VERSIONS: روسيا اليوم NOTICIAS FREEVIDEO ИНОТВ RTД FIND US ON: YouTube Twitter
breakingnews
Go to main page   Community   Blogs   Peter Lavelle   Why the US will lose in Afghanistan – the “values gap”  
mostpopular
photo_of_the_day
bestvideos

Why the US will lose in Afghanistan – the “values gap”

Published: 08 October, 2009, 23:19
Edited: 12 December, 2009, 19:22

America’s military operations in Afghanistan are in a shambles. Simply put, Washington and its NATO allies should fold tent and clear the field, pronto. But there is still time to fix eight years of wrongs to save Afghanistan from the Taliban and al-Qaeda, as well as promote regional and global security. Washington must abandon its ridiculous agenda to westernize and colonize Afghanistan and its people. Obama has a stark choice – get down and dirty to win or witness the American empire die on the wastelands of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Afghanistan doesn’t need western democracy, it needs security. The recent failed presidential election says it all – Afghanistan is a corrupt and failed state and attempts to create democratic institutions is a waste of time (and the same applies to the questioned legitimacy of American puppets like Karzai). Washington’s democracy project must be cast aside and empower those in Afghanistan who can take on the Taliban-al-Qaeda insurgency.

The American-led occupation of Afghanistan is nothing less than arrogant and a willful disinterest in history. The fact is that the Afghans can take care of themselves and wait out any occupier – consider the experiences of the Mongols, British and Soviets. No occupying power has been able to meaningfully change the nature of Afghan society. However, working with the dynamics of Afghan institutions and values has yielded results.

This strategy is not without holding one’s nose. There are people and groups who can do battle against the insurgency and win – in fact they have a track record of doing this. Remember the Northern Alliance? These are the same folks who fought the Soviets and won (and even took on and defeated the Taliban when given support in 2001-2002). The Northern Alliance is not interested in democracy and many of its members are accused of war crimes. There are at least 20 tribal leaders willing to be armed and provided financial assistance by the west to take on the Taliban – they should be given this opportunity. Let the Afghans determine their own future (and that future is not necessarily a threat to the US and its allies).

Obama should also tell the Pakistanis to get lost until they get real about the threat of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Washington’s new multi-billion dollar loan to Pakistan smells really bad – it smacks of the same old rewarding of bad behavior when it comes to the Pakistani security forces.

For too long Pakistan has played a two-faced game. It supports terrorist groups that promote its aims to control the fate of Afghanistan, while at the same time continuing to string Washington along claiming the opposite. This double game must come to an end. At the end of day the very problems being played out in Pakistan have everything to do with what is wrong in Afghanistan.

Obama must decide between so-called values and security. Washington’s colonial project in Afghanistan is a complete failure. Democracy in this case does not create security. If we want to get rid of the bad guys, then we must work with some of the other bad guys we don’t like. Once that happens then the US and its friends should get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Let the Afghans settle their own scores later.

Is this an amoral, cynical, and inhumane assessment of the Afghan case? Yes, it is indeed. But it is the best case scenario.

Back to top
0 (0 votes)
justise, December 12, 2009, 14:19
0
Wrong, wrong, wrong! This is a world hostage situation! Like a game of chess! Your move, my move! Winner takes all! EXCEPT! This is not how it plays out is it?
Aleksandar Hranov, October 22, 2009, 21:15
0
@ from Poland, “Most people understand that Poland is a pawn in American strategy and will be sacrificed when time will come.” – then why do it? Are you suicidal?.. I think then “most people” should elect themselves a government in Poland that thinks like them, because from what I see the current one does not represent these “most people.” Also I agree fully with this statement above as US government has already made it quite clear that in the case of any territorial disputes between Poland and Germany (and they’re more than likely as you know..), it will stand on German side. Further, “Most people understand..” this, simply because it’s common sense: Polish have nothing to do with Americans, but have same Slavic origins with Russians and majority of rest of E. Europeans. No matter how much you deny it, origins have everything to do with politics, and the only time when Slav people as a whole will be doing well (instead of being pawns of this or that superpower..) is when the largest one of us – Russia (half of all Slavs) – stands firmly on its feet; what Anglo-American interest is doing today is exactly the same as what the Romans were doing with very divided German people during their time: namely, sending their emissaries there to make sure there’s always some kind of conflict..to make sure the Germans were permanently in a state of war with each other for god-knows what reason – this way they had no time to turn to Rome. Look at Slav world today: Poland vs Russia, Ukraine vs Russia, Croatia vs Serbia, Serbia vs Bulgaria, Bulgaria vs Macedonia and a mild Czech Rep. vs Slovakia. I mean how long are Polish people going to play this game?.. “..- after the breakup of soviet system "the west" was just much more attractive.” – Why?.. Because it was richer? The answer is ‘Yes.’ There’s absolutely no other reason but money and the hope of some of this western money.. – too bad we proved to be so materialistic, obviously half a century of socialism/communism did not affect us much. The East (Russia) was now offering far greater freedom, but nobody was listening: Russia disintegrated the USSR and nobody else, let that be remembered! Russian led USSR disintegrated the Warsaw pact and took its troops back from all over Eastern Europe, and that’s a fact too - without Russian led initiative there would have been no freedom in E. Europe (The ones who really resisted Stalin and the USSR after WW2 were long free already – and bombed in 99 for not giving away their freedom in the face of new ultimatum). What did the Anglo-American interest do in return? Reoccupied E. Europe, this time with its own troops, organizations, and plans. “Poland is far too small and weak to be fully independent ..” I disagree. Examples proving you can be small, but independent: Switzerland, Yugoslavia (1945-1990), Finland (post WW2). BR Aleks