"In today's Afghanistan, people are free to speak their minds...."
Remarks by the President on the Global War on Terror to the American Enterprise Institute, February 15, 2007.
The New York Times website today published a front page report on the United States/NATO effort in Afghanistan. "Civilian Deaths Undermine War on Taliban" By Carlotta Gall and David E. Sanger. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/world/asia/13AFGHAN.html?hp There are many issues that are raised in this article but for now only one has pushed my button.
The report begins "Scores of civilian deaths over the past months from heavy American and allied reliance on airstrikes to battle Taliban insurgents are threatening popular support for the Afghan government and creating severe strains within the NATO alliance." American and NATO military sources as reported in the article contend that the airstrikes are necessary because there are not enough ground forces. The article quotes a senior NATO official as saying "without air, we'd need hundreds of thousands of troops" in Afghanistan.
The President in his speech to the AEI in February (see below) spoke proudly that "Just two weeks ago, NATO launched an air strike against Taliban fighters who had seized the town of Musa Qala in Helmand province--a key Taliban commander was brought to justice. " Todays report in the Times points to "reports [having] surfaced of at least 21 civilians killed in an airstrike in Helmand Province, though residents reached by phone said the toll could be as high as 80."
Gen Patraeus in Iraq is exercising counter-insurgency dogma that purposefully attempts to avoid the use of air and artillery that could cause unnecessary civilian casualties. The well-founded rationale is intended to avoid the precise reaction from the indigenous population that we are apparently causing in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a war that America and most of the world agreed had legitimately targeted Bin Laden, his al Qaeda band and the Taliban that gave them refuge. United States forces were given a mission that had a high probability of success if adequate military resources had been committed to the effort. President Bush, encouraged by his neo's, pulled the plug on war against a real and now growing threat. President Bush allowed Bin Laden to live on.
I doubt that NATO will substantially add to the forces now in Afghanistan in large measure because of the lack of leadership from our government. Bush, by his continuous exercise of gross judgement in and about Iraq and the wrongly named "war" on terror, has abdicated a leadership role in the conduct of world affairs. To be sure, NATO countries should see the need to crush the Taliban as their own national priority. The United States had led NATO for decades, primarily by example and credible, persuasive leadership from the White House. No NATO country has the credibility or leadership necessary to respond to the force demands now in Afghanistan. They must be looking over their shoulder at England to see what happened to a follower of Bush's policies.
No matter how critical the needs in Afghanistan Bush does not have the political credibility in the United States to be able to correct his error and reinforce the troops in Afghanistan. We lack the forces to maintain adequate ground force levels in both countries. American lives will continue to be lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has taken Bush and our military command almost four years to bring about a reasoned, credible strategy in Iraq. It appears that they need more time to apply one in Afghanistan. And that is part of the continuing tragedy of his Presidency.
A brief discussion of "hearts and minds" in Afghanistan: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9164957
A view of Afghanistan as only President Bush can articulate in one of the few remaining venues receptive to his perspectives:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25630,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment