Disputed Afghan Presidential election means that country could blow up too!
With Iraq and Syria in flames, and now the latest hot war between Israel and Hamas, it seemed Afghanistan, at least, had calmed down, at least in relative terms.
Until now. The disputed Afghan Presidential run-off election all but guarantees a weakened Afghan president stripped of legitimacy - or, worst case - another civil war, this time, Tajik vs. Pashtun.
(I'm just waiting for John McCain, et al., to call on President Obama to call off the U.S. withdrawal, in fact, to escalate...)
You may be tired of Afghanistan (been there, done that!), but read the following analysis carefully.
Paradox: If the candidate now declared the victor prevails, he's likely to accomodate the Taliban. If civil war ensues, the Taliban could emerge from the ashes.
I think I mentioned this before on this blog: Talking to a seasoned Afghan scholar just before the George W. Bush Administration intervened in Afghanistan, he predicted no matter the ferocity of U.S. military power, Afghans would ultimately settle things on their own terms because the United States is fickle and cannot commit for the long term. Americans want a quick fix. The McDonald's mentality.
I suggest we fall back on the philosophy put forth by Britain (who borrowed from the Romans) at the time Afghanistan was under British control... Which was, to understand it could never be won but that by keeping troops there, and constantly skirmishing with insurgents, it would keep anti-British forces tied up and out of the rest of Britain's Asian possessions where there would be real collateral damage to Britain's colonial interests...
If that was the rallying place where one could fight the British, it would become the mecca to where all troublemakers would flow .... which for the British, meant zero collateral damage.
The same could be accomplished by us with a small contingent of special ops (assassin squad) who would sort of keep law and order, (as did the Ninji's of feudal Japan)... by acting as a viable retaliatory threat, thereby tamping down hostile action..
The real benefit from our trillion dollar investment in Afghan's war, was that we pressured them so much that very little fighting was actually done on American soil... When one is always running, it is hard for one to work out all the meticulous details required, like for example: crashing planes into a city...
Wed, Jul 9, 2014 10:33am
Wow...two posts in one day where I agree with kavips!
The only modification I would make to your plan is replacing the Special Forces with armed drones in Afghanistan/Iraq...Ninja drones.
Wed, Jul 9, 2014 7:45pm
Better send Jack Bauer in there.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.