[Peace-discuss] Afghanistan: The Four Questions

[Robert Naiman]

Imagine, Carl. I am on a listserv of Washington groups that are  
supposedly about the US getting out of Afghanistan, and the feedback I  
got on this article was objection to my first point, that the US  
should support, rarher than obstruct, negotiations between the Afghan  
government and insurgent groups.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 26, 2009, at 8:05 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>  
wrote:

> Suppose a Russian political commentator wrote as follows 25 years  
> ago, while the USSR was occupying Afghanistan:
>
>  "1. Will the USSR support political negotiations between the Afghan  
> government and leaders of Afghanistan's insurgencies?
>
>  "2. Is the USSR prepared to discuss its long-term intentions in  
> Afghanistan?
>
>  "3. Is the USSR prepared to relax the political constraints it has  
> previously imposed on Afghan negotiations?
>
>  "4. Is the USSR prepared to address the political roots of Saudi  
> Arabia's relationship with the Afghan insurgencies?"
>
> If the Russian commentator held that "What finally matters are the  
> answers to these four questions, which are only now beginning to be  
> asked" -- and implied as it seems that the answer to each should be  
> "yes" -- I would say that he was attempting to design a more  
> thoughtful, circumspect, and therefore successful occupation.
>
> But the occupation should be rejected, then and now. The Afghan  
> people and people around the world should have demanded the end to  
> the occupation and a Russian withdrawal -- and similarly today.  --CGE
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>> President Obama is expected to "announce" his "new" Afghanistan  
>> strategy
>> Friday - the traditional Washington day for burying things. ... It  
>> is widely
>> recognized that sending more people - whether soldiers or civilians  
>> - is very
>> unlikely in itself to change anything fundamental, because the  
>> order of
>> magnitude is wrong. The United States has not been, is not, and  
>> almost
>> certainly never will be willing and able to commit the resources  
>> which would
>> be necessary to transform Afghanistan into a peaceful "democracy"  
>> according
>> to the present policy. The most that could be plausibly hoped for  
>> is that
>> additional resources would help make a new policy work: a new  
>> policy based on
>> a fundamental, political shift in US policy, including  
>> accommodation with the
>> bulk of the political forces now backing Afghanistan's various  
>> insurgencies. ... What finally matters are the answers to four  
>> questions that are only now
>> beginning to be asked.
>> 1. Will the United States support political negotiations between  
>> the Afghan
>> government and leaders of Afghanistan's insurgencies? ... 2. Is the  
>> United
>> States prepared to discuss its long-term intentions in  
>> Afghanistan? ... 3. Is
>> the United States prepared to relax the political constraints it has
>> previously imposed on Afghan negotiations? ... 4. Is the United  
>> States
>> prepared to address the political roots of Pakistan's relationship  
>> with the
>> Afghan insurgencies?
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/afghanistan-the-four-ques_b_179630.html
>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/26/143616/654
>> -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org 
>>  _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss  
>> mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss