OBAMA IN AFGHANISTAN

by simonseaton | March 29, 2010 at 02:31 am
162 views | 4 Recommendations | 2 comments

President Obama’s flying nocturnal visit to Afghanistan took everyone by surprise. Not so surprising was his focus on Afghan corruption and the need for Pakistan’s help in reaching the desired objective of disengaging from active hostilities with the Taleban. This new objective is a pragmatic scaling down of previous far more ambitious objectives. It also gives new meaning to the earlier stated plan of starting the beginning of a US withdrawal in July 2011.

The focus on corruption in Afghanistan is long overdue. The corrupt environment ensures that US aid also reaches the enemy the US is fighting—the Taleban. This is how it works. The US is totally dependent on logistics flows into Afghanistan via Central Asia and Pakistan. Within Afghanistan there are huge contracts involving at least 3 billion US dollars for the safe transportation and distribution of logistics. Afghans—mostly US educated---have returned to Afghanistan and have used their links to secure contracts. These Afghans are all connected to high ranking Afghan government officials. The biggest such contractor is the son of the Afghan Defense minister. This is the first tier and the starting point of the corruption chain in Afghanistan.

These ‘contractors’ need transport and secure routes. This brings in the sub-contractors who are lower in the chain but again have connections and make pay offs to get the contracts. Millions of US dollars are involved in all facets of the operation---procuring vehicles, spare parts, maintenance and drivers and then there is the all important aspect of security. Without fool proof security not a single vehicle can reach its destination. Security has to be bought and in most areas the guarantors are the Taleban or people fronting for the Taleban. This where the US dollars start flowing to the enemy and no enemy would want to kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs---in this case it means keeping US and NATO indefinitely engaged. Everybody in the chain wants this.

In this context President Obama has sounded just the right note. He has told Karzai to do more to curb corruption. But what can Karzai do? The whole logistic chain is a closed loop. Any other arrangement like employing US or other country security forces will raise the cost a hundred times and jeopardize security at every step. So not much is likely to change—US taxpayers will continue to fund the enemy that its forces are fighting.

Another chain is the narcotics mafia—it too starts from the top pervades the entire government machinery and depends on the Taleban for the vital ground level operations of poppy growing, harvesting, converting and secure movement out of the country. Food and reconstruction are the other chains that snake from top to bottom in Afghanistan.

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
raven_gale

"procuring vehicles, spare parts, maintenance and drivers and then there is the all important aspect of security. Without fool proof security not a single vehicle can reach its destination. Security has to be bought and in most areas the guarantors are the Taleban or people fronting for the Taleban. This where the US dollars start flowing to the enemy and no enemy would want to kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs"

Nice one Simon, What we have to worry about is that how could US overlook these important problems. USA knew (or at least this is what we think) what the situation in Afghanistan is, US has the technology to assess the road network, US had the information about how deceptive and dangerous the Taliban are (US trained them and used them for years) and US knew the nature and current economic situation of countries bordering Afghanistan. If US generals and politicians knew and understood all these points then they should have adopted a different strategy, where the funds should not have ended up in the hands of the enemy. How could the US (the world superpower) make such huge judgment errors and what prompted the US to jump into the fire is beyond comprehension.

0
greg_mathews

Raven, I think that the initial decision to attack Afghanistan was partly emotional (9/11) and partly politically motivated. The US generals may have backed Prez B's orders out of emotional reasons. Afghanistan may also have looked like an easy target, though I fail to understand how US could see things that way. After all Afghans did kick Russia's ass even though it was with US funding and training. Maybe US had thought that Afghans without the US funding and support would be sitting ducks. But Afghans have a history of being determined and stubborn. Many invaders have come and left in shame. Today, enemy is not just Afghans but an army of highly trained and dangerous people. These people have nothing to lose and death doesn't seem to be an enemy. Their fighting tactics are unconventional in the sense that suicide attacks are a normal mission. USA has sophisticated technology which may not be that useful against an unsophisticated enemy. So its a pretty messed up situation and I have a feeling that US is going to suffer the same fate that Russia did. Only Russia was in it alone but here there are many allies who might go down with US. 

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

NowPublic on Facebook

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

raven_gale
First Flagged at 2:54 AM, Mar 29, 2010 by raven_gale

Related Stories

Recommendations (4)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from