This week on Fareed Zakaria GPS, the weekly question is: "Do you think that President Obama will be able to negotiate a peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians in this term? Why or Why not?"
Here is my response to his question (which I did in fact email into the show):
I believe that it will be unlikely that President Obama will be able to negotiate a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians in this current term. First of all, it is almost out of the question that there is a one-state solution. Given the losses faced by both sides, the strong historical claims that both states have, as well as the large number of third-party states that are deeply invested in supporting one side or the other in this conflict, it would seem unlikely that a one-state solution would be viable.
Secondly, given the most recent Israel-Gaza conflict and the events that transpired, Palestinians, most likely, would be more than hesitant to engage with Israel in negotiations because of a great sense of distrust. Negotiations cannot be successfully conducted when each party is actively thinking the worst about their counterparts.
The only real opportunity for a peaceful settlement would require Syria to play a significant role as not only a mediator but as a negotiator. The only way for any resemblance of a peace between Palestinians and Israelis would likely require a prior deal between Israel and Syria. For such a deal to occur would require Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syria. If that were to happen, Syria could then place friendly pressure on Palestinians to agree to a deal with Israel. All of this, of course, would be complemented by US pressure on Israel to conclude a peace deal with the Palestinians.
In terms of Obama's ability to affect this process, he would obviously be able to direct US influence on Israel but that would essentially be the extent to his real influence. Seeing as Obama can only lend his influence but no real decision-making ability, the likelihood of Obama brokering a peace is small. There are simply too many non-US components to this type of scenario for Obama to be truely influential in any peace deal between Israel and Palestinians.
Now it may be possible for Obama to have a greater degree of success in helping to achieve peace between these two parties but given the complexity, Obama will require more than the 4 year term he currently has. If he is able to secure a second term in office then the likelihood would dramatically increase.
- blenCOWe
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The North Korean Pullout Threatens to De-Stabilize East-Asia
The Regional peace and security of East Asia is more than likely at risk of suffering from a massive destabilization due to an announcement from North Korea today that it will now boycott the disarmament talks taking place between the six stake-holders and will re-start production of weapons-grade plutonium and other nuclear power projects.
North Korea's state media outlet, Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), released the announcement hours after the UN Security Council had condemned North Korea's rocket launch of April 5, 2009. Realistically, this appears to be a very rash decision by North Korea, even more so because of the escalating effect it may have between the involved actors. The authoritarian state also claimed that as a means of defending itself, it will work to strengthen its nuclear deterrent, building up its nuclear weapons arsenal.
The North Koreans claim that they are being unfairly targeted because of their poor ties with the United States, arguing that "according to the US logic, Japan may launch a satellite because Japan is its ally but we must not do the same because we have a different system and we are not subservient to the US" -- Al Jazeera
The difference, however, is that Japan hasn't withdrawn itself from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) or pursued a program of of nuclear deterrence. The reason why the United States and the other powers of the UN Security Council have denounced the actions taken by North Korea is because of the threat that the rocket technology poses to the security of the region. The issue is not the satellite that North Korea claims was the reason for the rocket launch but the technol0gy used to launch the satellite into orbit. The Taepodong-2 missile, with a range that places most of East Asia within reach, is what has caused the strong reaction by world powers. Loaded with a nuclear bomb, the Taepdodoong-2 would give the DPRK a credible deterrent against nuclear power China and a preponderance of power against the other states. Both of these would be distinctions that do not accurately represent North Korea's place in the international order; a real threat to the balance of power that currently exists.
Another point to consider is the fact that while the United States has been active in denouncing the DPRK's actions, is has not done so alone. Despite claims that the United is merely trying to punish one of its non-allies, North Korea should recognize that all of the permanent member of the Council have denounced the rocket launch including Russian and China (who, to date, has been North Korea's strongest ally in the council. As such, this is not merely a matter of the big bad bully beating up on the smaller state but international society responding to a threat to international peace and security.
- blenCOWe
North Korea's state media outlet, Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), released the announcement hours after the UN Security Council had condemned North Korea's rocket launch of April 5, 2009. Realistically, this appears to be a very rash decision by North Korea, even more so because of the escalating effect it may have between the involved actors. The authoritarian state also claimed that as a means of defending itself, it will work to strengthen its nuclear deterrent, building up its nuclear weapons arsenal.
The North Koreans claim that they are being unfairly targeted because of their poor ties with the United States, arguing that "according to the US logic, Japan may launch a satellite because Japan is its ally but we must not do the same because we have a different system and we are not subservient to the US" -- Al Jazeera
The difference, however, is that Japan hasn't withdrawn itself from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) or pursued a program of of nuclear deterrence. The reason why the United States and the other powers of the UN Security Council have denounced the actions taken by North Korea is because of the threat that the rocket technology poses to the security of the region. The issue is not the satellite that North Korea claims was the reason for the rocket launch but the technol0gy used to launch the satellite into orbit. The Taepodong-2 missile, with a range that places most of East Asia within reach, is what has caused the strong reaction by world powers. Loaded with a nuclear bomb, the Taepdodoong-2 would give the DPRK a credible deterrent against nuclear power China and a preponderance of power against the other states. Both of these would be distinctions that do not accurately represent North Korea's place in the international order; a real threat to the balance of power that currently exists.
Another point to consider is the fact that while the United States has been active in denouncing the DPRK's actions, is has not done so alone. Despite claims that the United is merely trying to punish one of its non-allies, North Korea should recognize that all of the permanent member of the Council have denounced the rocket launch including Russian and China (who, to date, has been North Korea's strongest ally in the council. As such, this is not merely a matter of the big bad bully beating up on the smaller state but international society responding to a threat to international peace and security.
- blenCOWe
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Playing Both Sides
The BBC is reporting today that Russia will be buying unmanned drones from Israel. The Russians apparently were so impressed with the Israeli drones in action during the conflict in Georgia this past August.
Normally, a transaction like this would not be out of the ordinary, they happen all the time. Canada does this all the time to meet its equipment demands. The difference with this situation is where Israel receives its support from. Each year Israel gets $300 billion in economic and military aid from the United States. So in effect, the military aid that the United States provides to Israel will be used to help supply the Russians.
Now I am not one to exaggerate any lingering Cold War tensions but considering the Russians and the Americans have been at odds recently over plans for a missile shield as well as during the Georgian conflict, I don't know that the United States would be too happy about this. Now they might not come right out and say this but let's be real. Russia is a rising power again; an energy giant intent of re-establishing its place in the international hierarchy that diminished at the end of the 1980s. Russia is doing a lot of posturing lately that should make observers a bit unnerved. Of late, Russia has stepped on some toes in regards to the Arctic; re-establishing Cold War era patterns of activity in Arctic airspace as well as ruffling feathers with the connections it is making with leaders like Hugo Chavez.
The reason that all of this is worrisome is because of the effect that this could have on the rest of the world. A war between two great powers is the last thing this world needs, especially when both possess the majority of nuclear weapons in this world.
Hmmm... another Israeli action that could threaten international peace and security!
- blenCOWe
Normally, a transaction like this would not be out of the ordinary, they happen all the time. Canada does this all the time to meet its equipment demands. The difference with this situation is where Israel receives its support from. Each year Israel gets $300 billion in economic and military aid from the United States. So in effect, the military aid that the United States provides to Israel will be used to help supply the Russians.
Now I am not one to exaggerate any lingering Cold War tensions but considering the Russians and the Americans have been at odds recently over plans for a missile shield as well as during the Georgian conflict, I don't know that the United States would be too happy about this. Now they might not come right out and say this but let's be real. Russia is a rising power again; an energy giant intent of re-establishing its place in the international hierarchy that diminished at the end of the 1980s. Russia is doing a lot of posturing lately that should make observers a bit unnerved. Of late, Russia has stepped on some toes in regards to the Arctic; re-establishing Cold War era patterns of activity in Arctic airspace as well as ruffling feathers with the connections it is making with leaders like Hugo Chavez.
The reason that all of this is worrisome is because of the effect that this could have on the rest of the world. A war between two great powers is the last thing this world needs, especially when both possess the majority of nuclear weapons in this world.
Hmmm... another Israeli action that could threaten international peace and security!
- blenCOWe
Friday, November 21, 2008
A Look to the Past for a Solution for the Future
So the National Intelligence Council has released a report predicting what the global society will look like by 2025. Predictably, the report forsees that the United States' dominance will decline in response to the growth of competitors like Brazil, China, India and Russia.
Personally, I find it surprising that the report downplays the importance of the European Union in the next 20 years. The EU if referred to as a "hobbled giant, unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle." Recent events including this summer's conflict in Georgia, the search for support amongst EU members of NATO for the mission in Afghanistan and EU efforts to combat Somali piracy would lead to me to believe that the EU may continue to play a powerful role in international relations during the decline of American hegemony.
However I digress, the real purpose for today's post is to address the report's supposition that "a world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two powers ... offering more potential for conflict." A system of multipolarity as this report predicts would be very similar to the Congress of Vienna system that existed in Europe in the latter stages of the 19th century. This balance of power system was maintained by the Great Powers of the time, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria-Hungary and France, through a preponderance of power. If any state, great power or lesser, were to threaten the order of things, the remaining powers would bring down their might on this rogue state. This system was highly effective and stabilized the continent for about 3 decades. Informal in nature and underwritten by the military might of Great Britain, the Congress of Vienna saw a sharp decline in warfare and kept "the long peace".
This type of system would be ideal in response to the proposed decline of American power and the growth of new power centres. Underwritten by the military might of the United States, that is unlikely to decline, and possibly Russia; the new centres of power could join the United States in creating a balance of power to ensure order and prosperity in uncertain times. This system would informally replace the UN Security Council by providing a body that reflects current realities and flexible to emerging factors.
Such a system would require the innovative and rational thinking of world leaders, especially of those who lead the world powers. This would be political risky and require a great commitment to international cooperation which, unfortunately, lately has been fleeting. And then there is also the great risk that, like the Congress of Vienna, its downfall could result in a devastating war. On the other hand, it could be successful and stability and order could be restored to international affairs.
- blenCOWe
Personally, I find it surprising that the report downplays the importance of the European Union in the next 20 years. The EU if referred to as a "hobbled giant, unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle." Recent events including this summer's conflict in Georgia, the search for support amongst EU members of NATO for the mission in Afghanistan and EU efforts to combat Somali piracy would lead to me to believe that the EU may continue to play a powerful role in international relations during the decline of American hegemony.
However I digress, the real purpose for today's post is to address the report's supposition that "a world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two powers ... offering more potential for conflict." A system of multipolarity as this report predicts would be very similar to the Congress of Vienna system that existed in Europe in the latter stages of the 19th century. This balance of power system was maintained by the Great Powers of the time, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria-Hungary and France, through a preponderance of power. If any state, great power or lesser, were to threaten the order of things, the remaining powers would bring down their might on this rogue state. This system was highly effective and stabilized the continent for about 3 decades. Informal in nature and underwritten by the military might of Great Britain, the Congress of Vienna saw a sharp decline in warfare and kept "the long peace".
This type of system would be ideal in response to the proposed decline of American power and the growth of new power centres. Underwritten by the military might of the United States, that is unlikely to decline, and possibly Russia; the new centres of power could join the United States in creating a balance of power to ensure order and prosperity in uncertain times. This system would informally replace the UN Security Council by providing a body that reflects current realities and flexible to emerging factors.
Such a system would require the innovative and rational thinking of world leaders, especially of those who lead the world powers. This would be political risky and require a great commitment to international cooperation which, unfortunately, lately has been fleeting. And then there is also the great risk that, like the Congress of Vienna, its downfall could result in a devastating war. On the other hand, it could be successful and stability and order could be restored to international affairs.
- blenCOWe
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Some Things Won't Change
It seems that the leaders of Iran did not quite get what they were bargaining for when Barack Obama won the US presidential election this past week. No one will argue that under President George W. Bush, US-Iranian relations were strained to say the least so it would have been understandable if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thought that the campaign against Iran would dissipate under President Obama.
Ooops!!!
While Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama on his victory, he also took his first political jab at the president-elect claiming that "the 'nations of the world' expect changes from the Mr. Obama -- mostly that he will change U.S. foreign policy. He claimed U.S. policy was 'based on warmongering, occupation, bullying, deception and humiliation, as well as discrimination and unfair relations' " -- Globe and Mail.
What makes the Iranian leader think he (and the rest of the world, however I don't think the he is thinking of the rest of the world considering he doesn't listen to anyone) can expect anything from Obama? While Obama did campaign on the ideal that he would take a more diplomatic approach to dealing with Iran but that does not mean that this approach will be any less forceful. Obama owes nothing to anyone but the people who elected them and they are not found in Iran.
A nuclear Iran would still constitute a threat to the security of the United States and Mr. Obama is aware of this. As Commander-in-Chief, Obama will be in charge of the safety and security of the nation, just like President Bush, and as such must be as forceful as necessary so as to protect the nation. Just because Obama is the supposed anti-Bush doesn't mean that he cannot recognize that Iran is a pressing issue right now in international affairs and he will seek to protect American interests, plain and simple. That is why it should not have come as any surprise when Obama commented that "it is 'unacceptable' for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and that there should be a concerted international effort to prevent it" -- Globe and Mail.
The Iranian government, specifically President Amadinejad, should only blame themselves for this continued campaign against them. Their shady stance on nuclear weapons and stated desire to wipe Israel off of the map make Iran not only a threat to the United State but to international peace and security. That is why Bush was so hard on them and that is why Obama will likely follow suit
Tough luck Iran, it looks like four more years of being public enemy number one!
- blenCOWe
Ooops!!!
While Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama on his victory, he also took his first political jab at the president-elect claiming that "the 'nations of the world' expect changes from the Mr. Obama -- mostly that he will change U.S. foreign policy. He claimed U.S. policy was 'based on warmongering, occupation, bullying, deception and humiliation, as well as discrimination and unfair relations' " -- Globe and Mail.
What makes the Iranian leader think he (and the rest of the world, however I don't think the he is thinking of the rest of the world considering he doesn't listen to anyone) can expect anything from Obama? While Obama did campaign on the ideal that he would take a more diplomatic approach to dealing with Iran but that does not mean that this approach will be any less forceful. Obama owes nothing to anyone but the people who elected them and they are not found in Iran.
A nuclear Iran would still constitute a threat to the security of the United States and Mr. Obama is aware of this. As Commander-in-Chief, Obama will be in charge of the safety and security of the nation, just like President Bush, and as such must be as forceful as necessary so as to protect the nation. Just because Obama is the supposed anti-Bush doesn't mean that he cannot recognize that Iran is a pressing issue right now in international affairs and he will seek to protect American interests, plain and simple. That is why it should not have come as any surprise when Obama commented that "it is 'unacceptable' for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and that there should be a concerted international effort to prevent it" -- Globe and Mail.
The Iranian government, specifically President Amadinejad, should only blame themselves for this continued campaign against them. Their shady stance on nuclear weapons and stated desire to wipe Israel off of the map make Iran not only a threat to the United State but to international peace and security. That is why Bush was so hard on them and that is why Obama will likely follow suit
Tough luck Iran, it looks like four more years of being public enemy number one!
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
What Will Obama's Foreign Policy Look Like?
After an expected, yet still impressive, victory last night, Barack Obama will lead the most powerful and imposing nation in the world. His victory largely rested on the economic and social issues of the people of America. This largely reflects his greater experience in domestic politics and social issues rather than in international affairs.
Many, including myself, are now eager to see what President Obama's foreign policies will look like. At the outset, it appears that Mr. Obama's foreign policy will be one of fixing the "mistakes" that President George W. Bush has made during his eight years in office. Most prominent on the agenda is definitely addressing the two wars that he will inherit from the previous administration. Obama campaigned on the desire to pull out of Iraq and re-commit to ending the security problems in Afghanistan. This follows the popular idea that entering Iraq was a mistake and that Afghanistan has greater legitimacy in terms of international security. This was definitely not in the considerations of the previous presidency.
Next, I believe that President Obama will use the aforementioned pullout in Iraq as a credibility booster so that he can take steps to re-invigorate the peace process in the Middle East. This re-invigoration will be in the form of multi-lateral diplomacy and will hopefully be more conducive to peace than invasion. This involves actually talking to Iran, working with the different actors, yet still acting as a strong ally of Israel. Obama will likely have greater success with this than his predecessor did. The hawk-like actions of President Bush and his administration greatly tarnished the sincerity of Mr. Bush to bring peace to the Middle East.
Lastly, the recent eight years have seen the United States drift away from many of its European allies (save Britain of course). Much of this falling out has concerned the US invasion of Iraq as well as other hawkish actions of President Bush. President Obama must reach out to these disgruntled allies and re-build ties with them. One easy way that this could be accomplished is to end the recent trend towards unilateralism by the United States. European states, because of their history mired with warfare, are stong proponents of multilateralism, especially using the United Nations framework and not just the NATO alliance. The United States must put greater trust and effort into the United Nations system rather than move unilaterally if it doesn't get the response it desires. Regaining this favour will be critical in the upcoming years for the United States and Obama if it is to rebuild its international image and reputation.
Funny enough, especially given its attention in foreign policy debates during the Canadian election, China has remained almost a non-issue in discussions of future US foreign policy. I have not heard much from President-elect Obama on the topic of China and am curious as to what, if any, plans he has for US relations with the world's most populus country.
There is little doubt that the next four years will be transformational for the United States, and subsequently for the international community. I do not think Mr. Obama's lack of practical experience in international relations will affect this. His intelligence and charisma will help to rebuild US relations with foreign leaders and citizens and will be an inspirational leader for the United States.
- blenCOWe
Many, including myself, are now eager to see what President Obama's foreign policies will look like. At the outset, it appears that Mr. Obama's foreign policy will be one of fixing the "mistakes" that President George W. Bush has made during his eight years in office. Most prominent on the agenda is definitely addressing the two wars that he will inherit from the previous administration. Obama campaigned on the desire to pull out of Iraq and re-commit to ending the security problems in Afghanistan. This follows the popular idea that entering Iraq was a mistake and that Afghanistan has greater legitimacy in terms of international security. This was definitely not in the considerations of the previous presidency.
Next, I believe that President Obama will use the aforementioned pullout in Iraq as a credibility booster so that he can take steps to re-invigorate the peace process in the Middle East. This re-invigoration will be in the form of multi-lateral diplomacy and will hopefully be more conducive to peace than invasion. This involves actually talking to Iran, working with the different actors, yet still acting as a strong ally of Israel. Obama will likely have greater success with this than his predecessor did. The hawk-like actions of President Bush and his administration greatly tarnished the sincerity of Mr. Bush to bring peace to the Middle East.
Lastly, the recent eight years have seen the United States drift away from many of its European allies (save Britain of course). Much of this falling out has concerned the US invasion of Iraq as well as other hawkish actions of President Bush. President Obama must reach out to these disgruntled allies and re-build ties with them. One easy way that this could be accomplished is to end the recent trend towards unilateralism by the United States. European states, because of their history mired with warfare, are stong proponents of multilateralism, especially using the United Nations framework and not just the NATO alliance. The United States must put greater trust and effort into the United Nations system rather than move unilaterally if it doesn't get the response it desires. Regaining this favour will be critical in the upcoming years for the United States and Obama if it is to rebuild its international image and reputation.
Funny enough, especially given its attention in foreign policy debates during the Canadian election, China has remained almost a non-issue in discussions of future US foreign policy. I have not heard much from President-elect Obama on the topic of China and am curious as to what, if any, plans he has for US relations with the world's most populus country.
There is little doubt that the next four years will be transformational for the United States, and subsequently for the international community. I do not think Mr. Obama's lack of practical experience in international relations will affect this. His intelligence and charisma will help to rebuild US relations with foreign leaders and citizens and will be an inspirational leader for the United States.
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Some Good News for the Afghan Mission
In the debates between John McCain and Barack Obama in the lead up to this November's presidential election we have heard how the United States must re-commit to the mission in Afghanistan. Typically, this has involved a surge of US troops that is supposed to help combat the ongoing insurgency, especially in the troublesome Kandahar region.
I have commented in the past how I believe that the last thing the Afghan mission needs is more US troops involved. The tactics and mentality of the United States is hampering the good work that the other contingents' troops are doing. Dropping bombs on innocent Afghan people and the other slopping tactics employed by the US forces create enemies from those people who lose family members and loved ones from these tactics. Battling the insurgency requires, to use the popular phrase, winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. The US and their tactics are killing the people whose minds we're trying to win over and/or turning them against the work that NATO forces are trying to do.
With this in mind, I was happy to see that the US Department of Defense has determined that the desired three additional brigade combat teams will not be deployed any time soon. Apparently the United States does not have the manpower to fulfill this further commitment without changing soldiers' deployment or lengths of tours.
Finally some good news for the Afghan mission!
Of late, the Afghan mission has suffered in its support from recent announcements from the Canadian government that their forces will be withdrawn from the mission in 2011. Then there is the current debate going on in the French government on the future of their deployed troops.
Despite this trouble in support for the mission, I truely believe that the more that the United States can be limited in its role and influence in the Afghan mission, the greater the chance for success. Therefore, this revelation that the US will not be sending the proposed 3 brigades is a good thing.
- blenCOWe
I have commented in the past how I believe that the last thing the Afghan mission needs is more US troops involved. The tactics and mentality of the United States is hampering the good work that the other contingents' troops are doing. Dropping bombs on innocent Afghan people and the other slopping tactics employed by the US forces create enemies from those people who lose family members and loved ones from these tactics. Battling the insurgency requires, to use the popular phrase, winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. The US and their tactics are killing the people whose minds we're trying to win over and/or turning them against the work that NATO forces are trying to do.
With this in mind, I was happy to see that the US Department of Defense has determined that the desired three additional brigade combat teams will not be deployed any time soon. Apparently the United States does not have the manpower to fulfill this further commitment without changing soldiers' deployment or lengths of tours.
Finally some good news for the Afghan mission!
Of late, the Afghan mission has suffered in its support from recent announcements from the Canadian government that their forces will be withdrawn from the mission in 2011. Then there is the current debate going on in the French government on the future of their deployed troops.
Despite this trouble in support for the mission, I truely believe that the more that the United States can be limited in its role and influence in the Afghan mission, the greater the chance for success. Therefore, this revelation that the US will not be sending the proposed 3 brigades is a good thing.
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Big Step for Kosovo
Kosovo's succession gained another supporter today when the International Monetary Fund recognized its separation from Serbia and will now go through the membership application process.
The IMF has been the first international institution to recognize the newly independent state but actual membership is no certain thing. Apparently Russia and Serbia are still sore over the independence movement and will attempt to block Kosovo's membership application.
Unfortunately for Russia and Serbia, money matters in the IMF and the United States contributes more SDR's (special drawing rights) than both of them combined. This is important because in the IMF the more money you contribute, the more votes you wield. This gives the United States, who backs the succession of Kosovo, a better chance to ensure IMF membership for Kosovo than Russia and Serbia have to block it.
Money speaks again!
- blenCOWe
The IMF has been the first international institution to recognize the newly independent state but actual membership is no certain thing. Apparently Russia and Serbia are still sore over the independence movement and will attempt to block Kosovo's membership application.
Unfortunately for Russia and Serbia, money matters in the IMF and the United States contributes more SDR's (special drawing rights) than both of them combined. This is important because in the IMF the more money you contribute, the more votes you wield. This gives the United States, who backs the succession of Kosovo, a better chance to ensure IMF membership for Kosovo than Russia and Serbia have to block it.
Money speaks again!
- blenCOWe
Bad Tactics
Republican presidential candidate John McCain has come out and proposed recently that the tactics that the United States has employed in Iraq should be applied to battle the insurgency in Afghanistan. These tactics would include increasing the number of deployments of US forces in Afghanistan.
In addition, on Monday Democratic candidate Barack Obama has said that "as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attacks in three years on Sunday."
Statements like these really worry me about the future of Afghanistan and the success of the Canadian mission in Kandahar. Not to diminish the value of the U.S. soldiers that recently gave the greatest sacrifice a person can, but the response that has ensued from American leaders is not in the best interests of the Afghan people or the mission.
Right now, a lot of the problems in Afghanistan are being created by the United States' presence and tactics. U.S. led air strikes are making the situation much more worse than whatever strategic gains are made. These air strikes are inaccurate, killing many civilians and undoing the positive effects of the efforts to win the hearts and minds. Increasing the presence of the U.S. forces that so many Afghans identify with the bombings that are killing their loved ones will increase the resistance to foreign involvement. This means that the efforts of the other nations working, alongside the Afghans, to build up the country will be impeded by a greater resistance effort.
"McCain added: 'I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory'. "
If Mr. McCain really knows how to win wars then he should know that by provoking the resistance to foreign involvement will only exacerbate the problems facing the mission and jeopardize the development that is crucial in this rebuilding process. U.S. tactics are creating more and more enemies and this is not favourable in the growing trend of asymetric warfare.
If the U.S. leaders really want to increase their nation's assistance to the Afghan mission then they should use their ample supplies of both money and equipment to increase the availability of these precious resources. This would benefit all involved, especially the Afghans, and would provide a greater emphasis on the non-combat aspects of this mission.
Afghanistan is not Iraq and another controversial surge is not the remedy to the Afghan insurgency.
- blenCOWe
In addition, on Monday Democratic candidate Barack Obama has said that "as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attacks in three years on Sunday."
Statements like these really worry me about the future of Afghanistan and the success of the Canadian mission in Kandahar. Not to diminish the value of the U.S. soldiers that recently gave the greatest sacrifice a person can, but the response that has ensued from American leaders is not in the best interests of the Afghan people or the mission.
Right now, a lot of the problems in Afghanistan are being created by the United States' presence and tactics. U.S. led air strikes are making the situation much more worse than whatever strategic gains are made. These air strikes are inaccurate, killing many civilians and undoing the positive effects of the efforts to win the hearts and minds. Increasing the presence of the U.S. forces that so many Afghans identify with the bombings that are killing their loved ones will increase the resistance to foreign involvement. This means that the efforts of the other nations working, alongside the Afghans, to build up the country will be impeded by a greater resistance effort.
"McCain added: 'I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory'. "
If Mr. McCain really knows how to win wars then he should know that by provoking the resistance to foreign involvement will only exacerbate the problems facing the mission and jeopardize the development that is crucial in this rebuilding process. U.S. tactics are creating more and more enemies and this is not favourable in the growing trend of asymetric warfare.
If the U.S. leaders really want to increase their nation's assistance to the Afghan mission then they should use their ample supplies of both money and equipment to increase the availability of these precious resources. This would benefit all involved, especially the Afghans, and would provide a greater emphasis on the non-combat aspects of this mission.
Afghanistan is not Iraq and another controversial surge is not the remedy to the Afghan insurgency.
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
