<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The goal of US policy surely seems to be, as you suggest, "to
facilitate a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan." <br>
<br>
Despite Obama's lies about "stopping terrorism" - manifestly false
(US war-making in AfPak increases terrorism), and an expedient he's
driven to by his Constitutional situation at home - the USG wants
the war as part of its generation-long policy of controlling Mideast
energy resources. <br>
<br>
The danger is, as you point out, that "a feasible peace deal almost
certainly implies a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces." <br>
<br>
But a recognition of what the US is actually doing in AfPak and the
region would prevent any credence being lent to fatuities like the
following from the local Democratic candidate for Congress:<br>
<br>
"...we cannot simply withdraw troops in a precipitous manner without
risking further destabilization of this already fragile and war-torn
region. We need to facilitate a political solution to the
stabilization of Afghanistan and the defeat of terrorists in the
region" <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.gill2010.com/issues/foreign-policy/afghanistan/"><http://www.gill2010.com/issues/foreign-policy/afghanistan/></a>.
--CGE<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/28/10 11:24 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> The Washington Post reports
that *according to the US government's<br>
> own assessment*, military escalation has failed in
Afghanistan. Yet,<br>
> the same report tells us that no change is expected in
December when<br>
> the policy is reviewed. How could this be? One explanation
would be<br>
> that the policy is failing according to the Pentagon's
*stated*<br>
> objectives, but succeeding according to the Pentagon's
*unstated*<br>
> objectives. The escalation has failed to degrade the Taliban<br>
> *militarily*, but is apparently succeeding in degrading the
Taliban<br>
> *politically*: mid-level commanders and footsoldiers the
Pentagon is<br>
> killing are being replaced by younger recruits who are more
militant<br>
> and independent, thus degrading the ability of the Taliban
leadership<br>
> to negotiate a peace deal and enforce the deal on its troops.
If the<br>
> Pentagon's goal were to end the war, this would be
dangerously<br>
> counterproductive; but if the Pentagon's goal is to
facilitate a<br>
> long-term US military presence in Afghanistan, this could be
useful,<br>
> since a peace deal would almost certainly imply a timetable
for US<br>
> military withdrawal.<br>
> <br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/is-the-pentagon-deliberat_b_775353.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/is-the-pentagon-deliberat_b_775353.html</a></span><br>
</body>
</html>