What are we doing over there?

[lookin]

Last night, NATO forces killed 24 members of the Pakistani army, when apparently helicopters and fighter jets were called in by Afghan and NATO forces to go after 'rebels'. The big guns hit Pakistani forces stationed at two checkpoints by mistake. Pakistan responded by closing the border crossings that supply thirty percent of the non-lethal supplies used by NATO forces stationed in Afghanistan. While supply trucks were stranded or being rerouted, the 'real' militants got down to business and attacked them during the confusion.

The fallout has not yet been felt by other than the families of the killed soldiers, but it's likely to be serious. Relations between the U. S. and Pakistan have been strained since the war in Afghanistan began, and I think this will take the tension to a new level. The Pakistani government will not turn a blind eye, and the average Pakistani citizen has one more reason to distrust the U. S. and demand that we get out of their country. And I think this latest 'collateral damage' is a windfall for anyone recruiting fighters to go up against the U. S.

And for what? The goal is purportedly to 'stabilize' Afghanistan by 2014 before bringing home U. S. forces. Does anyone really believe that Afghanistan will be 'stabilized', whatever that means, in three years? As far as I can tell, Afghanistan is, has been, and will be for the foreseeable future, a tribal society. Unlike Iraq, the concept of a strong central government that can protect and provide services to its citizens has never become ingrained in the public consciousness. Not to say that it can't ever be done, but to think that the U. S. can do it by 2014 seems a pipe dream at best.

I'm certainly no foreign affairs expert but I have to wonder, even if things go perfectly from this day forward, if we can say with any certainty that either U. S. or Afghani lives have been saved? And if things don't go perfectly, which seems a real possibility, might not we be making things worse?

I also wonder how many lives might be saved if the resources we are spending against this war - human, financial, psychological, and moral - might be better spent directly protecting lives through better health care here at home and in the Middle East. Imagine the establishment of a dozen state-of-the-art critical care children's hospitals in Kabul, Kandahar, Herat, Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad, Baghdad, Gaza City, Hebron, Sana'a, Detroit, and Miami. I know many may consider such a program to be nothing more than showboating, using the plight of poor children to make the U. S. look better.

But would it really be such a tragedy if the U. S. became better known for saving lives than for taking lives?

[MsGuy]

Lookin, I don't know enough to speak with certainty, but it's always seemed to me to be a mistake to have tried to impose a strong central government on a gaggle of tribal societies. I suppose we thought it would be simplier to deal with/control one center rather than 15 or 20.

The Afgans themselves don't seem to agree. Making Kabul the focus simply forced all the factions into a no win struggle to control the flow of billions in foreign funds flowing into the capitol.

Oh well, too late now. And I fail to see how we can defeat the Taliban as long as the Paki military defines itself in opposition to India and views events in Afganistan through that prism.

[Lucky]

Karzai must have had a fit over the Pakistani raid. He has said in a war between Pakistan and the US he would support Pakistan. It's that kind of gratitude that prevails in Afghanistan and makes me think we should never have entered the area.

[Guest hitoallusa]

US foreign policy tend to have missionary characteristics. (I'm not talking about a sexual position!). It is noble and I think it's great to enforce "good" values to stabilize the world. The biographies of key plays in the Bush Administration suggest that they went into the Middle East as missionaries: To spread democracy and freedom this country stands for. Yes a lot of people died in the process and there were many collateral damage but I think the seed the US sow in these countries will grow and spread eventually.

The war started because the US needed to act after 9/11. As a good missionary the US has been trying very hard to promote democracy and freedom in the region despite of many difficult challenges. The old and unproductive ideas that pervade in the Middle East is hindering the transition to a new better society but it will soon established there sooner or later. Every positive change accompanies sacrifice and pain. I hope it doesn't take too long. Thank you for your service, brave young men and women of America.

[BiBottomBoy]

NATO is not the US. The US is just part of NATO so to blame "us" is really missing the point.

And, I have little sympathy for Pakistan. This is the country that harbored bin Laden for years while they knew we were hunting for him.