Talk about a surge.

There has been a ton of articles on what to do about Afghanistan lately.

One I already wrote on (see below) - last weekend's article on Talking to the Taliban in Week in Review section of NYTimes by Helene Cooper.

A VERY CONVINCING argument in an op ed NYTimes, In Afghanistan Less Can Be More about an ex CIA officer, Bill Lair, who worked with local Laotians to fight communist insurgents there. He states that training these indigenous actors in Laos was effective in fighting insurgents; when the US stopped doing it there - and started sending thousands of troops and a bombing campaign - they lost Laos.

As US Weighs Taliban Negotiations, Afghans are Already Talking

Oped #1 today by Leslie Gelb (no intro needed, pres CFR) How to Leave Afghanistan in NYTimes.

Oped #2 today by Robert Kagan (no intro needed, neocon patriot extraordinaire, AEI) and Max Boot (CFR) and Kimberly Kagan How to Surge the Taliban in NYTimes today.

As per the last two I mention (Gelb and Kagan) I found Robert Kagan (arrogant neocon that he is, totally blinded by his unrealistic faith in the US power overseas and lacking in understanding and knowledge about facts on the ground and the history of other peoples, or at least unwilling to consider that it should play a role in our policies) profound.

Mostly bc I disagreed with many of his points: I mean the most glaring deficiency being in his third paragraph and the basis of his whole article: WOW he went to Afghanistan on a tour organized by Patraeus and every Afghan he met said they were winning!! Well then they must be. Horrendous evidence. You've got to be kidding.

Also he aimlessly advocates more detentions. COME ON. I mean, yes, detain the bad people but extended detentions turn local public opinion against us.

Aslo he annunciates unrealistic idealistic arrogant neocon line even though every piece of historical and expert evidence proves this wrong: "There is now question that we can succeed against these (Taliban) weaker foes." MOST importantly he gives NO evidence for this claim. He might want to ask the USSR about that, oh, or ANY EXPERT in the field, liberal or conservative. And the 'weaker foe', I wouldn't call the Taliban (including all its tentacles) weak.

Also he cites recent polls that Afghans don't like the Taliban - but these polls would have been the same when the Taliban were in power in the 90s. Yes, Afghans hate the Taliban, and this is a great, hopeful stat, but that unfortunately does not mean they cannot win.


But also bc a couple points he made poke legitimate holes in Gelb and others' argument about pulling out. If there are only sparsely placed US troops, how do we get intelligence for drone strikes, Kagan questions. We only get intell now bc we get it and then protect the civilians and wouldn't have sufficient troops to do that if we pull back.

I also found it interesting, to say the least, that you have a conservative (albeit a neocon which means he is kind of like an aggressive bleeding heart liberal when it comes to international interventionism) for nation building in Afghanistan - tons of troops and econ devel and helping their justice system and then a liberal, Gelb, saying get the F out of there!

Gelb lies out an evidenced argument for withdrawal - we can't win - and a strong 4 point plan for leaving Afghanistan - scale back, limit goals. This is why we are doing better in Iraq now - bc we scaled back goals. Biggest lie ever told that we are 'winning in Iraq bc of the surge' we are doing better in terms of US Public opinion bc we SIGNIFICANTLY lowered our goals there. Anyway, I don't have as much analysis of this one right now that I did Kagan's.

**Also things turned in Iraq NOT because of the US troop surge, but bc locals decided to turn against AQI - this is what needs to happen in Afghanistan en masse, Pashtun tribes rejecting the Taliban.
(Listen to Bing West's (retired USMC, been to Iraq 17 times, author of The Strongest Tribe)lecture at Middle East Institute on this.)