If we could get the right policy--a phased withdrawal--matching what NATO is planning to do, immediately and use our resources to reconstruct Afghanistan, we'd still fail as there is just too much corruption in Afghanistan.
The article "Afghanistan as a Patronage Machine" at
states "It's now a commonplace of the Afghan War. Western leaders in London, Berlin, Amsterdam, and Washington, as well as on flying visits to Kabul or even Kandahar, excoriate Afghan President Hamid Karzai for the "corruption" of his government. In return for their ongoing support, they repeatedly demand that he take significant action to "step up efforts to root out crime and corruption," that he, in fact, "arrest and prosecute corrupt officials." Can there be any question that there is a plethora of corrupt officials to arrest?"
Karzai would have to arrest his brother, the CIA funded opium trader, and his cousin, another opium trader, and a person who pays the Taliban not to attack the US military. Imagine those family get-togethers.
That is not all as the article continues "In addition, American arms and ammunition are clearly ending up in Taliban hands. The recent presidential election was a spectacle of fraud; the Afghan Army, despite years of training, may hardly exist (as Ann Jones reported for this site in September); the ill-paid, ill-trained Afghan police are known to operate on the principle of corruption; and a surprisingly small percentage of foreign reconstruction funds actually makes it out of the pockets of big private contractors and western specialists, as well as security firms, and into Afghan hands."
I'd rather just burn the money than let the top 1% cronies steal it.
Just how bad is it? The article continues "As number 179, it misses by only one place taking the rock-bottom spot in Transparency International's latest global corruption index. Of course, what else could be expected in a situation in which the nation's main source of funds is either narcotics -- the country now accounts for a staggering 92% of global opium production -- or foreign aid? To demand that President Karzai takes "steps" to "root out crime and corruption" is, under the circumstances, an absurdity, no matter how many special task forces to investigate graft he forms under Western pressure."
The November 17, 2009 Al Jazeera English - Europe - article "UK: Taliban must be in government" at
tells us what our allies are planning. Are we going to be the last one in again as the article states "Britain's foreign secretary has suggested that senior Taliban figures be given positions in the Afghan government to bring an end to the violence in the country.
At a meeting of Nato's parliamentary assembly in Edinburgh, Scotland on Tuesday, David Miliband said that history suggested many Taliban members could be persuaded to stop fighting".
Miliband's comments came shortly after Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato secretary-general, said he expected the military alliance's member nations to pledge "substantially more forces" to Afghanistan.
Rasmussen said the move would be part of a wider strategy of handing over security to Afghans. "We can, and should, start next year to hand over more lead responsibility for security to Afghan forces" Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato secretary-general said.
The military alone won't win as the article continues "Miliband warned that there could be no purely military solution to the resurgent Taliban forces in Afghanistan and called for good governance from Hamid Karzai, who was recently- re-elected as president in poll marred by fraud.
"This is not a war without end, but success must be based on aligning our military and civilian resources behind a clear political strategy," he said.