|
|
What are the United States’ goals in Afghanistan? Danny Gillam The fall of Kandahar and the collapse of the Taliban now seem inevitable. A fact which should come as little surprise when a country with a $300+ billion a year military budget is pitted against a haphazard militia backed by a country with a $21 billion GDP and led by a guy who resides in a cave. But what are our goals in Afghanistan? The fall of the Taliban is certainly a pleasant consequence of our actions in the area, but are we fighting a war to replace them with the equally terrible Northern Alliance (or United Front as they prefer to be called)? As it is now, the Northern Alliance is already picking up the pieces after vast US bombing campaigns and is establishing itself as the de facto ruling party of Afghanistan. (Doing little to mollify Pakistan, which tacitly supports the Taliban.) Now we want to bargain with them and convince them to give a share of the power to some of the other “tribes” (oftentimes this word would more aptly apply to our own political parties). Afghanistan has almost no infrastructure, and next to no experience when it comes to modern democratic government. The formation of a tolerable regime there is not something that is going to happen overnight and will likely be the sole purpose of much continued military involvement on foreign soil (c.f. Vartan Gregorian’s Nov 15 NY Times article). This is already a bitter pill for many of the world’s countries to swallow. Berlusconi is working hard to raise discord in Italy by sending Italian troops into the fray—a fact which does not sit well with Italian youth. I think it is a hard sell for many world leaders, who are aware of the economic implications for their countries if they do not support this situation, but who are faced with a populace that that does not see the efficacy of selling out their own ideology (e.g. Musharraf in Pakistan). One of the most shocking things that happened on Sept 11 was not the start of a war—it was the start of a war IN America. I think Americans often feel excessively indifferent to the prospect of being at war—offering pervicacious support for activity resulting in much casualty and suffering (perhaps coupled with a certain sense of schadenfreude). America has never had to deal with the issue of fighting a war within its own borders... war has always been “somewhere else” for us. But much of the world is not so distant from this conflict and people (rightfully) do not want this fighting going on near them (c.f. Eastern Europe’s response to our action in the Balkans). As I recall, we came to Afghanistan in the hopes of bringing to justice those who were responsible for the incidents of Sept 11. I also believe that it was not so long ago that Afghanistan offered to turn over bin Laden and his cadres in return for the withdrawal of US troops. What exactly are we trying to do now; there is no way we are going to find a man with $100 million in assets and thousands of loyal supporters hiding in some cave, a half mile underground in a country the size of Texas. The adventitious effects of this calamity at home are also unprecedented. The conservatives are having a field day—cutting back civil liberties and approving huge increases in military spending. Executive power is on the rise and racism is rampant. Even my old friend Doug has been lambasted in the literature for his little peccadillo (ah, but I am too facetious). Ridiculous. Gillam is a member of the class of ’02. |
|
 |
| The
Wesleyan Argus
© 2001 Wesleyan University Questions/Comments: Min Ter Lim, Online Editor or the Argus |
