More on Afghanistan
I’ve posted about the U.S. presence in Afghanistan here and here. And these may be the prime reasons we find ourselves in a quagmire over there. Not bogged down yet but certainly not “winning the hearts and minds” of the Afghan peoples.
And lest we forget why the Taliban was able to take over most of Afghanistan during the mid-1990s, it was due to the licentiousness of the warlords. And now I read this disturbing post about a return of that repulsive behavior under the eyes of U.S. troops. The fact that we are not putting a halt to this abhorrent behavior is putting a huge dent in our ability to win over those “hearts and minds.”
All the Afghan wants is some order, stability and peace in their lives. For whatever the Taliban did that was wrong, they did bring order to the areas they ruled. If the U.S./NATO forces cannot bring some semblance of order and stability to the Afghan on the street, we are doomed to fail.
Explore posts in the same categories: Afghanistan, Human Rights, PoliticsTags: Chief
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
Liberty Street 
September 30, 2009 at 10:00 am
Not exactly accurate since we are “winning the hearts and minds” of the warlords and their troops, who are more useful to us than the other groups.
There’s also the rarely spoken of issue that the Taliban rose out of racial persecution and only turned to Wahhabist Islam later after being driven into Pakistan. To a large extent the Taliban = the Pashtu and the Pashtu = the Taliban.
In that area of the world – falsely named as the nations of Afghanistan and Pakistan – you pretty much have to pick a side in underlying racial / tribal conflict…
September 30, 2009 at 10:18 am
As long as we are not winning the hearts & minds of most of the population, we will not be able to leave with a “successful” outcome. Whatever that may be.
Pashtu or Pashto, we understand that they inhabit a wide geographic area of southern Afghanistan and south Pakistan. My readings do not indicate a racial persecution for the origins of the Taliban. Sorry but I do not have the time right now to find that reference but they came from a school of thought that originated in India.
September 30, 2009 at 10:34 am
I think you’re way out in front of the game, as it were. Not only have you put the cart before the horse, but you bought the cart without knowing where it needed to go or what it needed to carry. ;)
What is a “successful” outcome? As far as I can see nobody in authority has determined what the victory conditions are, which sounds disturbingly familiar.
September 30, 2009 at 10:42 am
Why do you think I put “successful” in quotes?? Of course no one has a definition of what a successful outcome will look like. Good golly, they just had a presidential election and in some districts Karzai got more votes than there were people.
The ‘horse’ and the ‘cart’ are exactly where they need to be. but that is a metaphor that is approps to that country
September 30, 2009 at 10:45 am
Then how can you complain about the methodology being used? If there’s no exit strategy or strategic goal that can be translated into a series of tactical steps, how can one methodology be less effective than another?
September 30, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Say ‘What?’ Where did “methodology” come from ? ?
September 30, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Sorry, methodology was just a convenient verbal reference for all the things that go into “winning the hearts and minds.”
September 30, 2009 at 1:00 pm
jonolan,
Regardless, if the U.S./NATO forces cannot/do not reign in the warlords and stop the abuse, there will always be locals who will give comfort and sustenance to the Taliban.
September 30, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Or we could just further support the warlords and bring those dissidents either under their sway or under the ground. ;)
Not knowing what the goal is, I can’t ascribe a tactical value to the course of action.