China maps an end to the Afghan war - Asia Times

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

It is easily the most sensible plan yet, and far more sensible than the idiot plans of escalation and more war by the Pentagon and NATO.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ02Df01.html

The timing of the publication is also important. A tipping point has appeared in the eight-year Afghan war, with the international community furiously debating the pros and cons of alternate scenarios for Afghanistan. The war is at a crossroads, with the Taliban fighting to a stalemate the formidable North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces led by the United States. NATO has all but acknowledged that "victory" over the Taliban in the war may no longer be possible and what is within the realms of possibility is staving off defeat and scoring "success" in the "Afghanization" of the war.

The timing of the article is also significant insofar as the Barack Obama administration is revisiting its seven-month-old Afghan war strategy, which was enunciated in March. Broadly speaking, the pendulum of the American debate is swinging between stepping up the war effort via the augmentation of troop strength in Afghanistan or scaling down the scope of the war to a counter-insurgency operation.

There is much piquancy in that the debate is also unfolding against the backdrop of the tide of American public opinion turning against the US military involvement in Afghanistan. Then, there is the annual debate in the United Nations Security Council on Afghanistan, which began in New York on Monday. Also, the UN proposes to convene an international conference in Afghanistan within this year.

The China Daily article makes several important points. First, it bluntly calls on Washington to forthwith bring the US military operations in Afghanistan to an end. There are no caveats here while making this demand, no alibis. Simply put, the war has only resulted in aggravating the political and social turmoil in Afghanistan, causing great turbulence and violence and it has brought neither peace and stability as the George W Bush administration promised nor any "tangible benefits" to the US itself. "On the contrary, the legitimacy of the US military action has been under increasing doubt."

[leftstreet]

1. Interesting article

Thanks for posting it

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. You're welcome. Thanks for reading it.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. "The geopolitics of the war have been completely left out in the article."

Salient point, buried way down in the linked article.

The geo-politics of the oil and gas pipelines, and who will control them, has been a huge
non-discussion. Any glance at the maps of the current and proposed pipelines tells the real story of why the US. oil-garchs NEED the Taliban/Al-Quada's continued existence as an excuse to remain in the Middle East/Western Aisa.
Of course China has a huge stake in the outcome of our contested presence in that part of the world, as does Russia.
The problem remains: how much longer can the USA afford to back the oil=garchs?


K&R

[bemildred]

4. K & R. nt

[HamdenRice]

5. They're paying for it so they get to tell us what to do nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. I hope you're right in this case. Cuz what we're doing sure isn't working.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Kick

[redqueen]

8. Thanks for posting this.

This morning on BBC World News they had someone on who was saying how counterproductive it is to have occupying forces trying to put down insurgents... that it mostly served to fuel anti-occupier sentiments, and that only the populace turning against the insurgents could bring about lasting change.

The host tried to argue but the logic was out there and obvious.

Maybe things are beginning to change with respect to the dominance of military-option-first style thinking. Dare we hope?

K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. I think Obama may be looking for a way out of the mess.

Unfortunately, he is also mixing political ramifications into his evaluations. He's certainly not alone, or unique, in doing so, but it would be nice if he looked back to LBJ's political reasons for continuing another lost war and the cost of doing so.

[redqueen]

10. Thanks for my reason to write to the WH today.

:kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. I think the tide has turned against the war(s).

Not for any ideological reasons, but simply because they're failures. Which could redound to Obama's favor if he doesn't drag the process out too long.

As one of my prof's said back in '68 when we (SDS) were "disrupting" his class because of that other lost war, "The war will end when enough bodies come home, and the average citizen has to reach in his wallet to pay for it."

[redqueen]

13. Yes...

I find that so very depressing, though. Money, and personal cost (i.e. selfishness).

*sigh*

[redqueen]

11. Kick for worthwhile reading.

:kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. kick for further discussion

[bigtree]

15. the Shanghai Cooperation Organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

They need to replace NATO in Afghanistan. Good post.