05/29/2006 01:06:49 PM EST

Looking forward in Iraq

posted by DenverAdam

Walk on the sunny side of the street ... but not during rush hour

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
When trying to forecast Iraq's future, it's always useful
to gaze into Afghanistan, where we had quick success
and have developed a fiercely loyal and supportive
populace.  Here's the most recent example:

U.S. traffic accident sparks Afghan riot

KABUL, Afghanistan - A deadly traffic accident Monday
involving U.S. troops sparked the worst rioting in the
Afghan capital since the fall of the Taliban regime, with
hundreds of protesters looting shops and shouting
"Death to America!" At least eight people were killed
and 107 injured, an official said.

As you can clearly see, it's foolish to point only to the
negatives in Iraq and claim we are not winning the War
On Terror.  It's only one front.  Just point people to the
other front, explain that the Taliban is making a great
comeback, even issuing press releases, and they will
have no choice but to admit the flawless logic you have
demonstrated.

Victory!

< Oh irony, thy taste is both of mead and poison | Why Hillary Clinton Is No Bill Clinton >
 Display:
Looking forward in Iraq | 4 comments (4 topical, 0 hidden)
Why do they hate us? (none / 0)
Do you think that the billions of dollars we wasted in Afghanistan could have been better spent nurturing and multiplying the number of welfare babies in America?

If the government had not confiscated that money in the first place, it could have been put to use buying capital assets and hiring people to produce something. Instead, the money was wasted trying to eradicate the best cash crop in Afghanistan. Way to go, America. Let's impoverish the Afghan farmers and then send them welfare checks to replace the lost income. I wonder why they hate us.

by Twba on 05/29/2006 03:58:57 PM EST

With friends like these... (none / 0)
Is it a good thing that America has friends running governments in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, (and now Libya)?

In some ways, those friends are worse off because of their relationship with the American government. They are easily portrayed as puppets by their opposition. When the U.S. is perceived as the puppetmaster, the list of people who hate us grows.

"Today we are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race."

...

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has said Islamic countries will remain backward unless they concentrate more on scientific and technological development.

Muslim nations are internally involved in fratricidal conflicts and perceived by the outside world as terrorists with little attention being given on their uplift, he said.

General Musharraf made his comments in an address to a conference of science and technology attended by ministers from Muslim countries.

President Musharraf said the time had come for Islamic nations to take part in collective self-criticism.

Once such an assessment is made, it would not be difficult to realise that the entire Islamic world was far behind the developed world, he argued. [Link]

General Musharraf has a tough job. He must push a backward people toward modernity and then step aside and allow them to decide their own fate. No matter how successful, Musharraf will be hated by the people of Pakistan, and by extension the U.S. will be hated for its friendship with Musharraf. The U.S. government is pressuring Musharraf to make changes. Only time will tell if Pakistan is better for it and the U.S. is seen by Pakistanis as their friend.

What the Americans and many Pakistanis are pushing for, but which Gen Musharraf is resisting, is that he strike a deal with Benazir Bhutto, allowing her secular, anti-mullah Pakistan Peoples Party, full freedom to run in the elections in return for her support for his continuation as president.

Nobody is under any illusions that the Americans are about to dump Gen Musharraf.

Washington still prefers him to anyone else, but they would like to see him become a conventional politician depending on secular parties for support, rather than the extremists he presently relies on.

Gen Musharraf will need to strike a new deal with the US if he wants their support in the critical coming months.

He will need to strike a genuine rapprochement with Ms Bhutto, curb the Taleban in Quetta, open a dialogue with the Baloch nationalists and get tougher with the Islamic parties who are fuelling the militants in Waziristan. [Link]

I commend our government for engaging the leaders of those countries in diplomacy, but I have not lost sight of their peoples' hatred of the superpower that is seen as a friend and puppetmaster of autocrats.

by Twba on 05/30/2006 02:11:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Some answers (none / 0)
Does this mean we were wrong to have ever gone into Afghanistan?

There is no universal agreement that overthrowing the Taleban was necessary or good. I think it was the right thing to do. Should the world look the other way while barbarity reigns over millions?

Would a larger American footprint in Afghanistan make the situation better or worse?

It could go either way. If the war on poppies is the focus, it would be worse.

If we had 300,000 additional troops in Afghanistan, wouldn't that simply offer 300,000 additional targets for terrorists?

It could help in the fight against jihadist nutjobs pouring into Afghanistan from Pakistan.

Is it easier to fight terrorists in the wide-open terrain of Iraq, than amoungst the mountains and rocks and caves of Afghanistan?

The jihadists in Iraq are not out in the open. They are hiding behind women and children in small towns and big cities. They slip out of alleys to plant IED's. They drive car bombs through markets filled with innocent bystanders.

If terrorists want to engage US forces in battle, shouldn't we invite them to meet us in Iraq, rather than Afghanistan?

I would prefer that they fight in sparsely populated mountainous areas.

by Twba on 05/30/2006 02:07:13 PM EST

Taleban vs. Europe (none / 0)
To enlist more troops from more countries and increase its forces from 9,000 to 18,000, Nato billed its replacement of American forces in southern Afghanistan as a major stabilisation and reconstruction effort. Instead, Nato forces, including 3,000 British troops deployed in Helmand province, will have to fight their way out of an unprecedented Taliban offensive that has claimed 400 lives since May 17.

Fighting a full-scale guerrilla war is not what countries such as Italy, Spain, Holland, Germany and others enlisted for. The mandate from their governments is reconstruction, not combat.

...

Nato's weaknesses are what worry President Hamid Karzai and the Afghan government. The Taliban and al-Qa'eda know this and more. They have closely followed the testy debates in parliaments across Europe about deploying troops to Afghanistan. They count on inflicting a few bloody casualties, letting body bags arrive in European capitals, and then seeing the protests against deployment escalate. [Op-ed in Telegraph]

by Twba on 05/30/2006 03:50:58 PM EST

Looking forward in Iraq | 4 comments (4 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: