President Obama should learn from Afghanistan past
The US will never win in Afghanistan unless it occupies it forever. The Afghan people would probably never prefer foreign dominance over Taliban presence and may even think that Americans are fighting them to keep them from owning their own country.
IT'S IRONIC that a week before receiving the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama has announced a surge in sending troops to Afghanistan, giving no thought as to why they are there in the first place. The idea of permanent US military bases vexes many people in Afghanistan, which has a long history of resisting foreign invaders. A few examples of such resistance in recent history should be enough for President Barack Obama to learn a lesson in this regard.
During the 1800s, British armies from India outright invaded Afghanistan in attempts to install a puppet government, amenable to British economic interests. The British seized most of the cities in Afghanistan with little resistance, but their heavy handed rule soon resulted in a popular uprising by the people which resulted in the massacre of the entire British army of 15,000, save one.
The Soviet Union invaded in 1979. They were able to occupy and hold all of the major cities, just as the British imperialists had been able to the century before, but they were unable to subjugate the countryside. Soviet causalities began to mount dramatically, and in 1989 the Soviets withdrew, leaving the puppet government to fend for itself. It wasn’t until 1992 that Mujahideen fighters were able to topple the remnants of the government – ending the Soviet attempt to bring a revolution to the people of Afghanistan at the point of a gun.
In May 2005, riots and protests started over a false report in Newsweek of US interrogators desecrating the Koran and turned into the biggest anti-US protests in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. The Kabul government was included demands that the Kabul government reject U.S. intentions to create a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. The deaths of thousands of Afghan civilians caused directly and indirectly by the actions of US and NATO is also a major underlying focus of the protests.
The US will never have victory in Afghanistan unless it occupies it forever. People will never accept the American democratic or Christian way of life. They would probably never prefer foreign dominance over Taliban presence and may even think that the Americans are fighting the Afghan people to keep them from owning their own country.
The security of America cannot be equated with the war in Afghanistan. The same argument was made in Vietnam and it clearly was not true. America does need security, but the Al Qaeda groups do not need a whole country like Afghanistan to launch attacks across the globe. The stated goal is to deny any future sanctuary to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan - but the terrorist organisation is not based in Afghanistan any more and hasn't been for years.
There are several other wild places where Al Qaeda might also set up shop, such as Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, the Philippines or Uzbekistan, besides, of course, Pakistan from where they are presently operating. The US clearly cannot afford to wage protracted warfare with multiple brigades of American ground forces simply to deny Al Qaeda access to every possible safe haven.
The immediate thing would be for the United States government to withdraw its troops. As for its security, there is no better way for US than to secure its borders, safeguard its airports and remain vigilant inside the country against any attempts to create violence. Isn't this the exact advice US gave to India when it was confronted by terrorists coming from Pakistan soil and even sponsored by it? What is good for India and Pakistan should be good for the US and Afghanistan. US should try to practice what it preaches.
The Soviet Union invaded in 1979. They were able to occupy and hold all of the major cities, just as the British imperialists had been able to the century before, but they were unable to subjugate the countryside. Soviet causalities began to mount dramatically, and in 1989 the Soviets withdrew, leaving the puppet government to fend for itself. It wasn’t until 1992 that Mujahideen fighters were able to topple the remnants of the government – ending the Soviet attempt to bring a revolution to the people of Afghanistan at the point of a gun.
In May 2005, riots and protests started over a false report in Newsweek of US interrogators desecrating the Koran and turned into the biggest anti-US protests in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. The Kabul government was included demands that the Kabul government reject U.S. intentions to create a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. The deaths of thousands of Afghan civilians caused directly and indirectly by the actions of US and NATO is also a major underlying focus of the protests.
The US will never have victory in Afghanistan unless it occupies it forever. People will never accept the American democratic or Christian way of life. They would probably never prefer foreign dominance over Taliban presence and may even think that the Americans are fighting the Afghan people to keep them from owning their own country.
The security of America cannot be equated with the war in Afghanistan. The same argument was made in Vietnam and it clearly was not true. America does need security, but the Al Qaeda groups do not need a whole country like Afghanistan to launch attacks across the globe. The stated goal is to deny any future sanctuary to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan - but the terrorist organisation is not based in Afghanistan any more and hasn't been for years.
There are several other wild places where Al Qaeda might also set up shop, such as Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, the Philippines or Uzbekistan, besides, of course, Pakistan from where they are presently operating. The US clearly cannot afford to wage protracted warfare with multiple brigades of American ground forces simply to deny Al Qaeda access to every possible safe haven.
The immediate thing would be for the United States government to withdraw its troops. As for its security, there is no better way for US than to secure its borders, safeguard its airports and remain vigilant inside the country against any attempts to create violence. Isn't this the exact advice US gave to India when it was confronted by terrorists coming from Pakistan soil and even sponsored by it? What is good for India and Pakistan should be good for the US and Afghanistan. US should try to practice what it preaches.
 | Previous Post |
| Next Post |  |
Login
 Login through Social ID
|
Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.
