Nation Building in Afghanistan? That's Afghans' Job.

[tekisui]

Source: Washington Post

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, June 25, 2010

The good news? Nobody has to pretend anymore that Gen. Stanley McChrystal knew how to fix Afghanistan within a year. The bad news? Now we're supposed to pretend that Gen. David Petraeus does.

President Obama was absolutely right to sack the preening McChrystal, whose inner circle, as portrayed in Rolling Stone magazine, had all the seriousness and decorum of a frat house keg party. And it was a brilliant political move to turn to Petraeus, who is made of purest Teflon. Critics who might have been tempted to blast the president for changing horses in midstream can hardly object when he has given the reins to the man who averted a humiliating U.S. defeat in Iraq.

Note that I didn't credit Petraeus with "winning" in Iraq. He didn't. What he managed to do was redeem the situation to the point where the United States could begin bringing home its combat troops. If the Obama administration's aims in Afghanistan are recalibrated to accommodate objective reality, then Petraeus can succeed there, too. But this means that the general's assignment should be a narrow one: Lay the groundwork for a U.S. withdrawal to begin next summer, as Obama has pledged.

After relieving McChrystal of his command Wednesday, Obama called in his national security team and read the riot act. No more bickering, sniping, backbiting or name-calling, the president ordered. Play nice.

But all the comity in the world doesn't resolve the essential tension between those who believe our goal in Afghanistan should be defined as "victory" and those who believe it should be defined as "finding the exit." Two thousand years of history are on the side of the "exit" camp, and the fact is that at some point we're going to leave. The question is how much time will pass -- and how many more young Americans will be killed or wounded -- before that inevitable day comes.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/24/AR2010062404869.html

[elocs]

1. I've always believed if the Afghans don't want their own country badly enough,

we cannot fight and die to win it for them. If they cannot fend off the Taliban and al Qeda being backed and armed by the U.S. then they really do not want their own country badly enough. Neither the Taliban or al Qeda are an invincible and overwhelming fighting force.

What kind of country would the U.S. be today if in our war for independence from Great Britain if France had sent troops and arms and did most of the fighting for us? If a country is worth having it is worth fighting and dying to have it and keep it.

[Scuba]

2. General Shoup has the answer.

I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these (Third World) nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the `haves' refuse to share with the `have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want and above all don’t want crammed down their throats by Americans.'




Gen. David Shoup, United States Marine Commandant Medal of Honor recipient.

[happyslug]

3. Wikipedia on General David Shoup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Shoup