What Henry thinks.
Interesting reading.
Ralph
For the last two hundred years western powers have attempted to control Afghanistan, without success. The continuing American/coalition push in Afghanistan cannot succeed as there is no support from both within and outside the country. At the most, coalition forces can only hopefully achieve the support of a very small portion of the country around the capital, Kabul. Iran will not assist as it does not need a western supported economy on its doorstep and Pakistan is leading down the irreversible path of fundamentalism. Pakistan’s latest move to hand over territory to the Taliban, in the north of the country, will be nothing more than a Taliban base to continue excursions into Afghanistan.
America is fighting another Vietnam, as Russia found out through the 1980’s and retreated shamefully. Russia believed that they could change the idiology of the Afghani people to a communist philosophy, much as in Chechnya. It took years of brutality to stem the Muslim control in Chechnya. Many Al Qaeda fighters were Chechnyans, driven out by the Russians from their own country. The Afghanis responded, much as they did under imperialistic British and Russian rule and repelled all invaders.
Like Vietnam, Afghanistan is a war that cannot be won. The people have a strong allegiance to their country and will repel any ‘invaders’. Like the Iraqis welcomed American invasion in 2003, the Afghanis welcomed the defeat of the Taliban, but in both cases, the welcome was very short-lived. America is hamstrung by attempts to destroy the Taliban and its support for Al Qaeda. Pakistan has shown its resistance to removing Taliban forces from its country and is willing to negotiate with them, allowing them to set up the same shira government that existed in Afghanistan, prior 2001. The previous Pakistani government was ousted for its alleged support of the Taliban and yet the new government does not have the stomach to fight the Taliban, nor the suport of a growing proportion of its population who follow a more fundamentalist religion.
The war for Afghanistan is as much a fight outside its borders as inside its territory. Russia was defeated by an inexhaustible ‘enemy’ supported by western-backed fighters from Pakistani territory. The western-funded and supplied Mudjahadein were instrumental in the defeat of the Russians. Continuing civilian collateral damage has turned the tide of public opinion against the coalition and the Karzai government is too fragile to accept a mounting civilian toll. Like Hamas, the Taliban use human shields to protect their forces in battle. This inevitably results in a high civilian casualty count and is counterproductive to an attempt to win over the hearts and minds of the population. The Iraqis resented the high civilian casualties, as do the Afghanis.
Vietnam was a different war. The west supported coalition forces in Vietnam, as they were attempting to prevent the spread of communism and so civilian casualties were of less ‘importance’ than military deaths. It was the mounting American death toll that turned the tide against involvement in the war. Afghanistan is about controlling the ‘war on terror’. Well, since 2001, the battlefront has altered. The very region that supported the Mudjahadein against the Russians, is now the same territory that is harboring the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces and one thing that is definatelycertain, is that America is not going to invade Pakistan to wipe out the Taliban presence there. Any Pakistani military action will be seen worldwide, as an attack on the Muslim nation and met with stronger resistance than has been encountered to date.
Continuing presence in Afghanistan is mere facesaving and will not have a lasting positive impact on terror, as like in Iraq and Vietnam, the real enemy is outside of its borders. Terror cannot be wiped out of existence. Terror has been a legitimate battle tactic used for millenia. The ancient Assyrians, the origin of the term assassin, were experts at blind obediance to a holy cause.
The ‘master’ terrorist held responsible for the 1993 bombing of the twin towers, while being escorted by FBI officials, was reported to have said, “the difference between Muslims and the west is that we are willing to die for our cause.” No western soldier is prepared to put his life on the line for someone else’s war, but does so, because he is ordered to do so. I dare say that colonial American troops were regarded by the English, as terrorists, in 1776. A ‘War on Terror’ needs to be taken in context. Who is a terrorist? For many, Israel is a greater threat to lasting peace than any terrorist organisation. The term ‘terrorist’ is relative to which side of the fence one is positioned. Are Wall St. bankers terrorists? They have caused more financial harm to the world economy than any foreign power could possibly do.
I heard Obama say in his campaign speeches he would in his first month in office, issue orders for the full and complete withdrawal of all US troops from the battle zones. It was the ONLY political rhetoric from him I agreed with.
Now he is effectively committing our troops to a “surge” in Afghanistan, similar to the one he so opposed in Iraq. I suppose the war looks different from inside.
The Nixon administration was one of our most successful administrations in dealing with foreign policy, despite the complete failure of domestic policy at the time.
Henry Kissenger was a major force behind that success.
His thoughts are very relevant and it would be foolish to dismiss them off hand without consideration.
I seriously doubt Tim bothered to read it before throwing in his “expert” opinion.
Ralph
Ralph,
for your information, yes, I did read Kissinger’s comments prior to posting my ‘expert’ response to his comments. After your comment, I actually reread his comments to make sure that what I said was a response to his comments. In your expert opinion where have I deviated from his comments in my ‘expert’ opinion? So I have now read his report twice.
His comments are no different to others' points of view in the conflict. None other than Muslims will ever 'control' Afghanistan. It will never be a western enclave as never will be Iraq or Pakistan. Pakistan is the next country to be overrun by jihadists, as the government does not have the stomach to engage in conflict with the Taliban, in its own country and faces a population becoming more fundamentalist, every minute. What's next - India? Where have I deviated from his comments other than to disagree with his diplomatic future for Afghani areas outside of direct jihadist control in Afghanistan. Kissinger was always the statesman and was instrumental in 'solving' many world conflicts in the 1970's. A diplomatic solution is impossible in Afghanistan, as it was in Vietnam and will inevitably never be in Iraq. No country likes to be overrun by foreigners. Look to the history of your own country. Your forefathers ousted a British colonial conqueror. It is OK for you to want to live under your own flag, why cannot other countries have the same right, irrespective of their nationality or creed? Many non-Sunnis have commented, post 2003 invasion, that life was better and safer under the Saddam regime.
I am awaiting your synopsis of the situation. I cull my information from as many sources as possible, not just from what my local newspaper has to say on a topic.Ralph Berg said:Ralph, would you call the exodus that was the 1975 retreat from Saigon, a success or one of Kissinger's brilliant acts of diplomacy. You talk of Nixon's successful foreign policy and yet it was an Australian Labor prime minister who had the courage to go to Beijing to 'break the ice' in the early 1970's. Exactly what did Nixon achieve in foreign relations?
The Nixon administration was one of our most successful administrations in dealing with foreign policy, despite the complete failure of domestic policy at the time. Henry Kissenger was a major force behind that success. His thoughts are very relevant and it would be foolish to dismiss them off hand without consideration. I seriously doubt Tim bothered to read it before throwing in his "expert" opinion. Ralph
Tim Brien said:
Ralph, for your information, yes, I did read Kissinger's comments prior to posting my 'expert' response to his comments. After your comment, I actually reread his comments to make sure that what I said was a response to his comments. In your expert opinion where have I deviated from his comments in my 'expert' opinion? So I have now read his report twice.His comments are no different to others' points of view in the conflict. None other than Muslims will ever 'control' Afghanistan. It will never be a western enclave as never will be Iraq or Pakistan. Pakistan is the next country to be overrun by jihadists, as the government does not have the stomach to engage in conflict with the Taliban, in its own country and faces a population becoming more fundamentalist, every minute. What's next - India? Where have I deviated from his comments other than to disagree with his diplomatic future for Afghani areas outside of direct jihadist control in Afghanistan. Kissinger was always the statesman and was instrumental in 'solving' many world conflicts in the 1970's. A diplomatic solution is impossible in Afghanistan, as it was in Vietnam and will inevitably never be in Iraq. No country likes to be overrun by foreigners. Look to the history of your own country. Your forefathers ousted a British colonial conqueror. It is OK for you to want to live under your own flag, why cannot other countries have the same right, irrespective of their nationality or creed? Many non-Sunnis have commented, post 2003 invasion, that life was better and safer under the Saddam regime. I am awaiting your synopsis of the situation. I cull my information from as many sources as possible, not just from what my local newspaper has to say on a topic.</blockquote>I am no expert on Afghanistan or foreign policy.
Others seem to think they are.
I thought Kissenger’s comments were interesting.
Where did I say Afghanistan should be controlled my someone other than Muslims?
Or that we should be sending our soldiers to overrun anyone?
Fighting your usual generic battle without paying any attention to what I said.
Ralph