Johnson faced up to problems that no one before him had dared to touch — including his predecessor, John F. Kennedy. With his naming of a set of related programs that are recognized under the general title "Lofty society." Specifically, Johnson bravely fought against racial discrimination in the United States. It declared war on poverty in the United States welcomed immigrants of non-European origin, from top to bottom reformed education system, fought for the rights of civilians, and their honey programm laid the base of the latest health policy, based on which Obama can now develop success.
But all of these majestic achievements actually melted against Johnson's failures in Indochina. Since 1966, when the South American campaign in Vietnam was approaching the peak of their own, the United States has been popular phrase "crisis of confidence." Johnson's own external policies destroyed domestic policy success. He was president of the war-time, and the Americans have not been able to cooperate that his views with peacemaker in national affairs.
Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama will soon be in the same predicament. At this point, all the current world order is now likely to become the subject of heated debate.
As the president acts in armed conflict
Iraq was never Vietnam, Afghanistan, and never will be. The problem is extremely hasty comparisons that highlight the critics, is that they gloss over the historical facts. At the height of the Vietnam war in the country was 543,000 U.S. troops. It is two and a redundant times more than now in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. By the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, there have killed more than 58,000 American fighter. In 1968, there perished every week to thousands of military personnel. For always conflict killed at least three million Vietnamese and over half a million Cambodians and Laotians. At least some acquaintance with these figures is unlikely people will result in comparison with Vietnam.
All the same, there are similarities in how the South American presidents engaged in these conflicts politically. Like its predecessors Johnson and Richard Nixon, Obama promised that the American war will soon come to an end. Like Johnson and Nixon, Obama said his goal is to return the power over the countries occupied by South American troops and their governments to do so as quickly as possible.
Obama has promised to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, and in July 2011, to return troops from Afghanistan. Nothing like that will happen. Only in November in Afghanistan will arrive all 30,000 additional troops from the refill, then the number of South American troops in the country will reach 100 thousand people redundant. If Obama wants to fulfill his promise to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011, then these soldiers of the recruitment will be less than 9 months out to fundamentally change the situation in the mountains of the Hindu Kush. Judging from the current situation, it is an impossible idea.
Winning the battle, losing the war
The hopelessness of the war in Afghanistan has become a particularly trivial in recent weeks. In the small town of Marjah in southern Afghanistan, thousands of British and American troops with great effort and great losses defeated the Taliban. But a closer look reveals that this is not a victory at all. Now, after the advent of a massive NATO troops, Marja is not exempt and do not pacified. NATO troops are not inherently are kept under the control of the city, because the enemy in pieces evenly vorachivaetsya and takes possession of them again. Acts of troops led by the U.S. border on despair are catchy and the personification of everything that is happening in Afghanistan has been almost nine years.
Americans and their allies win all fights, but losing the war. This week, world public opinion is being prepared for the big Tipo and decisive attack on Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Sounding rhetoric is very reminiscent situation reports generals, who have suffered misfortune after defeat in Vietnam. You do not have to be a prophet to predict that soon the massive flow of Kandahar gush bad announcements. Once again they will justify that in this war, whatever you call her — the battle against terrorism, counterinsurgency campaign or peacekeeping operation — win a victory impossible.
Most of the Afghan people, along with his corrupt and ignorant Kabul government is not interested in the success of the Yankees and their allies. In fact, there is now a memory, as if the Afghans more than anything I wish that all these foreigners were gone from their land, having gone back to where they came from — even if it means coming to power of a new Taliban government.
The prospect of civilian war is always there
In Iraq, it was different from the start. Maybe Saddam Hussein was fierce dictator, but his regime has brought in his own country modernization, the fruits of which Iraqi society enjoys to this day. Saddam used religion when it suited his purposes, but in the end it was a secular managers, engineers admired and is enthusiastic about science. His eyes on the role of ladies in society can be considered advanced and enlightened by the standards of the Middle East.
For this reason the war in Iraq, the Yankees were even easier, even though it led to a long string of Chertovskikh events, especially in 2006 and 2007. Iraqi society is very different from Afghanistan — it is in the main city, the average level of education is much higher there, and of the country's infrastructure in comparison with Afghanistan can be considered modern. This is why Iraq has always been immune to even attempt what "Talibanization."
In spite of all its ethnic and religious differences, despite the problem of the Kurds, despite the controversy over oil revenue, Iraq anytime, anywhere you can find the right minded buddies who own a sufficient impact in order to negotiate a political solution reliability problems . Since the South American invasion in the spring of 2003 Iraqis elected parliament three times, and every time the elections were democratic enough. When Obama came to power — and that was the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — the country was on the right track, although the road was very bumpy, with numerous obstacles. But it was still a way — and no attacks and attacks could not prevent the Iraqi people to argue about the future of their own country priemuschestvenno verbally, not with a gun in his hand. But in recent weeks, this statement is beginning to lose its validity.
The return of authoritarian rule
Now that Obama has held its own plan and wants to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, behold the fanatics and terrorists that soon they will have a new chance. Most importantly, the Iraqi favorites suddenly remembered the old times and their bad habits. The authoritarian style of management, which has weakened a couple of years, thanks
to the zeal to maintain national unity of the country, again vorachivaetsya.
Prime Minister Maliki, whose party is the result of the March elections won fewer seats than the party of his rival Iyad Allawi's head, holding on to his seat with a persistence that causes severe anxiety. It has been a few months, prevents the formation of a new government. Over the years, the price of utter efforts failed to reach many compromises, and this is partly the result of threatening the presence of U.S. troops, whose numbers in Iraq to date is 90,000. But now, these trade-offs in a moment seem to be the least of mandatory. All of this can be attributed to reckless foreign policy of Obama, who often behaves like an idealist, not a lot of conscious reality.
While the prospect of civilian war is simply not removed from the daily life of the current Iraq and Afghanistan. So Makar, if Obama wants to warn the momentary disappearance of all the gains in Iraq, it is one way or another will have to reconsider its decision on the withdrawal of the troops, which will inevitably lead to the loss of authority of the president. Like Germany after the second world war, Iraq will need a stabilizing presence of U.S. troops still long, and the South American power over time usvoyut that they need to maintain a menacing presence of their own troops to intimidate Iraq's neighbor Iran.
The gloomy outlook for Afghanistan
What is the situation in Baghdad and Kabul in 2010? The answer to this question on Iraq to construct almost more difficult than in Afghanistan, as the outlook for Afghanistan constantly gloomy. Territorial conquests carried out by coalition forces, were always short-lived, and huge pieces of areas of the country, in practice, are kept under the control of different factional groups, clans and tribal favorites together with warlords who debaters lumped together, by putting them on one yarlychek — " Taliban. " In fact, the Afghan society (the same can be said of his enemy's) — is remarkably complicated and intricate network of cultural, ethnic, religious, geographical and tribal loyalties and allegiances. And even foreigners should not impose on the fact that they will be able to understand quite well in this mess.
On the Afghan society also affect Pakistan, Iran, Our homeland and even China. To understand this, one must understand the impact of the Uzbek, Tajik ties and an old Russian contacts. Need to know how all these threads trailed in 30 years of war, it is necessary to know all the stories of loyalty and betrayal, with the legends of Mujahedin. A person who does not understand someone who has in-law and godfather, what tribe leader gives a bribe to what the police chief, will always face insoluble riddles.
America will bring about the focus on Pakistan
Of such society is unrealistic to form a government, at least, in the South American aspects and methods. USA Today salting Karl Eikenberry (Karl Eikenberry) has long been at odds with the Kabul administration on a number of issues. On the South American special envoy Richard Holbrooke, now staring at a sworn enemy of President Hamid Karzai, whose incompetence after eight years in office, many believe a proven fact. Quite clear that South American diplomacy is about to abandon Kabul, and instead it will focus its efforts on the adjoining Pakistan, which is a nuclear power and a real haven for terrorists of Taliban, has long been luring enough to discover more attention than Afghanistan.
Samples build reasonable predictions about the campaigns have always been a matter of nepriznatelnym. Further strengthening of groups in Afghanistan, similar to what took place in Iraq in 2007, the situation may change. Many welcomed the purpose of Gen. David Petraeus as commander in Afghanistan, believing it is an encouraging sign. But the Iraqi experience Petraeus, who succeeded thanks to smart decisions in 2008 to reverse the situation in Afghanistan would possibly interfere. Petraeus himself not once again that Iraq — is not Afghanistan. But Petraeus — it's like Petraeus, because to fear that he would try to apply those methods in Afghanistan, which were very effective in Iraq.
Just one can predict that they will not work there. Radical change in Iraq came in the main due to the fact that the Sunni sheiks defected to the other side and made an alliance with the Yankees — first in Anbar province, and then across the country. And the reason is not that Iraq sent more American soldier. Such potential allies in Afghanistan, the U.S. is not, if only we dare not imagine for yourself what Petraeus and the United States in one beautiful day openly and directly start negotiations with the Taliban.
Karzai wishes to do so, and he secretly doing it for quite a long time. From the perspective of the Kabul government and the United States with its own uncompromising strategy to defeat the Taliban is rapidly converted into an obstacle in the way of the merits of peace in the country. Karzai has for some time is working against the Yankees. Not so long ago, he showed it in the open, with the scandal of its own firing Interior Minister Hanif Atmar, who was in the West, was considered one of the most competent members of the Kabul government. And even now it seems a terrible dream, but if Karzai and his clan will have to put on the map, it may ultimately personally lead the resistance movement to the West in their own country. Meanwhile it would deal a mission for international forces to promote security in Afghanistan final, though absurd hit.
Iraqi problem in comparison with the Afghan minor importance. At least, so it seemed to nedavneshnego time. Although the unchanging message of the devastating terrorist attacks in the country continue to shock the world, the situation in Iraq has improved considerably, partly thanks to the successful development of the state of the army and police forces.
The southern part of Baghdad, which is only three years back was fatally unsafe war zone, in which insurgents, snipers and South American soldiers fighting together in strshnyh criteria for urban warfare, now looks like a completely peaceful and quite common area. The peaceful daily life returned to town with a sad-known names — Fallujah, Ramadi, Najaf. There again the markets work carried prazdnichkom street, walk kids in school uniform. But for the moment, the country begins to form a terrible crisis.
The refusal of Prime Minister Maliki to concede defeat in the elections has led the country into a political dead end, and maybe even made a power vacuum. The militants have again started to shoot at the other ethnic groups, but this time they are kept are not under the control of external forces, terrorist groups and Iranian intelligence. In Iraq, built up a new internal conflict. His background also are internal in nature, and much of the blame can be laid on the incompetence in policy-making.
The dispute over oil revenues
Important to note that the Iraqis long years arguing about the national oil law. Despite all the talks, despite all the pressure from abroad and inside the country, they have not yet been able to find a fair and honest method rassredotachivaniya income from their own natural resources, although this could be a major moment for the peace in the country.
Failure to provide such a fundamental breakthrough goes hand in hand with other countless shortcomings of those in power. They are, for example, have not been able to solve the puzzle to supply Iraq with electricity and water, and provide many other basic needs of Iraqis. People get tired of the complex political games in Baghdad and began to turn away from their own managers, who are obviously more interested in their welfare, if in the welfare of their country.
This is alarming, because the messages of this kind are beginning to enter Iraq from friends who know perfectly well that country. Among them, the last South American salting Ryan Crocker (Ryan
Crocker), warning that some of the latest developments in Iraq may again be reduced to nothing. It seems that the hope for a peaceful coexistence of all Iraqis melts again, with just a fundamental moment in history when the United States decided to withdraw one hundred percent. Nothing quite good will come of it.
Options for action in Afghanistan are extreme and contradictory
If you look at things impartially and objectively, you realize that in Iraq, Obama is not a huge selection. If both the chief of the armed forces of the United States, he really will bring all the troops, the trouble of the Iraq experience will become more affordable. And at some point, the U.S. government will make sure of it. Moderate forces in Baghdad will be able to continue the embodiment of his own project only in the presence of stabilizing the South American military presence. It would be a fatal mistake to deprive them of such abilities.
In Afghanistan, the situation is different. There's options for action are extreme and contradictory. And it is very difficult to predict the consequences of choosing one or the other option. Europeans prefer the version with high-spirited withdrawal of all troops, and this strategy can be described as follows: "After us the deluge." Obama is also experiencing growing pressure forces wanting to end his frisky desperate operation in Afghanistan, so after that unfriendly Afghans were provided for themselves. Canada, the Netherlands, Poland, Australia and many other countries or withdraw their troops or begin to oscillate in need of its own role in the Afghan war. The coalition is collapsing, and Obama will make a tough choice: either continue fighting acts as more devastating US-British war, or to end this war, not having achieved victory. Neither one nor the other option is particularly attractive not differ, and therefore can and should make another strong effort that can lead to a more constructive solution difficulties.
Now there are reasons for the "Great Game"
Before the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal was forced to resign in ignominious retirement, he stated that the principle does not end the war quickly and correctly. Obvious, but true statement. If the war should be followed by other acts, they can not be limited to the introduction of more and more combat troops the U.S.. In Afghanistan, so far there are all the reasons that determined the nature of historical "Great Game" of the 19th century between the English and the Russian Empire. The conflict can be resolved here or there, but not within the Afghan borders.
If Obama really is a Messianic world leader, as he was known everywhere after his election to the presidency, he should force all the power again gather at the same table on the concept of the conference on Afghanistan. It should involve countries such as our homeland, China, Pakistan and Iran, and in one form or another "Taliban" and some Afghan warlords. Since the situation is difficult and complicated, but under that of the conference is to find an effective solution to this seemingly guaranteed disaster.
If this kind of recent diplomatic efforts will not be realized if the current stupid and pointless conflict continues, predict the future of Afghanistan will not be difficult. South American allies flee the sinking ship, making it slowly at first, then faster and faster all. Over time, there will leave even the United Nations — if only for the sake of protecting their own employees. The country plunged into chaos, which will end with the emergence of the Taliban in the role of savior. History will have come full circle, all the sacrifices and efforts will be in vain, and Afghanistan will return to where it was in 2001.
Terminates phase of the struggle for the leadership of the U.S. in the world
In Iraq and Afghanistan is at stake is more than just a stabilization of these states and their societies. These conflicts are linked to entire regions, with the political spheres of influence. This phase ends with a kind of struggle for world leadership of the United States. Completely may be that historians many years later would be called the beginning of the 21st century, a period when the United States lost its own status as a superpower in the fields of battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, giving it to China, which is currently being applied in the world "Myagenko force." Many now believe that this force is greater than the power of the United States. Also completely possible that Barack Obama will go down in history as the president who just announced the decline of the South American world domination.
But in the months and years to come, which imposes its own strong imprint of the global economic crisis of historic proportions, at stake is not only the status of the United States and its role in the world. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is, of course, the main South American War, but because of their own moment of truth experienced three major players in global politics. UN, NATO and the European Union are at risk to suffer collateral damage from these wars, especially the war in Afghanistan.
The absence of the European Union
In Afghanistan, all three players have shown that the role of crisis intervention force, they have proven to be costly, but full of losers. Yes, the UN successfully implemented in Afghanistan applets vaccination and education are also places improved health system. It must be admitted. But it is a complete failure as a self-proclaimed expert in the municipal building. NATO during the operation of the coalition forces proved to be a handful of ever-quarreling state armies, each of which acted on their own and could neither defeat in war or make peace. The Europeans in Afghanistan just as no single European Alliance. Some European countries send their troops to the international forces to promote security in Afghanistan, the more vigorously fought in defense of their own interests (as they do in Brussels) than with the enemies of the new Afghanistan.
These findings lead us to a sobering conclusion. In Afghanistan, extinguishes hope for the existence of intelligent multilateral solutions to major global problems. In any case, now is a significant chance that the members of the world community will suffer misfortune in the trial, which they put on themselves — Afghan ordeal. And it will have consequences for the whole of our world order.
A positive consequence may be that the parties will review their common troubles and failures, and went out and brought techniques to implement meaningful reforms that will include a change in the structure of NATO, the UN and the EU. But no one believes it will happen. The negative effects are more affordable. The members of the international coalition in Afghanistan found a mutual understanding. In fact, they are more distanced from each other. There are new bands fault, especially between the United States and Europe, and between European countries, although in the smallest scales. Namely, Germany was isolated and subjected to even internationalist ridicule because of their own complex and special role in this military mission.
If the Afghan mission will end without as much glory as it is at the moment, and the members of the coalition in Afghanistan just slip away one by one, leaving the country and the region, no prospects, it will be a complete failure in terms of global politics. That is why relevant to the Afghan mission world leader must now find ways of interaction and collaboration, not acting in the manner of an ordinary routine itself, and in all seriousness, with a full understanding of the irony of the situation, with the intention of starting work hard to find a reasonable and reliable solutions.
Now a day or agenda is the question of holding a large conference on Afghanistan, which will put an end to a hell state of affairs, g
athered at the table of all players, even the most obscure.