Afghanistan and Pakistan

First the good news on Afghanistan: John Simpson of the BBC via Instapundit.

Simpson expects the election to go smoothly--at least in Kabul--and says the Americans are not unpopular-at least in Kabul. Kabul is not Baghdad, is actually the way he puts it. This passage is especially striking.

Three years after the Taliban were chased out, Kabul has returned to the real world. The streets are jammed with cars, the shops are full of goods. Last year Afghanistan's economy grew by 30 per cent. The weirdest thing about Kabul under the Taliban used to be its unnatural silence. Now it's as noisy as anywhere on earth.

Hmmm... Prosperity. Consumer goods. Sounds good.

Now this, from a Bush defender (Andrew Stuttaford on the Corner): Stuttaford concedes Kerry's point that opium production is once again way up in Afghanistan. In fact (quoting from an article in the parent magazine):

According to some reports, drugs constitute up to half of the Afghan economy and they finance much of the private construction, particularly in the capital. The interweaving of Taliban and al Qaeda politics with drug-related crime networks could create a deadly base for a continuing insurgency for years to come. As we've learned elsewhere, the only way to fight the drug trade is to eat into its profit margins--by legalizing the stuff in the West, or in the producing country, and taxing it appropriately--which is, of course, politically unacceptable.

Stuttaford's own remarkable conclusion:

Radek is right, of course. It cannot be repeated enough. Not only is the war on drugs counterproductive at home, but it also provides a mechanism by which the terrorists can find an invaluable source of funding. The Bush administration seems incapable of recognizing this simple fact, but Kerry, we know, would be no better.

Pathetic.

So: Bush has shown incompetence wrapped in hypocrisy: providing for economic growth in the Afghan economy, but largely (it seems) by allowing the illegal drug trade to flourish, and providing terrorists with a potential income. This seems to confirm that the U.S. is ... not exactly in control of Afghanistan. And yet: we know that Kerry would be no better? How do we know that?

Which brings us back to good old Pakistan under Musharraf. According to Joshua Kucera in Slate, Musharraf is now able to buy a whole array of weapons from the U.S.--the old embargo is done, he's an ally in the war on terror, etc. But wait: he's buying weapons that will be useful in a war with India, not in any war in the mountains. And when he does fight in the mountains, he seems to shun the areas that are most likely to hide Al Qaeda members, preferring to go after easy targets who have opposed him personally. Maybe he's not such a staunch ally? Maybe Bush is contributing to a new escalation in the Pakistan-India war, and making that whole region less stable, while inflicting roughly zero damage on Al Qaeda?

Finally, Bush said in the debate that nuclear arms proliferator A.Q. Khan "has been brought to justice." Er, no. He's actually living like a king, and has received a full pardon from ... none other than Musharraf.

Tue Oct 5, 2004 5:56 pm MST by robertll | Email Article |

Return to Main Page

Afghanistan and Pakistan