'Afghanistan in danger of unravelling'

It's still somewhat beyond my comprehension how we in the US can feel anything other than complete embarrassment over the fact that our government has- in a mere 5 years- been responsible for two such monumental failures as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Today in Iraq, at least 60 dead bodies turned up on the street- the victims of death squads. In addition, at least 24 people died in bombings. There is no security in that nation, and that failure lies squarely at the feet of the US government.

Attracting less attention is the failure in Afghanistan, which is reverting to it's warlord and opium past. We are also seeing that the Taliban is still there and capable of mounting periodic attacks on the troops that are there.

The situation is bad enough in Afghanistan that it is even beginning- just barely- to break through the wall to wall coverage of the all imporant seating of Katie Couric at CBS News, the movement of Merideth Vieira to the Today Show, and the celebrity babies for Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, and Britney Spears.

In the UK, a bit more attention is paid. From the Independent:

US and British strategy in Afghanistan was in danger of unravelling last night after appeals for Nato partners to volunteer more troops fell on deaf ears.

Tony Blair joined Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, in warning that Afghanistan could become a "failed state" unless Nato members provide more troops to combat the resurgent Taliban forces.

Their appeal to Nato countries meeting in Mons, Belgium, produced no immediate promises of extra troops.

This is a triple failure for the Rumsfeld doctrine. Failure one is that, once again, we see that the approach of sending a minimum number US troops results in instability rather than success. Failure two is the result of the fact that because the US military is up to its neck in Iraq, it cannot put more troops on the ground in Afghanistan to create security and stability. Finally, failure three is found in the fact that given the debacle in Iraq, other nations don't want to touch a military policy formulated (or, if you prefer, get involved in a mess caused) by the US government.

I've been watching some of the primaries around the country and listening to the various campaigns, and it appears that this election is, in some ways and in at least a fair number of places, turning in to a referendum on the war in Iraq. Well, it's just too late for that. The real question is...

What now?

GP