Rubin on Afghanistan

I, for one, continue to find the scope and nature of the administration's failures in Afghanistan rather shocking even if, at this point, nothing surprises me. One can indulge one's morbid fascination with this by reading NYU professor and Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin's take on the recent New York Times feature on the subject. His "Saving Afghanistan" article in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs from earlier this year is also relevant and here on page six offers a rare instance of thoughts on US policy toward Pakistan that seems to go beyond wishful thinking.

Defense Department Photo

Comments

The funny thing about "Bush ignored Afghanistan" commentary is the assumption that had the Bush administration been paying attention, things would have gone better. Based on Bush's policies elsewhere, I'm convinced Afghanistan is actually better for their lack of attention.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | August 14, 2007 1:00 PM

This is true - we've killed far fewer civilians in Afghanistan - so far - than in Iraq, which is a net win for Afghanistan. We've killed nearly one million Iraqis so far, if the Lancet study is correct and the rate of death over the last year has been the same as when their study was done.

In general, one problem I see with the notion of trying to "pressure" or "assist" Pakistan in dealing with the Taliban is that the Taliban are in an area of Pakistan which simply is not and never has been under Pakistani state control.

So it is pointless to suggest that the Pakistanis could "disrupt the Taliban command and control" as Rubin suggests. All they could do by trying is threaten the stability of their state, as is currently the situation.

The REAL solution to Afghanistan is to drop the entire project, let the situation play out as it will, even if that means the Taliban come back into the government there, and then concentrate on dealing with "Al Qaeda" with the proper strategy and tactics.

The latter means using our intelligence and military assets to roll up Al Qaeda operatives the minute they stick their noses out of Afghanistan. And occasionally, when feasible, striking them in Afghanistan or Pakistan where we can do so without having to invade either country. If the government of either country is hostile to us, we can justifiably ignore their sovereignty when doing such strikes. BUT if we are attempting to forge a deal with them to limit Al Qaeda support, then we should not ignore their sovereignty.

Meanwhile, US foreign policy needs to be altered to reduce the likelihood that such groups will target the US. Which means abandoning support for the Middle East monarchies and abandoning support for Israel and pressuring Israel to resolve the Palestinian issue on terms favorable to the Palestinians.

None of this, of course, will be done, so all the above is pointlessly hypothetical.

The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, the upcoming war in Iran, and Israel's upcoming war with Syria and Lebanon, will all be disastrous failures - except in the pocketbooks of the military-industrial-security complex, the oil companies, the neocon thinktanks, the politicians, and the main stream media.

Only the taxpayers and the citizens of the countries involved, including the US, will pay the price for these failures.

Which makes us all suckers.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 14, 2007 10:58 PM