Afghanistan: Moving Forward

We've been fighting in Afghanistan for nine and a half years - longer than any other war in U.S. history. The current situation in Afghanistan is a combination of a number of historical factors, policy blunders, mistakes, and failed lessons. The Taliban are currently waging a very effective insurgency from the relative safety of Pakistan, and the U.S. military is still reeling from the neglect Afghanistan experienced during the Bush administration. I think, however, we are approaching a turning point in this war, one which will hopefully result in an Afghanistan which is finally at peace and can heal from the decades old wounds of perpetual warfare and bloodshed. The following is my opinion based on what I've learned from this course on how to achieve that end.

The first step forward is the realization that with the limited resources we have, we cannot defeat the Taliban by any conventional means. There is no capital to seize, no fortress to breach, and no line in the sand over which one we cross, we can claim victory. They are an amorphous enemy who are as flexible as they are determined. So long as America continues this war, and the country remains gripped by poverty, and in some areas starvation, the Taliban will always have a base of support, a supply of recruits, and a means by which to continue their war. Further, so long as they can freely move in and out of Pakistan, which they will always be able to, we can never pin them down.

I think this has already been realized, as indicated by talk of some future political settlement with the Taliban. The next step forward, is to actually begin initiating those discussions. With the death of Osama Bin Laden, that may happen sooner than later, which is a good thing. However, this will require compromise on both sides – including compromise by the Karzai government. One of the major blunders of the U.S. at the start of the war, the reinstatement of the warlords , some of whom  were eventually incorporated into the Karzai government, may actually turn out to benefit us in the end. The warlords are men who understand compromise and probably understand the Taliban far better than the bureaucrats and ideologue politicians. Still – this will require serious commitment by all three parties involved, and it is vital for the U.S. that a permanent arrangement is reached which will provide stability, and not ignite further conflict.

While this is happening, it is also vital that the U.S. engage in nation building. If you provide opportunity for people to support their families and earn a living, you remove much of the fundamental reasons for young men to join the Taliban in the first place - to earn money. On top of that, if the economy is growing, the people are happy, which builds support for the government, and most importantly of all, provides revenue for the government such that it can afford to provide basic services, a police force and a military to provide security for the people. It is a positive feedback loop which leads to development and stability. However, it will require an investment by the United States - the kind of investment that went into rebuilding Japan and west Germany after the second world war. Further, it will require significant oversight by the U.S., as the Karzai government is ripe with corruption. This includes doing away with the contractors who are currently robbing the government blind.

One must not only focus on Afghanistan though, we must be wary of external forces who have interests in the country. Pakistan, especially, but India, Iran and China too. Each is a potentially destabilizing force, and the U.S. must do all it can to prevent their interference in Afghanistan's future - because it is not they whom will be paying the price for ten years of involvement. We are the ones who are footing the bill, both for helping to destroy the country, and hopefully to rebuild it. It is in both our and Afghanistan's interests to see that outside forces be kept in check.

And that's that. Of course, the devil is always in the details, but I think these are the fundamental issues that lay in wake of  the path forward. Much of this I have already echoed throughout my other blog posts, so I only present a concise description of what I feel are the most important goals in ending this war. I've learned a lot from this course, and even if my views are naive I feel I am far better informed about the war than most people my age as a result. Thanks for an enjoyable semester Professor Breyman.

Afghanistan: Recap

For my final two blog entries, I think I'll try to briefly sum up what I've learned throughout the semester about the history of Afghanistan, how things got to be as they are, and what the future may hold. It seems an appropriate way to bring a close to things, and at the same time do a little preparation for the final exam. This first one will consist of the events which have shaped Afghanistan and led up to the American invasion, and the second will be about what we can do to get ourselves out of this mess. I don't intend for this to be of research-paper quality or length, just an overview of what I feel is the most important things I've learned, and it should be said that going into this course I knew very little about Afghanistan or the war. With that said...

18th Century - 2001

Modern Afghanistan was born out of the imperialistic endeavors of the West, and competition between Russia and The British Empire during the 19th century. Afghanistan has long been a pit stop for rampaging conquerors, as it lies at the crossroads between China, India, Central Asia and the Middle East. It is Abdur Rahman Khan, the "Iron Amir" who is credited to having founded modern Afghanistan. He was the first leader who was able to consolidate his power and establish his authority over the fractured tribal lands into one nation state called Afghanistan. Following two previous wars involving Britain, and in his attempts to modernize his country he was also willing to accept British patronage in exchange for British control over Afghan foreign affairs.

The British sought to establish Afghanistan as sovereign nation - a buffer state to provide a cushion between Russian advances into Central Asia and the British territories of West Asia. With the Iron Amir in power, this was possible. In 1919, a third war broke out between Afghanistan and Britain, under the rule of Amanullah Khan, and Afghanistan regained control over it's foreign affairs. This was the end of British involvement in the country until almost eighty years later. Following a series of assassinations and infighting, Zahir Shah came to power in 1933 and reigned until 1973. During this time, the rising Soviet Union began to get involved with Afghanistan, and communism spread to Kabul. A communist party known as the PDPA rose to power, and over-threw Shah in 1973 and he was exiled.

The Soviet Union saw it in their interest to ensure a stable communist leadership in Afghanistan who had close ties to Moscow. In-fighting within the PDPA and a split in the party, however, did not fit with these interests. A bloody coup occured in 1978, which came to be known as the "Saur Revolution", and following a series of political assassinations and further in-fighting and struggle, Hazifullah Amin seized power in 1979. During all this time, the PDPA enforced sweeping reforms, outlawing Islamic laws and traditions, and caused enormous unrest throughout Afghanistan and resistance began to emerge. By the end of 1979, the Afghan government was on the verge of collapse, and the Soviets had had enough and decided to intervene and invaded in December of 1979.

Meanwhile in the west, the cold war was in full-swing, and America saw Afghanistan as an opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. They began funneling huge amounts of money to the Afghan resistance against the Soviets, which came to be known as the Mujaheddin, through Pakistan's ISI. It was during this time that the warlords began amassing power, fighters and resources, funded by the U.S. and with contributions from Saudi Arabia. After ten years of resistance by the Afghan Mujaheddin, and the with Soviet Union on the verge of collapse, Russia limped out of Afghanistan in 1989. However, the large supplies of weapons, the self-made militias of the warlords, and a fractured country remained. This lead to a civil war over who was to control Afghanistan.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran continued to fund various factions of their choosing, who fought amongst themselves for control over various regions of the country. In the mid 1990s, a new faction, formed by Mullah Omar and consisting of students from the Madrases of Kandahar emerged called the Taliban. They quickly began to gain the support and respect of the public, and soon the ISI began funding their campaign. Many men deserted their former units to join forces with the Taliban, who not only sought to represent the poor politically but also had strong religious foundations which resonated with many Afghans. In 1996, the Taliban gained control of Kabul, followed by many victories (and some defeats) throughout the country. At this time, the Northern Alliance was formed by Ahmad Massoud and Abdul Dotsum, who would continue fighting the Taliban for control over northern Afghanistan until the U.S. invasion in 2001.

As the Taliban seized control over much of the country, they began enforcing Sharia and stripped woman of almost all their rights. Toward the end of the 1990s, they also began to aid Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network Al-Qaeda, which established training camps in parts of Afghanistan. In 2001, Al-Qaeda launched the September 11th attacks on the U.S., which prompted the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to remove Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who the U.S. saw as partners in the attack. The Taliban quickly fell from power under the might of U.S. air power, and many retreated to Pakistan where they found relative safety. It was from here that the Taliban re-grouped and began their insurgency against the U.S. which continues to the present day. So that, in as few words as possible, is how we ended up in Afghanistan.

Continued in next post...

dates and names referenced from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

Relations with Pakistan

Pakistan is an important ally for the United States in the War in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a land locked country, and heavy supplies - too heavy to be brought in by air cargo ships - are brought by ship through Pakistani ports and carried by truck through the country and into Afghanistan. Pakistan shares a long and perforated boarder with Afghanistan, which allows the Taliban and other militants to easily cross between the two countries - which means Pakistan is an important battleground for the U.S.'s war in Afghanistan, and without the cooperation the Pakistan government who allow U.S. drone operations, the fight against the Taliban would be all the more difficult for the U.S. However, despite Pakistan being our "ally" and their complacency with the U.S. drone attacks, they continuously play a double game - often supporting the Taliban and other militants for their own purposes, and their secret spy agency the ISI's never ending cold war with India has put serious strain on U.S. relations with Pakistan as of late.

The first major problem this year began with the whole Raymond Davis debacle, the apparent CIA agent who killed two would-be robbers, who may have actually been ISI agents and was arrested by Pakistani officials. For several days this resulted in an almost complete breakdown in diplomatic relations between Washington and Islamabad, as neither side wanted to provoke outrage from their own people by caving to the others position. Now, less than six weeks after Davis's release, a team of Navy Seals conducts an operation in which Osama Bin Laden is killed - in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad. There had been some suspicion that the ISI was protecting Bin Laden, and finding him living in the same town as one of Pakistan's top military academies has essentially confirmed that suspicion. It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks what all of this means for U.S. - Pakistan relations, but I can't imagine things are going to go well.

It's understandable why Pakistan was protecting Osama, if you understand the ISI's obsession with India and Kashmir. Pakistan can not attack India directly, but they can support and encourage Islamic extremists to carry out terrorist attacks in Kashmir and continue to harass and fight a sort of proxy war with India. To this end, the ISI must maintain the trust of these extremists if it wishes to continue to use them as a convenient tool in this territorial dispute. So from this perspective, it was "necessary" to provide protection for Osama, despite the fact that Pakistan is supposedly an ally in the "War on Terror".

The United States so far has largely ignored the hypocrisy and double crosses of the ISI and Pakistani military, probably because they've been too valuable to us to do otherwise. However, with these recent events involving the killing of Osama Bin Laden, it may become more and more difficult for Washington to allow Pakistan so much leeway, especially if Obama wishes to maintain his new found mane. If it is Obama's intention to end this War sometime during his second term in office, then where does that leave U.S. - Pakistan relations in the future? When this war finally comes to an end, I think Pakistan will have to reap what it has sown during the past ten years, and I highly suspect that Washington will want very little to do with the country once we no longer have a use for them.

There is, however, the question of what Pakistan's role in a future Afghanistan will be. It would be convenient for the U.S. to have an ally in the region who shares a common set of goals to help manage the re-building of Afghanistan and the transition to a stable and self-sufficient government. Unfortunate, that ally is not Pakistan. It seems to me that it is in fact in Pakistan's interest to maintain a weak and dependent Afghanistan for as long as possible, and to continue to exploit the fact that the U.S. needs a way to move supplies into the country, and that the Taliban use Pakistan as a save haven. When the war inevitably ends though, what leverage does Pakistan have left, and for what reason would the U.S. continue to put up with their shenanigans? To me, it seems that this current "friendship" with Pakistan is one which is not made to last, and as time goes on I can foresee some serious conflict of interests between the two countries - especially as India becomes more and more important in the world.

If Pakistan were smart, they would realize that their actions, motivated by India and the Kashmir dispute, are putting them at serious risk of losing this current friendship with the U.S., and frankly in the coming years I think it will become apparent that as the Pakistani economy continues to stagnant and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan begins to gain strength, that Pakistan will need the U.S. much more than the U.S. will need Pakistan. It is a very dangerous game they are playing.

Assassination

Yes - three blog posts in a row related to the death of Osama Bin Laden, but seeing as every news outlet on the internet is filled with stories about this, I don't think I'm alone in fixating on the topic, and after all it's only been three days. This time I'd like to touch on the actual intent of the raid which occurred on Sunday. Recent information has emerged that Osama Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot dead, and that its possible there was never any intention of taking him alive.

The original story went that Osama "resisted arrest", and I suppose most people assumed that this involved some kind of shoot-out. New information reveals, however, that he was not in fact armed and supposedly was in bed when he was killed (possibly resigned to his fate?). This makes me wonder if he was intentionally assassinated, or if some Navy Seal just couldn't resist being the guy who fired the shot that got America's most hated enemy. The latter seems like a perfectly plausible explanation, but I would like to think that the most elite of the elite would have a little more self-control and training than that. It seems if the goal was to take him alive if possible, they may have used a bit more discretion. So I also think it's very plausible there was no intention of capturing him, and I can think of several good reasons for wanting to just take him out.

If we had captured him alive, then we'd have to place him on trial, this is something we talked about in class a few weeks back, and there would be some serious issues with a legal case of that magnitude. The first, obviously, would be security. Any courthouse in any public setting would be an instant target for any kind of terrorist attack - especially with the Sheik housed inside. That, coupled with the fact that these sorts of trials take months, if not years, would be that there would need to be a huge amount of resources devoted to providing adequate security, managing the crowds, and dealing with the general pandemonium such a spectacle would cause.

Beyond the logistics though, there are still serious legal issues involved. Firstly, one could easily argue that it is impossible to give Osama a fair trial in this country - something which is required by law. Also, despite the presumption of his guilt by all, it may be difficult to actually tie him directly to the attacks of 9/11, or any of the other attacks for which he is accused, in any kind of legally rigorous way.  Certainly he could be tried, but would it be anything more than a mock trial, a spectacle for the gawking media and public? If we wish to uphold the integrity of the legal system (that is not sarcasm) at all times, then it is seriously questionable whether it would be possible to try Osama in the United States.

In addition, I'm not sure that trying Osama would have had the same political effect. A lot of people feel that he didn't deserve a trial, and perhaps putting Osama on trial would have made Obama look like he was somehow going easy on the terrorists - the exact opposite of his intent with this. So it seems to me, from Obama's perspective, it made much more sense to simply kill him and avoid the headache of a trial.That being said, there are some questions which can be raised about outright killing Osama.

The first, is it actually legal to simply assassinate someone, even if they are a terrorist? Well in general no, using murder as a means of eliminating political opponents, enemies, or threats is in general illegal. However, one can easily make the case that Osama was in fact an enemy combatant, and this was a targeted strike - no different than the routine drone attacks which we conduct, and which are legal. So in that context, I think one could argue that this was a legal operation - regardless of whether we had Pakistan's consent or not. 

Another important question to ask is, what could we have learned from interrogating Osama? My opinion is probably not much - not without looking bad in the process. I do not think it would be easy to extract any real information from the man without the use of some serious torture, which just opens up a whole other can of worms, and even then it's not likely Osama personally had a great wealth of information about the outside activities of Al Qaeda in my opinion. In that sense, he was worth very little to us alive. What is significant, however, are the computers, storage devices and documents recovered from the compound - which will probably provide much more practical information than any interrogation could.

So all things considered, taking Osama alive probably been much more trouble than it would have been worth, and from Obamas point of view it was the smart move. I think this also helps eliminate some of the backlash that may have occurred with detaining him - months of protests erupting would lead to months of violence in an already violent part of the world, but if he's dead there isn't very much to protest about.

Osama Bin Laden pt. 2

I think this is important enough of an event to warrant a second post to sort out my thoughts on this. I'm still very surprised about the whole thing, though I am not surprised to see conspiracy theories abound on the internet. One of the main questions being asked  is why did the U.S. dispose of the body so quickly, and why has no photographs of the killing emerged yet - which are fair questions to ask. However, not only do I think it would be impossible to fake his death, but I think it would be political suicide for Obama. Further, what would be the motivation? Obama was under no real pressure to capture Osama, what he did feel, however, was that this was an enormous opportunity for him - and he was right.

There are two ways to fake someone's death - either to lie and say they're dead when they are really alive, or to lie and say you killed them, when they've really been dead all along. I think it's obvious the latter is impossible. We have audio recordings and videos of Osama from recent times which we can unmistakably identify as him - the frequency of such recordings may have decreased, but then again he has been in hiding for the past nine years... every time he releases such a recording he risks capture, so it makes sense that he would be forced to release such messages less and less frequently, which may give the false impression that he had been killed prior to the events of Sunday.

The are two other options, aside from the rational one that he really was killed by a U.S. operation - either he is still alive and in hiding, or he is still alive and in U.S. custody. If the first were true, why wouldn't he simply release a new video and expose the U.S. hoax? And more importantly, if the U.S. wasn't convinced he was dead, or at least within their custody, why would they lie? But even holding Osama in custody to me seems too risky - the whole point, in my opinion, was to boost Obama's 2012 chances - why take the risk of being exposed and ruin your political career? It just doesn't make any sense to believe anything other than that Osama Bin Laden really was killed in Pakistan a few days ago.

But still, it is fair to ask why dispose of the body so hurriedly, and why no hard evidence of his death? To address the second part, it's likely that there is plenty of evidence, and I'm sure both video and pictures exist - however there may be reasons for not wanting to release them. Perhaps the conduct of the Navy Seals was not as appropriate as the government would have liked, perhaps the pictures are simply very gruesome and the U.S. fears inciting some emotional response amongst Muslims. That being said, it's also only been a few days - I'm sure in the future pictures, video, audio and eyewitnesses will surface, but these things generally take time.

So, it seems the final big question is why to dispose the body so quickly. The official answer had something to do with wanting to prevent any burial site from becoming a "terrorist shrine" and wanting to respect Islamic law regarding burial. I personally think this is reasonable, if one looks at it from Obama's perspective.

Really, what good could have come from giving a place for Islamist extremists to congregate and draw large crowds of people together? It's just a massacre waiting to happen. Further, bringing people together, which burying Osama certainly would have, only invites opportunity for those "fast talking Mullahs" to incite a riot or create chaos. The fact that he was buried quickly, in accordance to Islamic law I think was a very smart move. America got what it want, but did so without adding insult to injury for those in the Muslim world who saw Osama as a hero. It was the smart political choice, and perhaps a chance of changing a few minds in the Muslim world.

The alternative to burying him in Pakistan would have been to bring the body back to the U.S. - and that certainly could not have been good. I can only imagine the wild stories and outrage that would have followed, not to mention the media shitstorm that would have occurred here in the U.S. and throngs of people demanding his body be displayed. The whole thing could very easily have turned into a huge disaster - so why go through all of that, when you can just toss him in the ocean and everyone is happy, for the most part? I'm sure in time more and more details will surface regarding the whole event, but I think for once we can be fairly safe in laying down our guard, because I see no reason that Obama should be untruthful in all of this.

Osama Bin Laden

So here I was last night worrying about finding a topic to blog about, and then I heard the news - the CIA had killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan... talk about a relevant news story. I was pretty shocked personally, as I really didn't expect we'd ever find Osama after the miserable failure of the Bush administration. What wasn't surprising, however, was to hear he was living in Pakistan - an hours drive from Islamabad no less. I think it's fair to ask what this means for the War in Afghanistan, and the "War on Terror" in general.

First things first - I do not expect that this will have a huge impact on Al-Qaeda or terrorism in general. Certainly this is a big blow to the organization, but ultimately I don't think Osama has played as important of a role as he did in the past. In the past, Osama was directly involved with fund raising, planning attacks, and issuing propaganda and rhetoric to inspire volunteers to die for his distorted views of jihad and Islam. Since 2001, I think Osamas involvement in the organization has been severly limited as his sole priority has been to remain hidden and alive - which he managed to do for nine and a half years.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a short-lived rise in attacks as misguided young men are inspired by this "martyrdom", but ultimately these types of movements require a face and voice. Osama's face is certainly one which the world is safer without, but my feeling is that ultimately he will be easily replaced as a new generation of extremism is grown from the harsh, impoverished and desperate lives many in Central Asia and the Middle East live - and that is the real root of terrorism. Still, Osama was an influential man, and he is responsible for the violent deaths of thousands of people around the world. His death is a consolation to many, but my suspicion is that ultimately killing him will not do very much to end terrorist attacks throughout the world.

What this event is, more than anything, is an enormous political victory of Barrack Obama, and he may have brilliantly just ensured his re-election. One of the Republicans main points of attack on Obama has been that the implication that he is a Muslim sympathizer and that he is soft on terrorism. I think this is what helped Bush secure re-election in 2004, as 9/11 was fresh in people's minds and the ever present color coded terrorism threat weighed heavily on peoples decision. Obama has just shown that he was able to accomplish in three years what Bush failed to do in eight - kill the most hated terrorist in American history. This is a huge boost to Obamas credibility, both at home and overseas. At the same time, Obama has tactfully reminded the Muslim world that Al-Qaeda has murdered thousands of Muslims, and was clear that they should celebrate this as victory with the U.S. - a smart move.

This may also have implications for Afghanistan. To many Americans, the reason for invading Afghanistan was to get Osama Bin Laden and remove the safe-havens of Al-Qaeda, and now both of those tasks are complete. This could possibly be an "out" for Obama - a way to justify ending the war without looking weak in the process. No one can accuse him of  "cutting and running", and at the same time he can bring an increasingly unpopular war to an end. It's win-win for him. Now, as a student of this class I can recognize that there are far more important reasons for being in Afghanistan than getting Osama Bin Laden, but for the sake of Political Expediency, this may very well be the beginning of the end to this war - whether that is a good thing or not.

So, I think while Osama's death has made the world a little bit safer, ultimately the real significance here is not that the war on terror has been won, but the implications this has for Obama's presidential campaign and the U.S. policies in Central Asia in the years to come. I'd like to think this is a positive thing - a possible turning point - but I remain skeptical and as always, nothing is ever simple or easy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Exsanguinate

The logical argument goes that the War in Afghanistan will ultimately come to an end by means of some political settlement with the Taliban, and it seems like they, or at least some fraction of the network of groups which can be called the Taliban, are not close minded to having talks with the U.S. Suppose this changes though, and the Taliban decide it is in their own best interest to simply continue fighting the U.S. for however long it takes - what would this mean for America? Can American win this war if the Taliban refuses to surrender, and how much longer can we continue to pour our military resources into the region?

Since 2001 we've spent $400,000,000,000 in Afghanistan alone, and twice that in Iraq for a total bill of over one trillion dollars. With spending in Afghanistan on the rise, and no end to this war in sight, at what point do these wars begin to seriously affect the American economy, our spending power as a nation, and our influence in the world? Suppose some conflict were to arise somewhere that needed our attention - how weakened would the U.S. military be if they are quagmired in Central Asia? How well could we respond to a threat from, say, North Korea? It seems to me that by dragging out this war, the Taliban have very little to lose, and we have everything to lose. And yet, at this point we may be far too deep into this thing to simply leave like we did in Vietnam. I think the U.S. strategy right now should be to very seriously begin preparations to negotiate with the Taliban so some sensible end to this war can come - otherwise we may have realized we've bitten off far more than we can chew, and there's no hope of spitting it back out.

I see some major issues with simply cutting our losses and leaving Afghanistan. The first is that this will probably lead directly to another civil war, one which the Taliban would probably win unless we provided some serious resources to the Karzai government. The cynical and natural next question to ask would be - who cares? Well, I think we should care, for several reasons.

First, it simply makes the U.S. look bad. We've seriously damaged our reputation in the region, killed tens of thousands of people and lost thousands of American lives, spent hundreds of billions, and in the end we are defeated by a bunch of kids from Pakistan wielding AK-47s? I think just up and surrendering would be a big embarrassment for the U.S. military and would hurt our credibility with the rest of the world - especially with our allies who have also invested resources and people in this war. How would we look if we simply gave up and basically wasted ISAF's time for the past ten years?

Secondly, Central Asia is unstable enough as it is - and I think its in our interest to see that that things do not worsen. Another Afghan civil war can not be good for the region, or our interests. Further, a civil war opens the door the countries like China to begin extending their influence over the region - and that can lead to a whole other can of worms for the U.S. The real frightening possibility though, is that India may seek to try and fight some proxy war with Pakistan by supporting the Karzai government while the ISI will almost certainly be supporting the Taliban. This could very seriously lead to a real war with Pakistan - something that is definitely not what we want.

Afghanistan is just too important to let everything go to shit - and that is mostly because of who lives in its neighborhood. Central Asia sits at the crossroads of the main rising powers in the world - Russia, China and India, and Afghanistan is right at the heart of it all. We simply can not afford to pull out of the region, and yet it doesn't seem like we can defeat the Taliban. If, hypothetically speaking, they refuse to negotiate, what does that mean for the U.S.? To me, it means a very long and expensive commitment to re-building Afghanistan, and one which will require a significant increase in the amount of money spent on Nation building - including dramatically increased over-sight on how those funds are used to prevent a large portion of them being squandered by corruption and unscrupulous contractors.

At this point, we are simply too far into this thing in my belief, and there is no easy end in sight. I think Afghanistan will prove to be a wound that the U.S. will not recover from easily, and the worst may be yet to come. The Taliban can continue to bleed the U.S. for years, but how long can the U.S. continue to devote huge amounts of its resources to this small part of the world when there may be very serious conflicts to come in the future?