[Peace-discuss] Is the Pentagon Deliberately "Degrading" Afghanistan's Capacity for Peace?

[C. G. Estabrook]

The goal of US policy surely seems to be, as you suggest, "to facilitate a 
long-term US military presence in Afghanistan."

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.

The danger is, as you point out, that  "a feasible peace deal almost certainly 
implies a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces."

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:

"...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"

<http://www.gill2010.com/issues/foreign-policy/afghanistan/>.  --CGE


On 10/28/10 11:24 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>  The Washington Post reports that *according to the US government's
>  own assessment*, military escalation has failed in Afghanistan. Yet,
>  the same report tells us that no change is expected in December when
>  the policy is reviewed. How could this be? One explanation would be
>  that the policy is failing according to the Pentagon's *stated*
>  objectives, but succeeding according to the Pentagon's *unstated*
>  objectives. The escalation has failed to degrade the Taliban
>  *militarily*, but is apparently succeeding in degrading the Taliban
>  *politically*: mid-level commanders and footsoldiers the Pentagon is
>  killing are being replaced by younger recruits who are more militant
>  and independent, thus degrading the ability of the Taliban leadership
>  to negotiate a peace deal and enforce the deal on its troops. If the
>  Pentagon's goal were to end the war, this would be dangerously
>  counterproductive; but if the Pentagon's goal is to facilitate a
>  long-term US military presence in Afghanistan, this could be useful,
>  since a peace deal would almost certainly imply a timetable for US
>  military withdrawal.
>
> 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/is-the-pentagon-deliberat_b_775353.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101028/e5c974ea/attachment.html>