The
Taliban reportedly are making progress in taking control of more land
in that poor Muslim nation surrounded by other poor Muslim nations.
As the United States backs down it spending of billions and billions
in that nation somewhat (instead of spending a 25 billion to build a
border fence with Mexico) the tide of jihadist, radical Muslims that
are fairly numerous increases. It costs quite a bit to buy allegiance
in a nation that really hasn't got the natural resources and
personnel to keep the standard of living as high as would support
westernization. Even worse, in 30 or 40 years there probably will
still be tens or hundreds of millions of militant Muslims in that
region of the world that is central Asia.
So
the U.S.A. might want to consider the overly simplistic rationale of
long term spending in Afghanistan to provide money sufficient to buy
allegiance and create an artificial infrastructure that provides
economic activity. The Taliban is quite tough on economic activity it
regards as rival to its own Muslim ideas about economic activity and
prefer a Muslim legal system too. Historically nations that spend too
much on military concerns have damaged themselves even to the point
of collapsing their civilization. Americans of course tend to take a
simplistic or what-me-worry approach to foreign and domestic policy
these days in the confidence that the ability of the Federal Reserve
to provide free money to the rich and big banks is unlimited. The
prime purpose of the economy and government of the U.S.A. in recent
years has been to concentrate wealth and puff up the most rich so far
as possible with little concern about the poor or middle class in
fact if not in propaganda comprehensively.
The
Taliban is regarded as too supportive of terrorist organizations that
seek to attack the United States and Europe. Therefor the U.S.A.
along with some N.A.T.O. forces believe it necessary to prevent the
Taliban from returning to power in Afghanistan because they would
allow terrorists to train and stage ops from that eagle’s nest. The
strategic situation may be flexible somewhat, and certainly the
tactics may be as well. I won’t write about either here more than
nominally.
Two
better policy opportunities for Afghanistan are building long-term
strong U.S. base fortifications that would allow defense against
jihadists for western military personnel at modest expense and
creating some new form of ecological economic infrastructure for
Afghanistan that would be difficult for the Taliban to destroy. Such
a sustainable economy should be able to work with local resources as
well as or better than poppy production. Each option (or both) would
require a substantial element of intelligent thought that is
innovative from U.S. policy planners-a very tall order in a society
that traditionally prefers vast ordinance and expensive as a way to
inefficiently over-power to victory.
Realistically
the decadent drift of western society toward godless doctrine and
homosexual marriage etc is likely to reinforce Taliban recruitment as
well as that of other jihadist and mufsidoonist groups the next half
century. Thus it would be a good idea to develop sustainable economic
policy for Afghanistan that could exist without centralized,
corrupting power that concentrates wealth and that makes the populous
reliant upon the will and benevolence of the powerful in order to
exist. That is a trans-cultural phenomenon of course.
