What the US will leave behind as it leaves Afghanistan

The Public Affairs Magazine- Newsinsight.net

It is immaterial for purposes of this piece that America’s contemplated bribing of the Af-Pak terrorists will not bring it peace. The nature of Al-Qaeda terrorism against America has changed from the spectacular (9/11) to the individual.

Here, every disaffected American Muslim is seen by the Al-Qaeda as a potential recruit. Probably fighting a long war in Afghanistan with the present constraints won’t change this reality. But bribes won’t either.

India’s trouble comes from the certainty that a substantial portion of the bribe money given to the Pakistan military and ISI will be ploughed back into the terrorist campaign against it. It has happened in the past with American aid to Pakistan and it will repeat.

This writer won’t discuss India’s counter options. But at a minimum, as mentioned in the first paragraph, this country will have to push up its defenses against terrorism with a profound accent on preventive intelligence.

But there is the Iran angle which complicates matters. Iran is opposed to the Sunni Al-Qaeda/ Taliban. But to spite the Americans, it has provided material support to the Af-Pak terrorists.

While Iran will be pleased with the American drawdown from Afghanistan, it will have to fill the vacuum there to the limits of its ability to protect its interests. It will have to do the same (it is already doing so) in Iraq where again America is withdrawing.

As analyzed by this writer earlier, the unintended beneficiary of the US war in Iraq has been Iran. Iran has become the pre-eminent power in the region. Most fearful of Iran’s rise is Saudi Arabia, which is loathed by the ruling Iranian clergy.

Without provoking another American intervention in the region (after leaving Iraq), Iran will do everything to destabilize Saudi Arabia to establish its supremacy. In the Al-Qaeda, Iran has a powerful instrument to torment the Saudi rulers. Alongwith the Americans, Iran would be tempted to nurse the Al-Qaeda but against Saudi Arabia just enough to soften its opposition to it.

At some stage, the competitive bribers, the US and Iran, will clash, because Saudi Arabia is a key American ally. The clash may be localized to the Af-Pak region or could manifest in the Middle East where the Al-Qaeda conceivably radiates with Iran’s assistance.

With all this money and arms flowing, and with emerging competing interests, the Sunni terrorist movement will splinter, leading to a bloodbath. To the extent that the internal terrorist war (with the Shia forces joining the fray) is located in Af-Pak and within Pakistan proper, Pakistan will be affected. It will further descend into turmoil and destruction.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins