A leak of over 90,000 internal documents seemingly confirms what many assume in the past few years- that the Afghanistan war is getting worse, not better. Among the negative events revealed in the papers - a secret U.S. task force dedicated to hunting down top Taliban commanders, attacks by Western allies that have killed hundreds of civilians and concrete signs of Pakistan "fueling" the Taliban insurgency, the latter being something that doesn't come as a surprise given the suspicions and strong criticism issued by the U.S. over the years. Read here for how the leak took place, a major event in itself.

The Atlantic's Robert D. Kaplan's latest piece is on the top American general in Afghanistan and why he thinks the country is still salvageable. Stanley McChrystal, a special forces commander who previously served in Iraq with an impressive record, seems to really believe in the possibility of victory, that accomplishing key objectives, such as holding on to areas "where the water and the roads are," and staying for the long-term, will help bring peace and defeat the Taliban. Kaplan, a renowned world affairs expert who has written many books on foreign nations including on Afghanistan and the famous essay The Coming Anarchy, writes some surprising things about Afghanistan, such as its coherent sense of nationalism and the desire of its people for modernity and stability. Not surprisingly, Afghan leader Hamid Karzai is described as weak and incompetent, allowing corruption to thrive due to his dependence on and empowerment of warlords. The article also shows the attempts by the U.S. military to boost the competency of the Afghan military through fostering U.S.-Afghan teamwork and letting the Afghans undertake operations for themselves (a novel concept, I'm sure).

It's fitting that while I've been dormant on this blog these past two months, tensions have become worse in Iraq, Afghanistan and even East Asia with signs of widening differences involving the U.S., Japan, China and East and Southeast Asia in general.

First, while fighting has continued in Afghanistan and the situation has become so serious that the U.S. military's top leadership is calling for more troops, Asia Times has a crazy article about foreign helicopters ferrying Taliban troops around. The reason: "According to Rahim Rahimi, a professor at Balkh University, America and the United Kingdom are trying to keep all of Afghanistan insecure, so that people feel the need for the foreign forces."

Meanwhile Iraq saw some massive blasts in Baghdad that have come after a relatively long period of relative calm.

With the announcement this past week of a new U.S. strategy on Afghanistan which involves sending 21,000 more troops, there's a feeling among some observers that Afghanistan is looking more like a futile cause, no longer the just war that was in contrast to Iraq. Some feel that there is no real possibility of success in Afghanistan, that things are too messed up that it's even turning into a Vietnam, ironically a comparison that used to be made of the Iraq occupation.
This NATO advisor/ social worker in Afghanistan thinks otherwise, providing a good overview of why setting the goals lower will hurt Afghanistan as well as the success of the U.S. mission.

The fact that the situation there is not very good isn't surprising because it's been worsening for a while, as others including British officers have warned that it could take many years, even decades to make that country stable. What is surprising, and unreasonable is when some will use this set of problems to justify ending the Afghanistan campaign because of these problems, even likening Obama to Bush.
One of the main reasons that Afghanistan is the way it is now is because it was never the focus of the U.S., given how soon it went into Iraq after ousting the Afghan Taliban regime in 2001, and the vast manpower and effort it poured into occupying Iraq while leaving just a few tens of thousands of troops to search for Osama back in Afghanistan. NATO and Canada, due to deficient manpower, equipment, expertise and national support, certainly couldn't deal with Afghanistan adequately as the U.S. hoped for.
Unfortunately time can't be turned back and the rash, impulsive actions of the Bush administration in rushing to invade two countries and succeeding in neither can't be quickly solved. It will be tough for Obama but he would do well to stick with a set strategy and think long-term and for the good of Afghanistan and not be too influenced by the whims of critics on both ideological sides at home.