Feb 19 2009
NATO “Cannot Afford the Price of Failure” in Afghanistan
The Secretary General of NATO wants everyone to know his organization is not about to lose in Afghanistan anytime soon.
According to BBC News, Gen. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told NATO and partner defense ministers at a recent meeting in Krakow, Poland, that “We cannot afford the price of failure.”
The Secretary General also pointed out that success in the Afghan war will require “reconstruction and redevelopment,” as opposed to a strategy based solely on military efforts.
“We should not be under any illusion there is a military solution,” he said.
U.S. President Barack Obama has decided to send an addition 17,000 troops to the landlocked nation in an attempt to provide more security in anticipation of what is expected to be a tumultuous general election in August. The president has also requested that NATO send more military personnel.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has indicated that the U.S. “will consider paying more rent to continue using a strategic air base in
Kyrgyzstan which is key to its Afghan operations.”
“News that the Kyrgyz parliament has voted to close the US base at Manas has overshadowed the talks in Krakow, which Mr Gates is attending,” the BBC reports.
Will NATO succeed in Afghanistan? I doubt it. Establishing a central government that manages to exert effective control in all areas of the country is a feat that has eluded people for centuries. Ironically, opposition to foreign intruders seems to be the only thing that has ever been able to unite all of the various groups within Afghanistan. If that historical pattern holds, then NATO is screwed.
What makes you think Obama doesn’t have a better strategy than just a military one? Obviously, if we do even a portion of what we did in the beginning, before we got distracted by Iraq, we can clean up, because the Afgani people do NOT like the Taliban, and do NOT support it where we do anything even close to right.
I think that a loose Federal government with near autonomy in tribal areas, if done with an eye towards traditional tribal structures and customs, can go a long way towards winning this for us. Money, of course, to help overcome the growing dependence on opium crops is an important element as well, with plenty of other cultural assistance in other areas.
In other words, a multi-pronged approach is better than just shooting at people. I think that is what he was getting at, as have other people, including Obama on the campaign trail.
I wasn’t criticizing Obama specifically. I was just pointing out the fact that, historically speaking, foreign countries have had a hell of a time holding Afghanistan in place. The most successful ones in the past have had to use ruthless and overwhelming force, and even then they weren’t that successful.
“I think that a loose Federal government with near autonomy in tribal areas, if done with an eye towards traditional tribal structures and customs, can go a long way towards winning this for us.”
This is our best chance. Obviously, taking the Soviet approach won’t work, as was shown during the 80’s.
Actually, there was a very good analysis of the history involved on TTC today. It pointed out the obvious: Past invasions of Afghanistan failed because they were pure military invasions that had no support from the Afghan people.
As we have noted, it pointed out that it is that support that will be critical to whomever wins.
Which is why we need to remember them and do what we can to keep them if not improve on them.
The SG was right, as an International organization, NATO cannot afford to be seen as ineffectual. Its currency as an umbrella defense organization is only as good as its ability to operate as an international fighting force. If its members are seen as unwilling or unable to hold to the basic agreements that make up the organization’s structure, it will collapse as a viable defense, and the repercussions will be dire indeed.
I guess winning means creating a central government capable of maintaining a profitable business climate for Oil Company’s and sufficient stability to run a pipe line through the country without vandals disrupting the flow. Doesn’t seem very likely.
Well, now you know just how much control “they” really have! Now “they” control the html editors!
Muahahahahaha!
Well shoot that can’t be the case because they would likely wipe out my entire blog…
Oldfart,
The oil is not in Afghanistan, but rather in the caspian basin. For years oil companys have wanted a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil out, but, the country is too unstable and any pipeline would be in danger of being vandalized by “extreemists”, who seem to think they should have control of the reigon in which they live.