Dla członków WP

fertieg18

This morning’s report that International Security Assistance Forces (“ISAF”) in Afghanistan have facilitated the transport of a Taliban commander to Kabul for talks is an affirmation that this is the direction our military and NATO forces will be pursuing. No, I don’t like it, but yes, I trust the most qualified man in the field to make the determination of what is necessary to move things forward in Afghanistan. Either that or nuke the place. Kidding. Just nuke half of it.
Fine, Hamid, take your meds.

Dacia Nichol
American foreign policy needs to be focused on American interests again. Kill the enemy, come home. Getting rowdy? Prepare to get spanked. Piss us off? Boot in the ass (it’s the American way). Now we have 17 rules before killing the enemy, only come home for 12 months at a time, have to answer the press about the rowdiness because it’s said to be our fault, spanking is not allowed because it’s abusive, we’re not allowed to get pissed about anything because again, it’s our fault, and we are only allowed to use house slippers for ass kicking with our non-dominant foot.
In a past blogging life, I wrote about my distress over this issue. I used to think that with all the blood, sweat, tears, and lives that have gone into this war, we should be producing something that resembles the values that we’re fighting for. Maybe I’m a little worn from the game, or maybe I’m kicking the last Wilsonian-strand out of me, but either way it must be acknowledged that there are factors involved here that show such wishful thinking cannot, even with the most opportune fighting forces available, be achieved.
Yes.
Well, Chris Coons and Christine O’Donnell avoided the question in their Delaware Senate debate,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], but I won’t: Should we support a reconciliation deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan? If I’m not mistaken, I believe we’ve already received what our answer should be from our commander there,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], General David Petraeus.
Give us 10 years and no rule book, yes we can remake the face of Afghanistan to our liking. But human rights, sovereignty and environmental concerns being the first things that come to mind, it seems there would be a few limitations to the winning strategy. So what’s hindering a more palatable 50-year plan?
I’m not sure what that means for the democracy/liberty spreading thing, but I personally am OK with the semi-return to traditional American foreign policy positions. You know, the ones where American interests are the priority, not nation-building for the sake of (insert liberal/compassionate cause here)? After World War II, we rebuilt the neighbors we knocked down, and as a result, many of them have become allies and business partners. We weren’t channeling Mr. Rogers (unless you believe in the sniper conspiracy), we were looking out for #1: America.
For one, the culture that is ingrained in the current adult population and even the children in Afghanistan is very much anti-occupation, and in further cases, specifically anti-American. This is not to speak to all Islamic culture, just the prominent one in Afghanistan. When you’re raised to hate someone or something, you’ll be damned if you’re ever going to model anything after them. Mall of the Middle East? Maybe online shopping only, but leave out any sexual content unless you want your basket shut down mid-checkout.
Afghanistan is not America, so let’s not expect it to come out looking like America. Let’s expect it to be something that America needs it to be, because America’s interests should be our first, second and third priority in everything we do there.
In other words, we’re not trying to build Muslim America. We’re trying to build a Muslim place that’s not a threat to America. Similar word structure, big difference in application. Middle Eastern Muslims who want to be American tend to come to America. Just ask New York City.
Second, and I’d argue this one to be the primary source of strategy hindrance or failure, the world community always has something to say about everything we do. Actually, they’re just as bad about what we don’t do. We’re rich,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], we should give more. All the money we give is going to corrupt regimes. Our technology isn’t good enough to shoot some guys in caves? We’re spending too much on technology when there are starving kids out there. A soldier accidentally shot a civilian, never mind he was protecting an insurgent. Our soldiers aren’t killing enough insurgents. Oh, and how dare you be in Iraq, but why aren’t you in Darfur? Why are you trying to shove your American ideals on everyone? And so forth. No, this is not “blame” game. This is “pain in the ass” game.
Two things stand in the way of the idea of a Muslim America: 1) Islamic culture; and 2) the world community.
In all seriousness, places like Afghanistan, which have known tribal rule and chaos more than anything in the last 50 years (actually much longer, but I’m being lazy), will never quite resemble America. That means we have to take a pragmatic approach to what we’re doing there, as in wearing blinders. That’s not the oxymoron that it seems to be at first glance. The horses can still see. They’re just limited to what’s in front of them.
So what’s left if not a Muslim America? Reality. Restraint. A Muslim nation that does their thing while we wait in the wings for an emergency. “Does their thing” means they hire who they want, work with who they want, and get the job done however they want. As long as they keep it out of our hair and doesn’t ruffle our feathers. If they need to work with the Taliban to make that happen, so be it. If Karzai needs to be on anti-depressants, so be it. If the whole damn regime is smuggling narcotics and making a fortune, so be it. Just don’t be surprised if a field or two or 20 five catch fire in some spasmic act of God one day. Catch my drift?