War Notes: October 19, 2009

The consequences of a giant Afghan army: Tom Engelhardt, who has written extensively on the war in Afghanistan, and post Cold War foreign policy generally, asks an important question: How wise a longterm strategy is it to create a massive Afghan security force and army, in addition to one in Iraq? In both cases, Engelhardt argues, we are arming a group of people that have given no indication that they will share our interests and cooperate with our Middle East/South Asia policy in the long run. In Iraq, we currently have established a security structure with 262,000 soldiers, 480,000 policemen, and 98,000 Sunni insurgents that have been put on our payroll so they don't fight with the first two groups. In Afhganistan our goal is 400,000 soldiers and policemen, though we are nowhere near that number at the moment. Here's to hoping that we stay friends forever, especially after we cut off their funding.


Where the money goes: In case you are one of the people arguing that we should be in Afghanistan to support the liberated women there, you should probably talk to Soya, a member of the Afghan women's group, RAWA. Speaking in Boston recently, she denounced the starvation taking place within 1000 feet of Karzai's presidential palace, and thanks American soldiers resisting deployment to Afghanistan for "refusing to kill our children and our people." Soya explained that many men fight for the Taliban because the $8 a day wage is the only reliable work they can find. Makes you wonder where our billions of war dollars go, and whether they couldn't be better served fighting hunger and providing work. Short of that, pay people $9 a day NOT to fight for the Taliban.

Rahm Emanuel stepping up? Echoing some of the comments made by Senator John Kerry, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel expressed the need to evaluate President Karzai's capacity as a partner for reform before we escalate the war in Afghanistan:
"It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if in fact you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether in fact there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing."
For a guy known for his 'ruthless' political pragmatism, it's reassuring to know that he is apparently supporting the Biden plan behind the scenes, while Secretary Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Richard Holbroke argue in favor of escalation.