More Troops Are Not the Answer

Lost at the bottom in a blog post on The Lede, the news blog of The New York Times edited by Robert Mackey, is this observation by Zamir Kabulov, the Russian Ambassador to Afghanistan and who was a KGB agent in Kabul during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s.

Last October Mr. Kabulov told my colleague John Burns that the U.S. had "already repeated all of our mistakes," and moved on to "making mistakes of their own, ones for which we do not own the copyright." One of the biggest mistakes the Soviets made, Mr. Kabulov said, was letting the force grow too large. "The more foreign troops you have roaming the country," he said, "the more the irritative allergy toward them is going to be provoked."

Afghanistan is not a country easily occupied and its population does not take well to occupation. Back in March when the President conducted his first strategic review that led to the first increase in troop levels to over 60,000, a Taliban spokesman told the Al Jazeera television network that President Obama is repeating the mistakes of the Soviet Union, which lost 15,000 soldiers when it tried to occupy Afghanistan in the 1980s. "If more troops were going to win the war, then the Russians would have won the war," the spokesman was quoted as saying.

More troops are not the answer.

Tags: Afghanistan, COIN, General Stanley McChrystal, Obama Administration, US Foreign Policy Issues (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Re: More Troops Are Not the Answer

Dean Smith used to say that you shouldn't take advice from the other guy, because he's not rooting for you.

by Steve M 2009-09-22 06:58PM | 0 recs
What is (are) the answer(s) ?

Not a rhetorical question... I am asking it honestly because I value and respect your opinion.

by Ravi Verma 2009-09-22 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: What is (are) the answer(s) ?

A counter-terrorsim strategy as advocated by Vice President Biden.

by Charles Lemos 2009-09-22 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: More Troops Are Not the Answer

Russia would have won too - had a certain alliance not been funding and arming the Mujaheddin.

The only other option to pacify A'stan  is to negotiate and come to an agreement with the opposition (British model). That's not going to work with the Taliban and AQ.

The only solution is to go after Talib-AQ and try and kill or capture OBL and Zahawhiri. Pakistan has finally been making good progress on their side. With 8 years of training having provided no viable Afghan military and with no allies willing or able to provide more, the burden has to fall on the US for the next couple of years.

by vecky 2009-09-22 08:40PM | 0 recs
Okay, so what is the answer!

If you are so sure what isn't the answer, then you need to present the alternative. 9/11 was launched from Afghanistan by OBL and his Taliban pal, Mullah Omar, who married OBL's daughter.

Unless you are prepared to turn Afghanistan back to the people who did 9/11 you need to present the alternative.

by cmpnwtr 2009-09-22 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, so what is the answer!

You talk about 9/11 being "launched from Afghanistan" as if it were a cruise missile or something.

A cruise missile base is easy to destroy.  A location where people can sit down and plot, well there are a lot of those.

The "safe haven" argument for continuing the fight in Afghanistan is facially appealing, but if the price of denying al-Qaeda a safe haven is a 10-year nation-building struggle that costs thousands of lives and billions of dollars, what do we do when al-Qaeda simply moves on to the next failed state and sets up shop again?  Great, nation-building time in Somalia!

I'm a big fan of going after the bad guys.  If we're killing or capturing al-Qaeda then more power to us.  But if we're pursuing the more nebulous goal of making sure, at all costs, that Afghanistan will never give safe harbor to terrorists again, we have to ask ourselves if we're going to commit the resources to continuing that process in every failed state around the globe.  We got bin Laden kicked out of Sudan very cheaply, but prices seem to have gone up since then.

by Steve M 2009-09-22 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, so what is the answer!

@ Steve M.

You're confusing place with people. I talked about the people. Mullah Omar and his crowd, the Taliban were the ones who allied themselves with OBL and gave them refuge to do their work. They are the bad guys too, and they aren't changing their ways for nobody. Ask Benazir Bhutto. Ask Pakistan.

by cmpnwtr 2009-09-23 10:45AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------