Welcome back for the conclusion of my interview with Paul
Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould. In
the first half, you dissected how we got to this point. The next question for you two is, can we
break out of this military mindset?
The U.S. is currently in a tenuous financial arrangement with the rest of the world and especially Russia and China. How long the United States can continue to act as a hegemonic power in Central Asia with the intention of controlling pipeline routes against Chinese and Russian interests is a delicate and growing issue. Without careful and ingenious diplomacy, the United States could soon find itself as the odd man out. No amount of military thinking or spending will resolve the problem the United States faces. If the United States can't adjust to this new post cold war reality, then the U.S. will go the way of the Soviet Union.
So, you're the true experts in the region. What do you recommend as a course of action?
Nearly a decade into its Afghan adventure, the U.S. is running out of options. Had Washington dropped its cold war containment policy vis a vis China and Russia, encouraged Iran to continue its post 9/11 assistance in Afghanistan and allowed for a regional solution to take hold early in the Bush years, and had development, and reconstruction superseded the Pentagon mandate for full spectrum dominance, a new and radically different Central Asia would have emerged to challenge the growth of extremism.
Instead, the U.S. must now forfeit its leadership role and its emphasis on military solutions and hope that history judges it kindly by:
1. Returning Afghanistan's formal diplomatic status to that of a neutral buffer state, a role that insured Afghanistan's peace for decades prior to the Soviet invasion.
2. Empowering the UN to forge a diplomatic agreement from Afghanistan's regional neighbors Russia, India, Iran, Tajikistan and China that assures Afghanistan's independence from Taliban coercionas well as foreign occupation.
3. Establishing a timetable for the transfer of U.S. military bases to the Afghan government while setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces within five years. (A regional settlement is impossible until the U.S. disavows a permanent military occupation).
4. Replacing NATO and American troops with UN peacekeeping forces, emphasizingtroops from Islamic nations.
5. Requiring that the agreement be signed by all participants including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who will vow to honor Afghanistan's neutrality, foreswear support for insurgent forces and end the importation of weapons.
6. Making every effort to neutralize the Taliban as a viable political entity by separating them from their base of support through education and economic development. In both Afghanistan and Pakistan the Taliban have become the last resort for the disenfranchised, the poor and the landless. In the Swat valley the Taliban punished corrupt Pakistani officials, drove away rich landlords and established their own courts. In Afghanistan, the Taliban pay their soldiers more than the Karzai government, intimidate corrupt officials and protect local farmers whose only source of income comes from opium. The United States must convince the local population through deeds and actions that their government can govern fairly, ensure security and grow an economy that will make life better.
At this late date, it is not possible to foresee the defeat of the
Taliban or even a moderately successful conclusion to the Afghan war without a
change of course from Washington. That change will require more than just its
policies towards Afghanistan. It will require an entire reassessment of
America's role in the world and a rapid de-emphasis on military solutions and
restoration of the principles of international law. Only in this way can the
United States salvage what is left of its role as the leader of the western
world and forestall the onset of a catastrophic implosion of Central Asia and a
new world war.
Have you seen any signs that this Administration will take some of these steps? Or, if not, how does the public, assisted by experts like yourselves, create an environment that will make your recommendations an attractive alternative to the present unwieldy and unproductive course?
The administration is following along in a pre-set course that began during the 1940's with the establishment of a world wide American military presence. Unfortunately, in picking up the pieces of the British empire the U.S. not only assumed the same strategic objectives, it also acquired a good deal of failed 19th century British attitudes toward the region.
1 | 2
