14 Oct 2009

Why Are We in Afghanistan?, II

Nifty infographicand map on US and NATO troop levels in Afghanistan since 2001. FYI when the Taliban was overthrown at the end of 2001 there was something like 2,000 troops in the country.

So, what's the plan again?

2 comments:

Pace said...

The generals spent their careers building up the military industrial complex and preparing for war - I dont think they are best equipped to understand the culture and subtleties of Afghanistan. Why do we (our leaders) defer so much to men whose only tools are killing machines to make our decisions. If the objective is to kill a population or cripple an infrastructure or destroy a modern government, then you ask a general. Why on Earth would you ask a General how best to bring education, economic prosperity, "democratic" (puppet) government or civilisation to the poorest and most backwards place on Earth? Give your $500 billion anualised budget to an NGO if that is your stated goal.

Kochevnik said...

I'm really hoping to get around to reading Rory Stewart's book about walking across Afghanistan in 2002. I have been very impressed with his analysis of Afghanistan through interviews, and he is a former member of British Special Operations, so in theory he knows what he is talking about.

His argument is that NATO and the US should only focus on disrupting al Qaeda, who are mostly in Pakistan nowadays anyway. Fighting the Taliban is not a priority, and there should be a maximum of 10,000 (one division, I believe) in the area. Anything else is a waste of resources and not really focused on tasks relevant to US or NATO interests.