Many people agree with the simple statement that we should give the Afghan people the same effort that we gave the Iraqi people. Does that mean we should butt heads endlessly with the insurgency? That didn’t work in Iraq. Does it mean we should send another surge? That wasn’t the magic bullet either.
Does it mean we should bring in another planeload of cash to pay off and arm local militias? That’s what did the trick in Iraq and that’s the only thing that’ll save Afghanistan from the Taliban.
First, a clarification. In Iraq, the pay off (otherwise known as the Anbar Awakening) was more a surrender because we paid militia to stop fighting us and go after Al Qaeda in Iraq instead. Anytime in history when money is given to an enemy to stop them from fighting those paying, it’s a form of surrender. Just to be crystal clear.
In Afghanistan, we would be paying warlords to join a fight they’re already itching to jump back into. Paying and rearming the Afghan warlords would once again increase their power throughout Afghanistan, but no one can honestly say this would be at the expense of a legitimate democratically elected government. This was a good argument in the past, but we now know the Afghan government is riddled with corruption. In fact, after General Dostum was banished to Turkey for warlord-like behavior he was still flown back into Afghanistan to bring Karzai the ethnic Uzbek vote just in time for this year’s elections.
So, although corruption and nervous human rights workers follow General Dostum wherever he goes, the alternative is clearly worse. Just ask any Afghan girl with a melted face and you’ll know why. The Taliban themselves are not eager to fight their war with men like Dostum either, not after he shut 2,000 Taliban prisoners into shipping containers as a cheap & quiet way of executing them all by suffocation.
The news cycle has been focusing on how limited US options are in Afghanistan and they’re right. The American people obviously don’t have the will to give their son’s and daughter’s lives for much longer; not after eight years of loyally doing so.
The Afghan people, however, are willing to die for their own freedom. According to a former commander who fought alongside Shah Massoud “Afghanistan and its people are the only ones who can truly defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda … We need weapons and resources … More U.S. troops are not necessary, but we would fight alongside them if asked … We are not children that need to be watched over — we defeated the Soviets,” he added. “We can defeat the Taliban, but we need assistance from the U.S. Not more troops but we need the NATO commanders to listen to us, support us. So far, they are not listening and the Afghan people fear they will be abandoned. This is no way to defeat an enemy.”
Another proponent of working with the warlords is Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California who said “If the Taliban is going to be defeated, it’s got to be by the Afghan people themselves, not by sending more US troops, which could actually be counterproductive … We need widespread support for a moderate anti-Taliban decentralized system in Afghanistan, “ he continued “Our allies there (the warlords), who once shared our same goal are now alienated and alone, and many are being co-opted by the enemy.”
General McChrystal is making some moves in the right direction and although I’ve been a vocal supporter of shifting our focus (& troops) to Afghanistan, stopping counter-productive airstrikes and measuring progress by how well we protect civilian population centers, this will not be enough. I believe we should follow through with our planned troop increases and if any further troops are added as a result of McChrystal’s report they should primarily be to accelerate the training of the Afghan army. However, none of this will work if we don’t enlist the help of the warlords and follow their advice. The Taliban may be an unstoppable insurgent force to us, but to the mujahedin warlords of Afghanistan they are just another militia.
General Dostum said he could stabilize nine northern provinces with 10,000 men in three months. That’s the promise of just one warlord who goes on to say “The US needs strong friends like Dostum. They don’t need their own commanders who don’t know the land, the language, the people of this country. Where is Washington? Where am I? This is the problem.” Yes, Dostum is not perfect and he’s stabbed many people in the back, but he genuinely wants to drive the Taliban out of his country and very few doubt his ability to do so.
We’re in Afghanistan to put down a mad dog we created over thirty years ago. What better way to do this than by unleashing domesticated dogs like Dostum and Atta Mohammed Noor and Gul Agha Sherzai and Ismail Khan.
(polls)
Challenge: Analyze world events without narcissistically attributing the source of its problems to the U.S. Then you will understand the enemy and you will be able to begin strategizing.
Thanks for the funny comment. I’m aware of some people’s tendency to blame the US for things, but the US is not blameless in this world.
As far as Al Qaeda goes, I have a challenge for you: Prove to me that we didn’t find essential help from the current leadership in Al Qaeda in defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and then prove that the terrorist cell we armed and supported financially during that war hasn’t turned on us and dropped the twin towers before hitting the Pentagon and crashing into a field in Penn. Do you not believe these are the same guys we worked with during the Soviet-Afghan war?
I would not try to prove to you that we live in a perfect world where wars don’t make strange bedfellows. And I don’t know anyone who thinks the U.S.–or any human–is blameless all all counts. But the whipping boy ploy is tired and worn. The bash US syndrome is a convenient cover so others in the world can sit back and demand, like smug thugs.
Again, I challenge you to know the enemy. This enemy is an old tyrant who changes his costume to fool others and himself, and uses soothing words–or invokes God to overlord, which is blasphemy. Now, depending on your education, you may be thinking of the US because you may have been taught that defense is offense and good is bad–if they wear the same costume and use the same words. Pardon me, if I wonder incorrectly. I hope I am wrong.
This enemy is a totalitarian. India needs to be in charge of that Afghan neck of the woods. China needs to be in charge of hers. Any lingering weakness in the corp of humanity, this evil force–yes I dare to speak its name–pounces.
Timing is at least part of right action. The world weakened to UN standards when it had 12 years of feckless sanctions to finish off Saddam and didn’t. The Persians, overtaken by the mullocracy in Iran, made their moves recently because they had a portion of encouragement from our valiant stance and successful surge in Iraq.
The weak linked left has eroded much of that, but the Persians remember King Cyrus and aren’t enamored of King Canute. So they will fight some more. The devout of Islam will excise the Muslim warlords who have tried to destroy religion for the meek. And the beams in the eyes of the beholders of guilt will be extracted through a humility that reckons with the real world.
The whipping boy ploy is not my game. If it needs to be said aloud to make you more comfortable, then I will say it. I love my country. I served my country. I think the United States is the greatest nation on Earth. Inherent in that greatness is the ability and freedom of the US citizen to judge his country and speak out against what he feels is wrong.
In this case, I am only using facts about America’s involvement with Al Qaeda, but I do not base the point of this article on American guilt. This article is in response to everyone saying the Afghan war is unwinnable and the same as Vietnam. I don’t agree with, but am facing the fact that America’s appetite for sending troops over there will not last much longer (Thanks to our ham-fisted efforts in Iraq). If you compare weekly casualties between the Vietnam war and this one, you would think soldiers are barely dying over there, but in today’s modern context; 150 plus US deaths in one month is appalling. WWII battles saw KIA numbers in the 150,000s. I am only admitting the fact that American troops alone will not win this war the way they’re fighting it now, but if they join forces with the Afghan warlords, we have a chance at victory in less than five years.
If the real enemy your words weirdly wind around is totalitarianism and government control, then I agree and think you should read this article “The Evolving Political Spectrum”. I would appreciate your thoughtful opinion.
If, however, you are trying to tell me that you think Islam is the enemy of humankind, then I must happily fail your challenge.
I’m not sure which “ham-fisted efforts in Iraq” you are referring to–no doubt there were many, but also great achievements (from our great military!) with too little concerted effort from the world’s backbenchers who continuously benefit from our lead.
I see your specific point about our need to work w/Afghan warlords, but a long-term win requires a Commander-in-Chief and strong allies who will fight for liberty–for ALL–not just the oligarchy of overlords destroying our liberty everywhere.
So my main point is to focus on the nature of this enemy and how they fight. You can temporarily solve the problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the cancer will spread. It is not devout followers of Islam’s truly religious principles who fight us or that we need fight back; it is their Muslim overlords who took the religion of the People of the Book and overlaid it with Quar’anic and Shari’a politics and militarism.
Religion is an inborn part of personal liberty; God-given. Dictating to others, enslaving them, fighting them because they don’t agree with you isn’t. And it will be fought and defeated at some point. (Until the next time that evil rears its ugly head.)
I’ll read your Evolving Political Spectrum if you’ll read Federer’s “What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an”. Islam needs to solve the problem of totalitarian Muslimism. That will help the rest of us resolve the chronic problem of statist and one-world fascism we are dealing with increasingly at home and abroad. It’s all the same evil deviation at some point while feigning cosmetic differences. It ends up being a question of who has the most raw power, not reason and sacred affinity.
Finally, thank you for your service! Without such protectors, we would fall, to be sure. Criticizing your freedom-loving country is a given. That is not what has been happening for 40 years, though. In fact, for 100 years, our Constitution and liberties have been slowly eroded by that smug anti-American and reactionary insurgency from within. I have lived through that degradation and I have had it to the core. So you see, I am criticizing too. I want my Constitution, my federalist Republic, my free market and free speech back! That’s a lot of work, retrieving all that which has not been kept at home. And without that, nothing will be won in an increasingly submissive, self-enslaved world with tyrants at the top.
I appreciate your honesty. I thank you for your time and wish you a life of liberty and love!!
I’m aware of Federer’s work, but I couldn’t bring myself to buy it, although I made sure to sit down with it at Barnes & Noble for fifteen minutes before I made that decision. I love to gather information, especially non-mainstream info, but I have a personal rule about not buying other people’s fear.
Federer proves a specific point and fills a commercial void in doing so. This was his main intention even before he wrote one word. Federer provides specific evidence to paint the picture he wants to portray. Already having his premise, his research was all directed at proving the mainstream western opinion about Islam wrong. Much more information could be gleaned if one took a similar journey themselves to research and process all the data on Islam through their own perception. If we did this, both of us might come to the conclusion that a portion of Islam is stubbornly lagging behind a rapidly globalizing world, which would provide more stable intellectual footing than Federer’s runaway argument. It’s true the extremist Muslim is digging in their heels trying to drag Islam back to a simpler time, a time of Muslim totalitarianism that actual caused this culture to fall behind the West in the first place. I mainly make this argument for the readers as you seem to understand the difference between a Muslim that wants nothing more than to be cannon fodder for the war on terror as oppose to a Muslim that wants to buy a pair of blue jeans and imitate Elvis in the mirror (outdated example, but you get the point). Unfortunately, Federer and most of his proponents don’t see this distinction and strongly believe that if you’ve met one Muslim, you’ve met’em all.
I can’t, however, agree that America should run around the world defending everyone’s liberty. This would impossibly require the reinstatement of conscription immediately followed by conflicts in Iran, North Korea, Burma, Zambia and all this without ruffling Russian or Chinese feathers. Disregarding the military impossibilities, any such constant conflict would cancel out the good intentions we bring. There has been a steady decline in totalitarian governments around the world and this continues today with fewer than ever in history. The United States is still the great experiment of humanity and eventually all nations will go down our path in some form, but they must do so willingly and in their own time. It’s always hard to say what the founding fathers would think, but most agree they were pretty non-interventionist and fought a revolution against a domineering global economic powerhouse in Great Britain. I don’t think they wanted to become even a benevolent form of this kind of global colossus. Totalitarian governments should be isolated and exposed for their crimes, but we are not physically capable of fixing the world by force.
I appreciate your support of market freedom and free speech. I support economic freedom (free market capitalism) which actually encourages social freedom (live and let live as long as you don’t hurt me) which I support as well, but many become confused about true freedom. I mean the laissez faire definition of economic and social freedom, which translates into letting ALL the chips fall where they may. Many conservatives believe in social freedom, but then turn around and try to impose their own religious norms on others. It’s hard for some to swallow, but true libertarian freedom doesn’t suppress homosexuality (even if they get married) and doesn’t control what a woman wants to do with her body (anything from piercing to abortion). This can make things seem scary to some, but the alternative is government control which is worse in all cases.
This is my problem with the right-left argument. Liberals want economic control, but social freedom; yet they increase economic control to the point where they suppress social freedoms like freedom of speech. Then conservatives want complete economic freedom, but then this economic freedom encourages and engenders social freedoms they aren’t comfortable with. Many religious American’s think Las Vegas is horrible, but lose Vegas and you lose capitalism. This is why I stand for Libertarian freedom in both economic and social spheres with just enough government to stem anarchy and keep us together as a nation.
I do think that Federer’s analysis is a little biased, but I would really appreciate your independent opinion on whether my article “The Evolving Spectrum” is biased or not. Your analysis would be helpful as this is a work in progress with a Part II coming because the subject is hard to cap.
Ladyliberty, I forgot to mention my thanks for your honest and thoughtful comments. I wish you a life of liberty and love as well.
[...] See “Unleashing Dostum’s Dogs” for 3rd party opinion on this [...]