Flawed by Design

Touching on the question I asked yesterday, there’s a somewhat cerebral reaction to the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan that I think is worth considering. I’m concerned that the U. S. is doing something I’ve seen quite a lot of as a consultant and which I never do. It’s designing itself into the operational model for Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the case of Afghanistan in particular there is no way, repeat no way that the country has or will have the ability to defend its own borders for the foreseeable future. It’s a country with a GDP of $18 billion (about $670 per person) for goodness sake. With that sort of GDP a large landlocked country can’t even afford enough soldiers to do the job let alone an air force.

Basically, we’ve designed the U. S. military into the Afghanistan operational model.

The model is flawed by design. Removing the U. S. from the equation means we have no interest in whether Afghanistan can defend its border or who sets up shop there. If we have no interest in who sets up shop there, what have we been doing there for the last six years? For the last decade? Why did we invade?

4 comments… add one
  • ...

    This post is a bit of a mess. The second paragraph in particular.

  • Missing a closing bracket. That should take care of things at least a little.

  • TastyBits

    There is no Afghanistan. It is an area between other countries. The people are not united, and there is no single purpose. The Taliban were the most uniting force in Afghanistan, and the US wants them gone.

    The US design was that Afghanistan would unite behind the goal of protecting the US. This was childish & silly or delusional. Take your pick.

    In Iraq, there was some cohesion, but Saddam was uniting the people. When he was gone, that unity was weakened, and again, the US design was protecting the US.

  • ...

    Much better!

Leave a Comment