There Is No Military Path to Victory in Afghanistan

[GenerallyKhan]

There Is No Military Path to Victory in Afghanistan (The National Interest)

Rajan Menon (Author) holds the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Chair in Political Science at the City College of New York/City University of New York. He is a Senior Research Fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. He is the author, most recently, of The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention (Oxford University Press, 2016).

Excerpts:

• War by credit card: It’s hard to pin down the proportion of the $4–6 trillion attributable to the Afghan war, so let's be conservative and assume a 30 percent share. That still amounts to between $1.2 and $1.8 trillion.

• Dutch disease: This massive inflow of foreign aid have not been positive. The appreciation of the Afghan currency has placed domestic businesses and locally made products at a price disadvantage relative to imports. That in turn has hampered job creation.

• To be, or not to be: Another argument made for keeping troops in Afghanistan rests on the prediction that their departure will turn it into an arena for freewheeling competition and conflict among neighboring countries. But as I have written elsewhere, that’s precisely what Afghanistan has been ever since the Taliban was toppled in 2001, with India, Pakistan and Iran being the main contenders. And it will continue to be, no matter what the United States does because, for many reasons, starting with geography, Afghanistan’s political trajectory matters far more to these countries than it does to the United States.

 

[pakistani342]

There Is No Military Path to Victory in Afghanistan (The National Interest)

Rajan Menon (Author) holds the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Chair in Political Science at the City College of New York/City University of New York. He is a Senior Research Fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. He is the author, most recently, of The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention (Oxford University Press, 2016).

Excerpts:

• War by credit card: It’s hard to pin down the proportion of the $4–6 trillion attributable to the Afghan war, so let's be conservative and assume a 30 percent share. That still amounts to between $1.2 and $1.8 trillion.

• Dutch disease: This massive inflow of foreign aid have not been positive. The appreciation of the Afghan currency has placed domestic businesses and locally made products at a price disadvantage relative to imports. That in turn has hampered job creation.

• To be, or not to be: Another argument made for keeping troops in Afghanistan rests on the prediction that their departure will turn it into an arena for freewheeling competition and conflict among neighboring countries. But as I have written elsewhere, that’s precisely what Afghanistan has been ever since the Taliban was toppled in 2001, with India, Pakistan and Iran being the main contenders. And it will continue to be, no matter what the United States does because, for many reasons, starting with geography, Afghanistan’s political trajectory matters far more to these countries than it does to the United States.

This was one loooong article -- but a good read ... good summary of where things stand.

 

[GenerallyKhan]

This was one loooong article -- but a good read ... good summary of where things stand.

The war in Afghanistan is becoming reminiscent of Vietnam in that the "do more" narrative of the administration is miles away from the reality on the ground. I guess sometimes speaking truth becomes a revolutionary act.

This is Obama administration on Afghanistan: