In a post yesterday I mentioned being unsure whether more troops in Afghanistan would make a difference — not out of agnosticism, but out of genuine ignorance/confusion. Many smart people believe we’ve past the point of no return. But other smart people think that’s just flat wrong.
One of them is Peter Bergen, one of the U.S.’s top chroniclers of Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. In this post for U.N. Dispatch — sent to me by my friend Mark Leon Goldberg — Bergen contends that sending more troops to Afghanistan is absolutely imperative:
Why are more needed? Well do the math: Afghanistan is a country ideally suited to guerilla warfare with its high mountain ranges and it is a third larger than Iraq and its population is some 6 million or so greater, yet the numbers of soldiers and policemen in Iraq are more than three times larger than in Afghanistan.
Bergen points out that the U.S. war in Afghanistan appears, by most polling measures, to be the exception to the Afghan tradition of powerful xenophobia.
An ABC News/BBC poll released in December 2006 shows that despite the disappointments that Afghans have felt about inadequate reconstruction and declining security on a wide range of key issues, they maintain positive attitudes. It is classic counterinsurgency doctrine that the center of gravity in a conflict is the people. And the Afghan people, unlike the Iraqis, have positive feelings about the U.S.-led occupation, their own government and their lives. The conclusions of the ABC/BBC poll are worth quoting in some detail:
"Big majorities continue to call the U.S.-led invasion a good thing for their country (88 percent), to express a favorable opinion of the United States (74 percent) and to prefer the current Afghan government to Taliban rule (88 percent). Indeed eight in 10 Afghans support the presence of U.S., British and other international forces on their soil; that compares with five percent support for Taliban fighters…Fifty-five percent of Afghans still say the country’s going in the right direction, but that’s down sharply from 77 percent last year. Whatever the problems, 74 percent say their living conditions today are better now than they were under the Taliban. That rating, however, is 11 points lower now than it was a year ago."
I’m going to look around and see if the Internet can turn up a concise case against additional troops in Afghanistan.
Crossposted to The Streak.
Login Here




7 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
On the surface, this analysis is intriguing. However, in a country that requires foreign military presence to maintain peace (and the in power government), how reliable can any poll be? I’m not sure how an effective poll can be taken outside of Kabul, or a few other metropolitan centers. Does anyone know how this poll was performed?
Read Barnett Rubin at http://icga.blogspot.com for his thoughts on why more troops are a bad idea/lost cause. He’s probably your best bet, and it will be one of the better informed analysis (most mil guys talking about the issue — pro or con — know almost nothing about Afghanistan).
Definitely read Rory Stewart’s recent article in Time–
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2…..fghanistan
I can see why we should invest heavily in education (i.e. greg mortenson) and help the Afghanis with infrastructure projects. I don’t know, though, why we’d want to consolidate our forces in such inhospitable terrain–we might consider Russia’s attempt to solve the Afghanistan dilemma with a military solution.
You know what the literal meaning of the word “Taliban” is ?
Because you can see the alternate schooling system on the other side of the border. Where your entire education is the book and how it’s portrayed to you, sponsored by the Wahabbis.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but many agree that education initiatives are far superior to military force when it comes to shrinking the influence of the Taliban.
See the following on Mr. Mortenson:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07…..ref=slogin
What good can our soldiers do if all young Afghanis are being taught the literalist ways of the Taliban that you mention?
Education, and especially educating girls, seems to be the game-changer.
Well that’s what I’m getting at about why you should want to fund construction and funding of non-whackjob-based education. You’re there doing this under a legitimised program with the vast support of the local population. Why wouldn’t you want to ?
On closer examination… you said “I CAN see why” not “I can’t see why” like I read it. Sorry about that.
I’m reading 3 cups right now BTW.