurgent attacks will continue in both countries as long as the US remains a constant presence in daily life.
sorry. 12/6/05
"Four years after the US military arrived here, doubts are growing about its ability to defeat the insurgency," is the statement made in the article that seemed to be a sounding board for Bush's speech on the war in Irag that he delivered at the Naval Academy. The president indicated that it would be a priority of his administration to address various aspects of his "strategy" in the Middle East. His speech, like this article, discusses the training of Iraqi army and security forces. However, Bush made a painful attempt to explain to the American public why, after so many months of US training, only one Iraqi army battalion can fight independently. It was no more convincing than the previous attempts of Rumsfeld. Statistics just confuse the issue, seeing as we have previously been told progress is being made. President Bush went so far as to attempt to convey evidence of "real progress" in readying Iraqi army and security forces to "stand up [so that we] can stand down." One of Johnson's platforms in Vietnam was to train their soldiers; however, the training was inadequate then, and it's not going well now. Throughout his speech, Bush continuously emphasized the need for freedom, but the plummeting US strategy in Afghanistan begs the question freedom for who?
I think one of the most troubling points in the article is the quoting of a senior police officer in eastern Afghanistan in saying "We are very worried now." It is clear that the Afghan police and military forces need to be strengthened and developed before we think about withdrawing. When the police themselves have no confidence, how can we leave the country’s tumult in their hands? It is a bit reassuring to read the Times article on the development of the army, even though it may be a slow process. While I agree that we need to allow Afghanis to run their own country on their terms and the key is an Afghan security force, handing it over too soon would only cause more disaster and a greater chance for the insurgencies to regain control.
Katie Ruiz 12.6.05
The Article mentions that Osama Bin laden’s network may be trying to increase its presence in Afghanistan. I can’t help but think that problems in Afghanistan would not be as bad as they have become if the US had followed through with the original goals of pursuing Osama full force until he was caught. The US all but abandoned Afghanistan to go after Saddam in Iraq, and efforts have been strongly focused there ever since. Had we retained our original mission and stuck to hunting Bin Laden until we caught him, Insurgencies may not have been as bad. The US has taken on far too much at one time, we cannot be police of the world because it only increases anti-American sentiments and makes an already difficult job even more so.
~Sarah Cochran
I agree with Katie that the Afghan Police and military must be strengthened before we pull out. Thousands of people continue to be displaced and in refugee camps across the country. Afghan troops are still learning basic military skills from the US army. While the United States says that security is getting better, there continues to be doubt even by the UN who has admitted that the current approach is not working. Thirty aid workings have been killed this year alone. Security is obviously deteriorating, not improving.
I am not saying that I do not support the US troops here. While I do not support the American mission in Iraq, I certainly do support the mission in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan we knew our target existed, and we destroyed it. The United States belongs here and we should not pull out until our mission is complete.
The fact that Rumsfeld holds Afghanistan as a model of progress for Iraq is slightly disconcerting, especially since violence seems to have been escalating steadily since 2001. It seems, especially after looking at the TIME photo story, that most efforts are being concentrated on Kabul, with no real effect there, and not a whole lot being done in the rest of the country. I don’t pretend to have any profound advice on how Afghanistan should be handled, and I do believe that the Taliban needed to be gotten rid of. However, it’s frightening to think about how the country could deteriorate in the near future.
It is frustrating to hear in this story the contradictory responses to progress being made from government officials and the people who are actually on the ground. If members of the NGO’s say that things are getting worse, and indeed, the death toll has been higher in 2005, then things are probably deteriorating regardless of whatever lines we are being fed in the papers. This article leads to the conclusion that the US is going to be remaining in Afghanistan and Iraq for a long time to come, probably in worsening situations.
The U.S. needs to stay. There is no way that we should pull out right now. We started with a goal to make the security there stronger until we pull out, and that has not been accomplished yet. People still have doubts about the strength, including the UN. So why pull out now? The chaos will only start back up. I say the U.S. stays there and continues to train the police and military until they are a strong and confident level that htye can control what is going on, but also get the appproval of organizations like the UN.
The U.S. needs to stay. There is no way that we should pull out right now. We started with a goal to make the security there stronger until we pull out, and that has not been accomplished yet. People still have doubts about the strength, including the UN. So why pull out now? The chaos will only start back up. I say the U.S. stays there and continues to train the police and military until they are a strong and confident level that htye can control what is going on, but also get the appproval of organizations like the UN.
Yes, indeed US is spending alot of money, however, there are several other factors that are way more important than mere spending of money for infrastructure. I believe, the biggest problem is the reputation of US and it's troops. USA needs to build up a good reputation with the Afghan people. It is very easy to lose reputation, but very hard to gain. And currently the actions of some of US troops has angered Afghans around the country. Perhaps the most hideos act of all was, US troops going into several villages, randomly taking Afghan women and raping them. There wasn't an interrogation into that incident for about months after it happend. SUch incidents degrade US's effort, no matter how much money they spent on rebuilding Afghanistan. Another important issue is the disarming issue. Almost everyone in Afghanistan has some sort of ammunition. Lots of people in Herat for example have Klashinkov's (AK-47). Those people need to be disarmed. There are so many other issues, that it will take me hours to write about. In summary, it will take decades of development (socially, politically, economically) for Afghanistan to be a stabilized country.
Four years ago the United States started a "war on terror" and the epicenter of this war was Afghanistan. The United States policy in Afghanistan has transformed to defeating the Taliban to setting up a free democratic state in Afghanistan. A constitution has been ratified that will hopefully set up the constitutional democracy that we hope for. Many steps still must be taken, the first one is that we must make Afghanistan self sufficient for the sake of their people and our military. The Afghan army is on its way and so is a constitutional democracy; granted both still need much work. I am however worried about the economy of this nation, with increased international presence their main export of poppy will surely decrease and the country will be force to completely revamp their economy.
above post made at
6:51 Dec 7th
It’s almost naive for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to think that Afghanistan is so far ahead of Iraq when clearly the same problems are evident in the country. There is obviously no sure way that the Afghan police and military can stop these suicide bombings when they are being undercut in salary and the size of their force. It’s not a problem that can be fixed immediately obviously, but the future of Afghanistan lies within its people’s will to fight the insurgency of Taliban fighters and there needs to be a military presence to aid in the fight.
The major problems still lie in the ability for terrorism to blend into the backdrop after they have committed these heinous crimes. It’s hard to begin and continue trying to fight something that can’t be readily found, but the more support that the Afghan government gets, the safer that it’s people and those trying to aid them will be. U.S. support is important in trying to aid and equip those that need to learn how to protect the country, and its continued support will prove vital in uprooting its insurgency.
I cannot say for sure if I believe the US strategy is working. It seems to be that the people within Afghanistan don't seem to think it is, but then again how do they really know. Maybe they happen to live in an area that was just recently affected by the ever-lasting taliban regime. Their opinions are biased.
The US should be measuring what is going on in Afghanistan through statistics and actually daily occurences also. They can not rely on a plan that was built 4 years ago and must respond, and if needed change, to make the plan work.
I agree with those who blogged above me that we can not pull out until democracy is assured. We came in for a reason and by beginning to demilitarize when nothing is certain and no real accomplishments have been made show's not only a sign of weakness in the US but opens us up for a continuance of violence against the US and the Afghanistanee people.
Living in the United States makes it difficult to view any progress in the Middle East. What is progress anyway? To the Bush administration it's democracy and the institution of government completely identical to the U.S. I think what our government fails to realize is that what works here is not going to work everywhere else we get involved. Other factors have to be taken into account...values, culture, etc. Granted, the Taliban had to be removed - any development (economic or political) was prohibited with their existence. The US accomplished that goal and are obviously not helping the situation. With increased numbers in death tolls each year, the United States needs to withdraw troops and let the government establish itself. As said by someone else, obvious progress has been made as there is a dramatic increase of women in Parliament. That's progressive in any country.
It worries me that ethnic and tribal affiliations play such a key role on the attainment of seats in Afghan parliament. In an area with such mixed diversity, one group to dominating seats such as the Pashtuns, may result in oppression and or ethnic rivalries. We see this dilemma in Iraq now between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Shities, who have assumed most political power in Iraq, have come to politically and physically compete with the Sunnis, leading to acts of ethnic violence. I'm just using this as an example to show that ethnic dominated parliaments can often lead to violence. Hopefully Afghanistan can avoid this.
By all means do I empathize with the extraordinarily impossible task beset upon allied occupational forces in Afghanistan today.
While it may be tempting to simply lump America's presence in Afghanistan with its occupation in Iraq, to do so would be to completely ignore the relative tranquility and peace that is still present in the majority of Afghanistan. Israel experiences violent incidents on a comparable level to Afghanistan, but no one is saying the Israeli government is failing the nation of Israel. Recent acts of violence are indeed bumps in the road- but Afghanistan's salvation from its storied history of violence and discord will only come with steadfast persistence by the United States along with generous donations of human and financial capitol by the world community. So say what you will about American involvement in Afghanistan, but a prudent observer knows to utilize a holistic approach when analyzing Afghanistan's current security and stability. Don't forget the successes a free nation experiences every day.
Although the US came in saying they were ‘fighting a war on terror’, I believe that they were just retaliating on the attacks from 9/11. Unfortunately, many innocent people were victimized on both sides. But as of recently, more effort is being made toward the improvement of the country. But like someone else said, we can’t use the same tactics we used four years ago. Emotions have slowly settled and we are able to take a more rational approach to handling a crisis. Before America is able to leave Afghanistan, we need to make sure they are able to stand on their own. Although the general people are ready for America to leave, the government does not feel the same way.
12/7/05
Four years have passed and there is nothing to show for it? I know we are living in an "immediate gratification" society, but four years, in the course of history, is an extremely short amount of time. Is the U.S. strategy perfect? No, but nothing is perfect.
Plus, no matter how much the public knows about strategy, progress, and success in Afghanistan, there is just as much we do not know. Frankly, the situtaion could be much worse, could have cost even more money, and could have resulted in many more deaths.
Establishing a democracy in an unstable country in a volatile area is not something that can happen successfully overnight. It is, apparently, not something that can happen successfully over four years, especially when it is happening in a dangerous and unsupportive region.
Matthew Shalk
12/08/05
The question of whether US Strategy working in Afghanistan is not one that can be answered with a simple yes or no. There are clearly arguments in favor and against initial and continued U.S. involvement in afghanistan. The fall of the Taliban and the new elections has apparently allowed the women of afghanistan to make great strides in regards to independence, rights, and status in the country. On the other hand, the heightened violence, declining economic situtation, corruption in the newly forming democracy, lack of security and strong law enforcement institutions, as well as division within the country paint a very bad picture for the U.S. It is clear that afghanistan is far from a cinderella story and that it will be quite awhile before it is a viable nation. What is not clear is whether these are entirely the fault of U.S. involvement or simply problems inherent in the nation. The new democracy will continute to face obstacles with or without U.S. involvement, especially with new ideals that clearly contradict the faith the historically and traditionally ruled the nation and with civil divisions in the nation.
Post a Comment
<< Home