&host=rt.com&uri=/usa/news/us-troops-afghanistan-pakistan/&via=(none)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
“US troops in Afghanistan help stabilize Pakistan”
Published: 13 October, 2009, 04:43
Edited: 13 October, 2009, 18:01
US Marines from Fox Company 2nd Battalion 3rd Marines watch as a CH-53 helicopter lands to transport them from their forward operating base in Farah Province, southern Afghanistan, on October 12 (AFP Photo / Getty Images)
(14.1Mb) embed videoTAGS: Conflict, Military, Middle East, Protest, Politics, Central Asia, USA
The main reason behind the American military presence in Afghanistan is to help stabilize Pakistan, Reihan Salam from the New America Foundation told RT.
As the White House contemplates sending more troops to Afghanistan, the situation in neighboring Pakistan becomes more tense. The Taliban have claimed responsibility for a massive attack on the country's army headquarters on the weekend that ended in a hostage crisis.
Reihan Salam supports the mission in Afghanistan and is in favor of sending more troops to the Islamic Republic.
“If you look at the historical experience, the United States has a real opportunity to create a stable Afghanistan, and a stable Afghanistan will help guarantee a stable South Asia and Central Asia,” he says.
The big political reason why both Presidents Bush and Obama have argued for a US presence in Afghanistan “is about preventing a safe heaven for the al-Qaida".
However, the main reason for the US troops to be there is to help stabilize Pakistan, Reihan Salam believes.
“What the US is trying to do now, closely resembles what the Soviet Union tried to do in the late 80s and early 1990s,” he said.
Reihan Salam thinks that President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is unlikely to affect the decision about sending more troops to the region, but it’s the political dynamics that might influence the decision.
“Among Democrats…there is very little support for the military surge in Afghanistan and among Republicans support is actually dwindling over time,” Reihan Salam said.
So, he went on, the easiest way for Obama would be “to try to save face and not increase the number of troops”.
“Unfortunately, that will likely lead to higher US casualties and thus increase calls for a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan over the longer term,” he said.
13.10.2009, 02:17
6 comments
“Columbus – colonialist and imperialist”After Christopher Columbus’s discovery of America “terrible things’ were done to the Native Americans and he doesn’t deserve a holiday, RT contributor Wayne Madsen said. |
13.10.2009, 05:54
US scrapped missile defense “not just to please Russia”The US dropped its plans for its missile defense shield in Europe not only to please Moscow, but after a careful study of possible threats from Iran, Charles Kupchan from the US Council on Foreign Relations told RT. |
Let's see. Afghanistan became the focus of anti-terror operations, so everybody forgot that Iraq is still an occupied country. Now, Pakistan will become the focus of anti-terror operations, so everybody will stop talking about Afghanistan, and the occupation there can go on for a few more years. Until another presidential campaign, when somebody will remember it. In the intermission, Iran is played to insure that there is no lull.
Well, Pakistan has nukes, so strictly speaking it is a more important country to keep stable. However, it isn't clear that it can't take care of itself. While pressure in Afghanistan could result in less deaths in Pakistan, I don't think it is needed to prevent Pakistan's government from collapsing. As regards Afghanistan, continuing to suppress Al Qaeda's operational capacities is of course a goal. But I would argue that in the long-run turning Afghanistan into a modernizing instead of a stagnant country would, if it were possible, be the best way for the US to save face. In humanitarian terms, owing to lowered starvation rates, this would more than vindicate a conflict that has thus far been far less destructive than the one in Iraq (thus far in Afghanistan civilian casualties are between 12,000 and 32,000, Iraq was 500,000 to 1.4 million). The increased emphasis on preventing civilian casualties makes it likely collateral damage will decrease even more, at least from our side. Al Qaeda is a threat to be sure, but it is often over stated. Al Qaeda is only very dangerous if it procures WMDs. 9/11 killed over 3,000 people, but 10,000 people in the US die a year of homicide, and over 15,000 people die in the world every day of starvation. The subsequent attacks in Europe were even less deadly. It would be more cost effective for us to simply focus on domestic security and some bombing. Staying in Afghanistan is therefore against our own self-interest, but I still think we have an obligation to facilitate the country's transition. If we can't succeed therein then we should leave now. But a lot of people thought the effort in Iraq was doomed too. We pushed a bit harder, and so achieved our goals and thereby relieved ourselves of the burden. The same might be possible in Afghanistan, and if a surge didn't work than we could leave knowing we had exhausted our options.