NATO’s so-called withdrawal from Afghanistan is being called an “irreversible” course to end the war, but fundamental aspects of the war will continue far into the future and even President Barack Obama admitted the plan was fraught with risks.
At the NATO summit in Chicago, the Western alliance formally endorsed a plan that aims to hand control of Afghanistan to its own security forces by the middle of next year, but left unaddressed the failure to either train an independent Afghan force or to eliminate the Taliban, supposedly the two major missions of the war.
Notably, talk of victory was absent from the proceedings, as was talk of bringing a democracy to Afghanistan. Even President Obama and his European vassals can’t pretend that is the case. But Obama did say he expects to leave behind a stable Afghanistan.
For virtually every six month period since the beginning of the surge in 2009, the rate of bloodshed and violence has increased considerably. Last year saw a rise in overall violence for the fifth year in a row.
In a report submitted last Tuesday to Congress, the Pentagon acknowledged a “resilient” Taliban and many analysts have predicted at least a partial return to power by the Taliban.
In January, the National Intelligence Estimate concluded the war is still a “stalemate,” that the Taliban are still strong, that Washington has propped up a government plagued by pervasive corruption and illiberal policies, etc.
In addition, new insurgent groups have emerged in Afghanistan, breaking off from the Taliban and engaging in renewed campaigns to to commit violence against Kabul if it goes ahead with NATO’s plan, which keeps a considerable troop presence and operational capacities in the country.
Afghan troops, supposedly ready to take over security for the country by mid-2013, consistently get into gun battles with their American and NATO counterparts and less than 1 percent of them can operate independently, without NATO guidance.
The deal being christened at the NATO summit maintains a significant presence of ISAF trainers in Afghanistan until at least 2024. The U.S. will continue conducting night raids and drone strikes into Pakistan.
The relationship with Pakistan remains extremely rocky. Islamabad, and the powerful secret service, the ISI, have long preferred Taliban influence in Afghanistan over that of the U.S.-installed Hamid Karzai regime. Pakistan’s number one security concern is India, and is likely to try to prevent Indian influence in Afghanistan by proxy (namely, Taliban and affiliated groups).
Sadly absent from the NATO summit was any recognition that the hundreds of billions of dollars and the tens of thousands of lives wasted in the name of saving political face have done nothing to change the dynamic from when Obama first took office. The U.S. and NATO have done much damage to Afghanistan over the last decade and it has little in security gains to show for it.
The war is a failure, and it is only recognized implicitly by the reckless leaders sitting comfortably in Chicago.
Its Word is prisoner
Its letters are hidden still inside the ink.
One line of thought and few metaphors are
here to catapult Its Portrait beyond words.
Time for Awakening
Since 9/11 it's the War on Terror
One "false flag" attack so called by error
Blair, Bush, and Israel had a Pact in store
Their next surprise is knocking at your door
A hidden vile Idea from those who want "more"
will use you and your Belief for the next World War
As "chosen people" gain while Humankind loses
Greed wins not by the swords but by the words of Moses
Daring is to tell you when, better then to tell you rhymes
could not side with either one to get ready for our times
to look beyond and past today to seek for a solution
one only hope is there for you and spells Wavevolution
……………….
A new type of Revolution wins with the ultimate weapon
Your Mind
http://www.wavevolution.org
Just as happened in Vietnam, the enemy in Afghanistan is extremely thankful to the US and NATO for greatly assisting them in recruiting people who will fight to their last dying breath and then to training them. Some of the new recruits just can´t wait to join up with the Taliban and turn on their real enemy in their enemy´s own turf.
Just as in Vietnam prior to 1965, our Vietnamese allies were poorly trained and wouldn´t fight, while our enemies were highly skilled, dedicated and brave warriors. But we insisted on fighting the battles of our allies. Shouldn´t there be a message here, after all those years of direct experience with that training our allies´ army and police nonsense? They don´t want to fight our battles with their own people, and shouldn´t want to. Our policy is totally sick and undoable, but it does sell lots and lots of weapons.
This policy also demonstrates the weakness of our military might to the whole world. We get to lose another war to another backward and dirt poor nation.
the u.s. isn't strong enough to dominate the world – not without many strong allies, many of which are taking a step or two back from the u.s. because of it's insane wars on drugs and war against "terrorism," whatever that means…and because they have national interests of their own.
the next great world war may well be the rest of the world united against the united war corporations of america. or are we already fighting that one?
I agree with the sentiment of your last sentence, but I'd hardly call South Vietnam an "ally" as it was more like a satrap, just like the adventures here and now. Just like the Iraqis and the Afghans, the South Vietnamese had little interest in fighting their occupiers war. And not to minimize the efforts of the North Vietnamese in any way, but the message there was clear from early on: The resistance doesn't need to win by fighting. They just have to not lose. And how they do that is not to go away. Which is much easier to do when what you're defending is your home.
Vietnam, like Iraq and Afghanistan is a function of somebody not knowing 'how to fight a war right'. And America trying to 'show them'.
Empire building — A failure?
Not so, for our voting majority bless their darling hearts, has not their wealth increased substantially during our war on Afghanistan, our 51% most wealthy who as always continue to have great jobs, terrific homes and deluxe healthcare?
"irreversible"
Didn't the Fuhrer used to say that a lot?
Why do the media – including Antiwar.com – call the military activity in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere “wars”? They are clearly occupations or, at a stretch, civil wars. They may have started as aggressive wars against the particular states but that phase, thanks to the US military might, is long since past.
Wars are conflicts between realms or states with the exception of civil wars, which are between rival groups from within the same realm or state.
because without "war" what would antiwar.com write about every day?
Would that they had nothing to write about!
You forgot 'illegal invasions'
Nothing to show for it except for the untold fortunes that were made by a few subcontractors. So, at the end, this like everything else is a matter of opinion, personal opinion that is.