by Paul Richter
t's become almost the conventional wisdom in Washington that the best way to fight the Taliban is to expand Afghanistan's weak national army. Today, a prominent former diplomat said that approach may be entirely wrong.
George P. Shultz, who was secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan, told an audience at the Carnegie Endowment on International Peace that the West may be making a big mistake trying to build a national army, rather than strengthening the militias of the local leaders who have always run the place.
Afghanistan is a "bottom-up" country with a scattered population that has never been held together by a strong central government, Shultz said. And while the West wants to build up the army and national police to fight off the insurgency, the local leaders - sometimes called warlords -- only see the national army as a challenge to their authority, he said.
Shultz argued that the only time in this decade when the U.S. enjoyed success in Afghanistan was during the invasion of 2001, when U.S. forces made common cause with some of the regional tribal groups and ousted the Taliban government.
While the government in Kabul is now "getting all the attention" from the West, he said, Afghanistan's allies might be smarter to try to build up local fighting forces, then link them in a common effort against the insurgency.
Comments
Obam needs to tell the Neocon warmongers (Cheney, McCain etc) that got us into the Iraq mess to go pound sand with regards to Afghanistan.
Posted by: Alvin | October 27, 2009 6:43 PM
Democracy cannot be forced down people's throats.
Or, as Bush and Cheney tried to do in Iraq: "We're giving you democracy... Even if we have to kill half a million of you to do it!"
We were there to give them the democracy of death and the freedom of the grave.
Same thing goes for Afghanistan....especially after our own government treated them to over 7 years of neglect, war crimes and war profiteering under Bush/Cheney and Rummy.
The local's trust in us in Afghanistan was already pretty much destroyed by '06, the roadside bombs began at that time too.
Posted by: mjd | October 27, 2009 7:15 PM
The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany.
The 9/11 attackers got their training right here in the US.
Whether or not they have monkey bars and rifle ranges really doesn't matter.
Bin Ladens stated goal is to bankrupt us with lengthy wars that will eventually drain our economic strength, to force us to overextend like the British did.
Posted by: Nonnie999 | October 27, 2009 7:21 PM
George P. Schultz, who was secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan, says we are making a big mistake...rather than strengthening the militias of the local leaders who have always run the place.
Ya Georgie, how'd that work out for you with Bin Laden???? Freakin MORONS on the right!! They NEVER learn from THEIR mistakes!!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | October 27, 2009 8:08 PM
Wonder how the mess will work out- no winers for sure.
Posted by: inky | October 27, 2009 10:20 PM
It's spelled S H U L T Z.
And it's not a bad idea (surprising given Shultz's Hoover Institution at Stanford is Condi Rice's new hangout) to cut out the corrupt middlemen -- the Afghan government, and it may produce results as the warlords want to protect their turf. But what to do with those poppy fields....
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | October 28, 2009 5:36 PM