|
CBS News | Taliban Reviving, Afghan Gov't Faltering | April 7, 2003 08:22:14
Afghan authorities say Taliban remnants are reorganizing in an effort to destabilize the fledgling government of President Hamid Karzai.Southern Afghanistan in particular has been wracked by several attacks in the last few weeks by suspected Taliban fighters, including the murder of a Red Cross worker Ricardo Munguia and an ambush on a U.S. military convoy that killed two American servicemen.
Before executing the International Red Cross worker, the Taliban gunmen made a satellite telephone call to their superior for instructions: Kill him?
Kill him, the order came back, and Munguia, whose body was found with 20 bullet wounds last month, became the first foreign aid worker to die in Afghanistan since the Taliban's ouster from power 18 months ago.
There is little to stop them. The soldiers and police who were supposed to be the bedrock of a stable postwar Afghanistan have gone unpaid for months and are drifting away.
(snip)
At a time when the United States is promising a reconstructed democratic postwar Iraq, many Afghans are remembering hearing similar promises not long ago.Instead, what they see is thieving warlords, murder on the roads, and a resurgence of Taliban vigilantism.
"It's like I am seeing the same movie twice and no one is trying to fix the problem," said Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghanistan's president and his representative in southern Kandahar. "What was promised to Afghans with the collapse of the Taliban was a new life of hope and change. But what was delivered? Nothing. Everyone is back in business."
We are losing Afghanistan, and that means we are losing the war on terrorism. I know that sounds gloomy, and I hope this can be turned around, but Afghanistan is exactly where can least afford to fail. Terrorists require many things, one of the most important being destabilized and.or oppressive regimes. From those countries, they gain their recruits and find safe haven. Our inability to make serious progress in rebuilding Afghanistan is a failure of massive proportions. In fact, the situation has degenerated nearly to the point that allowed the Taliban to flourish. Once again, warlords rule most of the country and safety and rule of law are jokes.
Places like Afghanistan are where the war on terrorism is won or lost. It does not matter how many terrorists we capture, how many plots are foiled, or how many lead we uncover - not in the long run. Unless places like Afghanistan are stabilized and democratized, there will always be a large pool of desperate angry young men ready to strike out in any way they can.
We need to win in places like Afghanistan. We are not. We are losing ground. Until the Administration starts to devote massive amounts of time, men, and energy to Afghansitan, we will continue to lose ground.
Or is the UN failing? Checkout this story:
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/04/07042003115224.asp
We try to be diplomatic about this (Afghanistan) and people whine. We then take matters into our own hands (Iraq) and people really whine. I have to remind myself that this is basically the same "public" that makes movies like Jackass number one at the box office and TV shows like Joe Millionaire and The Bachelor top the television ratings. Yikes.
By the way Kevin, I'd be interested in reading any pieces you've written about the Clinton years that are as unmerciful as most of your latest posts have been about Bush's administration. You said Liberals don't hold Clinton up on a pedestal, so I'd be interested in hearing your take on Clinton, especially in regards to foreign policy.
Posted by: Joshua HooverJosh, those are two different things, and you know it. The majority of the world would have welcomed even one tenth the comitment we have shown to Iraq in Afghanistan.
Clinotn did several thngs right, and several things wrong. He waited too long to involve himself in Bosnia, then involved himself clumsily in Kosovo. Both could have been handled much better, I believe - though they did end in stopping genocide. Oddly, cause she was wrong about everything else, Maggie Thatcher was the first politician to "get" the horror of what was going on in Bosnia.
Somalia, alhtough he inherited it from the first Bush, was a mess. Not just because of the Mogadishu situation, but becasue of the fact that they never really did seem to get a coherent plan for waht they wanted to do together. Actually, to be fair, tey had a plan, but "deliver food" was not a sufficient policy.
Rawanda was inexcusable. Now, stopping the genocide may have been next to impossible. Rawanda is isolated, and hard to fight in. It is likely that it would have bee over before the US or UN could have done anything to stop it, but Clinton never really tried. And that is inexcusable.
On the other hand, the Northern Ireland peace process was a real coup, and he made real progress in the middle east, even if it did fall apart later. Even though Aristide turned out to be a bastard, I think Haiti was the correct choice - standing up for a legitimate elction (which, it was at the time) in the face of a military coup.
I think he did well on terrorism. It was, wthout a doubt, the consuming concern of the Admin in its second term. The World Trade Center bombers being brough to justice, the attempts on bin Laden, the attacks against terrorist camps and facilities (even if the Sudan was a miss, which is not really determined yet) an the stopping of the Millenium plots are all things to be proud of. He started a process that resulted in the Hart Rudman report on terrorism - which the Bush administration should not have ignored. I, personally, knowing what I know the Clinton admin knew then, would have pressed for an Invasion of Afghanistan, but I do not think that, in the climate, he would have been greated with anything other than "Wag The Dog!". Still, I think the case could have been made, and I think he should have tried to make, although I understand why he did not.
Clinton seemed to get that instability and repression were the real dangers in the world. He was fairly agressive about world AIDS research, and trying to use the IMF to stablize countries (like Korea and Mexico) before their economic problems spiraled out of control. However, he was too tied to the globalization conventional wisdom to realize that too much trade was being managed with the multinationals interest in mind, not the host nations. BTW, The NAFTA treaty is fairly proof positive that Clinton did not govern by pols. Every democratic interest group was lined up agaisnt the treaty, but he thought it was the right thing, so he fought for it anyway.
Posted by: kevinI think if the Taliban really tries to re-take Afghanistan, we will see the massive commitment you are looking for, Kevin. I don't see how Bush will have any choice in the matter.
Posted by: jang1108jang
They are trying, and they are making headway, but Bush and his neocons are focused on Iraq. I honestly do not think this bunch of recycled cold warriors have grasped how dangerous decaying countries are. Their boogyman has been Iraq for 12 years now. It is a small image of their great enemy, the USSR. I do not think that they have the emotional understanding of the dangers of extra state actors as they do of stalinist dictators.
Posted by: kevin
