RSS

Thu, Feb 19th 2009, 10:38

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (201)

The Clinton administration faced a dilemma: if it could not gain multilateral support for a needed move it could either sit in dejected silence or act on its own. Contrary to Bush’s absolute unilateralism, Obama now contemplates returning to the Clinton solution. But the U.S. no longer has either the military or the economic strength of the past. Situations that demand transnational solutions are coming to the fore in an era when China, Europe, India, and other nations are approaching parity. Should it seek to continue unilateral actions, the U.S. would be severely endangered by its previous failures of omission and commission.

Mister Sajjad Hussain gives no direct advice to the U.S. One implication of his analysis is that the U.S. may only be able to achieve positive results if it gains multilateral cooperation. Hussain's commentary maintains that the political situation in Afghanistan is actually more challenging than that in Iraq, and that a "surge" will not be as successful there as it has been in Iraq.

Mr. Hussain's analysis offers no light on what positive factors might preserve Afghanistan as a united and stable nation. The United States does not hope or desire to establish anything in Afghanistan other than a stable government responsive to the needs of its citizens. Afghanistan has successfully cast off all attempts at subjugation, a clear indication that there are some cohesive forces that unite its citizens when under external threat. Could a polity in which the interests of all factions are respected be created? Are the major centrifugal forces presently at play mutual fears among all ethnic groups, ignorance of the true natures of other groups, and/or the selfish interests of some or all of these groups? External forces will find it easier to take advantage of a divided Afghanistan. One answer to that division would be unification under Taliban rule. Are citizens willing to pay this cost? Or are there countervailing interests that would argue for a constitutional government that respects the rights of all and makes equality before the law one of its central premises?