Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 366 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Afghan Escalation Not Begun As Capital Under Attack

Here in the United States, many of us like to fancy that we’re that we’re under attack from Islamic extremists because, after more than eight years of calm, a bumbling teenager failed to light his shorts on fire. They’re freaking out, and calling for extreme security measures, such as machines that will allow government workers to look at the details of our naked bodies under our clothes.

Early today in Afghanistan, there took place what should be to us a reminder of what a real attack looks like. In the capital city of Kabul, Taliban fighters carrying guns launched an assault while suicide bombers successfully blew themselves up in many places, almost simultaneously. That’s what it looks like in a nation that is truly under attack.

How could the Taliban have assaulted the capital city of Afghanistan, the stronghold of the American-led forces in that country? Barack Obama launched an escalation of the war there, didn’t he?

Obama did approve such an escalation. That was last year. The additional soldiers to support that military escalation won’t actually be in place until the autumn of this year. In the meantime, Afghanistan will roil with attacks. What damage between then and now will need to be undone before the promised progress of the escalation can begin?

5 comments to Afghan Escalation Not Begun As Capital Under Attack

  • ramone

    i’m sure there will be more damage done and to undo that damage will take more than military escalation. what would be more effective? if you declare this a civil war for control of afganistan, then there might be an arguement for withdrawing u.s. troops. what would the fallout be from that? if you declare this to be a terrorist campaign in the ongoing jihad against western influence then the escalation can come none too soon. if escalation is not the answer and pulling out is not an option, then we are left with diplomacy. it’s hard to talk with a gun at your head and it’s hard to talk with a bomb strapped to your belly, when two immovable objects collide there will be damage done and the undoing will not come easy or quick.

  • There may be no solution for the problem as we see it – because it’s not our nation. If we’re seeking to rid the world of terrorists, that’s not going to happen. If we’re seeking to have the corrupt, theocratic Karzai government win a civil war against the theocratic, nasty Taliban, it might work, though it hasn’t for the last 8 years, and we’re not going to get a establish a wonderful government over there either way.

    Given that the end result of the military conflict isn’t itself well-defined, I think it doesn’t make sense to continue pouring our national wealth and our people into the mess.

    The only two paths to partial success as I see it:

    1. Declare Afghanistan to be U.S. territory, and say that we’re going to have things our way over there whether the Afghans like it or not.
    2. An approach of de-escalation, with efforts to deal with particular issues while Afghans sort things out for themselves.

  • Anonymous

    number one is not going to happen, we won’t be declaring afganistan a u.s. territory, at least not in this election cycle. :)
    number two is, by far, the more reasonable approach. and maybe after the escalation we can try it.
    by refocusing on the actual terrorist threat, where ever that might come from; be it iraq, afganistan, pakistan, yemen, brooklyn, or des moines; we could reduce our troop levels all around the globe and strike a more strategic campaign against the people who would do us harm.
    but, couldn’t number three be diplomacy? is there no talking to a jihadist?

  • ramone

    i love being “anonymous”, i could use my normal gutter trash mouth and wouldn’t care.
    #%$@!@#$%%, too bad i didn’t know i was writing anonymously on that last post!

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>