“Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism have reduced the pace of military transformation and have revealed our lack of preparation for defensive and stability operations. This Administration has overextended our military” were the words spoken by the then President-elect Barack Obama in regards to America’s costly and prolonged war fronts. Soon after winning the presidency, the Obama Administration outlined an exit strategy out of Iraq to be placed in full effect as of August 2010. Living up to his promise of improved political relations with the international community from his presidential campaign, President Obama has been able to set a deadline for the conclusion of the Iraq War, begin constructive dialogue with Syria, Russia, and Cuba, and most recently, allude to possible negotiations with the Taliban (or Taleban) in Afghanistan. Yes, you read correctly…negotiate with terrorists!
After the Pakistani government negotiated a truce with the Taliban in February of this year, the outcry from the international community was one of disappointment and a lost hope for the innocent civilians, mostly the women and young girls, living in the Swat valley of Pakistan. If the Obama Administration does proceed with finding a middle ground with the Taliban and ending America’s occupation of Afghanistan earlier than suspected, I think that an outcry of disappointment from the international community would be unwarranted. The reason being that the United States of America is not the governing body in Afghanistan. The Obama Administration and its allies know that Afghanistan contains a complex and eclectic collection of political factions and tribes and winning any type of war there would be best handled via diplomacy rather than military force. Call it what you will, but this is in no way an act of cowardice, but rather a wise move by the Obama Administration.
I believe that the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq should conclude at the same time next year but America’s support for both the Iraqi and the Afghan governments should continue to strengthen in order for both governments to effectively fend off insurgents. America’s lack of a strong military presence in both countries by August 2010 will not necessarily equate to a resurgence of insurgency. President Obama has a greater problem at hand in Afghanistan than the Taliban; his Administration risks further weakening ties with Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government if the occupation is to continue. History reminds us that the Afghans do not like military occupations and America’s current occupation risks being compared to the Soviet Union’s 10 year failure there in the 1980′s. The best route to long term success against the Taliban in Afghanistan is to exit the country after successful negotiations with some of the moderate tribes there and assist Afghan President Karzai with military intelligence and hardware. What can not happen is Afghan President Karzai negotiating a truce with the radical wing of the Taliban and making the same mistake as Pakistan.
April 11th, 2009 22:44
It seems to me that I have been viewing objects in terms of advancement. This large-scale analytical approach leads me to wonder if man has progressed greater than governments. It seems as though we know more about inter-personal relations (and there are more adages and sayings) than we do of international relations. Of course, even a child can realize that the former has existed exponentially longer than the latter. As a political structure, America roams the world as a brute Neanderthal and the dress of its’ delegates are a facade. We treat other nations with very little respect or consideration and that stems from our lack of understanding of other collective bodies. This is probably due to differences in language and learning structures. Regardless, my point: the United States has been a proponent and an enemy of state-sovereignty at its prudence for too long.
March 8th, 2009 20:14
Strong and much truth to all asserations. The current adminstration does have a tough job on it’s hand and its exit has to be invasive, swift, and powerful. Negations must be firm and concise. And one should study and use the history towards it’s advantage. Very well thought out blog, and i agree 100%.