The Afghan conflict, a war between good and evil, of superior Western values over the backward ideas of the Taliban. Where a conflict rages so that in this world, the right thing may be done to triumph over those that would seek to send the world into the dark ages again.
Or is it? It has been asked before, 'Why are the soldiers in Afghanistan?' To be honest that question intrigued me as well. Since I had to read up books and articles to get a glimmering idea. The chain of events goes along these lines [very simplified]:
2001: Twin towers attack. United States promises swift retaliation and justice
2002: Taliban reeling backwards. Chance to consolidate and nation build.
2003: Soldiers pulled from Afghanistan to redeploy to Iraq conflict.
2004: ???
2005: ???
2006: ???
2007: ???
2008: Troops redeployed from Iraq
2009: ???
2010: ???
2011: ???
2012: PROFIT! [Sorry, couldn't resist internet meme]
The thing is knowledge about the situation is uncertain and at times chaotic. Requiring a picture of the situation to be painted and built up through multiple sources. Which is pretty apt, considering the situation is itself uncertain and chaotic.
What does emerge though is that what is needed for peace and stability is a functional government and the security to enforce it. From the next step of functional government, fed-clothed-housed population can you leave behind a stable country to take its next step into the future.
What we have here however, is not that situation. A multinational force unable to coordinate past a certain level facing an enemy that may be local or not and a multitude of situations.
To solve the situation in Afghanistan requires a cohesive action, coordinated at all levels to protect the people, increase local security, and basically build a functioning country and government. At the moment it seems there are barely enough troops to provide security, however the situation as always, is complicated.
Why can't the US deploy more troops to Afghanistan? It has troop commitments around the globe. Some for good you can argue, some for completely pointless military adventures like Iraq where the standard of living has dropped back to the Stone age. But don't forget! They got elections! So that makes that all better. Ignoring the fact that democracy is just one system of government. Hardly THE system of all time. They should let these things spread naturally.
[Like Capitalism. Which actually isn't that Capitalistic. If one were to analyse the data, or simply call up the All Knowing Wikipedia (Citation needed); you can see that a lot of industry is supported by government funding or incentive. Pure market forces tell the companies where the profits are, but some critical areas of a state's output would fall flat without government propping up. An example being the heavily subsidized corn from the U.S so it can be sold cheap. But this is a topic for another post.]
References:
Opium Trade 2007 (Book not in country apologies)
Guns for Hire by Tony Geraghty
Brain feels like its going to melt from the factors now. Will break this topic into smaller posts.
Memory joggers:
Taliban (Who they are)
Training Centres in Pakistan / Saudi Funding (Unassailable base of operations)
Opium Drug Trade (Livelihood of the populace)
Government (Corrupt and inefficient)
Tribal Politics (The hidden background story)
What role do you feel WMD played in the iraq conflict?
ReplyDeleteWhat role do I feel WMD's played in the Iraq conflict? Bit of a broad question but I'll do my best in the limited space.
ReplyDeleteWMD's were the reason stated by the United States and United Kingdom governments for the reason of invading the country.
If the proof had been solid that WMD's were indeed present in-country and a threat to the safety of those countries, it would be a solid reason as a pre-emptive self defense measure (bit of a grey area here)
But back to the question, with the information available now, the role of WMD's in the conflict was as bogeyman, to scare people into line with the agenda of the governments.
My information is hazier on this area but G.W. Bush was advised that an invasion to topple the Saddam would be swiftly followed by a happy new Democratic ally in the region along with their oil sources.
This was poor advice and the results are seen today with disastrous effects on the population.
TLDR: WMD's were used to scare people to toe the government line as a pretext so they can invade for the nice nice black crude. Which they can't get to now because the security is messed up. Great success.