| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Winning Ways in Afghanistan |
| 2006-01-18 |
| January 18, 2006: Why are U.S. troops still in Afghanistan, and why do most Afghans accept this? The main problem in Afghanistan is that the people who hosted al Qaeda are still there. Most Afghans still see these pro-Taliban elements as a threat. Most Afghans also feel that, without the United States; Pakistan and Iran would once again meddle in Afghan affairs. Most Afghans blame the Pakistani government for inflicting the Taliban dictatorship on them, and continuing to support unrest. The Taliban were mainly leaders from a few Pushtun tribes that tried to impose their brand of conservative Islam, and tribal customs, on the rest of the country. This was never popular, but many Pushtuns still see this approach to running the country as worth fighting for. The Pushtun tribes make up about 40 percent of the Afghan population. And even more Pushtuns live across the border in Pakistan. U.S. troops have behaved well in Afghanistan from the beginning. The first U.S. troops entering Afghanistan in October, 2001, were U.S. Army Special Forces operators, many of whom spoke the local languages and understood the customs. That went over real well. In addition, there were CIA operators who spoke the languages, and some of them had helped Afghans fight the Russians in the 1980s. These CIA guys were local heroes to the Afghans, and instantly established trust. When regular American troops came in at the end of 2001, and into 2002, they were sent to areas where pro-Taliban fighters were operating. The Taliban had acquired a reputation as being thugs and bullies, so the Afghans were glad to have the Americans helping to chase down the diehards. The American troops also got involved in a lot of aid and reconstruction projects. Thus the Americans were seen as generous, warriors, and not a greedy neighbor. The Afghans know about 911, and their tribal code of revenge made it understandable that the Americans wanted to chase down those responsible for the attacks. Because of the al Qaeda terrorists, Taliban marauders, and potential meddling by Iran and Pakistan, not to mention the money and goodies that accompany American troops, Afghanistan is in no hurry to see them leave. This sort of thing can go on for a long time. For example, when American troops began to pull out of Germany in the 1990s, after being there for half a century, most Germans were unhappy to see the G.I.’s depart, and German politicians even came to Washington to try and stop the withdrawals. This was mostly about jobs, but also about a good relationship between Germans and the American troops. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #6 Interesting article in today's WSJ about the booming heroin traffic in Afghanistan. That is going to be a serious impediment to the establishment of a strong central government. Hopefully the heroin issue will be a shorter term situation. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2006-01-18 17:09 |
| #5 Whoops, pressed the button too soon. ...but I'm with TW on the reluctance to put the AFL (American Foreign Legion) under UN control. Anyone who voluntarily joins a military arm of the United States deserves the American Umbrella, from military AND civilian alike. I may not fight, but I sure do pay through the nose in Federal Taxes: Since 9/11 I have actually felt PLEASED on every subsequent April 15. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2006-01-18 14:26 |
| #4 C-Low is proposing an American version of the French Foreign Legion. Not a bad idea, seeing how the FFL is probably the ONLY effective fighting force the French have. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2006-01-18 14:23 |
| #3 Very interesting ideas, C-Low. The long-term trickle down effect of those Special Forces troops on their own nations bears thinking about. It would be lovely, f'r instance, to see some real leadership in the Philippines and in Mongolia, about whom lotp and Master Fred have spoken so positively, and it would be brilliant to be able to point to the results wrought by troops from Iraq and Afghanistan -- not to mention how proud their home folks would rightfully be. But I'm not certain the U.N. route is the way to go. I would hate to see our guys (and they would be ours, through special affection if nothing else) parked in, say, Sudan or the Israeli border, with the kind of restrictive rules of [non]engagement that the mighty Uruguyans -- or worse, the Dutch! -- are hobbled with. Rather, let's use them where NATO plays games not to go. Can you imagine Afghani troops fixing up the situation in Iraq, and vice versa? Basra would never have had a chance to get into its current fix! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-01-18 13:40 |
| #2 Afghanistan has been cursed for so long it is almost beyond imagination that it could ever be peaceful and prosperous again. Just by resoring order and some semblance of peace, the US has accomplished a miracle, even if the country had to be "softened up" first by the Russians and then the Taliban. However, in what may be the first real chance in two thousand years, I truly wish that we could change Afghanistan's karma forever. By creating a brilliant framework for economic advancement, as Paul Bremer did in Iraq, perhaps we could break that curse. If well done, it is bizarre to think that only 10-20 billion dollars could end two millenia of suffering and death. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-18 13:09 |
| #1 The Afghans are a hard people who we have a pretty good history with in a highly strategic location. I think a long term base should be considered. The US could probably form a foriegn auxilery of peace keeping forces from some of these nations like a afghan brigade, phillipino, iraqi, romanian, colombian, ect of peace keepers from what I can tell some decentley well trained peace keeping forces are becoming rather profitable. This would give US a force of peace keepers to use for the PR UN crap in peace time and in cases like Iraq to augment our forces by taking over in the more tame areas. Not to mention we would be basicly raising freindly's who we trained taught and know that over time would go home and take places of authority. The intel possibilities down the road are huge. I was hesitant at first but it looks more and more that the US like it or not has been delegated the job of world stability if for no other reason than our economy. We should leverage this, use the UN/EU as a money source and take friendly nations like minded but just downtroden and form auxilary units under OUR/US command. They get training money we get peace keepers to deploy instead of our regular forces who are best at killing bad guys not walkin a beat. The UN pays the upkeep and has a deployable force that is competent and decentley trained. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2006-01-18 11:17 |