Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogers
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstv_lover
According to Stratfor:
"If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...rategic_debate
Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?
This may prove to be the get-out clause, but it contradicts the stated aims of I.S.A.F.-N.A.T.O..
"Isaf's stated role is to help the government of Afghanistan maintain security across the country by conducting operations in co-ordination with the Afghan National Army. It also mentors and supports efforts by them to disarm illegal militias.
Nato says that the long-term aim is to help establish conditions in which Afghanistan can enjoy a
stable and representative government after decades of conflict."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7228649.stm
I.E. To support a democracy!
There are plenty examples of countries which have a "strong and representative government" but are not democracies. You want an example? Oh, say China.
The reality is that Karzai has no popular mandate, is only able to travel outside Kabul under tight security, was appointed by Western countries and will disappear when the US/NATO troops leave. I'm not saying that's good or bad - just reality.
The British discovered over 100 years ago what the Russians encountered in 1980s - Afghanistan is a county of tribal leaders with fierce belief in their historic culture.
The word "democratic" is not mentioned in the ISAF mandate. Leaving the issue of democracy aside for a minute do you believe that a deal between the US and Taliban, which will result in them not supporting al-Qaeda, is both achievable and politically acceptable to the US?