Sunday, August 12, 2007

How the ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad

Since the 2001 war, American intelligence agencies had reported that the Taliban were so decimated they no longer posed a threat, according to two senior intelligence officials who reviewed the reports.
...
But Afghanistan’s embattled president, Hamid Karzai, said in Washington last week that security in his country had 'definitely deteriorated'. One former national security official called that 'a very diplomatic understatement'.
...
When it came to reconstruction, big goals were announced, big projects identified. Yet in the year Mr. Bush promised a 'Marshall Plan' for Afghanistan, the country received less assistance per capita than did postconflict Bosnia and Kosovo, or even desperately poor Haiti, according to a RAND Corporation study. Washington has spent an average of $3.4 billion a year reconstructing Afghanistan, less than half of what it has spent in Iraq, according to the Congressional Research Service.
...
The stagnation reflected tension within the administration over how large a role the United States should play in stabilizing a country after toppling its government, former officials say.
...
In the end, the United States deployed 8,000 troops to Afghanistan in 2002, with orders to hunt Taliban and Qaeda members, and not to engage in peacekeeping or reconstruction.

Can a war ever be "good"?

No comments: