[Peace-discuss] Re: Obama's AfPak war

[C. G. Estabrook]

[From Nir Rosen, "How We Lost the War We Won: A Journey Into Taliban-Controlled 
Afghanistan," Rolling Stone, Issue 1064 (October 30, 2008). --CGE]

...it is foolhardy to believe that the Americans can prevail where the Russians 
failed. At the height of the occupation, the Soviets had 120,000 of their own 
troops in Afghanistan, buttressed by roughly 300,000 Afghan troops. The 
Americans and their allies, by contrast, have 65,000 troops on the ground, 
backed up by only 137,000 Afghan security forces — and they face a Taliban who 
enjoy the support of a well-funded and highly organized network of Islamic 
extremists. "The end for the Americans will be just like for the Russians," says 
a former commander who served in the Taliban government. "The Americans will 
never succeed in containing the conflict. There will be more bleeding. It's 
coming to the same situation as it did for the communist forces, who found 
themselves confined to the provincial capitals."

Simply put, it is too late for Bush's "quiet surge" — or even for Barack Obama's 
plan for a more robust reinforcement — to work in Afghanistan. More soldiers on 
the ground will only lead to more contact with the enemy, and more air support 
for troops will only lead to more civilian casualties that will alienate even 
more Afghans. Sooner or later, the American government will be forced to the 
negotiating table, just as the Soviets were before them.

"The rise of the Taliban insurgency is not likely to be reversed," says 
Abdulkader Sinno, a Middle East scholar and the author of Organizations at War 
in Afghanistan and Beyond. "It will only get stronger. Many local leaders who 
are sitting on the fence right now — or are even nominally allied with the 
government — are likely to shift their support to the Taliban in the coming 
years. What's more, the direct U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan is now 
likely to spill over into Pakistan. It may be tempting to attack the safe havens 
of the Taliban and Al Qaeda across the border, but that will only produce a 
worst-case scenario for the United States. Attacks by the U.S. would attract the 
support of hundreds of millions of Muslims in South Asia. It would also break up 
Pakistan, leading to a civil war, the collapse of its military and the possible 
unleashing of its nuclear arsenal."

In the same speech in which he promised a surge, Bush vowed that he would never 
allow the Taliban to return to power in Afghanistan. But they have already 
returned, and only negotiation with them can bring any hope of stability. Iraq, 
Afghanistan and Pakistan "are all theaters in the same overall struggle," the 
president declared, linking his administration's three greatest foreign-policy 
disasters in one broad vision. In the end, Bush said, we must have "faith in the 
power of freedom."

But the Taliban have their own faith, and so far, they are winning. On my last 
day in Kabul, a Western aid official reminds me of the words of a high-ranking 
Taliban leader, who recently explained why the United States will never prevail 
in Afghanistan.

"You Westerners have your watches," the leader observed. "But we Taliban have time."


http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23612315/how_we_lost_the_war_we_won


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Obama's AfPak war
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:02:03 -0500

[On yesterday's Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman interviewed Nir Rosen, whom Noam
Chomsky calls "one of the most astute and knowledgeable correspondents in the
region." Rosen says that Obama "needs to prove, as a Democrat, that he too can
kill brown people." --CGE]

...