Comments on: Losing Afghanistan

By: Lily

Lily — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:21:50 +0000

“US and allied forces are about to lose Afghanistan: The anti-terror and anti-Taliban efforts as well as state- and institution building are bearing no sustainable fruit.”
Am I wrong, or did the US at first support the Taliban? Just like Irak? And why do they lose this country, which assumes that they must have owned it and there an overwhelming mistake in the formulation of a dubious conscousness is buried.

By: Gerhard_Mangott

Gerhard_Mangott — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:57:18 +0000

To a certain degree this could be a working hypothesis. However, US corporations need a resonably stable political environment and minimum standards of security. This requires a sustained military presence of US and allied forces. I am however, not convinced whether the current or a future US administration will maintain its military engagement in Afghanistan. There won't be any cut an run, but I expect a phasing out within the next 3-5 years.

By: Christine Hufford

Christine Hufford — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:08:26 +0000

Could it be, Dr.Mangott, that the US corporations welcome a chaotic situation in Afghanistan in order to bargain as cheaply as possible for recovering the dormant wealth of Afghanistan?

By: Gerhard_Mangott

Gerhard_Mangott — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:53:24 +0000

US commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan has been weak right after the overthrow of the Taleban government. This was a terrible mistake; however, this did not result from misguided concepts but from deliberate ignorance to the process of nation-building. The US has already abandoned Afghanistan like it had done after the Soviet withdrawal and the start of the tribal infights immediately afterwards.

Given the current US backtracking in Iraq it is highly likely that the next stage the US will leave is Afghanistan. 'Enduring Freedom' may come to an early end.

By: Christine Hufford

Christine Hufford — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:12:55 +0000

The situation in Afghanistan is quite troublesome. What has complicated the allied effort is the initial half-hearted effort the US had rendered by committing a limited number of military forces, and by allowing OBL to escape in Tora Bora because of the presence of the princes of Dubai.
It was always obvious that any intervention in Alfhanistan would require a sustained and superior military commitment. American politics has unfortunately thwarted this military incursion.
In addition, the chaotic social conditions in Afghanistan would require a super human approach. To bring a primitive society, that has never been successfully led by anyone into the 21st century, would require patience and considerable financial investment. One is reminded of Tacitus, the great Roman historian, who described in Germania, the nature of the primitive Germanic hordes. Therein lies a ray of hope even for Afghanistan. The Germanic masses had been described, a thousand years ago, to be just as
barbaric as the Afghan people are today. If the West continues to work with Afghanistan, it stands to reason, that even they will one day join Western society in reaping the fruits of liberty. Since Afghanistan is rich in natural gas,
the West will never completely foresaken it; this is of course not for altruistic reasons, but rather to feed the greed of US corporations to gain access to the
wealth of Afghanistan.
Pakistan plays a pivotal role in destroying Al Queda. President Musharaf, although willing to rid himself of the Al Queda presence in his territories,
has only limited control in that matter. The West needs to continue to work with him. For, life without him in that region, would be infinitely more difficult.