Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Buzzwords can't mask Afghan failure. What is meant by a "new" or "integrated" strategy?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 06:32 PM
Original message
Buzzwords can't mask Afghan failure. What is meant by a "new" or "integrated" strategy?

Buzzwords can't mask Afghan failure

Talk of a 'new strategy' doesn't disguise the fact that we have been wasting time, billions of dollars and lives in Afghanistan
Richard Norton-Taylor
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 September 2009

A "new strategy", an "integrated strategy" for Afghanistan these are the buzz phrases coming from politicians in Washington and London, and Nato commanders.

They are used to disguise a situation where Nato-led forces, in the first joint ground operation by the most powerful alliance in the history of the world, is in danger of losing a counter-insurgency operation against a brutal enemy driving around in pick-up trucks or on motorbikes firing grenades and planting roadside bombs.

Such phrases are used to convince an increasingly sceptical public opinion that governments and commanders have seen the light and are preparing a fresh start. London and Washington know they are fast losing credibility, at home and amid increasingly impatient Afghans.

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, and we are being seriously challenged", Ivo Daalder, the US ambassador to Nato told an audience at the Chatham House thinktank in London the other day. "We will need to make adjustments, acknowledge mistakes, maintain support at home, and use the resources at our disposal sop that we can make the progress that our citizens demand".

What is meant by a "new" or "integrated" strategy is to promote good governance and economic development, as well as providing security for ordinary Afghans, and talking to reconcilable Talibans, not just killing them.

One might ask what Nato forces and their governments have been doing over the past eight years? The short, indeed only, answer is that they have been wasting time, billions of dollars, and dare one say it, lives.

<more>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/22/afg...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC