Monday, March 19, 2012

OPINION - Afghanistan 3/16/2012

"Shields, Brooks on Afghan Massacre, the Gingrich Factor, Goldman Sachs Op-Ed" PBS Newshour 3/16/2012

Excerpt on Afghanistan

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): A short time ago, a U.S. government official identified the U.S. soldier accused of killing Afghan civilians as Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales.

And on that, we turn the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

This is the first time we have the name. We knew 38-year-old staff sergeant. He is being blown tonight from Kuwait to Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

David, this terrible incident, the killing of all these civilians by -- and he is the suspect alleged to have done this -- how does it change what the U.S. is trying to do in Afghanistan?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times columnist: Well, I'm not sure it will have a long-term effect.

There have been tragedies before. There have been drone killings. There have been a lot of civilian killings over the years. And, as Ryan Crocker said, generally, we have been through them.

I think what is different now is the circumstances surrounding this and the Quran burnings, which is that we're much closer to the exits. We're certainly leaving by 2014. A lot of people now think we should leave by 2013. And so that idea that the exits are so close creates this momentum where people think, let's get out of here.

And what you have is a lot of Afghan capital is leaving the country, waiting for what is going to happen next. You have got an Afghan -- the educated class leaving the country and applying for asylum abroad, citizenship abroad. You get the Taliban knowing we don't have much longer to wait. So they are much more suspicious about negotiations.

So what happens is, when you begin the withdrawal process, you get this spiral. And so managing the withdrawal -- we're all agreeing we're going to withdrawal -- becomes much, much more difficult for the U.S.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Mark, is it all about just managing the withdrawal and getting out faster?

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist: No, I think it's more than that, Judy.

I think, first of all, there's an iron rule of history here. And that is that armies of occupation throughout human history are unpopular. Just think of the French, who were indispensable to the American Revolution, had stuck around for six months. Americans would have been stoning them in the streets. That's just -- that's human nature.

I think that is the first reality. Now this war is 10 years old. Secondly, nobody can define what the mission is now. Managing the exit, I mean, is this for the more expenditure of blood and treasure and Americans risking death, and worse?

And I guess that -- I think that is where it is. And I think that is the reality. It's got a political implication now. This week, we saw Newt Gingrich say it wasn't -- Afghans -- was not doable, Afghanistan was not doable, Rick Santorum saying that we ought to double the resources -- I'm not sure what resources mean -- or begin to pull out or accelerate the pullout.

And it really appears to be more of a political problem than a strategic international problem.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But. . .

DAVID BROOKS: I have to say, I disagree with that. I think we know what the mission is.

The military is very clear about this and the president has been very clear about this, is that we are trying to create an Afghan army that can defend the country, so it doesn't descend back into civil war, so it doesn't descend back into a pre-9/11 circumstance.

And the people in the military, who are not particularly political, think that is quite doable. And they are little disturbed by the talk of the early withdrawal, because they think they can do that and we can get out. The Afghan army has -- is the one sole institution in that country which sort of functions. It's not perfect by any means. A lot of the troops are illiterate, among other things.

But it does sort of function and there are a lot of them. And so there is some expectation that you will be able to create an army so you won't have a long civil war, as you had after the Soviet pullout, after -- in previous pullouts.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So you don't see that as. . .

MARK SHIELDS: No, I stand second to nobody in my admiration of the military, but there is a pattern of American generals. they are always reluctant to go into a war and they are always to leave it. That is the pattern. And that is what we're seeing now, because this is a failed mission.

Let's be very blunt about it. We are not going to leave Afghanistan as a functioning, operating society. Karzai is a disaster. If you can remember -- those who remember South Vietnam, this is the parallel, this is the bookend to that. We are propping up a corrupt regime that doesn't have the respect and commitment of its own people and it has no commitment and respect of its people. That is the reality. He is the mayor of Kabul at best. And that. . .

JUDY WOODRUFF: So when the ambassador, Ryan Crocker, tells Jeff, as he did a few minutes ago in that interview, that considering the circumstances, Hamid Karzai is doing what he has to do. . .

MARK SHIELDS: He is, what, playing to the gallery by insulting Leon Panetta and condemning the United States and chastising us and telling us what our strategy ought to be there? I just -- I don't see that he is a particularly either admirable or reliable ally.

DAVID BROOKS: I agree with that. I don't have much -- Ryan Crocker has to say he has a lot of room for Hamid Karzai.

I don't think too many people -- certainly, the U.S. military doesn't. They see him as corrupt, or at least his brother as corrupt. They see a lot of corruption rife through Afghanistan. There's no question about that.

But what we want is just stability so we won't have the Taliban coming in kicking girls out of school. You won't have just a long civil war, which will be a breeding round for Taliban, which will then bleed over into Pakistan. That's what we want.

And so can we get some basic level of stability? Well, I think the generals, maybe they're too yahoo about this, but I do think they think it's possible. And we have handed over large parts of Afghanistan to Afghan control. They're running it without really U.S. troops. We're busy in the south and other regions. So there is some just basic stability. That is all we want.

No comments: