Afghanistan-Have we met our objective of disrupting the Islamist terrorists that gather in Afpak?
Perhaps temporarily, but in the long run, no, probably not. Nearly every American soldier has likely seen some good in what we’ve done. The fighting has been very fierce at times.
‘US President Barack Obama has said that by the end of next year, America’s war in Afghanistan would be over. Obama said that the core objective, the reason America went to war, is now within reach- in ensuring that Al-Qaeda can never again use Afghanistan to launch attacks against America ‘
There is no way around it: Afghanistan is a mess. The Taliban and our opposition really aren’t going anywhere. Karzai is a notably unstable leader. The government is corrupt, the army seems untrainable, the border porous. Pakistan is not really an ally. Our policy is adrift and commitment unsteady.
Afpak is a work in progress, and will require close attention.
Michael Yon says to cut losses.
The NY Times despite and because of its worldview has pretty good coverage.
About that objective of disrupting terror networks…what’s our plan for the future?
Mali-With or without Gerard Depardieu, French leaders will be raising troop levels from 750 to a projected 2,500 and are currently using airstrikes to bottle in the Islamist insurgency that controls the Northern half of the country. These are a brutal bunch of competing warlords, really, seeking heaven on earth.
The US and UK are offering assistance.
How is this going to work, exactly?
***It’s good to see people so sure of good and evil these days: Mali in throes of genocide by US, UK, France evil trio: Analyst
Perhaps, as in Libya, we are giving rise to neo-neo colonialism and its discontents.
About that objective of combatting the larger Islamist resurgence that seems to be going on,…what’s our plan for the future?
Addition: Adam Garfinkle takes the NY Times to task for shallow coverage of Mali:
‘Hence, what’s going on in Mali is going to keep going on, in one form or another. It is likely to spread to Niger, possibly to Mauritania, too. I can barely wait for the next drive-by, nomad-journalism New York Times potshots aimed at trying to convey the shape of this burgeoning mess. Maybe one day they’ll even figure out how to connect the dots back to Libya.’
Ideologically speaking, it’s not about Libya, or the Tuareg, or the broader world outside. It’s about shifting U.S. culture and politics to a more Western universalist lens: Their favored ideas and politicians and what they can see from inside that lens.
That’s a schism in our society, Mali, Syria, and Afghanistan aside.
Related On This Site: I don’t believe that we can appease Islamic extremists, which seems to be the premise of this administration’s approach…blunt American power and incentivize Muslim societies to drive the extreme elements out through international cooperation: Via Youtube-Uncommon Knowledge With Fouad Ajami And Charles Hill