戦略や地政学の視点から国際政治や社会の動きを分析中


by masa_the_man
カレンダー
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28

ジョージ・ウィルの撤退論

アメリカの「渡部昇一」であるジョージ・ウィルもアフガニスタンは失敗だと言い始めました。

====

Time to Get Out of Afghanistan

By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 1, 2009

(中略)

The U.S. strategy is "clear, hold and build." Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.

Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country -- "control" is an elastic concept -- and " 'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime." Just 4,000 Marines are contesting control of Helmand province, which is the size of West Virginia. The New York Times reports a Helmand official saying he has only "police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for 'vacation.' " Afghanistan's $23 billion gross domestic product is the size of Boise's. Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development depends on security, and that security depends on development. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production for opium comes from Helmand. In what should be called Operation Sisyphus, U.S. officials are urging farmers to grow other crops. Endive, perhaps?

Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan's recent elections were called "crucial." To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against American "success," whatever that might mean. Creation of an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had one. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hopes for a "renewal of trust" of the Afghan people in the government, but the Economist describes President Hamid Karzai's government -- his vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker -- as so "inept, corrupt and predatory" that people sometimes yearn for restoration of the warlords, "who were less venal and less brutal than Mr. Karzai's lot."

Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan's "culture of poverty." But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, thinks jobs programs and local government services might entice many "accidental guerrillas" to leave the Taliban. But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment of al-Qaeda bases -- evidently there are none now -- must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?

U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered.

=====

「アメリカはオフショアのシーパワーである」ということを認める地政学的な発言をしております。状況的にダメなのは天才でなくてもわかる、だから撤退しろ、ということですね。

対暴動(COIN)の理論に対しても鋭いツッコミをしてます。いわく、「経済発展するためには安全保障がまず必要であり、安全保障にはまず経済発展が必要だ」と。つまりトートロジーになっているということですな(笑

さっそくこれに対して同紙上でクリストルが噛み付いてます。

その他にもワシントンポストのサイトでは四人の知識人による「アフガニスタンどうすりゃいい?」というテーマで討論が載ってました。
Commented by sdi at 2009-09-03 01:00 x
撤退した場合、リムランドのはずれ、中央アジアの臍のアフガニスタンをそのままパワーゲームの空白地帯でいるわけもない。アメリカ撤退はあの地域を欧米以外の勢力に明け渡すことと同義です。
私はアメリカが完全撤退したらEUもとっとてと逃げ出すと見ています。なぜなら、現状既にEU部隊は米軍にロジスティックを頼っていますから。それ故、撤退に反対する戦略家も多いのでしょう。
こんな状況下でもアフガンに自衛隊もしくはそれに準じる組織を派遣するつもりなのかね、闇将軍二代目は。
Commented by masa_the_man at 2009-09-03 21:07
sdiさんへ

>アメリカ撤退はあの地域を欧米以外の勢力に明け渡すことと同義です。

でも軍事的には何も解決できません。ジレンマですよね〜。

>私はアメリカが完全撤退したらEUもとっとてと逃げ出す

そういえばロシアはアメリカにロジスティクスを提供してますねぇ。

>こんな状況下でもアフガンに自衛隊もしくはそれに準じる組織を派遣するつもりなのかね、闇将軍二代目は。

リップサービスなのかも知れません。そういう意味で日本は意外と「ズルい奴らだ」と思われているかも知れません。コメントありがとうございました
by masa_the_man | 2009-09-01 22:29 | 日記 | Comments(2)