11 September 2009


i've become a little more hawkish in the months of late, but the question of afghanistan is one that seems the most impossible to resolve.

on the one hand, i feel as though we bear some responsibility to the people of afghanistan to clean up some of the messes we've let fester. i mean, we invaded that country in receipt of applause for ousting the despicable taliban. but we've gone and spent the past seven years earning its scorn by moving our resources to its more profitable neighbor, while leaving afghanistan in a catastrophic freefall.

but it also seems that a democratic afghanistan is as far from reality as my setting up a camp site on mars. and how much more money and how many more american lives are meant to be sacrificed? and to what end?

are we meant to 'build a nation'? can we sell that to an american public already growing very tired of afghanistan? (i mean, as much as i love the idea of being a part of building a nation, i question whether we are capable of doing any good in afghanistan. and i do a tad more homework than the average american, who already thinks we're spending entirely too much money on worthless ventures).

but what would happen if we just up and left?

the country is being ravaged by the drug trade and the unsavory types of folks who operate the industry. comprising 60% of its GDP, afghanistan provides the world with 90% of its opium. which essentially means that the government of afghanistan is controlled by drug dealers and thugs. not quite a recipe for success. especially when the terrorist-protecting taliban is still there, and could very well make a come back if the situation ripens to their advantage.

something that seems all the more likely so long as president karzai in charge. a weak douchey politician, karzai inspires little faith, and plays whichever side of the issue buys him the greatest political capital. right now, those are anti-americanism and friend to the opium trade.

all of this on top of the impossible terrain, the absense of infrastructure, and the political instability, though not entirely of our making, have been perpetuated by our mismanaging our occupation and warring without a comprehensive strategy.

we let the opium farms replace the cereal and wheat farms (the types of things farmers would rather be growing, but don't have the infrastructure and security enough to earn a living), we allowed the drug trade to flourish when we didn't consort with the afghan justice department, and order our troops to arrest drug dealers and destroy opium. not that our own 'war on drugs' has been a great success, but it does seem that pinching off the drugs before they consumed the ecomony mighta been a good idea.

and while maybe it's not particularly prudent to keep sending troops and nation builders over to that side of the world, can we just leave? it's so unstable. and its instability further weakens an already very dangerous part of the world. can we afford not to be there? isn't it our responsibility to be there?

isn't it?


1 comment:

  1. I totally supported the initial war in Afghanistan and I supported the President's idea that we should be focusing on Afghanistan instead of Iraq. However, the following words still ring true with me:

    Advice on Afghanistan