Mar 24th, 2003, 03:19 PM
"Did he fabricate the General's concerns?? Were these things never said??"
Hard to say without an unedited quote, as I never knew the man.
"1. We're at war with Iraq, and if we do the same with Iraq has we have in Afghanistan, then I'm concerned. "
Hard to say. I was willing to bet dollars to doughnuts we wouldn't bomb Baghdad in order to keep it in something close to working order. That prediction was way off, so really, I couldn't say. Speculatively, I'd say we'd probably do less.
"2. We're not moving "too fast," we're barely moving at all. Everyone assumes and says "yeah, we're doing great, no, not great, rather, the BESTEST stuff there! They love us! Everyone eats PIE!" This isn't the case, and yes, perish the thought, despite being liberated by the American military, there are STILL problems in Afghanistan. "
Don't be facetious. If we haven't cleaned up one mess and move swiftly into making another, I see it as moving too fast. Which, if you stop for a moment, isn't a far cry from your point. The trouble with building those two countries is one of markets. America's strength is capitalism, it's our culture, our religion and our security. There was a profit to be made in aiding Britain, France, Japan and Germany after world war 2 for stock marketeers. There isn't one in Afghanistan or Iraq because things are too turbulent, too great of a risk. Unlike Japan who embraced us in 1943, there are mixed feelings abroad and that creates a dangerous atmosphere for buisness as usual, so of course, reconstruction or westernization, is going to proceed slowly. And if we leave matters in their own hands by their own means, it may not proceed at all.
"But he already IS getting this criticism with Karzai. If we were showing more support there, not necessarily military, but SOMETHING, he maybe wouldn't receive that at all, and I think the people of Afghanistan would be better off, too. "
We could do more, but doing so would have a political saaviness of zero. We'd be accused of making new territories like we did with the Phillipines, Hawaii and the Marshal Islands. And, historically, there is a basis for that view so it is of the utmost importance that to do the most good, and retain the most influence there, we do not enter into affairs with a heavy, guiding hand.
"To my understanding, Britain and Canada have done their fair share."
If Britain and Australia aren't enough to count as Multilateral action in a war against Iraq, Britain and Canada hardly count torwards Multilateral action in rebuilding Afghanistan. Can;t have your cake and eat it too. Actually, with the Japanese economy so desperate, and they making up a good portion of the post-war Iraq build up, I expect things should go well. For over a decade their local economy was almost solely driven by government funded construction. When it comes down to equipment, experience and the need for currency, they will be more than willing to contract themselves into Iraq to do what needs doing.
Politically, I have a feeling it won't be even as easy as Afghanistan to rebuild.
|