A woman grieves at the grave of her son Alexander,

a Soviet Army Airborne soldier killed in 1984 during

fighting in Afghanistan, at the Chizhovskoye cemetery

outside Minsk, Belarus, Feb. 15.

Dernieres Nouvelles d'Alsacé, France

The 'Mystery' of Obama's Afghan Troop Buildup

"With 30.000 additional soldiers - or 50,000, if Europeans respond to the call - will the Americans have a better chance of getting their hands on bin Laden and Mullah Omar, eradicating terrorism, and stabilizing Afghanistan … It’s hard to believe that they will."

Editorial by Jean-Claude Kiefer

Translated By L. McKenzie Zeiss

February 16, 2009

France - Les Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace - Home Page (French)

A discreet and mournful military ceremony in Moscow yesterday honored the Soviet dead - officially 13,000 - of the Red Army’s 1979-1989 war in Afghanistan. … In a few days, President Obama will announce the sending of new American reinforcements for the other war in Afghanistan, which debuted at the end of 2001 and which is not yet over.

Certainly, one cannot confuse the two episides. In 1979, the USSR under Brezhnev sought to “save” a vassal communist regime. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Americans and other Westerners have hunted al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the name of “Operation Enduring Freedom,” with the goal of establishing democracy in Kabul - and up to now, with no great success. The neo-Taliban are becoming increasingly numerous, attacks are multiplying, the economy has returned to opium and the gangrene of corruption infects all efforts. For example, some of the arms delivered to the new Afghan army are sold to the rebels, a mishap that the Russians were equally familiar with in “their” “communist” Afghan army.  This is not the only point they [the NATO and Russian wars] have in common. Like the Soviets in their time, the Westerners now pass for invaders.

An Afghan man holds a photo of his brother, killed

decades ago after a Soviet air raid, in the village of

Ali Mardan near Kabul, Feb. 7

So why these reinforcements? Why the pressing appeal to Europeans to furnish new contingents, above all combat troops? This insistence on extending the engagement in Afghanistan remains the most obscure point of Barack Obama’s program. It seems that the American electorate, without wondering about Afghanistan, only recalls the Iraqi disengagement promised by the candidate for the White House - a disengagement approved by the entire international community. 

Posted by WORLDMEETS.US

With 30.000 additional soldiers - or 50,000, if Europeans respond to the call - will the Americans have a better chance of getting their hands on bin Laden and Mullah Omar, eradicating terrorism, and stabilizing Afghanistan - and by way of a beneficent effect of contagion - calm the Islamist turmoil in neighboring Pakistan, the real source of concern? It’s hard to believe that they will: Pakistan is a country with completely different dimensions, with over 170 million inhabitants … and nuclear weapons.

[International Herald Tribune, France]

There is an element of mystery to the composure displayed by Barack Obama. He seems to be more engaged in the situation in Kabul than the Middle East. Since his inauguration, he has expended intense diplomatic efforts on his new Afghan policy while giving the cold shoulder to President Hamid Karzai, the ineffective protégé of George W. Bush. Perhaps he had to find a new mission for an army leaving Iraq without having completed its “work.”

After being forcefully lobbied, Washington’s allies have the right to expect a credible response. Perhaps in early April at the NATO summit in Strasbourg?

CLICK HERE FOR FRENCH VERSION

[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US February 17, 4:39pm]