GlobalVillageSpace
Media Partner
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2017
- Messages
- 993
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Bombs for the Taliban: Is the US prolonging the Afghan war, again?
Global Village Space |
News Analysis |
Amid increasing turmoil in Afghanistan, top US officials, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have given a good account of what is the offing for the country. The day President Ghani offered an olive branch to the Taliban, James Mattis rejected the very idea.
“They use bombs because ballots would ensure they never had a role to play,” he said.
He firmly believed that the Taliban could never be part of a democratic Afghanistan and asserted that in no uncertain terms.
Tillerson said that the mission is to “never allow Afghanistan to become a platform for terrorism to operate from.”
“As far as Afghanistan goes,” Secretary Tillerson said, “the policy is under review, but at the same time, we’re up against an enemy that knows that they cannot win at the ballot box, and you think — we have to sometimes remind ourselves of that reality. That’s why they use bombs because ballots would ensure they never had a role to play, and based on that foundation, that they cannot win the support, the affection, the respect of the Afghan people. We will stand by them. They’ve had a long, hard fight, and Australia has been in this one from the very beginning, and the fight goes on. But the bottom line is we’re not going to surrender civilization to people who cannot win at the ballot box.”
Read more: Kabul Process: Afghanistan’s refusing to admit the buck stops home
This was a harbinger of what is in the Afghan toolkit. The idea had the support of Rex Tillerson. He said that the mission is to “never allow Afghanistan to become a platform for terrorism to operate from.”
At a time when a policy reflective of this spirit is already in the pipeline, the statements need not surprise anyone. What matters is the implications and the usefulness of a military-heavy Afghan strategy.
US obsession with military power: foolhardy or by design?
Statements by General Mattis and Secretary of state Tillerson are at odds with the views of the Obama Administration, which considered that there was no military solution to the problem. In 2011, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “there’s a very clear need to continue fighting those who would undermine this progress. At the same time, though, we know that there is no military solution to bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan.”
However, it is important to fathom that over the past few weeks officials from Washington have not mentioned a chance of a political settlement hence Mattis and Tillerson have just expressed the views of the new Administration.
The Taliban carried out two attacks on military installations in Kandahar last month claiming the lives of 25 soldiers.
The word was making rounds that the new strategy will be Pentagon-led, based on increased troop presence and aerial bombings.
One could see this coming as the US is thinking of a military-heavy policy option to turn the tables in Afghanistan since it employed the GBU 43 bomb against IS last month in Nangarhar. A change in policy was deemed indispensable and necessary because of Taliban’s swift and bold resurgence.
Read full article:
Bombs for the Taliban: Is the US prolonging the Afghan war, again?
Global Village Space |
News Analysis |
Amid increasing turmoil in Afghanistan, top US officials, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have given a good account of what is the offing for the country. The day President Ghani offered an olive branch to the Taliban, James Mattis rejected the very idea.
“They use bombs because ballots would ensure they never had a role to play,” he said.
He firmly believed that the Taliban could never be part of a democratic Afghanistan and asserted that in no uncertain terms.
Tillerson said that the mission is to “never allow Afghanistan to become a platform for terrorism to operate from.”
“As far as Afghanistan goes,” Secretary Tillerson said, “the policy is under review, but at the same time, we’re up against an enemy that knows that they cannot win at the ballot box, and you think — we have to sometimes remind ourselves of that reality. That’s why they use bombs because ballots would ensure they never had a role to play, and based on that foundation, that they cannot win the support, the affection, the respect of the Afghan people. We will stand by them. They’ve had a long, hard fight, and Australia has been in this one from the very beginning, and the fight goes on. But the bottom line is we’re not going to surrender civilization to people who cannot win at the ballot box.”
Read more: Kabul Process: Afghanistan’s refusing to admit the buck stops home
This was a harbinger of what is in the Afghan toolkit. The idea had the support of Rex Tillerson. He said that the mission is to “never allow Afghanistan to become a platform for terrorism to operate from.”
At a time when a policy reflective of this spirit is already in the pipeline, the statements need not surprise anyone. What matters is the implications and the usefulness of a military-heavy Afghan strategy.
US obsession with military power: foolhardy or by design?
Statements by General Mattis and Secretary of state Tillerson are at odds with the views of the Obama Administration, which considered that there was no military solution to the problem. In 2011, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “there’s a very clear need to continue fighting those who would undermine this progress. At the same time, though, we know that there is no military solution to bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan.”
However, it is important to fathom that over the past few weeks officials from Washington have not mentioned a chance of a political settlement hence Mattis and Tillerson have just expressed the views of the new Administration.
The Taliban carried out two attacks on military installations in Kandahar last month claiming the lives of 25 soldiers.
The word was making rounds that the new strategy will be Pentagon-led, based on increased troop presence and aerial bombings.
One could see this coming as the US is thinking of a military-heavy policy option to turn the tables in Afghanistan since it employed the GBU 43 bomb against IS last month in Nangarhar. A change in policy was deemed indispensable and necessary because of Taliban’s swift and bold resurgence.
Read full article:
Bombs for the Taliban: Is the US prolonging the Afghan war, again?
