Two Post pieces in recent days — “Syria accepts U.N. plan, but fighting persists” [March 28] and David Ignatius’s sensible March 29 op-ed column, “A soft landing for Syria?” — prompted the question: Why not a U.N. plan and a soft landing for Afghanistan, as well?
The first article reflected the Syrian government’s acceptance of “a U.N. plan to force a political solution to the bloody uprising engulfing the country,” as reported by special U.N. envoy Kofi Annan, with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “to work with Annan in an ‘inclusive, Syrian-led process’ to address the aspirations of the Syrian people.” According to Mr. Annan, China and Russia have agreed to back the plan. In his column, Mr. Ignatius wrote: “Maybe it’s time for Syrian revolutionaries to take ‘yes’ for an answer from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and back a U.N.-sponsored ‘managed transition’ of power there, rather than rolling on toward a civil war that will bring more death and destruction for the region.”
Substitute “Afghanistan” for “Syria” and “Afghan President Hamid Karzai” for “Assad” in both articles, and that looks like a plan.
Under U.N. auspices, call an international conference of all stakeholders to assist the Afghans. Call an immediate, U.N.-monitored cease-fire and get foreign troops out promptly. Be generous but vigilant in giving Afghanistan aid to help it pursue a peaceful route. Keep the conference in effect until there is consensus that, with guarantees from the foreign stakeholders and the United Nations, the Afghans have a fair prospect of making it on their own.
Christopher May, Silver Spring