The Economist on Afghanistan—Reinforcing failure?

Posted by Kendall Harmon

If Mr Obama does shift his stance in Afghanistan, history may record that the clinching factor was last month’s fraud-riddled presidential election there. The White House appears to have found this especially rattling when set alongside General McChrystal’s report. For the general’s chief conclusion is that success in Afghanistan does not depend on killing more Taliban fighters. It depends on winning the confidence of Afghans who have been alienated by widespread corruption under President Hamid Karzai and have little reason to support their own government. “A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency,” is the general’s conclusion. However certain Mr Obama is that this is the right war, he cannot be sanguine about sending ever more soldiers to prop up an incompetent government that has lost its legitimacy. Mr Obama’s main ambition in life is to transform America at home. The last thing he needs is a Vietnam.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Economics, PoliticsDefense, National Security, MilitaryForeign RelationsPolitics in GeneralOffice of the PresidentPresident Barack ObamaWar in Afghanistan

0 Comments
Posted September 27, 2009 at 5:01 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Religion and Ethics Newsweekly: An Extended Interview with Harvey Cox

Previous entry (below): A Nice Times-Picayune Profile of Jerry Kramer Who is Leaving for the Mission Field

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)