tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post1986175736996568303..comments2024-03-10T13:59:19.230-04:00Comments on xpostfactoid: Steve Coll vs. Rory Stewart on the AfPak endgameAndrew Sprunghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-56860694530934763012009-10-28T19:28:36.761-04:002009-10-28T19:28:36.761-04:00Thanks.
I think he understands the"traumatiz...Thanks. <br />I think he understands the"traumatization" of Afghanistan better than most, so I'm inclined to agree with him.<br />Obama is in a tough spot though since he campaigned that we neglected Afghanistan because of Iraq.<br /><br />Bryant park: I have no idea! I was just there when I postedbryant aka nebnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-65033760673293339292009-10-28T09:15:58.216-04:002009-10-28T09:15:58.216-04:00Here's Stewart, in Senate testimony, on how a ...Here's Stewart, in Senate testimony, on how a 20,000 troop presence would work. I'm thinking now that the above post, based on his Times Review of Books article, does not really do justice to his position:<br /><br />The best Afghan policy would be to reduce the number of foreign troops from the current level of 90,000 to far fewer – perhaps 20,000. In that case, two distinct objectives would remain for the international community: development and counter-terrorism. Neither would amount to the building of an Afghan state or winning a counter-insurgency campaign. A reduction in troop numbers and a turn away from state-building should not mean total withdrawal: good projects could continue to be undertaken in electricity, water, irrigation, health, education, agriculture, rural development and in other areas favoured by development agencies. Even a light US presence could continue to allow for aggressive operations against Al Qaeda terrorists, in Afghanistan, who plan to attack the United States. The US has successfully prevent Al Qaeda from re-establishing itself since 2001 (though the result has only been to move bin Laden across the border.). The US military could also (with other forms of assistance) support the Afghan military to prevent the Taliban from seizing a city or taking over the country.<br /><br />These twin objectives will require a very long-term presence, as indeed is almost inevitable in a country which is as poor, as fragile and traumatized as Afghanistan<br />(and which lacks the internal capacity at the moment to become independent of Foreign aid or control its territory). But a long-term presence will in turn mean a much lighter and more limited presence (if it is to retain US domestic support). We should not control and cannot predict the future of Afghanistan. It may in the future become more violent, or find a decentralised equilibrium or a new national unity, but if its communities continue to want to work with us, we can, over 30 years, encourage the more positive trends in Afghan society and help to contain the more negative....<br /> full testimony at http://tinyurl.com/kpywje<br /><br />p.s. Is it true that Bryant is finally getting rid of the fashion show after this Jan.?Andrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-79744796582998072752009-10-28T00:01:47.475-04:002009-10-28T00:01:47.475-04:00Thanks for the reply.
Wouldn't it be a proble...Thanks for the reply.<br /><br />Wouldn't it be a problem that the 20k troops wouldn't consider the Taliban an enemy but the Taliban would consider them an enemy? Or would they (the Taliban) be preoccupied with fighting the Afghan govt?bryantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-53673434786534412362009-10-25T17:05:05.280-04:002009-10-25T17:05:05.280-04:00Bryant: Stewart recommends "muddling through&...Bryant: Stewart recommends "muddling through" (his term) with about 20,000 troops. From a TNR profile (at http://tinyurl.com/yz3ctjz):<br /><br />Stewart believes the foreign-troop presence in Afghanistan should actually be reduced--all the way down to 20,000. Those troops would then be used exclusively to fight Al Qaeda terrorists; the Taliban would no longer be an enemy. At the same time, while Stewart’s plan envisions continued aid to Afghans to support electricity, water, health, education, and agriculture development, the United States would cease with its state-building project and essentially leave the Kabul government to its own devices.Andrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-38092383290236202632009-10-25T16:46:20.911-04:002009-10-25T16:46:20.911-04:00What's a concrete difference in policy between...What's a concrete difference in policy between the two? I'm having trouble connecting their frameworks with large action. Does Stewart think we should essentially get out completely?bryantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-10764806956043541732009-10-23T11:59:43.358-04:002009-10-23T11:59:43.358-04:00"Equally nuanced is his sense of the possibil..."Equally nuanced is his sense of the possibilities and limitations of political pressure informed by goals that are political in the deepest sense: peace between Pakistan and India, inter-ethnic engagement and negotiation by the Afghan government."<br /><br />--> Thanks for the compare and contrast. I tend to take the side of Stewart because he seems to have a better handle on the difficulties in the region. <br /><br />Peace between India and Pakistan is difficult for a reason. They are expressions of 2 different ideas, a state espousing a religion (Pakistan) versus a state espousing multiple religions (India). Kashmir is a symptom of that divide. Unless the tension between those 2 ideas is clarified, peace between India and Pakistan will be short term.Kunthavaiyin Kaathalanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10673050640809119482noreply@blogger.com