2009/9/25 0：36
The Afghan conditions; getting worse
On Aug. 20th, the presidential election was held in Afghanistan, ref.(>"Afghanistan, Afghans at the polls")
But surprisingly -- or rather as a matter of course -- the election result has yet been confirmed, ref.(>"Less than sterling democracy" & "Afghans must take the lead in cleaning house")
In addition, security conditions is getting worse day after day, ref.(>'Counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, "We have too much to do"')
The commander of American and NATO forces there expressed seriousness of the Afghan conditions, ref.(>"Afghanistan, McChrystal ball")
After all, support from the general public depends on whether the war is winnable or not -- I can tell you that a unjust war can be supported by people if only their country wins.
It is only natural that the more conditions in Afghanistan deteriorates, the less U.S people support the war.
To begin with, U.S. President Barack Obama got a win in the presidential election by pledging to execute "surge" in the Afghan War.
Indeed, he consistently opposed the Iraq War taking risk to be criticized as "not-patriotic" in fanatic atmosphere just before the outbreak of the Iraq War in 2003.
Then he promised U.S. nationals in his election campaign to withdraw U.S. force from Iraq -- but after assumption, he was forced to weaken his election pledge due to pragmatism.
On the other hand, Mr. Obama supported the Afghan War as a "just war," and promised nationals to send more troops there.
As U.S. president is a supreme commander, he couldn't show his weak-knee attitude to nationals to avoid being criticized as a "chicken." Indeed, he couldn't oppose both the Iraq War and Afghan one.
In other words, his support for the Afghan War is a kind of election tactic to show nationals his strong position in the war on terror.
But following the deterioration of conditions there, support from U.S. general public for the Afghan War is also lowering.
In such timing, clumsiness in the presidential election emerged.
As the result, more and more Americans are rising their doubt about legitimacy and necessity to continue to deploy U.S. force there, and the number of people who want the Obama Administration to withdraw U.S. force from there is rising, ref.(>"America and Afghanistan, Still necessary?"
>"オバマ大統領の外交政策、支持率 50%に低下 アフガン情勢悪化で "
> 米紙ウォールストリート・ジャーナルと NBCテレビが 22日に発表した世論調査で、オバマ大統領の外交政策への支持率が 50%となり、７月に比べ７ポイント低下した。オバマ政権が最重要課題に据えるアフガニスタン情勢の悪化が影響しているもよう。焦点となっている米軍増派に関しては 51%が反対を表明。賛成は 44%だった。
> アフガンでのテロとの戦いの見通しに関しては「成功するとの自信が低下した」との回答が 59%となり、先行きへの不安が広がっていることを示した。アフガンへの駐留継続への支持は 55%に達したものの「即時に撤退すべきだ」との意見も 38%を占めた。
> 一方、経済政策への支持率は 50%で７月比では１ポイント増だった。大統領の支持率は 51%で同２ポイント減。就任直後の 60%（２月調査）からは９ポイントの低下となった。調査は17〜20日に実施し、有効回答数は1005人だった。)
In my opinion, the real figure of >"Taliban" is neither fundamental Islamic group nor extreme terror group, but a militia of >"Pashtun people."
And Pashtun people are living in both sides along with the border line between Pakistan and Afghanistan that was made by the British Empire in 1893.
Around that time, the British Empire was playing the "Great Game" with the Russian Empire in the central Asia. In order to make buffer, the British Empire drew >"Durand Line" to split Afghanistan and India.
Later, Pakistan became an independent state in 1947 so that Afghanistan-India border line became Afghanistan-Pakistan one.
Needless to say, when drawing Durand Line, the British Empire did that selfishly without permission of local residents -- Pashtun people.
Even now, the frontier regions in Pakistan aren't under control of Islamabad. So Pashtun people cross border line freely without consulting with neither Islamabad nor Kabul.
Namely, Pashtun in Pakistan support compatriots in Afghanistan.
When necessary, Pashtun militia fighters in Afghanistan can utilize the neighboring frontier regions in Pakistan as a sanctuary to evacuate, ref.(>"翻訳：パキスタンの部族領域、フロンティア精神")
They also secure material and personnel support from opposite side of the border line. Indeed, the border line that was make by selfish westerners in the late 19th century has no meaning for Pashtun people.
It seems that the then Bush Administration blindly thought that "if only we transplant western style democratic system, we would be able to rebuild Afghanistan as a pro-U.S. modernized state."
Needless to say, that's not true. Indeed, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, such scheme doesn't work well.
It is obvious that democratization should be implemented via taking sufficient time and taking local conditions into consideration well.
At this time of the moment, it isn't clear when the result of the presidential election will be confirmed.
Even if incumbent President >Hamid Karzai gets a win and secures his second term, his practical status is nothing more than a mayor of Kabul as in his first tenure.
U.S. citizens are correct that "the Afghan War may not be winnable so that we should withdraw our troops from there ASAP." But the problem is "when" and "how."
For your ref.>The right road for getting out of Afghanistan
>Afghanistan's fraudulent election, Disunited nations
>Afghanistan & Pakistan, Obama's faltering war
>Afghanistan's flawed election. Not half, Mr Karzai
>A runoff in Afghanistan
>Afghanistan's permanent election. Seconds out, round two
>Terror in Afghanistan, Murder in Kabul
>Afghanistan's bloody election, An election under siege
>Debate Afghan war goals, then select strategy
>America & Afghanistan, General disarray
>Two U.S Wars; in Iraq & Afghanistan
0
But surprisingly -- or rather as a matter of course -- the election result has yet been confirmed, ref.(>"Less than sterling democracy" & "Afghans must take the lead in cleaning house")
In addition, security conditions is getting worse day after day, ref.(>'Counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, "We have too much to do"')
The commander of American and NATO forces there expressed seriousness of the Afghan conditions, ref.(>"Afghanistan, McChrystal ball")
After all, support from the general public depends on whether the war is winnable or not -- I can tell you that a unjust war can be supported by people if only their country wins.
It is only natural that the more conditions in Afghanistan deteriorates, the less U.S people support the war.
To begin with, U.S. President Barack Obama got a win in the presidential election by pledging to execute "surge" in the Afghan War.
Indeed, he consistently opposed the Iraq War taking risk to be criticized as "not-patriotic" in fanatic atmosphere just before the outbreak of the Iraq War in 2003.
Then he promised U.S. nationals in his election campaign to withdraw U.S. force from Iraq -- but after assumption, he was forced to weaken his election pledge due to pragmatism.
On the other hand, Mr. Obama supported the Afghan War as a "just war," and promised nationals to send more troops there.
As U.S. president is a supreme commander, he couldn't show his weak-knee attitude to nationals to avoid being criticized as a "chicken." Indeed, he couldn't oppose both the Iraq War and Afghan one.
In other words, his support for the Afghan War is a kind of election tactic to show nationals his strong position in the war on terror.
But following the deterioration of conditions there, support from U.S. general public for the Afghan War is also lowering.
In such timing, clumsiness in the presidential election emerged.
As the result, more and more Americans are rising their doubt about legitimacy and necessity to continue to deploy U.S. force there, and the number of people who want the Obama Administration to withdraw U.S. force from there is rising, ref.(>"America and Afghanistan, Still necessary?"
>"オバマ大統領の外交政策、支持率 50%に低下 アフガン情勢悪化で "
> 米紙ウォールストリート・ジャーナルと NBCテレビが 22日に発表した世論調査で、オバマ大統領の外交政策への支持率が 50%となり、７月に比べ７ポイント低下した。オバマ政権が最重要課題に据えるアフガニスタン情勢の悪化が影響しているもよう。焦点となっている米軍増派に関しては 51%が反対を表明。賛成は 44%だった。
> アフガンでのテロとの戦いの見通しに関しては「成功するとの自信が低下した」との回答が 59%となり、先行きへの不安が広がっていることを示した。アフガンへの駐留継続への支持は 55%に達したものの「即時に撤退すべきだ」との意見も 38%を占めた。
> 一方、経済政策への支持率は 50%で７月比では１ポイント増だった。大統領の支持率は 51%で同２ポイント減。就任直後の 60%（２月調査）からは９ポイントの低下となった。調査は17〜20日に実施し、有効回答数は1005人だった。)
In my opinion, the real figure of >"Taliban" is neither fundamental Islamic group nor extreme terror group, but a militia of >"Pashtun people."
And Pashtun people are living in both sides along with the border line between Pakistan and Afghanistan that was made by the British Empire in 1893.
Around that time, the British Empire was playing the "Great Game" with the Russian Empire in the central Asia. In order to make buffer, the British Empire drew >"Durand Line" to split Afghanistan and India.
Later, Pakistan became an independent state in 1947 so that Afghanistan-India border line became Afghanistan-Pakistan one.
Needless to say, when drawing Durand Line, the British Empire did that selfishly without permission of local residents -- Pashtun people.
Even now, the frontier regions in Pakistan aren't under control of Islamabad. So Pashtun people cross border line freely without consulting with neither Islamabad nor Kabul.
Namely, Pashtun in Pakistan support compatriots in Afghanistan.
When necessary, Pashtun militia fighters in Afghanistan can utilize the neighboring frontier regions in Pakistan as a sanctuary to evacuate, ref.(>"翻訳：パキスタンの部族領域、フロンティア精神")
They also secure material and personnel support from opposite side of the border line. Indeed, the border line that was make by selfish westerners in the late 19th century has no meaning for Pashtun people.
It seems that the then Bush Administration blindly thought that "if only we transplant western style democratic system, we would be able to rebuild Afghanistan as a pro-U.S. modernized state."
Needless to say, that's not true. Indeed, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, such scheme doesn't work well.
It is obvious that democratization should be implemented via taking sufficient time and taking local conditions into consideration well.
At this time of the moment, it isn't clear when the result of the presidential election will be confirmed.
Even if incumbent President >Hamid Karzai gets a win and secures his second term, his practical status is nothing more than a mayor of Kabul as in his first tenure.
U.S. citizens are correct that "the Afghan War may not be winnable so that we should withdraw our troops from there ASAP." But the problem is "when" and "how."
For your ref.>The right road for getting out of Afghanistan
>Afghanistan's fraudulent election, Disunited nations
>Afghanistan & Pakistan, Obama's faltering war
>Afghanistan's flawed election. Not half, Mr Karzai
>A runoff in Afghanistan
>Afghanistan's permanent election. Seconds out, round two
>Terror in Afghanistan, Murder in Kabul
>Afghanistan's bloody election, An election under siege
>Debate Afghan war goals, then select strategy
>America & Afghanistan, General disarray
>Two U.S Wars; in Iraq & Afghanistan
0
