Browse > Home / Around The World / President Obama Accepts That The U.S. Isn’t Winning In Afghanistan.

President Obama Accepts That The U.S. Isn’t Winning In Afghanistan.

March 10, 2009

President Obama Accepts That The U.S. Isn’t Winning In Afghanistan. Adam Lovejoy writes: So, after eight years of fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan the United States have finally accepted the failure of their military effort. In his interview to The New York Times President Barack Obama conceded that the U.S. was not winning the war with the Taliban and gave a strong hint of a possibility of opening talks with moderate factions among the rebel groups. Under the previous President, George Bush, the American strategy in Afghanistan was based solely on the idea of crushing the Taleban and winning the war outright.

Mr Obama’s remarks come at a time when 17,000 additional American troops are destined for Afghanistan, to bolster the current American military presence there of 38,000. So Obama’s olive branch would be stuck into a barrel of a gun, figuratively speaking. The White House seems to believe that an increased American military presence in Afghanistan would force some sections of the Taliban to reassess their position and show willingness to talk.

There is also the perception in Washington that General David Petraeus, who has overseen the so-called ‘surge’ in Iraq that helped to pacify some of the insurgents, would be able to achieve a similar goal in Afghanistan. The problem is that the fragmented Afghanistan, with its warring tribes and warlords, is no Iraq that for decades had a strong central government. Another great difference between the two countries is that while Iraq has abundant mineral resources and a workable infrastructure Afghanistan’s economy is based on the drug trade and its infrastructure has been all but destroyed. Furthermore, the drugs trade is always linked to corruption, violence and a fierce resistance by the drug lords to any attempt to enforce even a resemblence of law and order.

Way back in June last year we wrote on this website, while commenting on the number of British casualties in Afghanistan, that the situation there was worsening with the drug trade getting out of control and last year’s poppy harvest promising to be the biggest ever. Afghanistan has become the biggest producer of opium, supplying 90 per cent of it to the world. We wrote then that until the drug trade continues to thrive it would be impossible to restore order in the country and smash the Taliban who are able to buy arms and recruit new fighters using drug money.

We even suggested a possible radical solution to the problem: for the NATO countries to buy up all the poppy crops from the Afghan farmers and then destroy them. On the rough assumption that the yearly crops of poppies in Afghanistan are worth around $1 billion it seemed like a good idea, especially considering that the sums spent on keeping NATO troops in the country and on providing aid to the Afghan government exceed that amount many times over. A lot of this aid, around $25 billion, has not actually made much difference to the Afghani people.

And there is another factor in Afghanistan that will prevent American troops from defeating the Taliban: an ‘open’ border with Pakistan. Although the US troops have been targeting Taleban supporters across the border, the stream of fighters in both directions – to regroup, in one, and to reinforce the insurgents to fight NATO forces, in another – has been substantial. So any US military operation in Afghanistan would not bring success until the border with Pakistan is sealed. And that looks very unlikelly, especially as the Afghan army has not achieved the levels of training that is needed to defend the country’s borders.

President’s Obama’s acceptance of the possibility of talking to the Taliban makes sense. But his iron fist in a velvet glove combination may prove to be a mistake. For Washington to pretend that you can talk to terrorists from position of strength is a fantasy. You only talk to them from a position of weakness and try to involve the men of violence in the political process. Like it happened in South Africa, in Northern Ireland and will eventually happen in Afghanistan. The other option is to continue fighting a war with no end in sight and with a weak and corrupt government in Kabul pretending to be busy ‘building a democracy’ in the country.

– End –

Related posts:

  1. Britain Suffers Heavy Casualties In Afghanistan: The Conflict Is Bound To Intensify Further

    This website has been predicting the worsening of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan for more than a year. Why? Because not only...

  2. Conflict In Afghanistan: No Light At The End Of The Tunnel

    As British casualties in Afghanistan approach 220 dead and American troops losing more soldiers in September than in any other single month before London and...

  3. War In Afghanistan: It Has Nothing To Do With Common Sense.

    I often meet people who tell me that they have no idea what is it exactly that U.S. and British troops are doing in...

  4. Winning Hearts And Minds In Afghanistan. Even When They’re Detached From The Bodies

    Dan Majestic writes: As NATO introduces a policy of ‘heroic restraint’ in Afghanistan, urging its troops not to kill everything that moves, we ask: what...

  5. Afghanistan: The Situation Can Only Get Worse

    It became clear to me that the situation in Afghanistan could only get worse with time when I realised that Western governments were not prepared...

Category: Around The World  · No Comments »
Tags: , , ,

Would you like to add a comment?