Darfur, Afghanistan and the failure of the Bush Policy

Why the War on Terror is lost

Published on March 3, 2008 By Bahu Virupaksha In Current Events

The US Secretary of Defense, Bill Gates shares a quality with his more famous name sake:studied understatement is his way of speaking and this rhetorical choice was in full dispaly when he announced to the media recently that the NATO is in danger of becoming irrelevant in Afghanistan. There were howls of protest from the NATO capitals, but no one who follows the incresingly dismal news from Kabul can be in any doubt ablut the truth of Bill Gate's statement. The biggest mistake that George Bush made was to take his sight off Afghanistan and focus it on Baghdad and 3 trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of wasted lives later the War on Terror is still being faught. A whole new front has now been opened up that did not exist in 2001.

The fact is the NATO countriesd have now got sick of the war and want to opt out. In fact the US Director of Intelligence has admitted that 360 of the 365 districts of Afghainistan have now increased Taleban presence. The President of the nation, Ahmed Karzai is now beginning to look and sound like a puppet and controls less than a third of the city of Kabul. Even the capital has seen resurgence of the Taleban. The tribal regions are now awash with opium and narcotics have become the single most important source of income for the people of Afghanistan. Because of the Iraqi Resistance the Taleban has learnt to harass the NATO troops using IEDs and roadside bombs.In Helmand province 6 british soldiers were killed and the retreat of Prince Harry was the result.

In Darfur, the USA has shown remarkable patience, a quality it did not show in Kossovo. Most people all over the world now think that US policy with respect of the erst while province of Serbia, Bosnia and Kossovo, in which NATO airforce was ordered to strike at Serbia and militarily defeat the Serbs and further humiliate them by the unilateral declaration of independence of Kossovo was not the policy in Darfur. Are we to understand that European lives will be protected and not Arab and African. Why is the USA adopting a dual policy in Darfur. Bush's policy is a total failure and the Janjaweed Militia has now reequipped and is able to strike terror in the region. China is trying to pull its weight in the region but Washington is prevaricating as usual.

Bush has left a very complex legacy on the foreign policy front. A never ending war in Iraq, an incomplete war on terror in Afghanistan and trouble spots like the Gaza, Lebanon and Darfur that can flare up at any given time.

Comments (Page 2)

Bahu Virupaksha

on Mar 07, 2008

While Darfur has got quite a few exited, there is need to reflect on the situation in Afghanistan.Is it becoming difficult for the US single handedly to conduct the war and the NATO allies are not helping. The policy of Bush of opening a second front in Iraq when the war in Afghanistan was far from over was a big big mistake and the consequences are going to be felt for a lon time.

Cikomyr

on Mar 07, 2008

.Is it becoming difficult for the US single handedly to conduct the war and the NATO allies are not helping.

USA is not single-handely conducting the War, and Canada is over-extending it's military to lend a hand there! Canada has the highest loss/soldier ratio in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2 years!

webnavigator

on Mar 07, 2008

No web, I never bought into the whole "if you're not for us you're against us" thing from Bush. Yes, there are things that can be done for the people of Darfur, but not a whole lot. Why? Because any "aid" we send will only end up in the hands of those who are making the place a hell hole. We can support efforts by private organizations working in Darfur (which is help, but part of the "not a whole lot" category.

But the fact is, other than secondary support, there isn't much we can do, or even should do. It's not that the people of Darfur don't deserve or need help, the fact is, there is no national interest for the U.S. to lend primary aid.

As the left likes to point out, we can't play policeman to the world. We shouldn't even try. That doesn't mean we hide our heads in the sand and help no one, but if our resources are going to be used to help people in other countries, there has to be some kind of national interest involved.

You and I should be out helping everyone who needs it in our own cities too, but the fact is, we have to decide how our own resources are best used. If we don't then we aren't much help to anyone, especially ourselves, for very long.

There are attrocities going on all over the world, and Darfur isn't even the worst hell hole on earth. So what is it about Darfur that demands our aid, when other need them just as much... maybe even more?

You are correct, we can't solve the world's problems but there are things people can do to help limited as they are. What I'm saying here is that as individuals we should not give up hope but try a little every now and then. Just because it seems like insurmountable odds to overcome doesn't mean they can't be. It just sounded to me like your previous posts were pretty negative and even self-centered. In reality though I can step back and see why you seem or perhaps even are a little pessimistic. In the world today there always has to be a benefit to our actions, money power what may have you.

Think of it this way, if a bunch of radicals were killing off you and your family would you "understand" that you are of no benefit to other nations to help you? I don't think that you would. A life is a life and it has value, it doesn't always have to be weighted upon oil or other such "resources".

If the war on terror is anything I would say it would be this; to seek out the broken the bullied and the over bared with hope for their futures. Terror.. Terrorism... two words separated by a slight technicality but both having common grounds being fear. The way I see it is the U.S. took on a war on terror and not simply an adventure for revenge. I keep forgetting that no matter which leader a nation gets they can never truly represent the people yet they all try or act like they can.

Would you step in, alone, to stop 4 peoples fighting against each others?

I already have. A challenge, but not impossible. Risky but not foolish. Successful but not always.

ParaTed2k

on Mar 07, 2008

Web:

The way I see it is the U.S. took on a war on terror and not simply an adventure for revenge. I keep forgetting that no matter which leader a nation gets they can never truly represent the people yet they all try or act like they can.

I said "national interest", not "benefit". Anytime our leaders decide whether or not to put our resources into anything, the number one question should be about our national interests. If we destroy ourselves trying to help someone else, we help neither..

As for the "someone is trying to kill me" analogy, I'll go with how I was trained. In EMS we are trained that our responsibility when it comes to safety is, Ourselves, our partner, other Emergency workers the patient, by standers... in that order. It sounds selfish, but if my partner and I get killed or wounded trying to help the patient, what good did we do anyone?

Our leaders have to have the same priorities... The U.S. should come first, then our allies, then the nation we are trying to help, then other nations (and yes, every national leader should have the same priorities, with their nation first).

As far as the war on Islamist Extremist Terrorism (I know that's not the wording of the rhetoric, but it is the actions behind the rhetoric), if the people of Darfur are being terrorized by Islamist Extremist Terrorists, then that would count on the "National Interest" side of the decision.

cactoblasta

on Mar 07, 2008

I think part of the reason Europe is so leery about staying in Afghanistan is that every part of their history suggests the area is hopelessly impossible to control. The Brits couldn't hold it, the Soviets couldn't do it, and now the West can't do it. There's something about the politics of the region and the terrain that makes it too tough a nut for outsiders to crack.

Nitro Cruiser

on Mar 12, 2008

Since the US pays 25% of the cost (yes among ALL nations) of UN peace keeping forces. I'd say the US is contributing to the situation in Darfur. You who cry about causalities want to see some blood there too? Please spare me.

It didn't take long for the 3 Trillion dollar cost of the Iraq war to come out (which is false). The Pentagon released today it has spent 500 Billion (can't remember exact amount). It also said it will spend 1.5 Trillion provided the troops are there until 2017. Over the same period (2001 until 2017) the US GNP is expected to be 300 Trillion dollars, The cost is comparable to the first gulf war to liberate Kuwait in 1991. Since the end of that war there has been 60,000 US troops in the region supporting the containment of Saddam, more than a third of the number of troops there now.

The left throws out figures to scare people into surrender. As any sane person can see it takes lending money to morons that can't pay their mortgage to bring a nation down, not a war.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!