New Perspective
Eight years after the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, after thousands of soldiers have perished, civilians have been killed by mistake, billions of dollars invested and large devastation caused, President Obama announced that he will tackle the problem radically differently. Summarized as such, it sounds like the idea for a preposterous play, but it is raw reality. Not only the future of this country is concerned here, but also the political life of the president, the credibility of America as an undefeatable world power and maybe also the global position of the West.
Therefore, 30,000 extra soldiers will be sent. A new Vietnam must be avoided. There has been an urgent appeal to the U.S.'s allies to contribute a contingent. Minister Verhagen (Foreign Affairs, CDA) received a call from a colleague, Clinton, with a request of that tenor. Holland made it clear months ago that, at the end of next year, troops will be pulled back from Uruzgan.
But, Washington will say, this is a totally new situation. General McChrystal will conduct another strategy that will resemble the Dutch one much more. The big difference is that Obama has announced an exit strategy. At the end of 2011, no matter what, American troops will begin to be pulled back. With that, the Afghans are under pressure for the first time. An end will come to this heavily subsidized protection and guardianship. After the departure of the last American, they will have to manage on their own.
It is a new perspective; one that we do not quite believe yet, not because we doubt the good intentions of this president, but because we have been beaten to a pulp with new perspectives over the past eight years. From the prospect of an Iraq that, free of Saddam Hussein, would become a democratic example lighting the way for the entire Middle East, to the Afghan democratic presidential elections in August of this year, there have been too many perspectives. From all of this, little or nothing has been accomplished.
Just to make sure, we will also consult the serious skeptics. The opinion of ex-General Karl Eikenberry is a characteristic example. Before he entered the diplomatic service, he was the supreme commander of American troops. Now he is the American ambassador in Kabul. In memos to the president, he fiercely opposed sending extra troops. Enforcement would lead to Karzai becoming even more dependent on the Americans and feeling even less encouragement to be the boss in his own country. The recently announced exit strategy would, according to the Western line of thinking, bring Karzai to think differently about the matter. But this is Afghanistan, where different solutions for the problems that exist there are always being found rather than the solutions that seem most obvious to us.
Also, according to the British expert Alex de Waal (Opinion page, November 30), there is no use in sending more troops. Working in and against a labyrinth of shady relations that are determined by corruption and favoritism, it is not possible to fight with the means we consider normal. If Karzai complies with the American demand to combat corruption, it will, under some (but not all) circumstances, lead to undesired effects.
"Loyalty is traded on the basis of relationship, religion and money. The Taliban have shown that a government can cheaply be headed with only the first two. The Americans lean on money only," said Alex de Waal. Imagine the position of our soldiers, in this - by Western standards - web of inconceivabilities. Would you not loose courage after a couple of years of fighting in vain and digging water wells?
We will also consider the opinion of expert Andrej Avetisjan, the Russian ambassador in Kabul. He supports the fact that Obama will send these extra 30,000 men, but believes the goal set by the West to establish a democracy was too ambitious. What does he think of a reconciliation with the Taliban? "In the long run it is possible, but it is a very delicate and slow process. It cannot happen next year. It is very difficult to reach an agreement shortly after fights."
Now, in due time, 140,000 soldiers from the West will try to keep the peace in Afghanistan, nurse democracy, establish a passable administration, further train the Afghan police and defeat the Taliban. And maybe catch Osama bin Laden. If they succeed, they will have finally done their best in a good way. Just one robot plane has to drop a bomb at a school or wedding, and all trouble has been for nothing.
Ministers Verhagen and Van Middelkoop (Defense, CU) are enthusiastic about this new approach, just as they were about earlier approaches. This government agreed with both the Second Chamber and the voters that Dutch soldiers should return home next year. An extension now would mean that we hand them over to the next sea of insecurities. Don't do it. We have been brave enough over the past four years. If it turns out after 6 months that a new window has truly been opened, we can always reconsider.
Therefore, 30,000 extra soldiers will be sent. A new Vietnam must be avoided. There has been an urgent appeal to the U.S.'s allies to contribute a contingent. Minister Verhagen (Foreign Affairs, CDA) received a call from a colleague, Clinton, with a request of that tenor. Holland made it clear months ago that, at the end of next year, troops will be pulled back from Uruzgan.
But, Washington will say, this is a totally new situation. General McChrystal will conduct another strategy that will resemble the Dutch one much more. The big difference is that Obama has announced an exit strategy. At the end of 2011, no matter what, American troops will begin to be pulled back. With that, the Afghans are under pressure for the first time. An end will come to this heavily subsidized protection and guardianship. After the departure of the last American, they will have to manage on their own.
It is a new perspective; one that we do not quite believe yet, not because we doubt the good intentions of this president, but because we have been beaten to a pulp with new perspectives over the past eight years. From the prospect of an Iraq that, free of Saddam Hussein, would become a democratic example lighting the way for the entire Middle East, to the Afghan democratic presidential elections in August of this year, there have been too many perspectives. From all of this, little or nothing has been accomplished.
Just to make sure, we will also consult the serious skeptics. The opinion of ex-General Karl Eikenberry is a characteristic example. Before he entered the diplomatic service, he was the supreme commander of American troops. Now he is the American ambassador in Kabul. In memos to the president, he fiercely opposed sending extra troops. Enforcement would lead to Karzai becoming even more dependent on the Americans and feeling even less encouragement to be the boss in his own country. The recently announced exit strategy would, according to the Western line of thinking, bring Karzai to think differently about the matter. But this is Afghanistan, where different solutions for the problems that exist there are always being found rather than the solutions that seem most obvious to us.
Also, according to the British expert Alex de Waal (Opinion page, November 30), there is no use in sending more troops. Working in and against a labyrinth of shady relations that are determined by corruption and favoritism, it is not possible to fight with the means we consider normal. If Karzai complies with the American demand to combat corruption, it will, under some (but not all) circumstances, lead to undesired effects.
"Loyalty is traded on the basis of relationship, religion and money. The Taliban have shown that a government can cheaply be headed with only the first two. The Americans lean on money only," said Alex de Waal. Imagine the position of our soldiers, in this - by Western standards - web of inconceivabilities. Would you not loose courage after a couple of years of fighting in vain and digging water wells?
We will also consider the opinion of expert Andrej Avetisjan, the Russian ambassador in Kabul. He supports the fact that Obama will send these extra 30,000 men, but believes the goal set by the West to establish a democracy was too ambitious. What does he think of a reconciliation with the Taliban? "In the long run it is possible, but it is a very delicate and slow process. It cannot happen next year. It is very difficult to reach an agreement shortly after fights."
Now, in due time, 140,000 soldiers from the West will try to keep the peace in Afghanistan, nurse democracy, establish a passable administration, further train the Afghan police and defeat the Taliban. And maybe catch Osama bin Laden. If they succeed, they will have finally done their best in a good way. Just one robot plane has to drop a bomb at a school or wedding, and all trouble has been for nothing.
Ministers Verhagen and Van Middelkoop (Defense, CU) are enthusiastic about this new approach, just as they were about earlier approaches. This government agreed with both the Second Chamber and the voters that Dutch soldiers should return home next year. An extension now would mean that we hand them over to the next sea of insecurities. Don't do it. We have been brave enough over the past four years. If it turns out after 6 months that a new window has truly been opened, we can always reconsider.
You were too hasty by jumping in with the adventurous Bush and his campaign of the plundering of the wealth of a poor undeveloped country.
Now that the spoils are fewer than promised and the effort more demanding than expected you want out too.
Well you made your own bed, now sleep in it.