Thread by @rumeliobserver

Going back to 2009 (!) debates „Can Intervention work?“ on 🇦🇫:

„the administration is that the way to achieve the counterterrorist objective, is through the building of a state and through a counterinsurgency campaign. I believe the problem with this theory lies in the fact …

… that neither of those two means are achievable. We are neither going to be able to defeat the Taliban through a counterinsurgency campaign, nor is the United States or its allies in a position to build a legitimate, effective, stabile Afghan state …

@CarloMasala1 @ulfposh

… What, then, should we do? I believe we should try to adopt
a much more modest position. The danger facing, I believe, the United States & the international community, at the moment, is that we’re going to lurch from troop increases to withdrawal, from engagement to isolation.

Our commitment, our will, and our resources are limited. Afghan his- tory suggests that the very worst thing you can do for a country like Afghanistan, is to attempt to go from electroshock therapy with huge amounts of resources one year to none the next year.“

A light footprint

More:

@RoryStewartUK 2009 Senate testimony: foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…

Can Intervention work?

Intro online:
books.google.com/books/about/Ca…

@dmarusic @Ce_Moll @D_Schwarzer @laurasilber @Michael40272889 @MichaelOThumann @MariamLau1 @Maximilian_Popp @Max_Fisher @W_Schmidt_ @nouripour

The case against liberal imperialism, so in fashion then, in 2009:

rorystewart.co.uk/rory-stewart-p…

Note: 🇦🇫 in 2009 did NOT pose a terrorist threat to the West - Bin Laden was in Pakistan. This was no justification for a doomed surge.

@Markus__Lanz @annewill @carlbildt @ClausKleber