The "Economist" On Afghanistan

"Eight years after the Taliban were blasted from power by American jets, and despite the splashing of $32 billion of foreign aid on Afghanistan, there are many reasons for Afghan anger. A failure to provide the security they crave--despite the deployment of over 100,000 ISAF and American troops, more than 120 of whom have been killed in the past six weeks--is the most obvious. ... Afghans, who welcomed this Kafir intervention in 2001 with outstretched arms, tell stories of American and British soldiers barging into cloistered Pushtun women's quarters, at night, with unclean dogs. ... An American-funded effort to plough up opium poppies, the main cash crop in much of the Pushtun south, has been wasteful and self-defeating. ... In Afghanistan Mr. Obama's arrival has brought a flurry of strategy reviews and a ruthless change of command, to usher in General McChrystal--whose own review will be unveiled later this month. It will re-emphasise that the main goal of the ISAF and American troops is to protect Afghans, not kill the Taliban among them. Orders to this effect have already gone out. Air power is to be used only when there is no significant risk of civilian deaths. ... Wherever he is, Mullah Omar must be smiling", my emphasis, Economist, 20 August 2009, link: http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=14265001.

"The war is going badly. ... In Britain, a sceptical public wonders what its soldiers are dying for. ... The generals need more troops both to regain territory from the Taliban and to fight the war in a way that does not breed hostility to the West", my emphasis, Economist, 20 August 2009, link: http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=14258750.

"The orator-in-chief has not lost his touch. Addressing a crowd of military veterans on August 17th, Barack Obama thanked them for their service and vowed to give their successors in uniform everything they might need, while also cutting waste from the military budget. ... The main purpose of his speech, however, was to drum up support for the war in Afghanistan. ... 'If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Queda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defence of our people'," Economist, 20 August 2009, link: http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=14259062.

I'm sure Mullah Omar is smiling. By carefully placing his people he can ground the whole US Air Force. Anyone reporting to Stanley has my sympathies. Why do we care what the Afghans think? The Prophet (PBUH) didn't like dogs, so we should not have them? "Ruthless change of command"? Is Stanley today's Patton or Blackjack Pershing? In 1945 "there were many reasons for [German] anger". So?

Fight a war and "not breed hostility". Amazing. Poor limeys.

Let's give Mr. "my grandfather liberated Auschwitz" the benefit of the doubt. "His" knowledge of geography is so poor, "He" does not realize Afghanistan is landlocked. "He" thinks the Taliban has "force projection capabilities" from its five carrier battlegroups and hundreds of naval aircraft. "Everything"? How about artillery and air support, now!