[quote]
Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Jul 29 2004, 05:09 PM
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cowperson,Jul 29 2004, 04:53 PM
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cowperson,Jul 29 2004, 02:41 PM
I said they were controlling Afghanistan from two isolated bases with about 9,000 guys, which still appears to be the case.
|
How exactly are they "controlling" Afghanistan? The link you provided and the description in the title (about to implode) suggest something very different. The place seems to be, in fact, out of control, and possibly about to get worse.
|
For their geopolitical purposes, they seem to be controlling the place.
They've effectively installed a favourable government, surrounded him and the capital with NATO troops under a UN mandate and filled the power vacuum in the remaining areas of the country by essentially leaving the private warlords to their bases of support in exchange for access in fighting al-Queda.
In other words, they're getting what they want out of it even if it is a holding pattern.
To me it looks like something of a status quo situation rather than an attempt to truly energize the country.
Will that strategy eventually accomplish the "generational goals?" Probably not. Eventually the government has to be empowered and eventually the warlords have to be expunged.
Only Afghans can actually do that. Frankly, throwing the 150,000 troops in Iraq into Afghanistan just creates more targets - as you can see in Iraq.
Eventually, in both places, it has to be the locals. They are the ones who will eventually decide the outcome. The Americans in their isolated bases can provide some periodic muscle.
Having said that, Iraq has certainly diverted attention and resources away from empowering the Afghan government and that endangers the effort there.
That's my read today.
Cowperson