Another day, another air strike in Afghanistan by “NATO” forces has killed civilians according to the Afghan government (the people we put in power, not some bunch of “Commies” in Hanoi or “Islamofascists” in wherever the Talibam leadership is holed up).
A NATO airstrike in southern Afghanistan has killed 33 people after an aircraft fired on civilians mistakenly thought to be insurgents, the Afghan government said on Monday.
The Afghan cabinet condemned the killings near the border of Uruzgan and Dai Kondi provinces as “unjustifiable”. Such casualties are a major source of anger among Afghans and Sunday’s toll was the highest number of civilian deaths in months.
I have to wonder how long we as Americans expect this type of thing can continue and if our political and military leaders really believe this is a winning strategy for a conflict which has lasted over 8 years with no end in sight? My guess is that we will still be sending troops into harms way through at least 2012 (i.e., until the next Presidential election). In fact, I predict that should Obama lose in 2012 to whomever the Republicans run against him, we could be talking about an armed occupation that lasts well until 2020. And what will be the end result of all these killings?
Ask the British Empire. Or ask the Soviet Empire. Oh, wait, those empires no longer exist. Indeed, the Soviet war in Afghanistan contributed as much to the downfall of the “Evil Empire” as Ronald Reagan did or any other alleged cause.
So why are we repeating the same mistakes made by other “super powers” of the past? In a time of extraordinary economic decline for most Americans we continue to pour precious resources into a conflict that we cannot “win” whatever “metric” one uses to measure “winning.”
What we are doing there now makes little sense, unless our goal is to follow the British and Russians into second class economic status in the world. Maybe we should just send Goldman Sachs there to securitize and develop derivatives for the Afghan poppy producers and warlords. Their tried and true model for destroying the economies of nations seems to be quite successful. More successful than a military occupation with no end in sight, in any event.
Update [2010-2-22 9:34:55 by Steven D]: In answer to the question in my title, General Petraeus says it will go one for a very long time indeed.
Every time you kill one you make two hundred more.
That’s a direct quote from a diary I read a year or so ago. On DKos I think, but I can’t find it now. From an American Muslim who had talked with family in the region. Every time I read about another drone attack killing civilians I remember those words.
It doesn’t matter what progress we make or what successes we proclaim. Our methods make more enemies than friends.
How long will this keep going on?
If the current strategy works, and it is being carried out better than previous ones, the Taliban will be amenable to negotiating a political agreement with the Kabul government.
Outside of the campaign in Marja, the US has captured the Taliban chief military commander and the shadow Taliban governors of three of the eastern provinces.
Within Marja, the US has captured a command center that had significant intelligence information and was also an armory for preparing IEDs.
The Kabul-appointed governor of Kandahar has requested that following Marja that the ISAF forces provide security in Kandahar until the Taliban there is cleared out.
There is no way to get military expenditures under control except withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan. And politically the only way to do that is to succeed and succeed quickly and succeed by having a political settlement that allows us to leave.
Only after it is over will we know the end result of these killings but now the Kabul government has made it clear that the ISAF troops must be more careful than in the past.
Obama has essentially selected a strategy, given the DoD what it says it needs to carry out the strategy and no doubt given them a date on which the results of the strategy will be reviewed–with withdrawal still an option. He has gotten commitments from NATO countries, who are skittish, to continue support for a while longer. If the NATO troops start leaving en masse, we are out of there. I don’t think that Obama will go it alone because that is not the way to the political settlement that will stabilize Afghanistan. Obama has Russia and China interested in the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan actively working to roll up the Taliban on their side of the border.
I doubt that there will be an armed occupation that lasts to 2020. For the economic reasons that you cite. Eventually occupation of Louisiana was too costly for the French. Occupation of India too costly for the British. And occupation of Afghanistan too costly for the Soviet Union. Without wisdom, our day will come too. For now I am waiting to see how wise this administration can be.
I am waiting to see how stupid the present administration might be. What with a dysfunctional Congress and a Supreme Court married to the interests of big money, I don’t think the future augurs too well for the United States of America. I like Steven’s suggestion of putting Goldman Sachs in charge of Afghanistan. With their proven track record of screwing things up, we might be rid of this sinkhole once and for all. After all, why not use all our financial talents?
As long as the American consensus on foreign policy counts an American life as more valuable than an Afghan one. As long as “realism” and the idea that states are not bound by ethics, manners or law prevails. As long as foreign policy is dictated by short-term electoral concerns.
Why do you ask?
Now where have I heard that before?