Deeper into Afghanistan, the “Graveyard of Empires”
Fighting in the Khyber Pass between Afghanistan and that part of India that's now Pakistan was never as romantic as in movies. And it won't be this time around, either.
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains
and the women come out to cut up what remains
Jest roll to your rifle an’ blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
That was Rudyard Kipling’s advice after covering one of Great Britain’s futile 19th-century adventures in Afghanistan. Britain failed, as did Tsarist Russia, as had Alexander before them and the Soviet Union after them. Of all of Afghanistan’s would-be conquerors, only Genghis Khan managed to reach an accommodation with its tribesmen, and he was just passing through.
Now comes Barack Obama. The president announced Friday that he was ordering a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division (conveniently divided into 14-soldier training squads, an odd mission for paratroopers, but that’s the mission) to Afghanistan to join the 17,000 extra troops he ordered deployed there last month. That will bring the total number of U.S. troops on the ground to 60,000, supplemented by 32,000 others from NATO allies.
It’s different this time, Mr. Obama assured the nation. The United States is not in Afghanistan as an invading or conquering or even an occupying power. “I want the American people to know we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.”
In some ways, this is a defensive strategy. Mr. Obama called al-Qaida’s redoubt in the mountains between the two central Asian nations “the most dangerous place in the world for the American people.”
In other ways, it’s an exercise in nation-building, a version of the neo-conservative ideal of spreading enlightenment by military might, coupled with counter-insurgency warfare of these latter days of the war in Iraq or the early days of war in Vietnam.
The idea is to build Afghanistan’s military and police forces to around 215,000 personnel, to clean out the threat from Taliban fundamentalists and clean up the flawed and corrupt government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Meanwhile, more help from NATO will be sought and Russia, China, India, the Persian Gulf states and even Iran will be invited to take part regional diplomatic efforts.
On the ground, it’s the “Afghanistanization” of the war that President George W. Bush started in 2002 but never finished after he got distracted in Iraq. Mr. Obama promises to devote the resources necessary to finish the job. He didn’t put a price tag on the effort beyond calling on Congress to send $1.5 billion a year to Pakistan to bolster its infrastructure and democratic institutions.
If the experiences of Great Britain and Russia are any indication, it won’t be cheap, either in blood or treasure.
The Afghan war will be “winnable” only to the extent that the Afghan people — notorious for their tribal allegiances — can be taught to think of themselves as a single nation. History suggests how difficult that will be, and yet — because of the threat of seventh-century theocracy under the Taliban — it is a risk worth taking.
And too, the world has a vital interest in a stabilized, effective democracy in Pakistan. Should that nuclear-armed nation be overtaken by Islamic fundamentalists, no one would sleep nights. And, yes, al-Qaida has yet to answer for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
So this is a job worth finishing and as quickly as possible. Like Genghis Khan, we should be just passing through.
Wow - what a difference it is when it’s your choice for president doing the dirty work and it’s a Democrat. Facts: History always repeats itself, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, and the more things change, the more things remain the same.
Funny how the PD hasn’t reported Cindy Sheehan and others protesting Obama not getting us out of the Middle East as they “thought” he had promised.
Is this the change we can believe in? I look forward to the attacks on me from you Kool-aid drinking Democrats - let the games begin. Bring it on!
— A CENTRIST
“Funny how the PD hasn’t reported Cindy Sheehan and others protesting Obama . . ”
.
Took me 5 seconds to type in “Cindy Sheehan” in the search box you’ll see on the left hand side after you scroll up.
Here’s a week old hit awaiting your comments
enjoy
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/7E1AF0B8C9F2E5C886257581000AE95A?OpenDocument
.
A CENTRIST - still making up stuff to put in posts
Obama was elected when he was hallucinating once a week. Now he is hallucinating every day. I’m more interested in curing his hallucinations than spending money to agitate the Taliban.
He was hallucinating when he spent over a trillion dollars to spend our way into prosperity. He has spent many billions to reward failures. He needs to find a cure for his hallucinations.
He wants universal “health care” I sure hope it has lots of money for those who are suffering from hallucinations.
STL, I read the article you are referring to and it was buried in the paper and was a tiny paragraph. During the Iraq war when Bush was President, the Post made sure the war was front and center in the paper with day in and day our reporting. Headline after headline rang out the death toll. Now, the reporting is getting back page small headlines.
While I support us being in Afghanistan, I find it laughable that Obama is committing more troops…with the support of the American people who voted him in. How long will it take for the headlines to get bolder and bolder and make the front page of the Post? My guess is that it won’t happen.
Admitedly, we took our eye off the ball after initially defeating the Taliban and have allowed them to become stronger…yet now our mission seems to be “nation building”..which liberals hated George Bush for doing in Iraq. Now that the tables are turned and Democrats are in power, this nation building is getting support. Clinton did the same in Bosnia and the silence from the left was deafening.
— Logicprevails
“While I support us being in Afghanistan, I find it laughable that Obama is committing more troops…with the support of the American people who voted him in.”
.
Why would they be not give him support - it was part of his campaign?
o More troops for Afghanistan, less troops for Iraq.
.
Remember during the 1st Presdential Debate
OBAMA: ” . . The question is, was this wise? We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there. Senator McCain, in the rush to go into Iraq, said, you know what? We’ve been successful in Afghanistan. There is nobody who can pose a threat to us there.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/
.
Or the Obama-Biden Campaign Web Page
“DEBATE FACT CHECK: IGNORING AFGHANISTAN - October 02, 2008
The Facts: McCain Has Ignored The Threat In Afghanistan. Obama Recognizes Afghanistan Is The Central Front In The War On Terror And Has Been Calling For Increased Troop Levels.”
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/10/02/debate_fact_check_ignoring_afg.php
.
.
Obama’s campaign included building up in Afghanistan and reducing in Iraq.
Obama voters listened, liked and voted him in.
.
Apparently you were not paying attention.
STL- since you have so much time on your hands to look up everything I post (even though you never post anything of your own), why don’t you research where CodePink has been protesting the war since Obama has been in office.
Also, since the PD won’t report this, look up the campaign donations that AIG employees were force to contribute to Sen. Dodd.
Have fun!
— A CENTRIST
“since you have so much time on your hands to look up everything I post”
Actually my time is limited as I peek, then sometimes post, between jobs.
Since your M.O. is a poster with content frequently including “stuff you just make up” your posts merit a special look. We do appreciate your recent efforts which include links to sources.
.
“even though you never post anything of your own”
My observation is that we all are responding to either an editorial, a letter, a newsworthy event or a post. I find your statement quite presumptuous since you have no clue how many of my letters the PD has selected as the subject to discuss or my relationship to newsworthy events selected by the PD.
.
CodePink & Obama, AIG and Dodd?
My hunch is you wouldn’t have brought them up unless you have sources to some dirt.
You tell us. Be sure and include the links. thankx
STL- gee I actually thought you could do something besides cut and paste comments. Well, obviously I stumped you - so here’s the info on Dodd:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/30/aig-chiefs-pressed-to-donate-to-dodd/
Haven’t wasted my time on CodePink - I was leaving that for you. You disappointed me, I thought you would have been better than this.
Don’t know about you letters comment and don’t care.
“Haven’t wasted my time on CodePink…..” ??? You brought it up. Were you aware that protests are one of the things we get to do in this country? I couldn’t tell you where they are now but I know they have the right to do it wherever they are. You don’t need to agree with them but you do have to defend their right to do it. I swear, you are getting goofier by the day. .