Since Obama took office, he has shown zero tolerance for corruption in Afghanistan. Since that is the only thing he has done right, where that war is concerned, the worst course of action would be to change that policy.
US military commanders in Afghanistan are developing a strategy that would tolerate limited corruption but target large-scale abuses, The Washington Post reported late Friday.
Citing unnamed senior defense officials, the newspaper said Pentagon officials had concluded that the Taliban insurgency was the most pressing threat to stability in Afghanistan rather than corruption.
They also believe that a sweeping effort to stamp out corruption would create chaos and a governance vacuum that the Taliban could exploit, the report said.
“There are areas where you need strong leadership, and some of those leaders are not entirely pure,” the paper quotes a senior defense official as saying.
“But they can help us be more effective in going after the primary threat, which is the Taliban.”
Graft is a major issue in Afghanistan, which is rated by international monitor Transparency International as second only to lawless Somalia on its scale of the world’s most corrupt countries… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Alternet>
I have repeatedly said that public support is an element without which a COIN (Counter Insurgency) strategy cannot succeed. I have also repeatedly said that the US cannot achieve public support as long as we continue to support the corrupt energy industry puppet installed by the Texas Taliban. The decision to ignore corruption is the final nail in the COIN coffin. If we stay in Afghanistan at all, a bad idea in my view, our strategy should be counter-terrorism in the border region with Pakistan, and cutting off aid to Hamid Karzai.
10 Responses to “Getting It Even More Wrong in Afghanistan”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
afghanistan has been the graveyard of many military
we are just next
we NEVER EVER learn
war is not a video game or something to rally around – and that is what the entire US govt thinks it is and sells it as
you cannot beat terrorism with materiel and weapons – hate does not disappear when an AK47 is fired
DC, I completely agree. The true battlefield in the war on terror is between ears.
It has long been clear that the US actions are all about killing Musims until they stop hating us. Yes it is insanity, but it is pure profit to the Big Money guys, therefore it is what we must do.
That’s the cause, Dave. War transfers more wealth than any other enterprise.
Distributor and Dave, you are both absolutely right, and one more thought; in the past, going in with guns blazing and taking over with brute force has worked well for the U.S., but the times they are a-changin.’ Sure the defense industry still makes out, but the U.S. taxpayer ends up paying and paying without anything to show for it, ie, Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a “strategy” that is not sustainable obviously, and the U.S. is learning that the hard way, unfortunately. Maybe next time the U.S. won’t be so quick to rush in with balls on.
People expressed that hope after WWI. 🙁
P.S. One more thought; look what happened to North Korea; they have a thriving military, but the rest of their economy in is the toilet with their citizenry starving. The U.S. would do well to take a lesson from this.
That is an interesting analog. It has not fit up to know, because the US has always had a strong industrial base… but no more.
No, no, no, no no.
GTFO.
Get the F*ck Out.
Yesterday.
…Before you’re forced out stranded, atop the U.S Embassy, as in that other place, Helicopters from carriers taking Americans and fellow travellers to the U.S
. In a satire, I can see General Petreus on a sling, Hamid Karzai in one arm and his corrupt brother in the other.
Thank God for the 2011 deadline in that hellhole.
But, despite the President’s claim to the contrary, Petraeus rtefuses to see it as a deadline.