Juan Cole makes the case against further military involvement in Afghanistan. As far as I can tell, nobody knows more about the ethnic, political and sectarian divides in Central Asia and the Mideast than he does. I still question the analogy with Vietnam. It seems to me that the Taliban do not have the same kind of sophistication, nor the same kind of unitary grip on the Pashtun population that the Communist Party did with respect to the North Vietnamese.
Granted Afghanistan's government is weak, corrupt & oppressive, & there is general hostility toward Western involvement, it seems unthinkable that a Taliban-style state should be allowed to re-emerge in Afghanistan. I hope the Obama Administration can come up with a hearts-and-mind strategy that works in tandem with the military side. If not, maybe the West should cut its losses & get out. But the human cost of that also seems unacceptable. My reactionary friend (he knows who he is) thinks that Pakistan is key to what happens in Afghanistan. The West should do whatever it can to help Pakistan consolidate itself as a modern, secular nation-state & that will go far toward depriving the Taliban forces of external support. I agree & think that should be part of whatever hearts-and-minds stuff the Obama Administration can come up with.
Afghanistan has even less chance than Iraq of becoming like Sweden any time in the near future. Perhaps the most we can hope for is an Iran-style pseudo-democracic oligarchic state, autocratic in character, tempered somewhat by corruption and inefficiency, but possessing vestiges of a secular rule of law.
But I have to think about a couple of Juan Cole's observations before I try and rebut them. Not sure I can.
Blog: Informed Comment
Post: Is Afghanistan Vietnam or Iraq? Arguing with Obama and Rubin
Link: http://www.juancole.com/2009/09/is-afghanistan-vietnam-or-iraq-arguing.html
--
Powered by Blogger
http://www.blogger.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment