28 July 2009

George Friedman of Stratfor, the non-government commercial intelligence service, recently published a comprehensive discussion of objectives, reality and forcasts of the war effort in Afghanistan.  Essentially he said that the Al Queda threat, our reason for entering Afghanistan in the first place, and the Taliban effort are no longer congruous and Al Queda has been weakened to the point where we should not treat them so.

I won't go into it beyond that, but it got me to thinking - about Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.  I was not pleased when we launched ourselves into either Iraq or Afghanistan, but for reasons different than most.  My major reason for so thinking was: oh lord, the Arabs (Afghanistan is not Arab, but they have been brainwashed by the Medeival religious thinking the Arabs proliferated).  I am no Arab expert, but I spent some time exposed to them in Israel and have read extensively about both Arabs and Afghanistan.  They all think very differently than we in the West do, and see life differently.  It will be a long, long time (if ever), in my opinion, before they ever see life in terms of individual rights, justice and rule of law, much less free enterprise.

First they are tribal and tribe rules.  Free elections mean voting as the tribal elders demand  - for most.  Second they are Muslim and for the unsophisticated, ignorant and poor that means adherance to what the religious leaders tell them the Q'oran to believe.  Third most are ignorant, backward, unscrulous and poor and have no concept (outside of what Arabic television tells them) of what makes the rest of the world tick.

We appear to be backing away from Iraq, having given them a shot at modern governance.  We seem to be about to push harder in Afghanistan.  Friedman suggests that this makes sense only if it leads to the same gradual withdrawl there.  We have given Afghanistan a chance also at modern government.  What else can we do?  The fact that they probably won't be able to handle it is not our fault, and probably something we can't change.  Pakistan had a modern government of sorts and they are losing it for the same reasons - tribal thinking, Muslem rhetoric and vast seas of stubborn and agressive ignorance.

Iran?  The Iranians had a better chance than most, but blew it.  Many Iranians wish it were not so, but it is and trying to change that on the ground would be about as effective as it was in Iraq and Afghanistan.  When the US government exhorted the rulers of Saudi Arabia to become more modern (i.e. more democratic) they admonished us to beware of what we wish for, as more democratic would mean more power to the tribal, religious fundamentalist, backward and ignorant - and violent.

We really did do our best (naively I believe, but that's past), with our national treasure, to give them a chance to change and make the world a better place.  But they don't want to change and could care less about the rest of the world.  A new president (with even more naivite I am afraid) has the chance to take that stance: we did our best to help them and now they are on their own.  Frankly, its the best of rotten alternatives.  How will it come out?  Probably no worse than it would have anyway.  These tribal and ignorant people (certainly not all, but way too many) can't get along with each other and fighting among themselves (us against our cousins) will soon eclipse fighting us (us and our cousins against the world). 

This is not a strategy, it is woefully short of details, and it's fraught with peril, but, again in my opinion, it's as good as any alternative I have heard, as it removes us from a situation in which we do not need to be, since regadless of the perils we are likely to change them.