The proxy war that the military wants Afghans and Iraqis to fight for them is a reflection of their utter failure to produce any of the political reconciliation and progress they promised would occur behind the escalation of force they prosecuted in Iraq and the escalation they're planning for the cities surrounding their nation-building prize in Kabul.
Faced with the reality of a resurgent 'enemy' in Afghanistan, the military is abandoning the Iraqi communities they occupied in increased numbers as part of the 'surge' of force; not out of any success in reconciling the opposition with the protected regime as they promised in their justifications, but in a cynical pretense of success as they return control to the Iraqis over the neighborhoods the U.S. had opportunistically seized and occupied.
It's clear that average Iraqis don't have the same stake in the continuing presence of American troops that the U.S.-protected Iraqi regime takes advantage of. For Iraqis, there isn't any clear defense of their lives and livelihoods like the protection the government enjoys inside the gates of the U.S. military 'Green Zone.'
Hashimi, speaking with reporters before meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus, said the recently signed security agreement outlining terms of U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq counters an anticipated security void if U.S. troops had ended their mission soon, the Kuwaiti news agency KUNA reported.
What the Iraqi Vice-President is seeking is a force which would protect them in their assumed power and authority against whatever element of the Iraqi population chose to oppose their propped-up rule. Coupled with Iraqis actively being arrested and indefinitely detained without trial or charges by their occupiers, the arbitrary exercise of force by the U.S. military against the Iraqi population makes their presence more of a threat to average Iraqis than the protection the military pretends.
Despite that, the military is convinced that their ability to bribe, cow, and intimidate Iraqis represents progress that could be replicated in Afghanistan as they seek to protect their increasingly beleaguered autocrat in Kabul they helped install behind the sacrifices of our nation's defenders. Afghan militias - mainly comprised of hungry, desperate young men - are to be funded and, presumably, armed against their fellow Afghans to help the U.S.-dominated NATO forces preserve their nation-building gains.
from USNews: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/12/16/us-military-to-launch-pilot-program-to-recruit-new-local-afghan-militias.html
The 'nut' that the U.S. is working to crack used to center on directly and forcibly pursuing the original 9-11 suspects who are far from Kabul and nowhere near the communities that the military is set to occupy and hold with the assistance of their 'social' militias. In fact, the nut of the entire 7-year episode of terror and retaliation centers on the very presence and operation of the U.S. military in these Middle East nations.
It's a mistake, however, for the U.S. to assume that funding, training, and arming elements of the occupied populations against each other is a satisfactory alternative to the imposition of our forces on their soil. It doesn't take a history scholar to trace the practice and result of arming insurgents against their countrymen and women and expecting a peaceful or democratic outcome. Look to result of the Kennedy administration's initial deployment of 'advisers' to Vietnam. Look to the result of the funding of Afghan insurgents against the Soviets when bin-Laden himself was a uniformed proxy for U.S. military meddling there.
More importantly, consider that the new president has forsworn against the Iraq-type militarism that his future military leadership is on the verge of duplicating in Afghanistan. Is funding and encouraging these young men to take up arms against their fellow citizens on behalf of U.S. interests really the best course out of these destructive, cynical occupations?