The Afpak muddle (part 2): How serious is the threat?

In addition to improved homeland security and more effective counter-terrorist efforts (e.g., cutting off financing, monitoring communications, sharing intelligence, etc.), the United States can launch preemptive attacks against suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan, using Predators, cruise missiles, or in some cases, Special Forces.

Keep in mind that actually getting that intelligence is very difficult if you don't have a ground presence in the area, since potential spies will think that you'll simply cut them loose in the near-future and abandon them to their enemies. You can get around that by getting information from the ISI, but, to be honest, the ISI is not the most reliable of sources. Even now, there are elements throughout it that are strongly Islamist and are continuing to maintain ties with the Taliban in the FATA for the day when the US leaves, so they can then use them to re-establish another friendly Islamist regime in Afghanistan.

If you really wanted to get out of Afghanistan, you'd basically have to make a decision to cut Afghanistan loose, let what would probably be an ISI-backed Taliban retake Afghanistan, then live with what is (and would be) a haven for training foreign fighters and terrorists. I'm not really sure that US leadership could really let that happen without massive political exhaustion at home in the US with the Afghan War, and we're not at that point yet.

As it is, I wish we could either do that, or do a full commitment to building the Afghani state. Half-assed measures don't cut it anymore; Rumsfeld tried that back in the first half of the decade by essentially letting the warlords get back into control of their respective areas, at the cost of public support and sympathy from the Afghans.

In short, my concern is that we are allowing an exaggerated fear of al Qaeda to distort our foreign policy priorities.

Professor, remember the US was there long before Al Qaeda, I don't think your leadership is telling the whole truth about the aim of the military existance there. I suspect the US is there for more serious National Interests than Al Qaeda or terrorist threats. I mean it is attractive to be there, even Alexander the Great came all the way from Macedonia to those lands;->> But. beware the Gog-Magog where they are stationary - a little bit noth-west Mate! Those Guys are not jokes;->

Maybe, the US is trying the reverse route, who know?
From AF-PAK to Mecedonia, tramping over Iran ending up in a marble/ebony sarcophagus in Istanbul;->>

Professor, it is time to play;->

River Road

Here I go, once again
With my suitcase in my hand
And I'm running away down River Road
And I swear, once again, that I'm never coming home
Yes I'm chasing my dreams down River Road
:

Why don't you invite RU to NATO to fight there on your side against the "common enemy" ?! The IL & Co. would give you real good advice on that and would even pave the ground for you with pleasure;->
What would you do without the IL;->>

Grand Sen~or.

It's worth remembering that Gavrilo Princip still holds the record for disproportionate destruction.

As to the "serious national interests"... governments and the people inside them often need reminding that even their 'great games' must be put in perspective -- there's much to be said for avoiding situations where the fate of nations is decided 'for want of a horseshoe nail.'

The crux of the thesis is that threat of terrorism has been exaggerated. USA has faced no major terror attack since 9/11 and that shows Al Qaeda is on a retreat and has splintered into numerous factions. So, USA does not need to commit resources in “Af-Pak “because the engagement would embroil it further in the conflict. Then, the policy of launching drone attacks is not effective: disenchants the local population, driving them further into the arms of militants. At the best, USA must try to keep nuclear weapons from falling in the hands of extremists. But I beg to disagree with some of the arguments.
Let’s first start with the invasion of Afghanistan and its aftermath. Osama bin Laden’s hideouts were attacked and his men along with Taliban leaders took refuge in Pakistan’s tribal regions. Then, President Bush had epiphany that Sadam Hussian had amassed nuclear weapons which needed to be destroyed .So, the half-finished war of Afghanistan was left to Mr. Karzai, President Musharaf and NATO forces: an indomitable troika indeed. What actually happened was not just the “transformation of Al Qaida “into splinter groups, but push of the militants into the heartland of Pakistan and their somewhat triumphant bid for territorial control of the country where they want to implement a radicalized and retrogressive version of Islam.
Let’s see how it happened. Mr. Karzai enjoyed the support of non-Pushtun groups like Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazarajat because of their antipathy for Taaliban. Thus, he was never trusted by the military government of Pakistan. Pakistan, having a sizable Pushtun population in its North West regions, favors a Pushtun dominated government in Afghanistan as it believes that such a government will be less hostile to its strategic interests. No doubt, Pakistan’s military government kept on supporting and maintaining links with Taaliban.
Then, Taaliban, Al Qaida as well as other militant groups found support not only from the military ( or intelligence agencies as it is generally said)but also from the provincial government of North West Frontier province. Mr. Mushraff held elections in 2002 and as both largest parties have been marginalized, a coalition of Islamist parties was voted into power. Interestingly, the heads of these parties had patronized, promoted and trained the Taaliban leaders in their various seminaries. They supported the march of fleeing Taliban into Pakistan. Not only those Afghan or Pakistan Taaliban decimated the tribal leadership in the Federally Administered tribal regions (FATA) of Pakistan, they also made territorial gains into the frontier province. So much so they gave rout to Pakistan military in the Malakand division. And all this was happening under the rule of Musharaf. While American believed that they were winning the war and so kept on giving billions of dollars for anti-terrorist operations to Pakistan, the militants were actually strengthening themselves in Pakistan. And mind you these are not just safe havens as is popularly written in the media. They are entrenched in the tribal regions and have been granted the right to rule Swat (a city in N.W.F.P) by a recent peace deal which implies that Taaliban style governance is a practical reality now.
So, after eight years of war, Taaliban are firmly based in Pakistan. What is the story of Afghanistan? Mr. Karzai headed one of the most corrupt and incompetent governments in Afghanistan’s history. Taaliban are entrenched in the southern provinces because they enjoy ethnic support in these areas. They are happily growing opium and exporting it all over the world to finance their wars. Many ministers of Mr. Karzai also don’t mind benefiting from this drug trade. And, most interestingly, he has signed the bill that puts serious limitations on the social and economic empowerment of Hazarajat women. So, the question arises: What has USA been doing?
Well, USA has come out with a new policy. It means USA is committed to harness militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I disagree with Prof. Walt that the US government can control militants while sitting in Washington. It is not just Al Qaida now. It is a much bigger problem. There is a real threat that large sections of Pakistan’s territory may be ruled over by Taaliban. After all, a few years ago Swat was a no-go for them, but now they have the right to implement Islamic shariah there. They have their own militias and run their own media stations. And, these militants will bludgeon their way through more violence. That raises the possibility of civil war in Pakistan. Further, these militants will inspire their likeminded brethren in other Muslim countries.
I believe that USA should remain committed in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the commitment should go beyond military operations. A government of political reconciliation should be instituted in Afghanistan: A government that reflects the ethnic map of Afghanistan and enjoys the support of regional power players. And Pakistan’s concerns about the eastern border must be addressed. A lot of Pakistan’s insecurities and molly-coddling of Taaliban stem from fear of war on the eastern border. A bit of social engineering will also help like investment in education sector and weaning children away from madrassahs. But I also believe that USA will try to control march of the militants through military operations and lead them right into Islamabad. And check map of Pakistan: Swat is not far from Islamabad.

I strongly disagree with your crude measurement of the threat of terorrism simply in terms of lives taken.

QUOTE
"In America, the danger of drowning in a bathtub is greater than the risk of dying in a terrorist attack."

That quirky little statistic may sound nice in a sound bite, but bathtub deaths can not begin to wreak the economic havoc induced by 9-11.

Yes, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are expensive, but please don't downplay the social, political, and especially economic costs of terrorists attacks. At least be honest in your cost-benefit analysis.

economic costs of terrorists attacks

Yes, you have to think seriously how come a couple of towers collapse cost to a Superpower so much?

How on earth a Superpower let herself to be so vulnerable?

The Monopoly?
Which reminds me my previous posting;->

"In 1960s when ARPA came to the conclusion that the US Military had to de-centralise its command structure (for security reasons) the Internet was borned. Similarly, when the State Monopoly will be dissolved and the SPE power will be obtained by SPEEs there will be an impressive landscape change (paradigm shift) in the SPE environment."

Grand Sen~or.

It's all about controlling the energy supplies and corridors in the region. Think the various pipeline projects that take oil/gas to various parts of the developed world. And also think how important it is who controls these routes. It has nothing to do with terrorism.

One cannot compute a realistic cost/benefit analysis on the wars in Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan without factoring in what could have possibly motivated al Qaeda to attack us, if indeed such a thing took place. Should we take a step back and see if we did anything to provoke such a reaction? Would it be more cost-effective to stop doing whatever it was that we might have done? A timeline that begins on 9-11-01 will not give us all the information we need to make an informed decision. How can you adjust the sails, Dr. Walt, if you don't know from which direction the wind is blowing?

Does it follow that the country we decided to retaliate against for 9-11 (and its neighbor) is the primary theater in which we should focus our efforts to prevent terrorism, or that counterinsurgency warfare is the way to pursue them? Are Taliban insurgents in fact the likeliest source of anti-Western terrorism? Are the al-Qaida in Afghanistan truly capable of international terrorism, or are they merely locally-oriented militants inspired by and allied to Osama bin Laden?

I actually think there is a compelling need to finish what we started in Afghanistan -- that it was clearly neglected in the previous administration in favor of Iraq, that we need to make a good-faith effort to address that, and that we show good faith by increasing our commitment of personnel (military and civilian) there. But I agree that the counter-terrorism focus is misleading. No, actually I hope that it is. i don't believe a counterterrorism strategy that focuses on Afghanistan and Pakistan exclusively or primarily nearly provides this country with the kind of comprehensive approachto the problem of international terrorism that it needs to keep us safe. As we know, 9-11 was planned largely in Hamburg, Germany. I want to pursue terrorists wherever they are (legally), using diplomatic, intelligence, law-enforcement, and when necessary military means. I also think we have responsibilities we should not immediately shirk in Afghanistan. I think there is some overlap, but I think these two pursuits are independently justified in terms of U.S. interest. I'd like my government to be open and honest about each of those justifications, because such transparency clarifies the debate about what means we think appropriate to deploy in pursuit of each end.

On the other hand, if it is the case that it would be more responsible vis-a-vis the Afghan people to reduce our troop presence in their country, then plainly we should not be escalating there, except to the extent that a broadly conceived, not-unduly-Af-Pak-centric U.S. counterterrorism strategy devised on the basis of the latest intelligence and current threat assessments (not eight-year-old assumptions) would independently call for it.

Barbarism needs to be contained and stopped. Not encouraged and appeased.

Your second argument Walt, with its own counterargument reveals the depth of Capitulation you advocate. We've seen what appeasing the Taleban does in Pakistan. It brings them closer to power. Islamabad has no other way from becoming a failed state than to appeal the only constructive element in the country - radicalism. That's why our commitment to Pakistan must be much greater than it is at present, and should touch first and foremost on the status of women.

Terrorism is a tactic that various groups have used throughout history, and it will remain with us for the foreseeable future.

Um - so you are a priory denying the utility of counter-terrorism activity, and basically nixing the successful stamping out of terrorism in several countries like France, or Russia, etc? You see no utility, whatsoever in minimizing terrorism?

Nor do you seem to care much about the actual utility of terrorism to exact a political price? Nor do you seem to know much about the cost it exacts on trade, on global interaction, and so forth.

It's basically an off-the wall ignorant statement.

***

Per your central argument, is Afghanistan worth it?

The notion that we are there to fight Al-Qaeda is for "public consumption". I have a hard time believing you could be so naive as to consume it.

The actual problem is radicalism, in an Islamic form, better known as Jihadism.

We are not in Afghanistan just to get Al-Qaeda. That may have been the pretext for going in. But we are there for solid strategic reasons.

Jihadism is is a genie that we have very much rubbed out of a bottle with our decades of Saudi friendly, anti Soviet policies. Abandon Afghanistan now, and you strengthen not Al-Qaeda per se, but you embolden international Jihadism. You will make America appear weak, and you will begin by ceding two countries, and losing a region, eventually losing the war.

Al-Qaeda is a tip of the iceberg. Its profound anti-Westernism and anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism which drive our enemies. And the longer you keep your head in the sand, the stronger they get. Your suggestions to leave Afghanistan entirely, are worst than Munich, because one aspect you blithely ignore, is the fate of women in these areas.

We have a duty, based on International Accords, as we did in Bosnia and Kosovo, and Iraq, to defend international human rights.

The way forward for Afghanistan, and all similar states - are women's rights.

Our country needs to be fully committed, in the long term, to the democratization of the Middle East. This means a full commitment to women's equality.

To listen to you speak, you'd throw these poor creatures down the river, if it meant getting ahead.

That said, what Obama needs to do, is lobby for more international attention to the issue, instead of bowing to the Saudi Al-Capone, and inviting the anti-Western head of the OIC to the White House!

We need everyone on board on this. Every member state of the UN has an obligation to the multilateral treaties it has signed. Granted the GCC as a whole has refused to sign most conventions touching on human rights issues, or has so many notes and comments at the bottom of the treaties, as to make their signature legally null and void.

If The Israel Lobby only could, they would have the fighting going on in Vanuatu or Guam. Just about anywhere as far away from Israel as possible. Now as it happens, Afghanistan is a lawless territory, and many Arabs are drawn to the conflict, determined to avenge Israels crimes towards the Palestinians, on Israels only ally on the surface of the Earth. So Afghanistan are where the fighting are going to be, that The Israel Lobby have decided, and to that we must all obey.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
And honest Americans and Europeans will have to die fighting staunch nationalists who just want - Afghanistan for themselves. And Jews from Manhattan will grin. Why on Earth do America have a terrorism-problem?
*
*
*
*
*
*
No the only way to deal with the problem of terrrorism-creation, is to shut Israel down for good. It should never have been created, and all the many crimes this country have carried out, in itself warrant a moral justification for shutting it down. What is more, it calls itself a democracy. That means that it's people have co-responsibility for Israels actions (witness that 85 % of them supported the War in Gaza). Therefore if some Israelis get hurt emotionally when Israel is transferred to Arab Majority Rule, and they will have to evacuate to The United States, this should be viewed in context with their co-responsibility for Israel's crimes towards the Palestinians. And collective punishment - allthough abhorrent and discarded in the West - is something they themselves have pioneered in The Holy Land, and something that the inhabitants in this democratic country therefore have a co-responsibility for.

The region contains many complex dynamics that might deserve consideration. How about the dynamics of ever shifting factionalism and how that might lead to eventual factional alliances that provide access to Pakistan’s nukes by a faction that has close ties to one of our enemies?

How about the neighboring Central Asian vast oil resources?

What about the drug trade and the political power that comes from all of that money? Americans tend to think about the drug trade as being a Taliban operation. In reality, the Taliban may be a side player along with Pakistani military factions and Afghan warlords. They are intertwined with Afghan and Pakistani government institutions. They reach all the way to northern England and New York.

What if the drug trader factions were the same people that gain access to the nukes? They would have a network that goes directly to American cities.

Along with all of those complications, we could end up competing with Russia over gaining influence in the Central Asian oil fields. On top of that, some analysts estimate that Russian organized crime groups control as much as 80 percent of all private business and up to 40 percent of the Federation’s wealth. They would be our real competition in the oil fields. The organized crime networks organizational methods fit exactly the factional network methods of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

What about China? They have great influence in Pakistan. No doubt, they gain influence because the Pakistan military owns about 22 billion dollars worth of businesses. China operates the same way with the military owning regional fiefdoms of businesses. It's a natural business alliance. China is starting to do the same thing in Afghanistan.

With all of those considerations, I have to wonder if more troops fit the needs that match our interests and the complex nature of the region. I think we have a lot to learn and we need to perform a much deeper assessment.

Bob Spencer

"But the threat from al Qaeda does not justify increasing our military presence in Afghanistan, and certainly does not justify major military operations in Pakistan."

i.e. Do the costs outweigh the benefits?

It seems to me one of the major shortcomings of PoliSci as an intellectual field is an ability to offer much in the way of models to determine if Professor Walt's claim is accurate. Is the threat from al Qaeda the only reason we are there? Had we known about OBL's evil intent would that have justified increasing our military presence in Afghanistan way back when? (Didn't we and just ignore it for the most part?)At what point does Professor Walt consider the costs too great? What would justify major military operations in Pakistan?

The author writes

Pakistan feels as if its falling apart. . .[and] American policy has arguably made the situation even worse, for the Predator-drone attacks along the border, though effective, drive the Taliban eastward, deeper into Pakistan.

But this is arguably a desirable outcome. Until now, Pakistan has been able to play a double game, half-heartedly pretending to fight extremism, offering up a couple of trophies each time a US dignitary visits, and keeping their favored Taliban groups alive. But now that there is a real prospect that extremism will consume their heartland (Punjab), the army might actually put up a real fight.

So glad you are raising this issue, Prof. Walt!

How ironic that the world's superpower is engaged against people who may as well be living in 1300.

What we have is NATO vs. a medieval society, that not only evokes colonial conquests, but is almost straight out of fantasy fiction. The more NATO bombs the shit of the Taliban, the more the Afghan people identify with them. We are enabling the Taliban to take up the banner of national resistance. Meanwhile, the people, who are constantly under menace, are disappointed, deceived, defenseless and starving. And who is the only entity expressing sympathy and even providing relief? The same Taliban!

The worst of it is that Afghanistan borders the Mother of all Failed States, Pakistan, with 160 million angry and destitute people with nothing to lose and left behind by the Globalization Train. (Corruption in Pakistan -beyond belief- makes Mexico look like Calvin's Geneva.) Quetta, Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore are tinderboxes. (Again, the only relief is provided by Islamists).

We are embarked on this senseless bomb-them-into-submission strategy held over from Vietnam and as we know well, it ain't gonna work.

p.s. Al Qaeda doesn't live there anymore.

What we have is NATO vs. a medieval society, that not only evokes colonial conquests, but is almost straight out of fantasy fiction.

Of course this type of medieval society conception is a mis-conception those people are also after State - a mono-law-monopoly just like the EUS is trying to save. So, on that "concept" they are quite up-to-date;->>
To stop those Guys for fighting for the State is really a simple process; the ground under the State has to be cut off so that it has to be sucked into a nlack-hole;->>For both sides.

Lastnight I went to a presentation by Shannon Dealy a natural building instructor from Oregon, USA who promotes truly sustainable living. (www.cobcottage.com) He said one day all the space in their cosy house was used up, except one cupboard lefy available and his wife insisted to use while he desperately need to put some of his stuff there. A quarrel broke out, to solve the problem, he nailed the damn cupboard asnd declared that "Here there is no more cupboard for us any more to quarrel about, we have to re-arrange the rest of the space to fit in!". And since then he gave up all the rooms of his house one by one declaring them non-existent and now he is living in a cob-cottage about 20 meter square with all of his belongings and as far as I can see, he is the happiest man in the world;->

All fighting stupidly for "state", we are going to dissolve it for all, in that way we will also make their stupid WMDs and other weapons developed to save it - redundant. That is why I am here, I will supply all the arguments against "State" day and night, till you Guys realize that it is useless and doesn't worth to save.
So God help me!

Grand Sen~or.

Good points, but not realistic if you look at the nature of bureaucracies. They run on two basic principles, to keep expanding and to cover their own asses. This is not a Bush or American failing, it's just the nature of bureaucracies, most dramatically evident in the nomenklatura system that so weakened the Soviet Union.

So, your 3rd objection is the only one that matters in realistic terms. Since bureaucracies always try to expand and cover their own asses, there is such an inertia to expand the government's response to terrorism and to cover for the political fallout from a terrorist attack that it's like holding back the tide. There are numerous examples of this under Bush; in fact, one could argue that the Homeland Security Department is a prime example, as were some of the more ridiculous responses, such as the color-coded warning system. Even the decision to go into Iraq can be explained in these terms.

The only solution that might work is to literally starve the government of tax revenues.

And of course US citizens slaughter each other every quarter in greater numbers than died on 9/11. That's only with firearms, add in road traffic accidents and the numbers every year exceed the Americans who died in Vietnam. It doesn't need terrorists to wreak havoc with peoples' lives. In the United Kingdom our worst terrorist incident, on the London Underground, caused the same number of casualties that we get every week on our roads (just about the safest in the World by the way)and disruption equivalent to one of those strikes that we used to have before we elected Margaret Thatcher. The key lesson of terrorism is that if we keep our collective nerve it cannot do fundamental damage to our societies, unles we let it.

... is Afghanistan in Central Asia?

http://www.ww4report.com/node/6943

A rather interesting analysis above raises the issue of the Bush Administration's role in Central Asia. It was really a Bush Administration imperial crime on top of an imperial grab by the Clinton Administration. President Obama inherits a most shameful post Cold War Great Grab for oil and gas rich Central Asia. Our nation now is attempting to hold Afghanistan which is nothing but a cork to the Islamic spread throughout the South and Central Asian regions. Therein lays a severely sticky and high traction momentum for which Clinton and Bush must hold personal responsibility. The feebleness of Russia under Yeltsin permitted Western avarice to become paroxysmal. In particular, the American right-wing "wrecking crew" so well described in recent literature accelerated libertine expression of this corporate avarice to a point of utter recklessness.

Defensive reactions were inevitable. Firstly, alQaeda entered the negotiating realm with an Islamo-ideologic argument based on the role of Islamic religion to Soviet anti-ecclesiastic campaign. It can be factually argued that, not President Reagan, but the Muslims of the USSR defeated the Soviet Union. The CIA's role was as a limitless supplier of arms and cash only. alQaeda had argued that the Islamic Revolution of Afghanistan must be advanced "Westward" as well as Southeastward into India. The Taliban bought into the transnational argument of binLaden. But we were fraudulently presented with the "westward" argument as defining attacking Europe and the US when in fact the target was Central and South Asia. At first, Saudi Arabia and Iran fully supported the anti-Soviet Afghan War. China-- which has long been fighting the Uygur Muslim nationalists in Sinkiang Province, nevertheless, supported Muslim Pakistan as the bridgehead to dismembering of India, its main Asian enemy.

Since the 1980s we have witnessed a Sunni-Shia unity directed from Teheran that undermined the Egyptian and Saudi governments. These in turn supported Saddam Hussein as a transition to Islamism. Perceiving the Iranian Iean-to-Iraq collaboration to destroy the Western economic hold in the Middle East, the US worked a wedge war between Baghdad and Teheran. This drained American power out of South Asia (Afghanistan). The EU was well aware that the "western" target of the Muslims was limited to the ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia and insisted on maintaining emphasis on diplomatic efforts in the Middle East on the promise of an Iraq-Iran switch from the perto$ to the Euro would enrich its European members. The Bush Administration, without any logical reason expected that as US troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan the European would be forced to fill the void. But just as they favored on-intervention in Iraq they felt no need to invade Afghanistan. Such expectation from NATO only exposes the utter illusion of dominion that the Bush Administration felt it had over Europe.

Bush Administration reckless bully diplomacy forced a Russo-Chinese collaboration, the Shanghai Accord, which on the surface pretends to be only a trade accord but is in fact a security pact created by Moscow in response to the Chinese panic over pre-9/11 US policy to surround China. Over the post 9/11 years, the Bush Administration was skillfully maneuvered, dissipating the credibility of its bully threats, so that now the Shanghai Accord extends to Central and Mainland Asia, including India, Pakistan, Iran and all the Central Asian states. Admittedly this construction is still amorphous and a work in progress suffering much internal contradictions. But it is a means to an end that is united on one point only: the US cannot be allowed to dominate Afghanistan. Despite their opposition to each other, the Shanghai Accord members have a common goal of keeping Afghanistan as a means of exasanguinating US power while never allowing a resolution by the US and US withdrawal. A sort of "1984" Russo-Asian Bloc is standing against the even weaker western US-EU Bloc that seeks domination of Afghanistan to cut off Asian influence over Central Asia, leaving a weak Russia alone as an easy Western barrier to Western corporate domination of Central Asia. Alas, the Shanghai Accord surrounds Afghanistan, the EU sees no reason to lose more wealth and lives there and the US is exasanguinating hopelessly alone because it cannot afford to invest the massive effort required to dominate that vast mountainous nation. The crux of the matter is that America is finding itself abandoned by NATO and alone in Central-South Asia and can only stay there if manipulated to Shanghai Accord interests because the American economy is dependent on its Shanghai Accord bankers. The range of options permitted the US because of the internal contradictions of the Shanghai Accord does not range to include any prospect of successful elimination of the Taliban.

It has been propagandized by right-wing Republicans that if the US withdraws it will betray the women of Afghanistan. Videos of a 13 y/o girl whipped for taking to a boy is used to make the case. But if one were to consider the violation of women's rights in India, Pakistan and China--America's illusory allies and bankers-- the entire case seems utterly hypocritical. It seems utterly irresponsible for the United States-- much like the late Roman Empire-- to waste its volunteer army under incompetent command in areas where victory is beyond their abilities and the investment of resources required far beyond what the American people are willing to invest. It is true that, in the absence of conscription, most Americans care so little for the lives of the heroic soldiers in the field that staying in the fight will be supported when contraposed with defeat-- a position would never have been accepted had we drawn the troops through universal draft. But the material costs will soon sour the US public to this incredibly poorly fought war, almost as bad as the Soviet effort. By then, this grossly mishandled "Bush's War" will have become "Obama's War," leaving him to bear responsibility for the withdrawal in defeat that is inevitable. It will be like blaming an operation botched by a lead surgeon on the one who sutures the wound because the patient died while the latter was closing.

Nevertheless, Americans traditionally avoid learning from the past. Too many defeats have been wiped from analytic memory in shame and a desire to maintain the illusion of military omnipotence. Like the Israeli army, the American military pretends that the incompetence of its command is not the issue and that the growing competence of its opponents can never match its own.

So what would happen if the US withdrew from Afghanistan?

First and foremost, let us recall that the real concern of Americans is that the Islamic struggle would then pour out of Afghanistan to flood Pakistan. In retort, let us recall that a) Pakistan's original involvement with the Taliban is because of the latter's strategic importance in its endless war with India. India is attempting an end-run around Pakistan by exploiting economic relations with non-Taliban Afghan tribes. That forces Pakistan to stand with the Taliban at cost of the Taliban having created a Pakistani Islamist Taliban to overthrow the secular Pakistani government and establish the first nuclear Sharia. India's hope is that in this way it convinces the US/EU alliance to dismember Pakistan and return it to Indian rule, as it had been under British colonialism. Seeking depth, Pakistan cannot afford to succumb to Western demands that it be engulfed by India while Pakistan serves as the staging base for a Western defeat of Afghanistan’s Pashtuns. This Indian scheme, however, would never be allowed by China because Pakistan is the most critical ally of China in Asia and the sole barrier between Western China-- where Muslim resistance is a problem-- and India. Pakistan is also China's Southern port outlet and inlet for its Mideast oil. And, Pakistan is the best means China has of putting pressure on India in the economic-strategic competition between the two states. b) The bonds of the Shanghai Accord constitute a complex balance between all its members. That is why there is little formal organizational rigidity in it except for economic processes; that is why it is misread as an economic accord. That strategic flexible balance becomes far more stressed and at the same time far more necessary to all its members if the US withdraws from Central Asia so that no one wins and no one loses. And, as the region ceases to be a war zone resisting Western imperialism, these internal contradictions become increasingly prominent, causing these nations to resort to complex diplomacy rather than combat. Also, many of these contradictions can only be ameliorated by economic ties to the West as none of the members can really dominate nor satisfy the needs of each member.

American presence in the area will only polarize the locals as more and more non-combatant "collateral damage" results from defensive American/NATO action. NATO can destroy itself, overcome by its inadequacy in Afghanistan, as opposed to its orderly operation as a European Defense Structure only. The Shanghai Accord needs only operate as an opportunity to Central/South Asian states seeking a bypass of American power, as the above article seems to imply.

Obama has very little time to bite the bullet. As the Iraq War ends muddled and unresolved, his presidency cannot afford Afghanistan also ending as HIS failure. His only hope is to transfer the whole problem to the Shanghai Accord where it will forever be entangled in the Accord's fluidity where no one loses, no one wins. It has been mendaciously put forward by VP Cheney, Rumsfeld (though now he dares no longer speak as recklessly as before), Rove and several FOXNEWS Republican propagandists that if we withdraw from Afghanistan we will again face a repeat of 9/11. What they fail to truthfully admit is that post-9/11 Bush mendaciously covered for the airline companies that had violated laws established during the 1970s when the US faced multiple skyjackings. It was decreed at the time that all airlines would be provided a locked impenetrable pilot's cabin and two sky marshals would be put on every plane. But because of cheap fares competition all the airlines violated this law. As a result, Jihadi shahids looking for a way to try again to destroy the World Trade Center and to do damage to Wash DC government buildings, while riding First Class cross country, discovered that the pilot's cabin is never locked. Thus, on 9/11, four aircrafts were completely taken over within ten minutes each. Unless we repeat this gross negligence, such conversion of airlines into missiles will never again occur. To say, therefore, that 9/11 happened, because Afghanistan was a "rogue" state controlled by the Taliban, we suffered 9/11 is a gross lie. It happened because security LAWS WERE DISOBEYED. I can only conclude that utterly irresponsible political opportunists are making the current Republican case. For had Afghanistan been so important, Bush would have held to his refusal to cannibalize the Afghan War in order to present Congress with a fait accompli in Iraq, as proposed by Rumsfeld, wherein US troops in battle could not be refused funding.

Americans as a people cannot pretend that the past does not exist and that they, therefore, do not have to face its consequences. The US had its chance to deal with the Islamic Jihad and totally failed. This fact cannot be erased with mechanized killing of Muslims using remote controlled drones guided by platoons on the ground. This nation is exsanguinating its young men and resources, manipulated by nations that have no match in force but are endowed far greater ability in diplomacy and "stratergerizing." Obama cannot be a repeat of corrupt Bush II. He must courageously face the amputation required to avoid the systemic infection that the Soviet Union faced after its defeated veterans returned from Afghanistan. Those returned PTSD victims, the maimed and the families of the dead are Bush's victims. Soon they will be Obama's. His only hope is to dare to do the right thing now and not wait for some miraculous "Dayton Accord" illusion.

Daniel E. Teodoru