The error of Fukuyama, or the Americans as partners of the Taliban
The economic crisis, which does not give rest to Western Europe and the United States since 2008, the departure of the coalition Western forces from Afghanistan, where NATO and allies for eleven years are believed to have fought terrorism and at the same time built democracy ( which in 2009 introduced additional military contingent there), mass unrest in Arab countries and around the world because of the scandalous film “The Innocence of Muslims”, the assassination of Ambassador C. Stevens in Benghazi, and the whole “Arab Spring”, which was to perish support Whether in America - all this suggests that the West began to take in geopolitics.
In the early nineties of the last century, Mr. Francis Fukuyama, an American of Japanese origin, the author of the famous book "The End stories and the last person, ”as well as the famous article about the“ end, ”which preceded the book, idealistically argued that there was no place for humanity to go beyond the American-style democracy. That's all, the positive ending of the story. He even built a large table, arguing that democracy prevailed in different countries of the world at one time. And that, in essence, humanity has nowhere else to go - as soon as into democracy. So she is good, that better and can not be. Therefore, everyone will come there sooner or later (preferably sooner), and this is the end of the story.
The actions of the USA in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Libya are an attempt to put into practice what Fukuyama is praying for; he himself, writing his work, was influenced by the victory of the USA in the "cold war"; from here, as well as from his comfortable life in a democratic America, and his philosophical ideasmothballs idealism. Fukuyama is an American democratic Marx, providing an idealistic doctrine for realist practitioners.
The American scientist still has not abandoned his idealism. After all, it's like giving up faith. In one of his latest books, Our Post-Human Future, Fukuyama continues to insist on the infallibility of his predicted end of history:
Fukuyama’s unshakable democratic faith will disappear, perhaps, only with him, when the fighters of an unprecedented revolution will sweep him away, of what a person does not have at the beginning of the 21st century, who gives his time too great and profound significance. Futurist preachers like Fukuyama risk falling into the uncomfortable position of Proudhon described by Marx:
Other Western analysts, long freed from the dope of political idealism, are skeptical about not only the future of the West, but even its present. And what are the new democracies today? Right, for a month now no one believes in democracy in Egypt; even the greats of this world, I mean Obama and H. Clinton, believe that Egypt is no longer an ally for the United States. Maybe Libya, who after the overthrowing and killing of Gaddafi, seems to be ripe for the Fukuyama table? .. No, after the death from Mr. Stevens' smoke no one would believe in it - perhaps Mr. Theorist himself, the author of The End of History. No one will believe that the American ideals of democracy in general are ideals, not myths à la the ancient Greek Plato, a theorist much more solid than the same Fukuyama.
And Russia? China? Did they drop out of the big Fukuyama table? Dropped out. The People's Republic of China in the USA is considered a model authoritarian state that regularly and massively stifles all freedoms that can be turned up - from the will of the press to anonymity on the Internet. And the Communists rule there, not the Democrats. As for Russia, Putin, along with Lukashenko, Chavez and the ruler of Zimbabwe, was included in the list of authoritarian leaders, and the United Russia party is the very essence of the CPSU. No, neither Russia nor China has a place in the Fukuyama table.
Soon her head will wither from this table - the United States. The Department of Homeland Security buys hundreds of millions of patrons, snooping is rampant in the country and fast landing is practiced in accordance with the US Patriot Act of 2001 and the Enacting National Defense Act of 2011, according to which “anti-state” cases are handed over representatives of the army or special services, and these guys can, at their own pleasure, indefinitely hold any person in custody. To imprison a person, according to the Authorizing Act, it is only necessary to approve the American government that these and those comrades are terrorists or spies, in other words, enemies of the people. And everything, in prison or even in a special institution like Guantanamo, where, they say, is still being tortured. Barack Obama promised to close this vile prison in 2008, but he did not close it. Would close, so the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 year would not have received.
It must be recalled that in American prisons there are 25% of all prisoners of the world (more than 6 million people) and that more than fifty thousand are languishing there in “singles”, where in a matter of weeks people go crazy.
If that is the will of the American people, then I surrender: in America - democracy. But if such a model of democracy is imposed on the whole world as an ideal that any people will like, should this people only try, then I object. We are somehow hovering to the future and under authoritarianism. Especially since Fukuyama went out of fashion, and the hegemonian Democrats are not honored - and deserved.
Recently ITAR-TASS correspondent Vitaly Makarchev talked with leading British analysts. Their opinion turned out to be one. Experts talked about the crisis, the decline of the Western world, the recent failure of the West in Iraq, the preparing heavy withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan (which was called flight), and finally, the Afghan geostrategic catastrophe for the United States and NATO.
An unnamed employee of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) noted:
In Afghanistan, the abolition of NATO specialists from recruits Afghans and the abolition of joint patrols - because of the killing of NATO instructors (and more often American) and patrolmen - were perceived by the Times newspaper columnist as a "Taliban strategic victory."
The Daily Mail newspaper also does not believe in the ideals of Mr. Fukuyama:
In order not to lose power and not to "run away", Mr. Karzai has actually taken the floor ... on the side of the Taliban. In late September, the president of Afghanistan She urged UN to lift sanctions against Taliban leaders:
Karzai knew what he was talking about. A few days later, on October 4, it became known that the United States and Afghanistan openly decided to achieve reconciliation with the Taliban and hold relevant negotiations with the movement. In the event of a refusal of armed struggle, the Taliban promised to even include their movement in the political process of state-building in the land of Afghanistan. This is not a joke and is not an invention of the yellow press or the Fog News website. About it it was said in a joint statement following the first meeting of the US-Afghanistan Bilateral Commission, held in Washington on October 9, chaired by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister of Afghanistan Zalmay Rasul.
To build democracy in Afghanistan, the Taliban, in the opinion of those sitting, must stop cooperating with Al-Qaeda.
However, for a year and a half or two, Americans, along with the UN accountable to them, flirt with the Taliban. Last year, for example, 14 Taliban leaders were excluded from the UN list of sanctions. So Karzai made a statement not from scratch. However, the misfortune of both America and Karzai is that neither the first nor the second is recognized in the Taliban, and therefore warheads prefer dialogue.
Doctor of Military Sciences, Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Konstantin Sivkov рассказал “However,” correspondent Elena Gladkova, for which the United States requires peace with the Taliban:
But there is little hope for this: after all, the Taliban are convinced that during the 11 years of terror in Afghanistan, they won, and the Americans and NATO were defeated. And now the winners will accept the terms of the losers? Something new in geopolitics.
October 7 in connection with the 11 anniversary of the invasion of American troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban issued an appeal to the inhabitants of the country in which said about their victory over foreign forces.
Comments followed, the authors of which, in general, had no doubt that America was defeated in Afghanistan. A well-known political commentator Wahid Mujda, in an interview with Tolo TV, said that US policy in Afghanistan had only led to an escalation of tensions in the region:
Militants continue to shoot and blow up, corruption is rampant in the country, drug crime is increasing, government is very weak, and unemployment is high. All this is the local population can not but correlate with the democratic American presence. In addition, many Afghans traditionally consider any American to be an enemy, invader, and occupier. Even a secret supporter of Islamism, Obama, who supports the Arab spring in the Middle East and North Africa, has not been able to alleviate the hatred of Afghans, as well as Pakistanis, towards the advanced bearers of democracy. Not because he pretends to be an Islamist badly, not because the Pentagon is spreading more and more democracy to the UAV, whose attacks, beating more and more on the civilian population, independent researchers equated to terrorism:
To judge the real results of "unmanned war" is impossible. The US government rarely admits the killing of civilians, and also constantly underestimates the number of civilian casualties. The illusion of fighting terrorists is created: in official reports, all dead men who have reached the age of majority are indiscriminately referred to as “militants”.
Jennifer Gibson from the Los Angeles Times says:
Against this backdrop, the Taliban movement is in no hurry to agree with friendly Americans. And in general - how will this agreement look like? Will the reputation gained in battles and terrorist attacks suffer? For the radicals, starting negotiations with the loser is simply nonsense. Back in August, a statement was received from the Taliban movement in which it unambiguously says:
The Taliban agreed only to direct negotiations with the United States and Pakistan - “without preconditions.” That is, the Americans stop building democracy, get out of Afghanistan, along with allies and puppet Karzai, and the Taliban begin to build their own state.
Again - what are the Taliban? There are genuine radicals, and there are “moderates” who can probably accept the presence of a limited NATO contingent in the country in exchange for ensuring that they, the Taliban, are allowed into power. The radicals will not tolerate any NATO and no Americans in Afghanistan.
The expert on this issue, the coordinator of the UN monitoring group (whose task is to monitor the Taliban and Al Qaeda) Richard Barrett считаетthat if the Taliban, by agreeing with the Americans, receive significant representation in the structures of future power in Kabul, and that such power will be openly recognized by the leading democracies, then the West will have to help the "legitimate" Taliban in the fight against forces that may be dissatisfied with this power ( the same al-Qaeda, the warlords of the Afghan North or the Taliban from the radical wing). Probably, this is the essence of those secret negotiations that are allegedly being conducted now in Qatar - without the participation of Karzai's representatives.
But the very division of the Taliban into moderate and radical is debatable. German orientalist Gunther Knabe Recalls In this regard, that the Taliban movement, as before, is personified by Mullah Omar, who until the end of 2011 was listed on the American list of the most dangerous world terrorists. But with his representatives, and Qatari negotiations were begun. True, analysts see the chance that supporters of Mullah Omar have difficult relations with another strong trend of the radical Taliban, the Haqqani Network, which is unequivocally opposed to any negotiations with NATO or the Americans.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Americans have been trying for some years to negotiate something with the Taliban. The reasons for the failures are both the apparent defeat of the coalition in Afghanistan, which the Americans have been ineptly trying to turn into a semblance of even a small victory, and the lack of a unified strategy among heterogeneous Taliban.
In the meantime, Pentagon chief Leon Panetta, one of the Fukuyama’s idealists, who cannot admit defeat (and he doesn’t know), said Suddenly, the Afghan war has been going well for 11 for years, and it will continue to go successfully, and neither the attacks on the US military, nor any other tactics of the Taliban will affect its successful course.
The US Secretary of Defense emphasized:
NATO Secretary General Rasmussen podtalknu him: yes, they say, the strategy of NATO in Afghanistan - is very effective, and in general everything goes according to plan. No escape from Afghanistan, only the unhurried withdrawal of troops.
Well, the United States, NATO and the Taliban, whose loyalty Mr. Karzai hinted at transparently, still have time to agree - before the end of 2014. But agreeing not about the “end of history” in Afghanistan, not about replenishing the Fukuyama table, but about a banal transfer of power. If Al-Qaeda was raised by the CIA in the mid-eighties, then why shouldn't the Taliban be fed from the same feeder? What then, ask? But did not bin Laden explain what happens next?
In the early nineties of the last century, Mr. Francis Fukuyama, an American of Japanese origin, the author of the famous book "The End stories and the last person, ”as well as the famous article about the“ end, ”which preceded the book, idealistically argued that there was no place for humanity to go beyond the American-style democracy. That's all, the positive ending of the story. He even built a large table, arguing that democracy prevailed in different countries of the world at one time. And that, in essence, humanity has nowhere else to go - as soon as into democracy. So she is good, that better and can not be. Therefore, everyone will come there sooner or later (preferably sooner), and this is the end of the story.
The actions of the USA in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Libya are an attempt to put into practice what Fukuyama is praying for; he himself, writing his work, was influenced by the victory of the USA in the "cold war"; from here, as well as from his comfortable life in a democratic America, and his philosophical ideas
The American scientist still has not abandoned his idealism. After all, it's like giving up faith. In one of his latest books, Our Post-Human Future, Fukuyama continues to insist on the infallibility of his predicted end of history:
“The September 11 terrorist attacks in the US 2001 of the year again raised doubts about the thesis about the end of history, this time in connection with the statement that we witnessed a“ clash of civilizations ”(using the wording of Samuel P. Huntington) - the West and Islam. I personally believe that these events do not prove anything like this - just Islamic radicalism behind these acts leads desperate rearguard battles and will be washed away in due time by a wide tide of modernization. ”
Fukuyama’s unshakable democratic faith will disappear, perhaps, only with him, when the fighters of an unprecedented revolution will sweep him away, of what a person does not have at the beginning of the 21st century, who gives his time too great and profound significance. Futurist preachers like Fukuyama risk falling into the uncomfortable position of Proudhon described by Marx:
“The February Revolution took place for Proudhon really quite inappropriate, since he had just irrefutably proved just a few weeks before that the“ era of revolutions ”had passed away forever” (from a letter to I. B. Schweitzer).
Other Western analysts, long freed from the dope of political idealism, are skeptical about not only the future of the West, but even its present. And what are the new democracies today? Right, for a month now no one believes in democracy in Egypt; even the greats of this world, I mean Obama and H. Clinton, believe that Egypt is no longer an ally for the United States. Maybe Libya, who after the overthrowing and killing of Gaddafi, seems to be ripe for the Fukuyama table? .. No, after the death from Mr. Stevens' smoke no one would believe in it - perhaps Mr. Theorist himself, the author of The End of History. No one will believe that the American ideals of democracy in general are ideals, not myths à la the ancient Greek Plato, a theorist much more solid than the same Fukuyama.
And Russia? China? Did they drop out of the big Fukuyama table? Dropped out. The People's Republic of China in the USA is considered a model authoritarian state that regularly and massively stifles all freedoms that can be turned up - from the will of the press to anonymity on the Internet. And the Communists rule there, not the Democrats. As for Russia, Putin, along with Lukashenko, Chavez and the ruler of Zimbabwe, was included in the list of authoritarian leaders, and the United Russia party is the very essence of the CPSU. No, neither Russia nor China has a place in the Fukuyama table.
Soon her head will wither from this table - the United States. The Department of Homeland Security buys hundreds of millions of patrons, snooping is rampant in the country and fast landing is practiced in accordance with the US Patriot Act of 2001 and the Enacting National Defense Act of 2011, according to which “anti-state” cases are handed over representatives of the army or special services, and these guys can, at their own pleasure, indefinitely hold any person in custody. To imprison a person, according to the Authorizing Act, it is only necessary to approve the American government that these and those comrades are terrorists or spies, in other words, enemies of the people. And everything, in prison or even in a special institution like Guantanamo, where, they say, is still being tortured. Barack Obama promised to close this vile prison in 2008, but he did not close it. Would close, so the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 year would not have received.
It must be recalled that in American prisons there are 25% of all prisoners of the world (more than 6 million people) and that more than fifty thousand are languishing there in “singles”, where in a matter of weeks people go crazy.
If that is the will of the American people, then I surrender: in America - democracy. But if such a model of democracy is imposed on the whole world as an ideal that any people will like, should this people only try, then I object. We are somehow hovering to the future and under authoritarianism. Especially since Fukuyama went out of fashion, and the hegemonian Democrats are not honored - and deserved.
Recently ITAR-TASS correspondent Vitaly Makarchev talked with leading British analysts. Their opinion turned out to be one. Experts talked about the crisis, the decline of the Western world, the recent failure of the West in Iraq, the preparing heavy withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan (which was called flight), and finally, the Afghan geostrategic catastrophe for the United States and NATO.
An unnamed employee of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) noted:
“It is impossible to deny that the West is experiencing a relative decline in comparison with the powerful economic growth of countries with new markets, primarily the BRIC group. He also was not ready for the current radical changes in the Islamic world. The development of geopolitical events in recent weeks - the killing of the US ambassador to Libya; a powerful Taliban attack on the largest NATO base in Afghanistan - Camp Bastion, where British Prince Harry is located; the ongoing broad anti-American speeches in the Muslim world against the provocative film “The Innocence of Muslims” are a confirmation of the process of strategic retreat of the West before new and incomprehensible to him forces ”.
In Afghanistan, the abolition of NATO specialists from recruits Afghans and the abolition of joint patrols - because of the killing of NATO instructors (and more often American) and patrolmen - were perceived by the Times newspaper columnist as a "Taliban strategic victory."
The Daily Mail newspaper also does not believe in the ideals of Mr. Fukuyama:
“The cruel reality is that we lost in Afghanistan. Afghans are pragmatic: they now support those who are likely to rule the country very soon. At the same time, every Afghan knows that NATO will soon leave the country, and the Karzai government will either flee or be unable to hold power in their hands. As a result, Afghanistan will fall under the control of the Taliban and field commanders ... In any case, after ten years, Afghanistan will not be like the country that the West wanted to build when it sent its troops there. Now we should clearly recognize and declare that we have lost Afghanistan. ”
In order not to lose power and not to "run away", Mr. Karzai has actually taken the floor ... on the side of the Taliban. In late September, the president of Afghanistan She urged UN to lift sanctions against Taliban leaders:
“I urge the Taliban sanctions committee on resolution 1988 to take more active steps to remove the Taliban leaders from the sanctions list as a step to facilitate direct negotiations.”
Karzai knew what he was talking about. A few days later, on October 4, it became known that the United States and Afghanistan openly decided to achieve reconciliation with the Taliban and hold relevant negotiations with the movement. In the event of a refusal of armed struggle, the Taliban promised to even include their movement in the political process of state-building in the land of Afghanistan. This is not a joke and is not an invention of the yellow press or the Fog News website. About it it was said in a joint statement following the first meeting of the US-Afghanistan Bilateral Commission, held in Washington on October 9, chaired by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister of Afghanistan Zalmay Rasul.
To build democracy in Afghanistan, the Taliban, in the opinion of those sitting, must stop cooperating with Al-Qaeda.
However, for a year and a half or two, Americans, along with the UN accountable to them, flirt with the Taliban. Last year, for example, 14 Taliban leaders were excluded from the UN list of sanctions. So Karzai made a statement not from scratch. However, the misfortune of both America and Karzai is that neither the first nor the second is recognized in the Taliban, and therefore warheads prefer dialogue.
Doctor of Military Sciences, Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Konstantin Sivkov рассказал “However,” correspondent Elena Gladkova, for which the United States requires peace with the Taliban:
“... the Afghan population perceived the Americans as occupiers, and the Karzai regime perceived it as a puppet pro-American regime. And, naturally, it waged war against the invaders, just as our partisans in Belarus waged war against the fascists and their accomplices. As a result, the Americans and their puppets suffered a complete military defeat in Afghanistan, that is, they do not control anything at all, not even really control the capital. It becomes obvious that having even a grouping of thousands of people in 130 there, they could not solve this problem. And now it has become clear that it is necessary to run from there unequivocally and necessarily. But in order to escape from there, one must try, at least, to preserve at least limited influence in this region, and for this, one should try to establish some kind of relationship with the Taliban ... ”
But there is little hope for this: after all, the Taliban are convinced that during the 11 years of terror in Afghanistan, they won, and the Americans and NATO were defeated. And now the winners will accept the terms of the losers? Something new in geopolitics.
October 7 in connection with the 11 anniversary of the invasion of American troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban issued an appeal to the inhabitants of the country in which said about their victory over foreign forces.
Comments followed, the authors of which, in general, had no doubt that America was defeated in Afghanistan. A well-known political commentator Wahid Mujda, in an interview with Tolo TV, said that US policy in Afghanistan had only led to an escalation of tensions in the region:
“The international community and the United States, in particular, are pursuing the wrong policy in Afghanistan. They do not distinguish between terrorism and the rebel movement, so the latter is only expanding. ”
Militants continue to shoot and blow up, corruption is rampant in the country, drug crime is increasing, government is very weak, and unemployment is high. All this is the local population can not but correlate with the democratic American presence. In addition, many Afghans traditionally consider any American to be an enemy, invader, and occupier. Even a secret supporter of Islamism, Obama, who supports the Arab spring in the Middle East and North Africa, has not been able to alleviate the hatred of Afghans, as well as Pakistanis, towards the advanced bearers of democracy. Not because he pretends to be an Islamist badly, not because the Pentagon is spreading more and more democracy to the UAV, whose attacks, beating more and more on the civilian population, independent researchers equated to terrorism:
«UAVs fly over settlements in the north-east of Pakistan around the clock and without warning strike at houses, vehicles, public places. Their presence causes men, women and children a constant sense of unease and causes psychological trauma.
To judge the real results of "unmanned war" is impossible. The US government rarely admits the killing of civilians, and also constantly underestimates the number of civilian casualties. The illusion of fighting terrorists is created: in official reports, all dead men who have reached the age of majority are indiscriminately referred to as “militants”.
Jennifer Gibson from the Los Angeles Times says:
"... In Afghanistan, the Bush administration paid fantastic sums for information" on the ground. " In areas full of tribal and inter-family conflicts, the result was predictable: hundreds of innocent people were slandered as members of the Taliban or al-Qaida, many of whom then spent years in Guantanamo and other American prisons.
Now the United States offers similar notions to people in North Waziristan who promise to identify militants. The houses of those who were given for militants are entered into the base of satellite navigators and, when the informant is at a safe distance, they are carried into pieces. But since no one knows what kind of informants they are, people stopped inviting neighbors to the houses. An entire community ceases to have public relations, fearing to go outside at the level of its cells and at the same time fearing to call itself inside. ”
Now the United States offers similar notions to people in North Waziristan who promise to identify militants. The houses of those who were given for militants are entered into the base of satellite navigators and, when the informant is at a safe distance, they are carried into pieces. But since no one knows what kind of informants they are, people stopped inviting neighbors to the houses. An entire community ceases to have public relations, fearing to go outside at the level of its cells and at the same time fearing to call itself inside. ”
Against this backdrop, the Taliban movement is in no hurry to agree with friendly Americans. And in general - how will this agreement look like? Will the reputation gained in battles and terrorist attacks suffer? For the radicals, starting negotiations with the loser is simply nonsense. Back in August, a statement was received from the Taliban movement in which it unambiguously says:
“... some of the leaders are ready for negotiations on a comprehensive peace agreement, on a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan ... The strength of the Taliban movement is the immutability of our goals ...”
The Taliban agreed only to direct negotiations with the United States and Pakistan - “without preconditions.” That is, the Americans stop building democracy, get out of Afghanistan, along with allies and puppet Karzai, and the Taliban begin to build their own state.
Again - what are the Taliban? There are genuine radicals, and there are “moderates” who can probably accept the presence of a limited NATO contingent in the country in exchange for ensuring that they, the Taliban, are allowed into power. The radicals will not tolerate any NATO and no Americans in Afghanistan.
The expert on this issue, the coordinator of the UN monitoring group (whose task is to monitor the Taliban and Al Qaeda) Richard Barrett считаетthat if the Taliban, by agreeing with the Americans, receive significant representation in the structures of future power in Kabul, and that such power will be openly recognized by the leading democracies, then the West will have to help the "legitimate" Taliban in the fight against forces that may be dissatisfied with this power ( the same al-Qaeda, the warlords of the Afghan North or the Taliban from the radical wing). Probably, this is the essence of those secret negotiations that are allegedly being conducted now in Qatar - without the participation of Karzai's representatives.
But the very division of the Taliban into moderate and radical is debatable. German orientalist Gunther Knabe Recalls In this regard, that the Taliban movement, as before, is personified by Mullah Omar, who until the end of 2011 was listed on the American list of the most dangerous world terrorists. But with his representatives, and Qatari negotiations were begun. True, analysts see the chance that supporters of Mullah Omar have difficult relations with another strong trend of the radical Taliban, the Haqqani Network, which is unequivocally opposed to any negotiations with NATO or the Americans.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Americans have been trying for some years to negotiate something with the Taliban. The reasons for the failures are both the apparent defeat of the coalition in Afghanistan, which the Americans have been ineptly trying to turn into a semblance of even a small victory, and the lack of a unified strategy among heterogeneous Taliban.
In the meantime, Pentagon chief Leon Panetta, one of the Fukuyama’s idealists, who cannot admit defeat (and he doesn’t know), said Suddenly, the Afghan war has been going well for 11 for years, and it will continue to go successfully, and neither the attacks on the US military, nor any other tactics of the Taliban will affect its successful course.
The US Secretary of Defense emphasized:
“As I told my colleagues, we went too far, fought too long and shed too much blood to leave our business unfinished. Whatever tactics the adversary uses - be it improvised explosive devices, insider attacks, car explosions - we will not allow them to sow discord between us and our Afghan allies. And we will not allow these tactics to distract us from our main mission. ”
NATO Secretary General Rasmussen podtalknu him: yes, they say, the strategy of NATO in Afghanistan - is very effective, and in general everything goes according to plan. No escape from Afghanistan, only the unhurried withdrawal of troops.
Well, the United States, NATO and the Taliban, whose loyalty Mr. Karzai hinted at transparently, still have time to agree - before the end of 2014. But agreeing not about the “end of history” in Afghanistan, not about replenishing the Fukuyama table, but about a banal transfer of power. If Al-Qaeda was raised by the CIA in the mid-eighties, then why shouldn't the Taliban be fed from the same feeder? What then, ask? But did not bin Laden explain what happens next?
Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru
Information