For the first time since 2001, according to polls, a majority of Americans believe that the war in Afghanistan is "not worth fighting." Fifty-seven percent of independents and nearly three-quarters of Democrats oppose the war — and overall, only 26 percent of Americans support the idea of adding more troops. Indeed, if Obama were to escalate the war, his only allies would be the Pentagon, Congressional Republicans, an ultraconservative think tank called the Foreign Policy Initiative, whose supporters include Karl Rove, Sarah Palin and a passel of neoconservatives and former aides to George W. Bush.
- R Dreyfuss, Rolling Stone Oct. 28
I was disappointed with our Nobel Peace Prize laureate's rhetoric during this week's Afghanistan speech (he plans to send in 30,000 more Marines for ~18 months, many straight from Iraq, which must be demoralizing for their families). NATO may add 5-10,000 troops too, but I am skeptical. He can argue that this course of action is the best choice of dismal options, and remind us that he inherited this conflict, but don't feed us the same tired War on Terror crap. Public opinion is majority against a troops surge, partially because Americans feel that Afghanistan is not "winnable", nor critical to our security anyway, and they're probably right. Even the worst-case scenario of a Talibanized Afghanistan is not like North Korea or Iran. The country is mostly illiterate, dirt poor, internally divided, and geographically isolated, like Somalia with poppies instead of pirates. They may export some petty criminals and terrorists from time to time, but their ability to do harm is greatly diminished vs. 2001.
Obama did not heed the protests of Congressional Dems, VP Biden, and Karl Eikenberry (US ambassador to Afghanistan and a retired general who served in Afghanistan from 2005-2007) in this decision. He caved to our rock star generals instead (McChrystal and Petraeus, the latter rumored to seek a run for political office, assuming we are successful in Afghanistan?). Eikenberry's protest is especially noteworthy since he was part of the McChrystal/Petraeus/Odierno clique from West Point, and Army chums place a premium on loyalty. But his experiences in-country have soured him to the possibility of working with the Karzai regime towards victory. I hope President Obama hasn't forgotten the man he was as Candidate Obama. I understand that he must represent the Office of the President now, respect the conservative mainstream, and placate Pentagon interests. But if JFK deferred to the hawks during the Cuban Missile Crisis, probably none of us would be here. Sometimes the bravest thing to do is not to fight.
Biden warned that the world will test a young, idealistic Obama the minute he assumes office, and maybe Obama wants to show the world that he is a tough war president too. Maybe he fears that weakness on Afghanistan will create an opening for the GOP in the 2010 midterms. But after 8 years of fumbling and violence in the Middle East, it's disrespectful to the American people and the people of the world for him to re-hash the same tired Bush arguments for prolonging and even escalating a frustrating war. Ironically, many of the arguments he made on the campaign trail against Bush's Iraq Surge could equally apply against him here. Change we can believe in?
First of all, we were NOT attacked on 9/11 from Afghanistan, and not a single hijacker was Afghan (or Iraqi). Osama and other Jihadists did receive sanctuary in Afghanistan from their days as fighters in the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. But the Taliban government under Mullah Omar had little inkling Al Qaeda was planning 9/11, and probably would have tried to stop them if they found out (because obviously it would trigger a Western invasion and the toppling of their fragile regime). Why do you think Sudan expelled Osama and even offered him gift-wrapped to Clinton? The old Taliban was more interested in retaining power than attacking America. Where did the 9/11 attacks come from then? First, it came from our oil rich "buddies" in the Persian Gulf - suicidal fanatics and rich financiers in Saudia Arabia, Yemen, etc. Second, it came from within. The 9/11 hijackers were granted entry into the US months prior to the attack, and learned to fly, evade authorities, and infiltrate airport security. You can't really get that training in the remote terrorist camps that Clinton bombed. Maybe at best the 9/11 terrorists learned basic combat tactics, explosives, and weapons training in Afghanistan - skills that were not pivotal in accomplishing the 9/11 attacks. But the panic and mania immediately following 9/11 allowed NATO to justify an Afghanistan invasion and Taliban coup to the UN, and the rest is history. So just because the war is sanctioned by the UN and 43 nations have contributed to the effort doesn't make it a righteous or necessary war (see Kosovo conflict).
And then Obama claimed that we can't allow the "same people" who perpetrated 9/11 to regain a foothold in Afghanistan to launch new attacks against us. The same people are not in Afghanistan now! Our initial special forces operations in Afghanistan in 2001 decimated much of Al Qaeda (some estimate up to 85%), and improved international surveillance has greatly reduced Al Qaeda's ability to travel, communicate, and obtain resources. By our Nat. Sec. Advisor's own admission, there are fewer than 100 "real Al Qaeda" inside Afghanistan (meaning Arabs directly connected to Osama's network and acting as his agents). Mullah Omar's Taliban no longer exists, and he is probably not even in country (same with Osama, who is quite ill by some accounts and only serves as a symbolic figure for terrorism). The "new Taliban" (or so we call them) are groups of Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks, or other dissident minority groups who are conducting an insurgency against foreign occupation and the Karzai regime, which is widely and accurately viewed as illegitimate and corrupt. Taliban means "students", as in those who have attended fundamentalist madrasas and subscribe to that form of Islamic doctrine. Most of the current "Taliban" have not even attended such schools (and are illiterate in fact), and they are definitely not unified and cohesive. Just as we lumped all communists together during the Cold War to our peril, we can't label everyone who is not friendly to the NATO presence as Taliban. At least Obama offered the olive branch to any Afghans willing to lay down their arms, but I am not sure how that offer will be received by the insurgents and Karzai.
Pakistan is a different and more delicate situation, so I will limit this discussion to Afghanistan. Clearly those nations' fates are intertwined, but does anyone really think that the Pakistani Taliban would be so belligerent today if we were not across the border in Afghanistan and killing Pakistanis with our drones (thereby undermining the Pakistani government that is supposedly critical to winning the War on Terror)? Whereas Al Qaeda ostensibly fight us because of who we are, the Taliban fight us because we are there. They have little interest in a global caliphate or the destruction of the West. They may not complain if those things happen, but they are not dedicated to achieving those goals. They fight because a foreign force is occupying their country (and a force with a history of imperialism, hostility, or at least disrespect to the Muslim world). So if we boost our military presence there, shouldn't we expect the insurgents to do the same? And let's remember that Bush/Obama already sent 21,000 new troops earlier this year to launch new offensives, and since then violence has only gotten worse and the Taliban have made shocking gains (they now "control" or roam freely in 15-25% of the country).
What will 30,000 more troops do for a rugged nation that is bigger than Iraq (both acreage and population, and a more diffuse rural population at that)? South Vietnam was a much smaller state, and the US had nearly 1M troops there, as well as 0.5-1M better trained and better equipped South Vietnamese forces. McChrystal's people want to copy as many successful Iraq techniques as possible, but the two wars are not interchangeable. As part of the "clear, hold, build" strategy, US forces will embed themselves with the local population to better protect them from insurgents. But many villages (especially in the volatile Helmand Province and Pashtun areas) do not want more Marines in their lives. They may not love the Taliban, but that doesn't mean they'll welcome us with open arms and offer aid (especially when collaboration with foreigners may provoke Taliban reprisals). It's not like the Iraqi Sunnis who were sometimes happy to have a US presence to prevent Shia takeover.
The hope is that we can train enough Afghan security personnel to assume ISAF's duties, so we can start our "victory withdrawal". Obama's plan is to train 400,000 more Afghans in the near future, which is a pipe dream. We probably couldn't even train 400,000 new American cops in a year. And as we've seen in Iraq, rapid recruitment of armed forces leaves us vulnerable to infiltration. Another problem is most Afghans don't trust the security forces, who often shake people down like thugs and are not trustworthy (or even participatory) in difficult combat situations. Plus it is quite challenging to develop a unified national army and police there, built from the remnants of the brutal Northern Alliance and local warlords. We have very little expertise in nation-building and peacekeeping in tribal/communal societies (see our great record in the Balkans and Africa). Afghanistan's forces are comprised of a dozen distinct ethnic groups, each of which is chiefly concerned with protecting its own population and probably won't risk themselves for anyone else (or may even be rivals with each other).
Obama is a young president and I'm sure a little awed or intimidated by the dashing senior brass at the Pentagon. He is not a pushover, but I think he is also very conflict and risk averse. He doesn't want the wars to overwhelm his other foreign and domestic policy initiatives. Generals always say they need more men/resources, and always believe that victory is not only possible, but assured, if they get what they need and we get out of their way. Heck, what manager doesn't ask for those things at work? In other words, the Pentagon's advice will always be biased, even if chickenhawks like Feith and Wolfowitz aren't directing traffic anymore. Our military leadership loves America and wants to keep us safe, but they are also arrogant and career-minded. Insurance companies resist health reform, so it should be expected that our generals resist withdrawal plans. Some hypothesize that McChrystal's force request was deliberately leaked early to the press to make it even harder for Obama to reject it. If Obama spurns the generals' request and Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, things will be very bad for him and his party. But the generals aren't car salesmen, and Obama and the American people shouldn't be shmoozed or pressured into buying an extended warranty and DVD entertainment system that we don't need.
I know we can't just pack up and abandon Afghanistan tomorrow, but after 8 years of spinning our wheels (at best), we really need to act with caution. If our objective is to stabilize and modernize Afghan society (the humanitarian mission that our NATO allies are more concerned with), as well as containing or hunting down those committed to international terrorism (the military mission that the US is more concerned with), then our actions should not destabilize the region or create new terrorists. I know I was pessimistic about the Iraq Surge and my fears did not really materialize, but most experts agree that Afghanistan is a much more difficult challenge. What is wrong with Biden's strategy of de-escalation? He believes that a surge would be counter-productive and we should actually reduce our footprint, shifting to surgical strikes against Al Qaeda and obvious Taliban targets. If we can't trust Karzai and we don't have the troops to really execute the Counterinsurgency Manual (and we don't), then what is the point of taking the McChrystal/Petraeus approach that will probably require a decade of more commitment to Afghanistan? Just because we're too ashamed of possible defeat?
To conclude, I was hoping Obama would declare a plan something like this (which also has a chance for success):
"My fellow Americans, fighting is not the only way, nor the preferred way, to defeat Al Qaeda and international terrorism. With UN backing, we invaded Afghanistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of 9/11 and those who protect them. While that objective still remains partially unresolved, we have gravely wounded Al Qaeda since then, and their ability to threaten our homeland, or even wire money to each other, is much reduced. For that, we all owe thanks to the Bush administration, our allies, and those in the armed forces and intelligence. It is true that Osama's inner circle roams fairly freely in the border region with Pakistan, and I am not happy about that. I pledge to constructively and respectfully work with the Pakistani government to address this problem. But as long as we maintain diligent surveillance, take good opportunities for surgical strikes with minimal civilian casualties, and support friendly military, economic, and democratic development in the region, I am confident that Bin Laden and his network pose minimal danger to us.
It is true that Taliban-like insurgents in Afghanistan threaten our allies in the Karzai government and our interests in the region. But unless we have a clear, quantifiable, plausible strategy and milestones for assessing and containing that threat, then it is not worth more American lives and resources to police a nation the size of Texas and as rugged as Alaska. Our armed forces are the toughest in the world, but they are stretched thin and not being used efficiently. By gradually and rationally drawing down US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan during my presidency, our men and women in uniform will be able to spend more time with their loved ones, receive improved training back home, and focus on small-scale counter-terrorism rather than state-scale counter-insurgency, which are two distinct missions. Withdrawing from a fight can also increase our security, because it will permit us to recuperate and be ready when the next serious fight emerges. We will still maintain a lean presence in Afghanistan to assist in the training of Afghan security forces, execute counter-terrorism operations, and aid the Karzai government to improve transparency, prosperity, the rule of law, and basic services to the Afghan people.
America is a great nation, but we have our limits and must respect the other peoples who share the planet with us. We cannot and probably should not intervene every time there is civil strife, and we should be aware that our extended military presence overseas may cause resentment and play into the hateful rhetoric of our enemies. Sometimes we must be humble and let other nations take the lead in attending to their affairs. Yes there will be delays and failures, but America did not become a global power overnight either. Let me be clear that we are not retreating like cowards or throwing our friends in the Middle East to the wolves. America will always be there when we are called upon and there is critical need, to friend and foe alike. While we may not be surging troops to Afghanistan, we will make a diplomatic and development surge. Under military protection and rigorous standards of accountability, we will greatly increase our aid projects. We will listen to our allies, deliver what they need, and offer our input while respecting their wishes. But our assistance is not unconditional and open-ended, and I will ensure that every taxpayer dollar spent on Afghanistan is an investment in real progress for the future, or it won't leave our shores. We can also defeat terror and extremism by being good global citizens and peacefully improving life in needy countries, so that the conditions which spawn hatred and violence never materialize. Thank you and good night."
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R912020900
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fact_check_obama_afghanistan
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30493567/the_generals_revolt
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2009/08/problems-with-our-afghanistan-approach.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=120346497
No comments:
Post a Comment