The Economist's cover this week (26/6-2/7/10) bears the headline "Losing Afghanistan". Inside is a leading article [editorial, to us North Americans - ed.] on what may or may not happen now that Gen. "Billy" McChrystal has been replaced by Gen. Petraeus, the hero of Iraq. (The Economist calls him that.)
There is also a "briefing" -- a lengthy analysis -- on Afghanistan, headed "More than a one-man problem". The sub-headline reads "The gaffes that cost General Stanley McChrystal his job are symptoms of far deeper trouble -- a war that is being lost." Critics and war hawks please note: those are the Economist's words, not mine. It's my emphasis though.
After going through a long list of failures and a somewhat shorter list of successes in Armpitistan, the Economist concludes the three-page opus thus: "Perhaps the best that can be hoped for NATO's current operations is to weaken the militants sufficiently to bring them to the table."
It seems to me that's a pretty faint hope. And one that is not worth the spilling of another drop of blood. Instead of planning strategies for counter-insurgency, Obama and whoever his advisors are today should, in my view, be looking for the door marked "EXIT".
There is nothing ... repeat, NOTHING ... to be gained by staying in Afghanistan, not "peace with honour", not even peace WITHOUT honour. The USA and its allies are in the wrong war, in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons. It's time to quit while we're behind!
No comments:
Post a Comment