Bush and Afghanistan
I won't consider the 'sniper' issue, since I can't research it for details and veracity.
As far as the use of warlord allies goes - I actually think it was likely the best choice of a constellation of poor ones. It worked, anyway, and with minimal military intervention on our part.
Part three - the distraction from sustaining the new Afghan government and the hunt for Afghan al-Qaeda and Taliban elements - is a powerful one in my eyes. While the administration seemed willing to continue to devote US forces to fighting pockets of holdouts, they definitely did not seem willing to commit a sufficient number of peacekeepers nor expend a great deal of US treasure or reputation to secure strong international investment in the rebuilding of Afghanistan. The United States and the world have not lived up to our promises to Afghanistan, and that is why the country is still a mess. A country that the international community has left weak, divided, and alienated is going to be a base for international terrorism.
Tom also notes that almost anyone would have intervened militarily in Afghanistan. I think this is true, though how well or quickly is up for grabs. Overall, I want to give Bush some points on Afghanistan in the initial days because as a military campaign, it seems pretty well executed overall. His diplomacy during that stage wasn't even as crappy as it has been at other times, despite his tendancy to choose his words for a friendly domestic audience without sufficient regard for how those words would be heard overseas, especially in Muslim countries suspicious of US intentions. Foreigners can't vote in US elections, but they can fight US policy. Overall, I give the administration's choice and methods for dealing with Afghanistan a B for the first two months declining steadily to a D or F by the time we were invading Iraq.
Iraq is a different issue that would take more time to address than I have right now, so I'll come back to it
As far as the use of warlord allies goes - I actually think it was likely the best choice of a constellation of poor ones. It worked, anyway, and with minimal military intervention on our part.
Part three - the distraction from sustaining the new Afghan government and the hunt for Afghan al-Qaeda and Taliban elements - is a powerful one in my eyes. While the administration seemed willing to continue to devote US forces to fighting pockets of holdouts, they definitely did not seem willing to commit a sufficient number of peacekeepers nor expend a great deal of US treasure or reputation to secure strong international investment in the rebuilding of Afghanistan. The United States and the world have not lived up to our promises to Afghanistan, and that is why the country is still a mess. A country that the international community has left weak, divided, and alienated is going to be a base for international terrorism.
Tom also notes that almost anyone would have intervened militarily in Afghanistan. I think this is true, though how well or quickly is up for grabs. Overall, I want to give Bush some points on Afghanistan in the initial days because as a military campaign, it seems pretty well executed overall. His diplomacy during that stage wasn't even as crappy as it has been at other times, despite his tendancy to choose his words for a friendly domestic audience without sufficient regard for how those words would be heard overseas, especially in Muslim countries suspicious of US intentions. Foreigners can't vote in US elections, but they can fight US policy. Overall, I give the administration's choice and methods for dealing with Afghanistan a B for the first two months declining steadily to a D or F by the time we were invading Iraq.
Iraq is a different issue that would take more time to address than I have right now, so I'll come back to it
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home