Obama in Afghanistan
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama held consultations Saturday in Kabul with Afghan government officials. He discussed the rapidly deteriorating security situation in the country. I heard him on television at one point pledging to defeat the Taliban.
Aljazeera is showing footage of him addressing US troops who are going wild for him, and shooting hoops in the base gym. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Iraq, endorsed Obama's plan for a withdrawal US troops from Iraq. Although al-Maliki said he was not choosing up sides in the presidential race, it seems clear that he'd be much more comfortable with Obama.
CBS reports on the trip, which included a stop at the provincial eastern Pushtun city of Jalalabad. I was impressed that Obama got out of the capital.
Violence against NATO troops in Afghanistan is up 40% in 2008 over 2007, and more civilians were killed in the first half of 2008 than in all of 2007. AP has more.
The Observer's editorial on the situation in Afghanistan points out that the poppy crop this year will be a bumper one, that the Afghanistan government is riddled with corruption, that billions in foreign aid have made little difference (and that they may have been embezzled), and that more foreign troops in the country is unlikely to be the solution.
Remnants of the old Taliban met recently. They are making a united front in the Pushtun areas against outsiders.
Foreign radical vigilantes have been flooding into Afghanistan.
Check out Barnett Rubin's recent entries on Afghanistan.
posted by Juan Cole @ 7/20/2008 12:51:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
Juan, There is a very good article on Afghanistan in the latest Time. Following the article are position statements from both Obama and McCain. Interesting to note, according to the article, that neither of them has a tenable position.
According to the article, we need fewer troops in Afghanistan and less, but more focused, aid.
The author is an American living in Kabul and working to restore an old section of the city. I am persuaded my his logic.
To expand upon my comment about the unfolding Great Game II between Russia and the USA, it centers totally on energy. Because of the inability to secure the FSU's energy resources through the corrupt Yetsin, the illegal war waged on Serbia by Clinton/Gore and susequent massive base in Kosovo was the first major step. The trans-Afghan Pipeline was to have been the second. Securing Iraqi hydrocarbons was to be the third. On to Iran was the fourth. To date, only the first objective remains fulfilled. Quite clearly, the Iraq gambit has failed and thus its Iranian second phase. Nor should we forget what happened in Venezuela in 2002 (failed US-sponsored coup), and later with Syria and Lebanon, as events there were also part of the gameplan and also failed.
What is left is Afghanistan, the last somewhat teneble US/NATO beachhead in the Eurasian Heartland. It this regard, we have recently seen Gates proclaim military dominated diplomacy as unworkable, and then he threatens unilateral airstikes against Pakistan. There is also the failed nuclear deal with India, and the ongoing construction of the Iran-Pakistan-India NatGas pipeline jawboned against by both Dems and Reps. The fact that NATO was duped into the Aghan theatre is very important and a strong factor in the loss suffered in Iraq, and by extension Iran. Thus, Obama's Afghan trip should be seen as the last desperate play of US Imperialists in a game they, like the British before them, are destined to lose for reasons made clear 100 years ago by Halford MacKinder's Heartland Thesis.
For those readers who missed it, I highly recommend this article for additional detail.
One must examine the events that have unfolded since the fall of the USSR and the first Gulf War to understand the nature of what's unfolding today. And the events are truely global as one cannot overlook Africa and South America.
I predict that the main sphere of action will shift to Africa after the US elections for it is the only place the US Empire can regain the initiative, with positive gains being quite possible despite its very weakened financial condition.
Solving horribly complex problems like the US economy and foriegn affairs needs rare skills and knowledge. But it seems that Obama is getting carried away with his "yes we can" which is okay for mobilizing popular opinion.
As it stands, he could perform even worse than Bush II because the problems facing Obama are much bigger (thanks to Bush) and he seems as jingoist as Bush was during his first term.
He needs real experts, the best of the best and not in the workings of Washington but the real world, and to be extremely humble rather than deluded about his abilities.
"Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Iraq, endorsed Obama's plan for a withdrawal US troops from Iraq."
Of course, al-Maliki has disowned his statement. A spokesman said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately." Congratulations to GB on the excellent puppeteering.
So what can be done, then?
Apparently Karzai and his allies, or regional competitors, are a money sieve -- so how does anybody plan to make the allegedly only-feasible strategy (economic reconstruction) work?
How would this be done? What social/govt structure could handle this?
New troops might be part of a plan to press against the Pak border, attacking Al-Q from that direction?
Clueless. Wonder what you think.
It looks like al-Maliki's U.S. handlers took him out to the woodshed for a little chat after his interview with Der Spiegel.
Iraq PM did not back Obama troop exit plan: government
Sun, 20 July 2008
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki did not back the plan of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and his comments to a German magazine on the issue were misunderstood, the government's spokesman said on Sunday.
Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement that Maliki's remarks to Der Spiegel were translated incorrectly.
The German magazine said on Saturday that Maliki supported Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months. The interview was released on Saturday.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," Der Spiegel quoted Maliki as saying.
....Maliki's remarks were published a day after the White House said he and President George W. Bush had agreed that a security agreement currently being negotiated between them should include a "time horizon" for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Full piece Here.
.
I am not the least pleased by Barack Obama's approach to Afghanistan, which includes war and more war and shows no clue in understanding just how poor and beset Afghanistan is.
We need to get out of Afghanistan, but Obama has insured we will be staying in indefinitely.
I could not be more disappointed.
"Aljazeera is showing footage of him addressing US troops who are going wild for him...."
As one who cannot stomach watching US main stream propaganda, I am wondering if Al Jazeera is alone in broadcast media showing US troops "going wild" for Obama. Bush has taken great pains to treat the US military as his private rooting corps while dissent with Bush policies within the military community has been significant. Video demonstrating that military personnel are not indivisibly linked to Bush could help bring reality back into the picture.
Are there and have there been any newsworthy developments in Iraq in the past two weeks or so?
The Observer Editorial (to which you link) concludes:
"Finally, there needs to be an end to the cosy client relationship with Karzai, who has yet to show himself a capable leader, and a retreat from the West's view that he is the country's only possible saviour."
I am NOT sure about Karzai, but if this is a valid test, I am certain that Musharaff fails by a far wider margin than does Karzai. Musharaff is a dictator who seized power in a military coup, his ISI supports the Taliban, and he attacked Kargil in Kashmir and openly threatened to use nuclear weapons there if India defended against his attack.
Yet Bush goes on giving him guns and money, and annointing him as the "only possible saviour".
I had an intensive set of encounters in the last two weeks with those how know the Pakistani Madrassas intimately. The world, including the moderate Muslim world, is going to lose not only Afghanistan but also Pakistan to extremists in the near future if there is not a revolution in American foreign policy and foreign aid. The funds have been exclusively focused on unending military aid that has been diverted for corruption and only recruits more extremists in both countries. There should be a dramatic increase in aid for education, health and basic services that can be negotiated with each tribe. This is the most effective way to stop the rampant appeal of extremism. This is not so much an ideological problem as much as an complete absence of civil society aid and development in the rural regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and this leaves young men with no choice. Add to that the lure and appeal of Salafist ideology, and Taliban bribes and you have the necessary mix for disaster. It is not enough to shower the region with billions of military aid that ends up in the wrong hands. This is the failed neoconservative agenda of bullying and it is failing completely. There is an urgent need to reverse this come January.
Post a Comment
<< Home