Alternatives for the U.S. in Afghanistan?

[bigtree]

from Michael Brenner at HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/afghanistan-a-true-altern_b_359285.html


WHAT else is there to do? That is the question flung at critics of our military commitment in Afghanistan by its promoters. Total victory or total humiliation, the Petraeuses and McChrystals tell us, are the only options. There are other answers and other outcomes. The key is to reappraise American interests in AFPAK. The advocates of slugging it out at all costs presume a vital stake in preventing another 9/11 -- if not worse. In order to achieve that end, we must liquidate all al-Qaeda presence -- in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan. In addition, the Taliban must be eliminated as a political force lest they allow al-Qaeda to set up shop again somewhere in the country. That is an absolutist argument built on the idea that achieving a zero risk situation is possible and that it is essential. But it is a specious argument.

One, no one on this earth has the luxury of living with zero risk to their security. In this case, al-Qaeda -- itself a loose franchise -- can form and reform in a number of places. At the moment, it is incapable itself of doing more than surviving in the Hindu Kush. Terrorist organizations already are morphing and sub-dividing. Two, the scary notion that thousands of diabolical fanatics are out there devising clever schemes to do us in is fantasy. Little more than scare-talk. Were that true, there would have been many more attacks against prime American targets over the past eight years. American leaders, chomping at the bit to broadcast their successes, would have pulled out all stops in publicizing their heroism in thwarting the terrorists. Their silence speaks volumes.

Three, the Taliban in Afghanistan are native Pahtuns with local ambitions. Whatever their ideological affinities with al-Qaeda like groups, they never act outside their own country. Hence, their total elimination as political actors in Afghanistan is not a compelling objective for us. Yes, a return to a Taliban monopoly of power as in 2000 would not be a good thing from our perspective -- although hardly an 'end of the world as we know it now' situation. Preventing them from reconstituting their full control is a worthwhile objective. That goal, however, does not demand crushing them and turning Afghanistan into an American protectorate.

Four, a reasonable objective -- reasonable in terms both of American interests and feasibility -- is to foster a political settlement (or, perhaps, settlements) whereby the various Afghan factions themselves work out a set of arrangements that bring a measure of stability to the country. That is the best we can hope for. It means accepting that we have neither means nor necessity to shape the country's institutions, practices and methods for accommodating multiple factions based on ethnicity, region, tribe, sect and personal rivalry. After all, that is what they've been doing for a couple of millennia -- at least . . .


read more here for Brenner's fifth and sixth suggestions: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/afghanistan-a-true-altern_b_359285.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. My suggestion would be to make the public announcement -

"Give us Bin Laden, and we will go away".

Turn the Taliban against Al Queda, make AQ the outsiders who are preventing peace and the stabilization of the country, and somebody will do it.

Conflating the Taliban with AQ was a Bush error from the beginning - there is no rational reason to persist in it.

[Sinti]

2. Then we would never "go away". They don't have him and probably can't get him n/t

[mmonk]

4. Bush already did that along with a demand of a lower pipeline lease rate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. The only viable alternative is to face the reality that we lost. We will do it now or later.

The "problem" isn't the terrain, the lack of troops, the lack of the peoples' support in Afghanistan, or any of the other "problems" that prevent victory. The problem is that our politicians are afraid to admit to the voters that the "war" in Afghanistan was in vain. That it has been pursued entirely for domestic political reasons. First, to show that Bush was "doing something" in the wake of 9/11. And, now, to show that Obama is "tough".