Why The US Will Fail In Afghanistan: TomDispatch

With Afghanistan, it always seems to be more and worse. More American (and NATO) troops "surging" in, more Taliban control in the countryside, more insurgent attacks, more sophisticated roadside bombs, more deadly suicide bombings, more dead American and NATO troops, more problems with U.S. supply lines into Afghanistan, more civilian deaths from American and NATO military operations, more U.S. bases being built, more billions of U.S. dollars needed for military operations -- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently indicated that the build-up of U.S. forces alone in that country in the next fiscal year could cost an extra $5.5 billion -- and, of course, yet more reports and studies indicating that everything yet tried to "stabilize" Afghanistan has gone desperately wrong.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[ruweusmaximus]

New poll up:

http://ruweusmaximus.blogspot.com/

[SILLYME]

I miss the Department of War and Office of Strategic Services. Bin Laden would have been dead already, the Marshall plan for Iraq and Afghanistan implemented and the troops standing down. Instead we have FUBAR.

[ruweusmaximus]

!!

[ObjectiveRealist]

Explains the real reason Bush ordered bin Laden be allowed to get away: they needed more time to siphon taxpayer money to corrupt "aid" contractors.

quote:
Think of Halliburton, Bechtel, and Blackwater in Iraq; Louis Berger Group, Bearing Point, and DynCorp International in Afghanistan. They're all in it together. So far, the Bush administration has bamboozled Americans about its shady aid program. Nobody talks about it. Yet the aid scam, which would be a scandal if it weren't so profitable for so many, explains far more than does troop strength about why, today, we are on the verge of watching the whole Afghan enterprise go belly up.
/quote

Great article. Make sure to follow the links for more information about the contractors.

[WorkingClass]

It should be "Why the U.S. Will CONTINUE to Fail in Afghanistan" Every day that the U.S. continues to occupy Afghanistan is another day of failure.

[Knowledgeseeker]

how much money can Americans afford to spend in Afghanistan, and for how long? is there any profits to be made?

[ObjectiveRealist]

Only for the Bush/Cheney war criminals and their corporate connections.

[TJCole]

The U.S. has already miserably failed in Afghanistan...!

First at Tora Bora and that complete betrayal, and then when we deserted it, for our criminal rampant corruption in Iraq..!

[KKojei]

The best thing Obama could do right now is begin to ask questions. Why are we there? I mean really, WHY ARE WE THERE? Pipeline? Oil? Of course! Next question: Define winning when all we do seems to make us look like the bad guys, which is what we are and stupid. Didn't Russia, fail miserably the same way? Why are we pursuing a course that led to miserable failure already? Can we afford it? And how do we extract ourselves from the conflict with face [honor] intact? Next, how do we take advantage of a new administration to change course? My suggestion? Get them all at the table. Begin processes that deal equitably about the oil and other resources, not just with Afghanstan but with all underdeveloped nations with resources we want, many of whom are destabilized by our covert operations to undermine legitimate governments and replace with folks like Mbotu was. The administration's policy should be clear. The American military will no longer serve the interests of corporate empire. With that resolution we withdraw our troops, bring them home and rebuild our country. Let nations sort out their own destinies if they insist on being nations. If they fail as nations then it is right they be absorbed by other nations. And when a group of people want to become a nation to themselves, let them do so in peace and with assistance from the international community. Nothing good is served by delusions of empire.

[QueenOfViolets]

By the way -- good book for perspective -- "The Tragedy of Afghanistan" by Pakistani journalist Raja Anwar. This book chronicles the attempts made by Afghan Communists to reform the economy and bring rights to women starting with their coup in 1973.

It goes into great detail exactly how and why these attempted reforms not only failed but provoked the civil war that triggered the Soviet intervention.

It's worth reading why the Afghan left failed at their reforms, because we're trying to accomplish some of the same goals, like getting girls into school and stopping the "honor killings" of women, for example.

This is the single most worthwhile book to read if you're interested in "reforming" Afghanistan.

[QueenOfViolets]

Soldiers don't need a cause -- they need a mission. And they need a mission that is possible to accomplish using military force.

It matters not one bit whether the public is "behind" the troops or not. If the troops have been sent there without a clearly definable mission that is clearly attainable using military force, then no amount of public support is going to help them "win."

Look at how many missions we've tacked onto "find Bin Laden" -- now we're supposed to conquer the Taliban, protect the left wing Afghans in the north from the religious extremists in the south, promote the economic development of the country, and win the War on Drugs.

Basically, our mission list now adds up to "conquer Afghanistan and make the people into different people with a different economy and different politics and a whole new set of values."

We are doing a grave disservice to our troops by saddling them with such ever-expanding and hard-to-define goals.

It's not fair to our soldiers to expect them to be social engineers.

[RockySoldier]

way to be positive america. glad you're behind us like you were in WWII. did it ever occur to anyone that the reason we're losing is that soldiers need to feel that they're fighting for a cause? that soldiers need to feel the country is behind them?

while everyone is out criticizing the job we do and talking about how we're 'going to lose', soldiers do our job every day. and that's why we're going to win in afghanistan- because the american military fights for a cause higher than ourselves. other armies fight for territory. all we see here on these boards is how america is 'imperialist', but that's the government and politicians. soldiers fight for ideals. we fight for liberty of man and the defense of the document that guarantees our own freedom: the constitution. that's why we're going to win.

[QueenOfViolets]

So what exactly is our mission in Afghanistan, in your opinion?

Are we just there to find Bin laden? Are we there to eliminate the Taliban? To stop the opium? To get all the girls in school? To get all the tribalists to believe in individual-based democracy?

It looks to me like the mission just keeps growing. That's not a good thing.

Mission creep is what's setting the troops up for failure. It's not the public. It's the ill-defined and always-expanding mission.

[SiberianRat]

The problem is that Bush and company launched the "War on Terror" which is essential a war on an idea. It cannot be won militarily. Moreover, this "war" is not a war for our freedom, as you indicate (although granted, Bush and his henchmen framed it as such). Many aspects of our freedom have been taken away as a result of the wars--freedom has not been enhanced. Rocky, I see your point, but you and others have been sent into unwinnable situations because one cannot fight a military war on an idea.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"we fight for liberty of man and the defense of the document that guarantees our own freedom: the constitution"

That's not what Iraq or Afghanistan is about. Get a grip.

[ObjectiveRealist]

You'd rather I lie, to help you *feel* like you're "fighting for a cause" even though I know you're just fighting for oil?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html
Sure, Condi, "nobody could have predicted" an Al Qaeda attack on US soild using hijacked airplanes. Except that everybody did.

Tell me, soldier, how does the outing of Valerie Plame make you feel? You believe the Bush administration gives a sh*t for you? The people are behind you. That's one reason why we protest the wasting of your deaths on Halliburton and Bush's Carlyle Group and Saudi connections.

[harriscrl3]

I really wish people would say what they think America should do in Afghanistan should we just leave and let Al Quaeda and the Taliban use it as their base from which to launch and plan attacks. I guess it depends on how you define failure and success but since we dont know how they will define it because I suspect that Obama will define it much differently than Bush its hard to see what is deemed successful.

Carol

[Dolmance]

To reach the casualties in Afghanistan that we experienced in WWII, we'd have to stay in country for more than 1200 years. Vietnam or Korea - about 300 years. To any soldier who's ever fought in a war, Afghanistan would be considered the ultimate milk run. To suggest otherwise is simply hysteria.

Some people aren't suited for conflict. The writer is one of these.