How about Afghanistan in the context of everything else?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 2:53AM POINT: Afghanistan: The Path to Victory, By Joseph J. Collins, Joint Forces Quarterly, NDU, October 2009, p58
MIDPOINT: Destroy the Taliban's Sanctuary, By Steven Metz, Joint Forces Quarterly, NDU, October 2009, p62
COUNTERPOINT: Trapping Ourselves in Afghanistan and Losing Focus on the Essential Mission, By Ralph Peters, Joint Forces Quarterly, NDU, October 2009, p63
Interesting trio of articles that says: 1) the long hard slog can work (Collins); 2) the long hard slog is doomed (Metz) and 3) we have no strategic interests here and should leave (Peters).
No one talks about engaging regional players much--if at all. This entire discussion is held within the confines of America-doing-damn-near-anything. To me, it's a stunningly sterile discussion, as if we're the only power in the world.
China is mentioned twice--very obliquely. Collins talks constructively for a brief bit on India and Iran. Peters speaks about Russia and India mostly in terms of complications--Iran similarly. Turkey is unmentioned. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is never mentioned.
In effect, regional players are there to be worried about but never fully exploited. The sum effect is--again--an oddly limited debate.
Honestly, strategic thinking (other than the negating let's-just-get-the-hell-out-of-here crowd) in this country is dead. It is truly weird and sad.
The word "economy" is used once by Metz, to decry Afghanistan's complete lack of one outside of opium production. Collins talks "economic development" a lot, but that seems to mean NGOs exclusively.
Again, this is a depressingly narrow debate.
Reader Comments