Why USA Wishes To Stay On In Afghanistan?

Comments that follow an article in a newspaper/magazine/blog generally indicate the quality of its readership. The Economist magazine does get an impressive array of views. I offer below the views, tied in a string in a random fashion, of different readers under the article “Losing Afghanistan?”

Reader No. 1: “The real purpose of the (American) occupation is to extend and entrench western military presence in this strategic region. America wants to establish a permanent base with a compliant government in place much like it did in the Philippines (Subic Bay) and Japan (Okinawa).

“It would enable it to keep an eye on and intervene in any political or economic disputes in Central Asia, Russia, China, Iran, India and Pakistan. Which is the exact reason why none of these countries have a reason to see the US succeed in Afghanistan.

“The (US) aim is merely to stabilize government and administration sufficiently to wield power through a puppet ruler. President Karzai was a darling until recently but of late has fallen out of favor presumably because he has been showing signs of a backbone and independence….”

Reader No. 2: “Afghanistan is everyone’s Waterloo. Be it the Soviet Union or the States. Wake up, get out. The money can be well spent on health care.”

Reader No. 3: “The mistake made by the USA in Iraq was to disband the Iraqi military and almost all other governmental institutions leaving only the Americans and their few coalition allies to maintain peace. Even the lessons of World War Two were ignored, where in many of the liberated areas of South East Asia, Japanese troops were allowed to keep light weapons and maintain local security during the transition period.

“Although American entered Afghanistan a couple of years before it invaded Iraq, there was never any serious effort made to address the very real need for civil order and security. The country is a factious, tribal society with a propensity for resisting foreign invaders and central administrations.

“Opium is and has for a long time been a major source of external revenue. The rugged terrain also allows insurgents to operate with a good level of freedom.

“The entire Afghan operation is now suffering from mission creep. The NATO forces and their colleagues from other countries are confused over their mission and goals. It is very doubtful that western soldiers will bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan. The Karzai Administration is corrupt and lacks any capacity to bring about genuine reform.

“The only solution will be an Afghan led solution and while the western world may not like its outcome, it is only via political negotiation with the Taliban and a withdrawal of western armies that any lasting peace will come about…..”

Reader No. 4: “The War on Drugs is causing us to loose the war on terror. Maybe if we stopped destroying farmers crops and livly hood, they would stop joining the Tailban…..”

Reader No. 5: “The nation state concept is all about a monopoly on violence. Afghanistan is not, and never really has been a nation state. No one has a monopoly on violence.

“For the US to try to maintain its empire by pretending Afghanistan is a functional nation state is a disgrace. The state department must be inhabited by ideologically minded fools, and the pentagon is inhabited by blood thirsty automatons.

“The smartest thing the US could do is shut down the military industrial complex, stop building weapons, and stop killing to control the oil supply. I guarantee that if the military industrial complex was shut down the folks in Asia could solve their own problems….”

More here…

And now the main article “Losing Afghanistan”, The Economist says: “As a deeply flawed election went ahead in Afghanistan this week, there were echoes, in the mission by America and its allies, of the darkest days of the Iraq campaign: muddled aims, mounting casualties and the gnawing fear of strategic defeat…

“Americans, relieved to be getting out of Iraq, and caught up in a national row about health care, are paying little attention to the place. But if things there continue to slide, Afghanistan could turn out to be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency…”

More here…

The Independent has Robert Fisk’s article on Afghanistan: “Democracy will not bring freedom.” Please click here to read…

Obama talks of “War of Necessity”. I would term it “War of Helplessness”. He does not have enough courage and backing of his own government to just completely withdraw from Afghanistan. Instead he has opted to hide this reality and is using Bush-style excuses such as “if we leave Afghanistan then Al Qaeda would regroup and attack USA”. He also adds that it is a long war.

War against terrorism cannot be fought in conventional ways. Troops and more troops would not help. A terrorist/militant is a highly motivated and devious person. Of course, first how do we identify who the terrorist is? The situation has been getting more and more complicated by the day.

As more and more civilian casualties have been mounting over the years, for an average Afghan and Pakistani the biggest “terrorist” is the USA who is seen as an invader and killer of innocent people.

Now can you kill all Afghans and Pakistanis to make the USA and the world safe?

In traditional war, the goals are clearly defined and the operation is quick and surgical where uniformed soldiers fight. In low intensity war, the struggle is long-drawn. The public is caught between the terror unleashed by the invisible terrorists/militants and, on the other hand, government troops/forces. In other words, the devil and the deep sea. One can live in such a situation for a few months, but if this continues for years then the patience is lost.

Survival becomes the biggest instinct, not great ideals propagated by big powers sitting thousands of miles away. So the public, which is not foolish, opts for what is best for them in such irrational and cruel circumstances. In such a context, the survival instinct of an average Afghan is no different from that of an average American, Indian or Israeli.

The poor US and NATO troops are being sacrificed by their myopic leaders. The life-long trauma that these soldiers are going to suffer in hostile terrains is known. It is not just the terrorists/militants that these troops are facing. But also a hostile local population.

I wouldn’t be surprised that one day these traumatized soldiers may rebel. That would be a sad day. Soldiers are not machines…but the politicians and civilians officials are treating them like robots for long spells in totally hostile conditions. We would then witness a horrible crisis.

Again, to make America safe you can’t go on invading countries and then occupying them for years. Such adventures cost trillions of dollars. Where would the money come from? What you have to do is to make the borders of the USA safe so that infiltrators do not enter.

The answer is very very clear…..just get out of Afghanistan and leave them to their fate. As it is the American administration’s policy of crying wolf has been exposed. Why is it that nobody is talking about the fountainhead of terrorism—-Osama bin Laden?

Why this wolf has been forgotten? Soon the world may also forget Al Qaeda.

But there are people who have a vested interest to frighten Americans and keep such ghosts alive…They are the arms-sellers and civilian contractors who are raking in tons of money in the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they, in turn, keep the greedy and corrupt politicians “happy”.

Well, I can go on and on. But I believe that only time is the healer. Now you may understand why in India we believe in fate, karma, destiny!!!!!!