Although Iraq is far from "out-of-the-woods" regarding internal strife, everyone who visits there says things are much, much better than they were. The surge in Iraq actually had several things going for it besides an increase in U.S. troops (which did not exceed the earlier peak). There was a change in how the troops interacted with the Iraqis. But a major one was that various Sunni tribal chiefs had started to rebel against the insurgents even before the surge because the insurgents were not treating them well. Although there were those that loved Maliki and those who didn't, all accepted him as the legitimate leader. Maliki (a Shiite) gained credence with the Sunnis when he moved against the Shiite Mahdi Army.
In Afghanistan, the leader, Hamid Karzai, is not considered legitimate by many/most. Though there are faint glimmerings of some Pashtun leaders reacting to the Taliban (which are largely Pashtuns), it is not nearly as strong as the Sunni rebellion against the insurgents in Iraq. Afghan troop movements against the Taliban seem to be half-hearted at best. Plus Afghanistan has a problem not seen in Iraq. That is the poppy trade (i.e. drug trade), which accounts for the major part of the Afghan economy. Thus it is not clear that a surge of U.S. troops to Afghanistan will have a decisive effect.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One hopes that president Obama's troop decision for Afghanistan will focus as much on the needs/wants of the various tribes in order to enhance their enthusiasm for, and confidence in, the NATO efforts in this historically region. Whether we(NATO) have enough competent people intersted in doing the infrastructural and social modernizing is a big question.
ReplyDeleteThis challenge is perhaps the most prominent opprtunity for national service to the U.S. younger population. It makes so much sense to recruit the young and idealistic as opposed to the mercenary contractors who are ruining much of our work in Ieaq.