.Dueling Critiques on Afghanistan
"Rambling, unscientific, and possibly inaccurate analysis from me as I try to keep up with news from Afghanistan:
It seems like the serious criticisms of the campaign increasingly fall into two main camps. The first, which I'll term the "humanitarian camp," which argues that we're losing because our approach is too military-oriented, hasn't embraced the necessity for long-term institutional and economic development, and doesn't provide the populace with the security and services it needs. These arguments generally come from IGO- and NGO-types who recommend reducing direct military involvement, increasing nonmilitary assistance, and (surprise) relying more on locally-based IGOs and NGOs to lead on development issues.
The other position, which I'll call the "not important camp," point out that al-Qaeda isn't really in Afghanistan anymore, argue that Afghanistan lacks intrinsic strategic importance, and emphasize the futility of "nation-building" in a country that doesn't seem to have much recent history of either nations or buildings. This camp generally recommends avoiding a large-scale troop commitment to Afghanistan while focusing on eliminating al-Qaeda through direct action (mainly drone strikes) and improving Pakistani security and governance capacity.
Keeping in mind that I've just glossed over some differences within these general categories, I've got a couple quick thoughts:"
Abu Muqawama
It seems like the serious criticisms of the campaign increasingly fall into two main camps. The first, which I'll term the "humanitarian camp," which argues that we're losing because our approach is too military-oriented, hasn't embraced the necessity for long-term institutional and economic development, and doesn't provide the populace with the security and services it needs. These arguments generally come from IGO- and NGO-types who recommend reducing direct military involvement, increasing nonmilitary assistance, and (surprise) relying more on locally-based IGOs and NGOs to lead on development issues.
The other position, which I'll call the "not important camp," point out that al-Qaeda isn't really in Afghanistan anymore, argue that Afghanistan lacks intrinsic strategic importance, and emphasize the futility of "nation-building" in a country that doesn't seem to have much recent history of either nations or buildings. This camp generally recommends avoiding a large-scale troop commitment to Afghanistan while focusing on eliminating al-Qaeda through direct action (mainly drone strikes) and improving Pakistani security and governance capacity.
Keeping in mind that I've just glossed over some differences within these general categories, I've got a couple quick thoughts:"
Abu Muqawama
posted by madtom at 10:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home