Afghanistan: The Death of the WoT, Electioneering in the US, and the Meaning of Baitullah Mehsud's Death

Three important issues to cover, let’s go!

Ghani Gets a US Soapbox – Presidential hopeful Ashraf Ghani wrote a ‘why I should be President of Afghanistan and not Karzai’ piece in the Wall Street Journal this weekend and he comes out swinging.  Ghani argues that Karzai ‘turned’, not ‘helped’ or ‘let’, but ‘turned’ Afghanistan into ‘one of the world’s most failed and corrupt states.’  Though Karzai has indeed been guilty in the continued lack of progress of many social and governmental areas inside of Afghanistan, it is hard to ‘turn’ something that way when its largely already been so for quite awhile.  Ghani also discusses his reform plans for education, women’s rights, and block grants for the rural population.  I wonder if the Obama administration, which has been critical of Karzai, has attempted to increase American public exposure to Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, the other major presidential candidate?

Dead, but Not Replacable? – One of the key leaders of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, is most likely dead, but what does this mean?  Joshua Foust at Registan.net tackles this problem and comes across pessimistic that it will have a serious impact on the Taliban’s current and future standing.  I’d like to think that a group does not have infinite leaders’-in-waiting and that this indeed could have a lasting impact, but as Foust rightly laments, it will be difficult to accurately quantify what this loss means to the Taliban and to the Afghanistan, Pakistan war.

WoT RIP? – Speaking of war, does the war on terror still exists and what does that mean for US efforts in Afghanistan?  President Obama’s main man on counterterrorism John Brennan made a major address last week laying out the administration’s policy on counterterrorism.  In the address, Brennan went out of his way to let everyone know that the term ‘war on terror’ was dead, but then went on the say this….’we are at war with al Qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy. These are the extremists we will defeat.’  I take this to mean that pretty much the policies and goals of the war on terror have stayed the same, but the names have changed.  I’m fine with the retirement of the WoT phrase, I just don’t think we need to act like we are starting a whole new strategy or fighting a different enemy, when both are basically the same as they were a few months ago.  Concerning Afghanistan, Brennan reiterated Obama’s pledge to bring stability to the country and referenced the Taliban as major opponents in this goal who will need to be defeated.

Lastly, I came across this threat assessment map of Afghanistan from Reuters.  The map visualizes for the viewer the already well-known fact that the country’s south and east are the most dangerous.

Questions? Comments?