Shortsighted U.S. Policies on Afgh Make Long-Term Problems

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jumpinjarhead, Oct 5, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. This is from a conservative US think tank but I think the points made are well reasoned and worthy of consideration, especially about the effect on allies and enemies.
     
  2. Many good points in this article. It, and many other threads on this forum, revolves around finding a "Strategy" for Afghanistan - but really, the focus should rather be on agreeing on Goals/Objectives and the effort in terms of treasure and personnel the coalition is willing to commit. Having thus decided the WHAT and HOW MUCH for HOW LONG, finding the appropriate method (the HOW) will follow almost automatically.

    The challenge, with that is that the 40-odd nations engaged in Afg at present have somewhat differing strategic goals for their involvement and in most cases these goals lie outside the theatre in question. Starting with the US debate being (rightly so) more about the US national interest than Afghanistan's national interest.

    The "strategy" debate is actually an "is it worth it" debate and secondly a "how much is it worth". As with Iraq, the choice ranges between "When can we cut and run without making it too obvious" and "If we mean it, we must commit fully and it will be a generational task".

    Since this is a war of choice, the latter form of commitment won't be forthcoming.
     
  3. Whether it's a war of choice or of necessity isn't decided, it's probably the most important argument.

    I would consider it a war of necessity, because if the Taliban do take over most of Afghanistan again it would have huge implications on what happens to the whole region - especially Pakistan.

    Those wider consequences combined with the Taliban making Afghanistan an even bigger terrorist base than before is what makes this a war of necessity.
     
  4. arko, I agree, that is part of the wider discussion and a very important argument. The point I would make in line with my above post is that clearly, not all nations involved believe this is the case - for them.