Afghanistan -- Remembered too late?
It's hard to believe that it's been seven years ago that the US entered Afghanistan. I was in my early 40s back then -- serving as pastor of First Christian Church of Santa Barbara and my son, now in college, was still in elementary school. We went into Afghanistan to deal with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. We did manage, with the help of allies and Afghan rebel groups, to push the Taliban out of power, killed some of their leaders, but both groups -- who helped plan and support the 2001 World Trade Center attacks -- remain alive and seem to have restructured themselves. Afghanistan remains much as it had been -- a failed state. There is a government but it is holed up in Kabul and is corrupt.
Yesterday, Barack Obama took on this issue and proposed a sweeping new strategy that involves not only military options, but also diplomatic and development support. Afghanistan is a not a modern state. It is tribal and riven with rivalries that not only lead to corruption but make good government difficult. Although radical Islam plays a role, culture is more important. Obama also made clear that a solution would involve not just Afghanistan, but also Pakistan and other neighboring states. Here is where diplomacy comes in -- these issues won't be resolved in isolation. That is, the ability of Pakistan to effectively deal with the militants in the region bordering Afghanistan is dependent on lessening tensions on the border with India and in Kashmir.
As the NY Times op-ed piece points out, the new President has a lot on his plate. But he seems to have gotten it in proper focus. We don't know if this will work, but it is a major issue for us and we need to re-engage in a way that's different from previous attempts. We let Afghanistan slip from sight in our foolhardy adventure in Iraq. Let's hope it's not too late to rectify the situation. What is important to note is that Obama has no illusions that we can create a modern democracy there. Ours is not to dictate their government or future, but simply give it the stability to create its own future. In time it could overcome its handicaps and become a thriving nation. At home, our difficulty is that we are in an economic crisis and people are tired of war. Let us pray for success and for peace in that region.
Yesterday, Barack Obama took on this issue and proposed a sweeping new strategy that involves not only military options, but also diplomatic and development support. Afghanistan is a not a modern state. It is tribal and riven with rivalries that not only lead to corruption but make good government difficult. Although radical Islam plays a role, culture is more important. Obama also made clear that a solution would involve not just Afghanistan, but also Pakistan and other neighboring states. Here is where diplomacy comes in -- these issues won't be resolved in isolation. That is, the ability of Pakistan to effectively deal with the militants in the region bordering Afghanistan is dependent on lessening tensions on the border with India and in Kashmir.
As the NY Times op-ed piece points out, the new President has a lot on his plate. But he seems to have gotten it in proper focus. We don't know if this will work, but it is a major issue for us and we need to re-engage in a way that's different from previous attempts. We let Afghanistan slip from sight in our foolhardy adventure in Iraq. Let's hope it's not too late to rectify the situation. What is important to note is that Obama has no illusions that we can create a modern democracy there. Ours is not to dictate their government or future, but simply give it the stability to create its own future. In time it could overcome its handicaps and become a thriving nation. At home, our difficulty is that we are in an economic crisis and people are tired of war. Let us pray for success and for peace in that region.
Comments
Had we not needlessly, recklessly, illegally invaded Iraq, I definitely think we would have been out of Afghanistan by now. But this looks like a quagmire. Even the president's generals are talking 25 years!
If the U.S. cut some of its huge nuclear arsenal, I think we could get at least one major European nation to be the first nuclear power to give up all their nukes. (I'm not counting South Africa because it had not yet actually built a nuke. It was about where Iran is and N. Korea is until, after apartheid, it abandoned the whole thing.)
Obama is already scheduling mutual nuclear reduction talks with Russia. I just think he should expand these to go for the whole world. The global recession means that nations cannot as easily afford nukes and nations like Pakistan know that possessing them make them vulnerable to terrorists who desire to get them. Getting rid of them makes everyone safer, but people are afraid that the U.S. just wants only us and the people we CHOOSE to have nukes (like India and Israel). So, we have to make the first move.