A U.S. cost him everything he readily agreed that he had lost in Vietnam and had to retire because of the domino theory. The domino theory had emerged during the Eisenhower Administration and said that communism is like the flu: once you pick a country, a matter of time your neighbors begin to spread.
Robert McNamara, who was Secretary of Defense during the Kennedy Administration Democrats and Johnson, defended to the hilt that the doctrine described perfectly what would happen in Southeast Asia if North Vietnam won the Vietnam War. This made winning the war should become a matter of life or death.
Domino Theory has many things going for it. It's very graphic, one can clearly imagine the dominoes falling. It is easy to understand. Fear creates fear and disables the ability for logic, what if it were true, and North Vietnam won? Then all of Southeast Asia would become communist.
Historically this theory has an advantage because North Vietnam won the war, we can see if it was successful or not. The North Vietnam's victory was accompanied by the victory of communism in Cambodia and Laos, but there it stopped. Neither Thailand nor the Philippines, and Malaysia, and Indonesia fell under the yoke of communism. That spot, it would seem that the theory had a point, although its scope had been exaggerated. Those who continue to defend the claim that if North Vietnam's victory did more countries come into the Communist orbit was because the U.S. helped them to resist the onslaught of communism.
I am more skeptical. Historical and strategic reasons, North Vietnam had interest in the other two countries that had been part of the Indochina French, Laos and Cambodia, but I doubt that had interest in extending community beyond those two countries. Moreover, the clumsy American intervention in Cambodia (support for the coup by General Lon Nol, massive bombing of rural areas ...) did more for the spread of communism in that country than anything I could have made North Vietnam.
However it was the domino theory to the U.S. strategists gave a clear idea of \u200b\u200bwhat would happen if they lost the war in Vietnam and gave them an incentive to continue it. And here's my question: Do we have a similar conceptual framework to estimate what would a defeat in Afghanistan? No. In the case of Afghanistan no one has come up with a hypothesis still gorgeous and seductive name. The only consensus among policy makers is that a defeat in Afghanistan would be something awful, but they disagree about how awful it would be this tremendous.
Pakistani President Zardari, who has just war next door, warns that a victory for the Taliban, which equates to the victory of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which for him are attached to, spread fundamentalist terrorism worldwide. It adds that a Taliban victory in Afghanistan also destabilize Pakistan. The warning comes later: Pakistan and is sufficiently destabilized even without the Taliban.
Another sees the bulls up close is Lt. Gen. Shir Mohammad Karimi, chief of operations staff of the Afghan Army. To him a Taliban victory would turn the country into a platform from which to promote radicalism in the region and eventually the world. It also would be an ideological victory for the fundamentalists, who have exposed the weakness of democracies.
Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, who has spent years following the Afghan situation, believes that if you lose the war in Afghanistan and the country, and perhaps also Pakistan on the road becomes a failed state, the consequences for global stability will be devastating. U.S. and NATO will lose credibility.
Former NATO Secretary General George Robertson said that if we are not going to Afghanistan, Afghanistan will come to us. That is, if not defeat the Taliban at home, tomorrow we will keep knocking on our door and not just to bring us milk. Robertson also points to the geopolitical effect would be that a group of ragged guerrillas defeated the world's main military alliance. To Anders Rasmussen, Robertson's successor at the head of NATO, leave Afghanistan with their tails between their legs would mean that the country would to become a sanctuary for al-Qaeda.
General Petraeus, who is the third American general who charged him in nine years to end the war, think that a defeat would result in a bloody civil war and the eventual domination of the country by extremists.
My impression is that, as happened to the domino theory, all these theories exaggerate a little. The Vietnam War was lost and found we could live with that loss. Could it be the same with Afghanistan?
If coalition forces do not win, I think there are three possible scenarios from most to least likely: 1) The Taliban are strongest in the regions Pashtun majority, which is located in the east and south. The rest of the country is divided among warlords, 2) The country is parceled between the Taliban and warlords. The difference with the previous scenario is that the Taliban do not get it cover all the Pashtun areas and fail to become the strongest power in the country, but they are one of several, 3) The Taliban take control of throughout the country, except some border areas and marginal return to a situation similar to that which existed in 2001. In all three scenarios, Afghanistan becomes a failed state and a source of instability for the region. In none of the three scenarios the Karzai regime survives.
What I think is an exaggeration to think that al-Qaeda in Afghanistan revived as if nothing had happened since 2001. True that the country would become a recruiting ground for terrorists of all stripes, but I think the logistics capabilities of al-Qaeda has suffered a lot over the years. Furthermore, we know the organization better and not Pillari us by surprise as early XXI century.
As we discovered in 1975 that we could live with a victorious North Vietnam, we would discover that we can live with Afghanistan become a failed state, that is what has been for the last forty years. But Afghanistan is a failed what should concern us, but the possibility that the effects of his failure as a state from getting into Pakistan. A failed Pakistan is definitely a prospect to lose sleep.
0 comments:
Post a Comment