In all honesty, the choice of the Bush Administration to take the fight to Iraq instead of Afghanistan has always left me bit puzzled. I admit to not being a deep thinker when it comes to military and geopolitical topics. However, in retrospect things seem much clearer. Despite the difficulties and missteps made along the way, Iraq was understood by the Bush administration to be a winnable war in a strategically important part of the Middle East. In computer parlance, update patches needed to be applied to Iraq and the country then rebooted. A more cynical view would also mention Iraq’s vast oil reserves, but I won’t go there for now.
With Afghanistan, no reboot is remotely possible when you are dealing with societal conditions as outlined the linked report by Michael Yon. As the report indicates, to bring a country and society it encapsulates from the 8th century to the 19th century (let alone the 21st century) will indeed take 100 years — in the best of circumstances. I now get the distinct feeling that this was always understood by the Bush strategists which could explain why minimal resources were expended in Afghanistan for so many years. The unmentioned strategy being one of containment rather than actual development. Any marginal progress in Afghanistan would be a side benefit rather than an end unto itself.
Then along comes Obama who’s grasp of military and geopolitical strategy is probably less developed than mine. Putting no thought into the consequences of his campaign rhetoric he foolishly commits the US into achieving the same result in Afghanistan that that was achieved in Iraq. After all, if an oafish dolt like Bush can achieve success in Iraq then an intelligent sophisticate such as himself can achieve the same result in Afghanistan. Furthermore, because Afghanistan is not mostly just a US operation like Iraq, but a NATO operation, he’ll have the benefit of our “reliable” partners coming along for the ride.
Now the pieces are all coming together for the quagmire that the leftists had said was going to happen in Iraq to actually happen in Afghanistan under Obama’s watch. The pouring of military resources into a very troubled region without any realistic exit strategy. With the situation only bound to get worse because of hubris on the part of our leaders.
Anyway, that’s my take on Afghanistan when I read these types reports.
Oh, there are several ways to contain the Afghanistan problem IMO. One is to carve up the country into smaller pieces, a bit like what was done with Germany after WWII. Or just disintegrate the country and give chunks to the neighboring countries (except Iran of course).
Regarding propaganda, err, mass media, if TV is too sophisticated as Yon mentions, radio is viable entertainment. Receiving units are cheaper, more robust, less energy consuming than TVs. Anything other than mobile technology will probably have to wait for electrification, which cannot happen until the place is pacified for good (blowing up dams can’t be nice).
PS: if you want to see something funny, check out the top agricultural product produced in Afghanistan at the CIA World Factbook.
In all honesty, the choice of the Bush Administration to take the fight to Iraq instead of Afghanistan has always left me bit puzzled. I admit to not being a deep thinker when it comes to military and geopolitical topics. However, in retrospect things seem much clearer. Despite the difficulties and missteps made along the way, Iraq was understood by the Bush administration to be a winnable war in a strategically important part of the Middle East. In computer parlance, update patches needed to be applied to Iraq and the country then rebooted. A more cynical view would also mention Iraq’s vast oil reserves, but I won’t go there for now.
With Afghanistan, no reboot is remotely possible when you are dealing with societal conditions as outlined the linked report by Michael Yon. As the report indicates, to bring a country and society it encapsulates from the 8th century to the 19th century (let alone the 21st century) will indeed take 100 years — in the best of circumstances. I now get the distinct feeling that this was always understood by the Bush strategists which could explain why minimal resources were expended in Afghanistan for so many years. The unmentioned strategy being one of containment rather than actual development. Any marginal progress in Afghanistan would be a side benefit rather than an end unto itself.
Then along comes Obama who’s grasp of military and geopolitical strategy is probably less developed than mine. Putting no thought into the consequences of his campaign rhetoric he foolishly commits the US into achieving the same result in Afghanistan that that was achieved in Iraq. After all, if an oafish dolt like Bush can achieve success in Iraq then an intelligent sophisticate such as himself can achieve the same result in Afghanistan. Furthermore, because Afghanistan is not mostly just a US operation like Iraq, but a NATO operation, he’ll have the benefit of our “reliable” partners coming along for the ride.
Now the pieces are all coming together for the quagmire that the leftists had said was going to happen in Iraq to actually happen in Afghanistan under Obama’s watch. The pouring of military resources into a very troubled region without any realistic exit strategy. With the situation only bound to get worse because of hubris on the part of our leaders.
Anyway, that’s my take on Afghanistan when I read these types reports.
Oh, there are several ways to contain the Afghanistan problem IMO. One is to carve up the country into smaller pieces, a bit like what was done with Germany after WWII. Or just disintegrate the country and give chunks to the neighboring countries (except Iran of course).
Regarding propaganda, err, mass media, if TV is too sophisticated as Yon mentions, radio is viable entertainment. Receiving units are cheaper, more robust, less energy consuming than TVs. Anything other than mobile technology will probably have to wait for electrification, which cannot happen until the place is pacified for good (blowing up dams can’t be nice).
PS: if you want to see something funny, check out the top agricultural product produced in Afghanistan at the CIA World Factbook.