2.  Friedman: Afghanistan Has To Become America's Baby

In a striking New York Times op-ed, Tom Friedman argues that if the United States is to have any permanent success in Afghanistan, it has to transform its mission from the "babysitting" it's doing now to full-scale "adoption" of the country and its government. In the wake of a George Will column arguing that it's time for American troops to leave Afganistan completely, Friedman says little about withdrawal but insists that continuing the current level of engagement is not an option. The strategy of trying to keep the peace while the Afghan government sets up civil society (what he calls "babysitting") is impossible when the government is as riddled by corruption and incompetence as Hamid Karzai's is, Friedman says. The only way truly to establish peace is to "adopt a new baby" and invest even more resources into both securing the country and creating the institutions needed to govern. He closes his piece by commenting on Americans' ambivalence toward Afghanistan (and suggests that undertaking this "adoption" could be a disaster). On the facing page of the Times' opinion section, Nick Kristof is more direct. He argues unequivocally that increasing American investment in Afghanistan would be a very, very bad idea. Meanwhile, in the Washington Post, commentators are cautiously optimistic about success in Afghanistan-if success is defined downward. Kyle and Joseph Nevins and Ahmed Rashid all argue that a narrow victory is possible. For Rashid, that victory will take the form of a modicum of peace and a "minimalist" government in Afghanistan; for the Nevins, success is safety on American soil.   

Read original story in The New York Times | Sunday, Sept. 6, 2009

Comments