WAR IN AFGHANISTAN:
Will the sum change if we switch the summands’ places?
"Occupation" — is a double-edged term and applying
it to Russia is fraught with the risks of hearing the same
accusations in reply. Note that U. S. administration may hear them
not from the Kremlin itself, but rather from the citizens of the very
countries that America is trying to "bring to the democracy and
progress". "Person of the Commander-in-Chief — whether it’s
McChrystal or Petraeus — doesn’t matter" — said the "Taliban"
representatives. Our position is crystal clear: we’re going to fight
occupants until they’re out of our country.
Scandalous retirement of General Stanley McChrystal from the posts
of Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
and Commander of U. S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) and his
replacement with General David Petraeus is commented by nearly every
media source in the world. It is either called the huge success
of the White House or the evidence of complete failure
of Barack Obama’s foreign policy on the field of the longest war
in American history. The much-talked-about article named "Runaway General"
in the "Rolling Stone" magazine gave the whole story quite
an unpleasant smell.
Informal chat of McChrystal and dexterous journalist that dragged
on due to the Icelandic volcano explosion — had it been
no explosion, these two would have just flew asunder — allowed the
common Americans as well as the rest of the world to read
about the American Commander-in-Chief disrespecting and calling the
U. S. Vice President and the Ambassador of the United States
in Afghanistan names. Readers also came to know what does the
General’s closer environment think of the Head of State
(it turned out, they didn’t thought too good of him) and another
curios details of conversation with such high-ranked military official,
completely deprived of sense of harmony. Conclusions that Obama has
made are well-known: General has hit the road for insubordination and his
former chief Petraeus was appointed to the vacant place (it seems
that for the last one it was a demotion).
Some analysts considered this to be a strong move
of Obama’s administration: they’ve implied that Petraeus
is a very experienced military commander who used to head the
USAF in Iraq and the American leadership has shown it unwillingness
to back down in the Afghan war. "Washington Post" has written
about it, having enthusiastically named the article
"Obama’s 5 foreign-policy victories". Authors placed
the Afghan reshuffling to be the first one. By the way,
on the last place there’s a call for Russia to stop "the
occupation of Georgia" (White House speechwriters are especially honored
for usage of the daring word "occupation"). The article, eulogizing the
President and his surrounding, however, is made in a manner that
is painfully familiar to everyone who was born in the USSR:
workers greet the achievements of party and the government
in an every possible way.
Still, there are some different opinions about the McChrystal-Petraeus
intrigue. So, the "World Politics Review" believes that the replacement
of the Afghan chessboard figures can be reduced to replacing the
chaise longs at the deck of the "Titanic". According to the
numerous observers, the USA are inevitably approaching the complete failure
of the war in Afghanistan and, despite the foreboding of evil,
they are frantically searching for some political mascara, capable
of temporarily removing the symptoms rather than curing the very
disease.
But what is done by night appears by the day and serious
Afghan-based conflicts between the Pentagon and White House loudly hit the
surface, having shaped as the annoyed McChrystal’s statements. Obama has
won the elections mostly thanks to his nearly pacifist promises.
He used to say that USAF would leave Iraq and concentrate its efforts
on Afghanistan and then — having quickly defeated Talibs — would
withdraw the troops from there, too. Even the date of pulling out the
troops was specified — July of 2011. Generals do not share his
optimism and they still have a very skeptical attitude towards the plans
of politicians.
There’s an impression of a dead-end: the USA cannot pull the
troops out of Afghanistan as long as the strategic goal wasn’t
achieved but everyone understands that they have to deal with the
situation somehow. The price that military is willing to pay are the
massive manslaughters of the enemies without distinguishing civilians from
the militants. "We’ve shot an amazing number of people there" —
Rolling Stones cited these words of McChrystal in their remarkable
article. His leadership, though, cannot allow this to happen
(at least formally). All the more, despite the successful military
operations, the USAF is incapable of securing even the areas under
their control from the Talibs who are engaged in the severe guerilla
fights. Comparing this campaign to the Vietnam has long ago become the
generality that implies the inevitable defeat in this war as well.
General Petraeus himself has admitted that the situation in Afghanistan
is actually worse than the one in Iraq.
Hope for the puppet authority of Hamid Karzai — who was entrusted
with the impossible mission to oust the radical powers, having
strong-armed them with the authority and popularity among the citizens —
is obviously rather delusive. Corrupted government dances to the
American tune but also wouldn’t mind negotiating with Talibs
if it benefits them.
Yet another problem, which tremendously aggravated with the American presence,
is the increase of the drug-production. Their influx goes from
Afghanistan — as the world main opiate plantation — through the
Middle-Asian countries and then straight to Russia and Europe. U. S.
population doesn’t suffer much from that, while the military contingent uses
this issue to guarantee the loyal attitude of the locals who make
their living working the poppy fields.
So when Obama speaks of withdrawing the troops that is allegedly
to take place in about a year, he simultaneously signs the
decree, increasing the American military presence in Afghanistan with his
other hand. Both Petraeus and McChrystal became known during the rule
of George Bush — these two men have personified the U. S.
foreign policy during the two previous presidential terms. Nobody’s disputing
the fact that the General who went to extremes was to resign. But the
sum didn’t change with the replacement of compounds. Tabloid rebellion
of Stanley McChrystal just revealed the fact that Obama administration
hasn’t developed discrete foreign policy yet. For now it is dashing
from the urge to "reset" some relationships, humanization for everyone and
other good intentions from one hand and the beaten track of the world
gendarme — which was, frankly speaking, chosen even before George W.
Bush — on the other one. So the "occupation" —
is a double-edged term and applying it to Russia
is fraught with the risks of hearing the same accusations
in reply. Note that U. S. administration may hear them not from the
Kremlin itself, but rather from the citizens of the very countries that
America is trying to "bring to the democracy and progress".
"Person of the Commander-in-Chief — whether it’s McChrystal
or Petraeus — doesn’t matter" — said the "Taliban"
representatives. Our position is crystal clear: we’re going to fight
occupants until they’re out of our country.
By Maxim Nemov
|
