Afghanistan and NATO

Afghanistan is a war that should have been done a long time ago. However, Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq put Afghanistan somewhat on the back burner for the better part of three years. The decision to bring in NATO was a good one but it's never certain what the outcome will be if someone like President Bush is involved. Afghanistan requires close watching.

I'm not sure I totally agree with him but American Pundit had a thoughtful post on Afghanistan that's worth passing along, particularly these two paragraphs:

Last summer NATO and Afghan government forces moved into the south and east of the country. For the first time in decades these provinces are coming under control of the central government. This is good news for the common folk and bad news for the Taliban and opium growers who thrive on lawlessness. Unsurprisingly, the level of violence in Afghanistan's eastern and western provinces ratcheted up last year in response.

The NATO commander during this period, British Gen. David Richards, did a fantastic job with the forces he had available. He understood the basic premise of counterinsurgency warfare: less is more. The fewer battles fought and the less damage and killing done, the better our relationship with the Afghan civilians who hold the power to either give shelter to the enemy or turn them over to us.

Something of the same sort may have to happen in Iraq. We need to get ourselves out of the civil war that has far too many factions and issues for us to resolve. One option is to remain in the country, outside the urban areas, and act only when it is clear what we need to do, while working hard on political settlements. We can also start drawing down while we pursue this option; in fact, drawing down would facilitate the option since it would make it clear to the Iraqis that they have to take control of their future.