As the first few days of 2012 slide by, there is very little indication that the new year will bring much relief from the political tensions and turmoils that embroil humanity from one side of the globe to the other.   The simmering tensions between the religious sects in Iraq continue to  heat up, the war between the Taliban and the government forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan continue to be  more explosive and destructive than ever, the much sought-after political reforms in Egypt, Libya and Bahrain continue to be elusive, and the Palestinians and Israelis continue to be hell-bent on following a path toward  another war.  Although 2012 will definitely be a year of simmering tensions across the Middle East and North Africa, the most dangerous potential conflict for the new year will most likely be between the United States and Iran.  In fact, things have already started out badly with Iran’s threat to block the shipping lanes in the Straights of Hormuz.

Over the last few years, the international community under the leadership of the United States, has imposed increasingly harsh sanctions against Iran, which have taken a significant toll on Iran’s ability to grow its economy and provide a higher standard of living to its citizens.  Although the sanctions are intended to motivate the Iranian government to halt the development of nuclear weapons, they have done little to slow Iran’s nuclear development efforts, and have  greatly increased the level of hatred among the Iranian people toward the United States.  There is little doubt that the imposition of even harsher sanctions against Iran will eventually cause them to push back with provocative actions such as closing the Straights of Hormuz, or even attacking Israel.  Once the “bullets begin to fly”, there will be no chance of turning back. The United States will once again be involved in a dangerous and bloody foreign war.

At the current time, President Obama has chosen to focus U.S. efforts on finding a diplomatic solution to the “Iranian Problem,” and he has combined diplomatic efforts with economic sanctions.  The United States’ policy has been to work with the U.N. and the community of nations to convince Iran that the development and deployment of nuclear weapons is not in its best interests, and certainly not in the best interests of the rest of the world.  This seems to be the right approach.  If, in fact, the Iranians should take a unilateral military action by closing off the Straights of Hormuz, then the U.S. should become part of a coalition of world powers to force Iran to back down.  Under no circumstances should the United States engage in direct, unilateral military action against the Iranian Naval forces.  Since the  blocking of the Straights of Hormuz would adversely affect powerful countries throughout the world, and since such a blockade would shut down the economic engine of many of Iran’s Arab neighbors, there is no reason why the United States should be the only country actively engaging in hostilities.  Similar to the coalition that helped to liberate Libya from the iron-fisted rule of Gaddafi,  let a similar coalition rid the Middle East of Iranian military aggression.

The public positions taken by the six remaining, Republican presidential candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) regarding relations with Iran  call for aggressive and unilateral military actions on the part of the U.S. military.  This would undoubtedly result in another long and bloody conflict.  A conflict that America can ill afford.

Rich

Image via Wikipedia

On Friday, October 7, the United States reached  grim milestone. This date marked the ten year anniversary of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.  During this period of time over 1,700 American service men and women have been killed,  thousands more have been wounded and maimed, and the cost to the taxpayers has exceeded one trillion dollars.  In addition to American losses, tens of thousands of Afghan men, women and children have met their demise.  U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan has now exceeded the ten year involvement in the War in Viet Nam, and it’s not over yet.  At best, the Obama Administration has indicated  the  military will be in Afghanistan for at least another three years, or three hundred billion dollars worth.  From just about any possible viewpoint, the conflict has been a huge waste of American lives and money, has done nothing to reduce the power and influence of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and has further destabilized a  very volatile region of the world.

There are many lessons that can be learned from America’s ill-conceived involvement in Afghanistan.  The first, and most important lesson is to allow regional powers to resolve problems within their own regions. Although terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda and the Taliban, can cause damage and destruction throughout the world, it is impossible to  fight against them with boots on the ground in their own home territories.  It is inevitable that local warlords or tribal elders will  view the American military as foreign invaders.  In some cases, such as the ISI in Pakistan, terrorist organizations will be actively supported by local governments.  The key to avoiding long and costly military engagements is to stay out of regions where we have no strategic interest and to avoid conflicts in areas where we don’t belong.

The second lesson to be learned from the protracted war in Afghanistan is to have a well-defined exit strategy before embarking on a military campaign.  If the power and might of the U.S. military forces cannot be used to bring a quick end to the conflict, then the military should not be used. We should have learned this lesson from the Viet Nam War, but sadly we did not.  The American government knew early on that a disastrous end to the Viet Nam War was inevitable, yet the conflict went on for many more years than it should have.  The same is true for the conflict in Afghanistan.

Once American military forces leave Afghanistan, there is little doubt that Iran will slowly but surely bring them under its powerful sphere of influence.  The presence of the Taliban and of al Qaeda will matter very little to the Iranian government, since their objective will not be “the spread of democracy”, but exploitation and domination.  Such is the fate of Afghanistan, and there’s nothing much  the U.S. can  do to change this inevitability from happening.

Rich

Image via Wikipedia

After almost ten years of  U.S.  involvement in Afghanistan,  the American people have almost nothing to show for their spent treasure,  spilled blood, and thousands of disabled sons and daughters.  Not only is the war against  the Taliban insurgents going badly, but the entire Afghan economy has become totally dependent on the billions of dollars of military spending, combined with billions more in civilian economic assistance.   In fact, The World Bank has estimated that 97 percent of Afghanistan’s anemic economic output is from spending related to the international military and civilian presence.  If that’s not the very definition of co-dependency, then I don’t know what is.

Over two years ago the Obama Administration conducted a review of the multi-billion dollar aid program to Afghanistan,  and concluded it was a “heartbreaking” failure.   Although the Administration promised to make significant changes in the way it doled out American taxpayer’s money to corrupt Afghani government officials, it actually poured even larger sums of money into projects that will be  impossible for the Afghani people to maintain over the long term.   Things are so bad that the bipartisan Congressional Commission on Wartime Contracting in Afghanistan said in a report this month that “overly ambitious proposals, incomplete analysis, poor planning, weak coordination and inadequate follow-through by federal officials” risked wasting billions more.  The sad fact is that Afghanistan’s mostly uneducated and poverty-stricken  population is scattered across a lawless, tribal landscape, and have no way to benefit directly from American aid.   The Obama Administration soon learned that the only way to maintain “friendly” relations with the corrupt Afghanistan government (i.e. Hamid Karzai) was to pump billions of dollars into the pockets of officials, and hope that some small amounts would actually provide grass root improvements for the people.   In essence, American economic aid to Afghanistan is nothing more than bribery money paid for the “privilege” of using the country as a battleground to fight the specter of “global terrorism.

By almost any measuring stick the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has been a costly failure for everyone other than the corrupt politicians surrounding Hamid Karzai in his  fortress city of Kabul.  To make matters even worse, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry concluded that the Afghanistan economy is so dependent on military-related spending that it will almost certainly fall into a deep economic depression when U.S. forces leave in 2014.  I suppose that Senator Kerry is referring to the elite few in the Karzai government, since most of the population of Afghanistan have been in a deep depression for the last 500 years.  This is not likely to change any time soon.

As the American Congress struggles to find ways to save the country from financial collapse due to decades of irresponsible deficit spending, it is inconceivable that billions of American tax dollars continue to flow into Afghanistan.   It is equally inconceivable that Congressional Republicans are more willing to cut off the flow of Medicare dollars to American senior citizens, rather than cut off the flow of foreign aid dollars to the government of Hamid Karzai.   Over the the next seventeen months, leading up to the 2012 elections, the American people will spend a lot of time trying to get their priorities straightened out.  Let’s hope that continued involvement in Afghanistan isn’t one of them.

Rich

Once again, the weird and wacky world of  Afghanistan politics has taken center stage.  The issue this time, like many other times in the past, is Afghanistan’s bumper crop of illegal heroin.  As the world’s leading supplier of heroin for decades, if not centuries, the population of this impoverished and war-torn nation know full well the importance of their country’s only, real cash crop.  The fact that illegal Afghanistan heroin has made its way into every major crime syndicate in the world, and the fact that this highly dangerous and addictive drug has ruined millions of lives across the globe seems to be of little concern to the government of Hamid Karzai and the al-Qaeda-supported war-lords that control most of the country.  The highly lucrative heroin business has always been a major source of profit for corrupt government officials (Karsai included), and an important source of funding for both al-Qaeda and the Taliban.  This is unlikely to change any time soon.

Although the heroin business has been good for the corruption-ridden government of Afghanistan, it hasn’t been so good for neighboring Russia, nor for the countries of Western Europe and North America, whose drug addicted populations have pumped billions of dollars into the country year after year.   Being between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”, the Karsai government has paid lip service to the “problem” of Afghanistan’s  heroin exports by supporting a limited crop eradication program, but has at the same time has protested loudly when concrete actions have been taken.   President Karsai knows full well that heroin revenues are supplying weapons to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but he also understands that all Afghanis (including himself) have a “right” to a share of the profits.  A share of the heroin revenues seems to be looked upon as a birthright for most Afghani citizens, and an outright  necessity for government bureaucrats.

The Karsai government’s cozy relationship with the drug producers, and its very lucrative share of the action, was dealt a blow last week when a joint U.S. – Russian raid was carried out against major drug labs in Eastern Afghanistan.  The highly unusual cooperation between U.S. and Russian drug agencies succeeded in seizing over 932 kilograms of heroin from four labs in Nangarhar Province.  Russia has long complained that NATO forces were not doing enough to battle the heroin traffic that flows directly across its borders through the former Soviet republics in Central Asia.

Although the Afghan Interior Ministry was involved in the raid, and although the Afghan security forces were in the thick of things, President Karsai went into a rage when he found out the raids had occurred.  The illustrious President was quoted as saying, “The Afghan government condemns this NATO action and declares that such arbitrary action is a blatant violation of Afghanistan’s sovereignty. . .”   In other words, keep your hands off our opium crops, but don’t stop sending your soldiers here to die for our right to keep your populations addicted. For this, and many other reasons, the U.S. foray into Afghanistan has lasted long enough.  Eventually the Karsai government will fall and the Taliban will most likely regain power.  Thereafter, the Afghanis will continue doing what they do best; produce heroin for the wretched millions who are looking for a fix.

Rich

The words to an old 1960′s song goes something like this;  “One, two, three, four, what are we fighting for?  Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn, next stop is  (Afghanistan).”  Well, actually the words to song said “Viet Nam”,  but the sentiment still applies.   The United States is  building up military forces and equipment in Afghanistan at a feverish pitch, even while  relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai continue to rapidly worsen.   Apparently, Mr. Karzai felt that President Obama’s  recent trip to Kabul for meetings was an effort to manipulate him, and to scold him as an ineffectual leader.  The hot-headed and somewhat erratic Karzai decided to show his defiance by making two anti-American speeches over the course of three days.   In his remarks to parliament on Saturday, Mr. Karzai said that  if  foreign interference  in his government continues (i.e. the United States), the Taliban would become a legitimate resistance; one that he might even join.  He went on to publicly rebuke the U.S. government by saying ” Our most important ally is constantly criticizing us: you are corrupt.  You need to do this and that.  You cannot talk down to the Afghans like they are children or they don’t understand”.  Karzai’s recent remarks have send further shock waves through the State Department, where mistrust for the Afghan leader is already at a high level due to the wildly corrupt election that propelled him to a second term as president.

It would seem that the American government’s Afghanistan  policy  is being put between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”.   Mr. Karzai, who owes his position and probably his very existence, to the overthrow of the Taliban government in a 2001 invasion, has become emboldened by the corrupt election that kept him in power.  Under the protection of the U.S.  military in Afghanistan , Mr. Karzai has been able to hold secretive meetings with the Iranians, the Pakistanis, and the Taliban itself.  While American soldiers die on the battlefields of Southern Afghanistan, Mr. Karzai has been negotiating a separate deal with the Taliban that would allow for a cozy power-sharing arrangement.  In his own words, Mr. Karzai suggested the Taliban was  a “legitimate” resistance movement, which had the equally “legitimate” goal of getting rid of all foreign interference, including the United States of America.

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was a bad idea to begin with, and has now lasted almost ten years with no determinable results.  There is no legitimate government, and no credible election process.  The country’s administration is totally corrupt at all levels, the Afghan army controls no territory outside of Kabul, and the Taliban is stronger than ever.  The only chance that the U.S. government has for an “honorable” withdrawal of forces would be to actively support a power-sharing arrangement between the Karzai Administration and the Taliban.  Although this would amount to a “defeat” for American policy in the region, at least it would stop the senseless loss of American lives and the expenditure of $100 billion every year in taxpayer money.  If something is not done very soon to stop the escalation in U.S. troop levels, and to begin a complete withdrawal, America may find itself fighting against a formidable coalition of  Karzai supporters and  the Taliban, all armed to the teeth with Iranian-made weapons.

Rich

If you have not already done so, please subscribe and use the RSS button. We welcome your thoughts and opinions, here and on Twitter.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Karzai: ‘I swear that I am going to join the Taliban’ (americablog.com)
• Karzai Slams the West Again (online.wsj.com)
• If I Can’t Control The Election Watchdog, I’ll Join The Taliban (attackerman.firedoglake.com)

At the same time that  U.S. troops in Afghanistan are putting their lives on the line  fighting Taliban and al Qaida insurgents, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Kabul.  As could be expected, Ahmadinejad has taken this opportunity to sharply criticize the U.S. for its military presence in Afghanistan, and to emphasize that Americans will never be able to bring peace to Afghanistan through military means.  The Iranian President further stated that the presence of  U.S. troops in Afghanistan is only escalating tensions and creating a higher level of instability.  In response to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks,  Secretary of  Defense, Robert Gates, accused the Iranian leader of playing a “double game”  in Afghanistan by professing support for the Afghan government while undermining U.S.-led efforts to improve the government and stabilize the country.  As accusations fly back and forth between Washington and Tehran, the real truth of the matter is that Hamid Karzai is the one playing the “double game”.

The Karzai government has received billions of dollars of  foreign assistance by playing off  Iran against the United States, and all the while enjoying protection from his enemies by the U.S. military.  Out of one side of his mouth, Karzai thanked Ahmadinejad for his long-time assistance, and called the Islamic state a “real friend”.  Out of the other side of his mouth he thanked Secretary Gates for American help in fighting off insurgents, and called America a friend of Afghanistan.  Even as U.S. troops are engaging in deadly battles in the southern provinces, Mr. Karzai is discussing with Ahmadinejad the possibility of building a railroad linking Iran and Tajikistan through Afghanistan.

It should come as no surprise that the Afghan government is interested in building a stronger alliance with their Muslim brothers in Iran.  Not only do both countries share a thousand mile border, but Iran, being the dominant power in the region, is clearly in a position to influence internal policy in Afghanistan when the time is right.  At the present time, Tehran  is content to let American blood be spilled battling the insurgents, knowing full well that when the battle is over, and American troops leave the region,  the Afghans will elect a pro-Iranian government.   For the Iranians, what cannot be reasonably obtained on the battlefield will be eventually be  obtained through the ballot box.

-Rich

In his speech to the West Point cadets, President Obama stated that he sees Pakistan as inextricably linked to Afghanistan. In fact, the President’s chief military and diplomatic advisers have said that the new strategy to win the war in Afghanistan will require a “strategic relationship” with Pakistan in order to have any chance of success. What a “strategic relationship” means is that Pakistan will do everything it can to drive Al Qaeda and the Taliban from their safe havens in the mountainous border regions, and that the government would crack down on the terrorist networks hiding within its borders. U.S military experts realize that if Pakistan were to return to the old habits of supporting the Afghan Taliban, the war will be almost impossible to win.

Unfortunately, the Pakistanis do not want a strategic relationship with the U.S. government. What they do want to do is to play both sides against each other for their own benefit. Most Pakistanis are convinced that the U.S. government is trying to bully the government into accepting an all-out war against their Islamic brothers in Afghanistan, and also trying to take control of their nuclear weapons. Although the U.S. is willing to provide them with billions of dollars in financial aid, the Pakistani people do not believe for a moment that the U.S. is interested in a long-term partnership with them. To the contrary, the Pakistani people see the U.S. government as far more closely aligned with their arch-enemy, India. Because of these deep-seated suspicions, the Pakistani government has not yet endorsed President Obama’s plan, nor have they endorsed an increase in U.S. troop strength within the region.

It is highly doubtful that the Pakistani government will ever co-operate fully with the U.S. strategy regarding Afghanistan, and highly likely that any increase in U.S. military forces will only drive Al Qaeda and the Taliban further within Pakistan’s borders. Likewise, a domestic crackdown on these terrorist groups would most likely result in further instability of the fragile Zardari government, possibly ending up with a military coup-de-etat. In essence, the Obama plan relies heavily on an predominantly Muslim country that has proven time and time again to be highly unreliable.

The risks of going ahead with the Obama plan for Afghanistan go well beyond the potential loss of American lives on the battlefield. In fact, the greatest risk is that Pakistan will be forced to move further and further into making political concessions to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as these groups stream into the country and intensify terrorist activities. The greatest unknown consequence of all is that the government of Pakistan could come under Taliban control; nuclear weapons and all. For these reasons alone, the most prudent U.S. policy for Afghanistan would be to leave the country all together. Even if Afghanistan once again falls to the Taliban, at least they will only gain control of lots and lots of opium, and not control of nuclear weapons.

—Rich

Once again, a line seems to be drawn in the sand between Congressional Democrats and Republicans.  This time the issue is what to do about U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, and when to do it.  Things were certainly not made any better by former Vice-President Cheney’s accusation that Obama was “dithering” in making a decision.  To their credit, Republican leaders Orrin Hatch and John McCain were quick to distance themselves from Cheney’s remarks.  Most foreign policy experts within the Obama Administration and outside of government generally agree that the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan has escalated considerably in terms of size and complexity.  The changing situation in Afghanistan, combined with the role being played by the Pakistani government have left the Obama Administration with few good options.

One of the central issues to be considered is the future of the corrupt and generally despised government of Hamid Karsai.  Recent elections showing Karsai being re-elected by wide margins have been proven to be fraudulent, therefore the Karsai Administration is not regarded as legitimate by the majority of Afghanis.  Rather than helping to promote democratic principles, the election has only strengthened the position of the Taliban.  A significant increase in U.S. troop levels in support of Karsai’s regime could have the undesired effect of boosting the strength and resolve of the Taliban even more.  Once the U.S. forces are widely perceived as foreign invaders, all of the Afghanistan tribes and factions will turn against them.  When that happens, no amount of U.S. troops will be successful in overcoming the Taliban.

I agree with General McChrystal that the troop levels in Afghanistan are too small to get the job done, if the job is defined as imposing the will of the Karsai government and the U.S. government on the majority. However, an addition of forty thousand soldiers, or even a hundred thousand soldiers will not change the situation over the long run so long as Afghanistan lacks a legitimate government.  The Obama Administration is right in being cautious under the present circumstances.

—Rich

This week President Obama will sign a $7.5 billion aid bill for Pakistan, to be disbursed in $1.5 billion increments over a five year time frame.   On the surface the bill is intended to be used for the construction of new schools, hospitals and other infra-structure development projects; however, beneath the surface the bill would require Pakistan to take military action against the Taliban, work against nuclear proliferation, and “cease” all support of terrorist groups.  In addition, the continuation of military aid will require that the Pakistanis dismantle terrorist bases of operation.  Clearly, the White House has required a “quid pro quo” for the privilege of receiving U.S. taxpayer’s money, and it is equally clear that  Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is desperate to show his countrymen that he is capable of bringing in large amounts of foreign aid.

Unfortunately, the $7.5 billion aid bill has only acted to infuriate the military leaders in Pakistan, energize Zardari’s political opposition and cause a wave of anti-American sentiment within the population at large.  The military, in particular, are incensed that the bill would require the U.S. Secretary of State to present a “monitoring report” to Congress twice a year.  Among other things, the report would measure the progress that Pakistan has made in improving civilian control over the military, including the appointment of senior officers.  These provisions in the bill are widely viewed as an intolerable infringement upon Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Since President Zardari’s “triumph” in extracting such a large sum of money from the U.S. government was rapidly turning into a political fiasco, he was obliged to send his foreign minister, Mehmood Qureshi, to Washington to meet with U.S. lawmakers.  Contrary to the wording of the aid bill, Senator Kerry,Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committe, insisted that the legislation had no intention to compromise Pakistan’s sovereignty, nor does it seek to micro-manage any aspect of Pakistan’s military or civilian operations.  Having received the proper assurances, and made the appropriate protests, Foreign Minister Qureshi returned to Pakistan.

In the short run the clear winners in the “Pakistani Aid Bill” flap are President Obama, who got major concessions and promises of cooperation from the Pakistani Government, and President Zardari, who got bragging rights to a number of new schools and hospitals in Pakistan.  The clear loser is the once-powerful Pakistani military, which has been forced to agree to some measure of accountability to the civilian authorities.  If the deal holds together, both the interests of the United States and of Pakistan will also be well served over the long run.   The danger is that the U.S. aid bill, although accepted by the civilian government in Pakistan, will result in a military coup.  If that happens, all bets are off for any further Pakistani assistance in the U.S. war against terror.

—Rich

Hold on to you hats, folks;  the U.S. government is making another shift in its Afghanistan policy.  This time the policy shift involves Afghanistan’s lucrative drug trade.  Although a relatively small country, Afghanistan accounts for 93% of the world’s heroin-producing crop, much of which is centered in the southern provinces where the Taliban is strongest.  Since the illegal opium trade has long since been a major source of funds for the Taliban, the U.S. and the U.N. drug enforcement authorities have concentrated efforts on the eradication of poppy fields.  Unfortunately, eradication efforts have cost hundreds of million of dollars, have driven many small farmers into the ranks of the Taliban, and have been completely ineffective in reducing the amount of  heroin exported to Europe, and beyond.

The new U.S. government policy will take the same hundreds of millions of dollars previously wasted on eradication efforts, and spend it on “encouraging” small farmers to grow alternative crops.  The idea is that “sustainable” food crops will provide a better living for farmers, create jobs, promote stability and reduce funding sources for the Taliban.  The new policy also calls for a cooperative effort between the U.S. , Pakistan and Iran (don’t make me laugh) to crack down on drug trafficking across Afghanistan’s borders.

Neither the old policy of opium-crop eradication nor the new policy of paying off the opium farmers to grow other crops is likely to work in Afghanistan.  The net result will almost certainly be a continued waste of $100 million (or more) in U.S. taxpayer’s money.  Growing opium producing crops in Afghanistan is as old as Ghengis Kahn, and is certainly not going to change due to the presence of a few thousand U.S. Marines and however many other international drug enforcement personnel.  In fact, the most likely scenario is that small opium farmers will happily take the government’s money, agree to grow corn, and grow opium-producing crops anyway.  The flow of drug money to the Taliban will continue unimpeded, and the farmers will laugh all the way to the bank (if they have banks in provincial Afghanistan).  In short, the new U.S. government drug policy for Afghanistan is a bad one, and should be abandoned immediately.  Maybe we should consider sending the $100 million to California?  Now there is a place that could really use it!

As expected, the ill-conceived capitulation of the Pakistani government to  Taliban militants into the northwestern Swat Region has failed to bring about peace and security to the Pakistani people.  The hope of the Zardari government was that the agreement with the Taliban to allow strict Islamic law in Swat and the surrounding areas would end their violent campaign to spread Islamic fundamentalism throughout the rest of the country.   No sooner had the ink dried on the agreement than the Taliban refused to disarm, and continued their terror campaign in areas beyond the Swat Valley. 

In reaction to the Taliban’s refusal to abide by the terms of the agreement, the Pakistani government send troops and helicopter gunships into Lower Dir, a southern area of the Swat Valley, and engaged the Taliban in bloody gun battles.  Predictably, a spokesman for the Taliban has declared the two week old “truce” with the government to be worthless.  To make matters worse, the Taliban have made it known that Osama Bin Laden is welcome to take sanctuary in Swat.  The same spokesman also blamed the Zardari government for capitulating to pressure from the Americans.

The military operation against Taliban terrorists by government troops gives a glimmer of hope that the Zardari government has finally developed a little “backbone”.  Needless-to-say, Zardari is looking to the U.S. for massive economic and military assistance.  At least at this point, the Zardari government has not requested direct American military involvement.  It is, therefore, absolutely critical that the Obama Administration make it clearly known to the Pakistani government that  American “boots on the ground” is not an option.  The ever-growing confrontation with Islamic fundamentalist forces, backed by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban must be handled on a regional basis.  It is time for the U.S. military forces to step back and let the regional powers, such as India and Iran decide what’s in their best interests.

Over the last several months, both the Obama and the McCain campaigns have taken the position that more NATO (i.e. American) troops are needed to fight the increasingly bloody Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.  Although each Presidential candidate presented a completely different view on how the situation in Afghanistan became so hopelessly entangled, both candidates agreed that more military intervention is urgently needed.  It is totally incredulous that neither candidate is willing to publicly admit the stark truth; that no amount of U.S. led intervention in Afghanistan is going to change the landscape for very long.  The British tried it in 1919 and the Soviet Union tried it in 1989.  Both of these mighty world powers were eventually sent packing, after finally realizing that Afghanistan was unconquerable and ungovernable over the long run.

Yesterday, the top NATO general in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, admitted that after seven years, since the U.S invasion, insurgents hold more power and more Afghani territory than the U.S. backed government of Hamid Karzai.  Outside of the capital city of Kabul there is virtually no security for Afghani citizens, there has been absolutely no socio-economic progress made in seven years, insurgents hold positions of power in most of the tribal areas outside of Kabul, and the government is completely helpless in stemming the growth in Afghanistan’s number one export; heroin.  In fact, after carefully studying the situation, the U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that NATO troops are rapidly losing  any advantage they may have had at one time, and that the Taliban have become much stronger.  In addition, the Karzai government is generally blamed by the enraged local populations for the loss of innocent lives, resulting from NATO bombing attacks.

After a disastrous six years of war in Iraq, and after seven years of treading water in Afghanistan, it is time for the (soon to be) new American Administration to pack up the troops and leave both of these countries.  The only alternative would be for America to commit two hundred thousand troops to Afghanistan, in addition to the 150,000 troops already stationed in Iraq.  Even if the U.S. commits to these troop levels, it is unlikely that hostilities will ever cease without a political solution.  Sooner or later the Americans will be driven out of both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Let’s hope that the next administration in America makes to choice to get out, and to end the blood-bath once and for all.