First, before we get to the main course, a small appetizer (yes, that’s sarcasm) from “Over There.”
KABUL, Oct 8–A car bomb exploded outside the Indian embassy and the Afghan Interior Ministry in the capital Thursday morning, killing at least 12 people and destroying offices and cars along a heavily fortified street, Afghan officials said. […]
[A] 2008 attack on the Indian embassy was also linked to the Taliban, and to individual members of the Pakistani intelligence agency who allegedly provided key logistical support. Pakistan is a longtime rival of India, but {indian Embassy Spokesperson] Prasad avoided drawing any immediate conclusions about whether Pakistani militants or intelligence agents may have helped orchestrated Thursday’s blast. […]
At least 18 of the injured people went to the Ali Abad hospital nearby, according to doctors. Golam Sakhih, 46, a gardener at a hotel near the bomb site, was hit by shards of glass on his leg.
“Every year, year by year, security is getting worse in Kabul,” he said.
And as security gets worse, we are informed that President Obama has to choose between two separate options. Guess what those are. Let me give you a hint. Leaving is not considered an option:
His military commanders on the ground, led by General Stanley McChrystal and the head of the US Central Command (Centcom), General David Petraeus, are reportedly urging Obama to increase the number of troops deployed to Afghanistan from the current 68,000 to over 100,000 as part of a comprehensive “counter-insurgency” (COIN) strategy.
That’s option number 1, otherwise known by the word our media can’t seem to find in their vocabulary: escalation. Probably because “escalation” picked up some negative connotations from the Vietnam war. Of course, they could also call it a “surge” but I guess, no one is too keen on using that term either. So instead we get this wonderful new acronym “COIN” which ironically enough is just what we’d have to spend a great deal of to “up the ante’ in Afghanistan. Odd that they should be asking for a total of 100,000 troops, roughly the same number the former Soviet Union used during its failed experiment in “nation building” back in its lost decade of the 1980’s. Everyone gives Reagan all the credit for winning the Cold War. I, on the other hand, think perhaps we should recognize the role Afghanistan played in helping to destroy the Iron Curtain. Just as Vietnam helped grind our economy to a screeching halt, the cost of trying to subdue the Afghans and turn them into a pliable Marxist state, placed a similar drag on the Soviet Union’s economy at a time when it was already in a very fragile state. I guess the mistakes one empire made there are not considered terribly instructive by our empire’s leaders. Or maybe they just hate America and want to see it fail.
So, what’s the second option? More of the same, i.e., the status quo:
President Joseph Biden, are urging a less ambitious “counter-terrorism” (CT) strategy that would maintain US troop strength at current levels while stepping up Predator drone strikes and special forces operations targeted at key Taliban leaders and their al-Qaeda allies both in Afghanistan and in their safe havens in neighboring Pakistan.
More robot drones or more human cannon fodder? Those are the only choices? Even former “liberal hawks” such as our good friend (code for useful Bush idiot) Michael O’Hanlon are setting off alarm bells regarding the war against the Taliban because (just like the former Soviet union again) our principal ally is a corrupt government under Hamid Karzai based in Kabul which we installed and continue to prop up, despite the recent evidence of fraudulent elections which, to date, have allowed Karzai to remain in power:
“If there’s any one lesson from Vietnam we should remember, it’s that we need a viable indigenous partner,” he warned during a recent talk to a neo-conservative group that strongly supports a major escalation. “We can do everything right, and if our partner doesn’t do its part, we’re not going to succeed.”
The article in the Asia Times by Jim Lobe which I’m quoting from, by the way, is titled “Heads or tails, Obama loses” as if this is a lose-lose coin flip game (pun intended). Secretary of State Clinton is for going “all in” on COIN, Biden, as noted, wants to check, and Defense Secretary Gates allegedly has yet to place a bet. Yet, if Obama is a loser no matter what he does, I have a new option for him to consider: Just Get Out. Before it’s too late. Before more of our troops are killed or maimed. Before more of our ever less valuable dollars are wasted on a war we can’t win. Britain learned in the 19th century that fighting over Afghanistan was a losing proposition. Russia discovered the same thing in the late 20th Century. And after nine years of trying to create a “stable, Pro-American democracy” in that forlorn country, maybe we should do what they did. Admit that military occupation cannot effect change in that vast mountainous region beset by tribal conflicts and a fierce hatred of foreign invaders. What makes us think we can succeed where every other Empire on earth has foundered?
Only sheer hubris, people. The hubris of generals like Petraeus and McChyrstal who don’t want to become the next William Westmoreland. The hubris of neoconservatives who never saw a foreign war they didn’t like, if only for the bump it gives to the stock prices of their buddies in the defense industry. The hubris of the so-called public intellectuals, such as David Brooks at the liberally biased New York Times who have never had to put their own skin in the game, but are more than willing to sacrifice the lives of others based on their claimed ability to predict the future:
“A Taliban conquest of Afghanistan would endanger the Pakistani regime at best, create a regional crisis for certain and lead to a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda at worst.”
Really David? And you are certain of this because of your superior skills at predicting the outcome of our other wars of choice, like the ones you made regarding our misadventures in Iraq for which you acted as the NYT’s cheerleader-in-chief for President Bush? I should trust your judgment?
History teaches us many things. One of those lessons is that political leaders never seem to learn the lessons of history. When push comes to shove they make the same mistakes as their predecessors in the false belief that this time things will work out differently. For anyone who thought Obama was going to change the workings of our Military-Industrial-Political Complex, sorry to disillusion you. For those of you who knew this was not part of the change he would bring, congratulations (sort of). Not that anyone has anything to celebrate right now, regardless of what you expected last year from a President Obama regarding our foreign wars. For in the end, all of us will continue to suffer the consequences of the decisions of our nation’s elites and their delusions of grandeur otherwise known as “American Exceptionalism.” The Romans thought they were exceptional too. Now all they have to remind themselves of their “glory days” are a bunch of crumbling ruins. It seems we are headed down that same road, but in a rocket car this time, not a chariot. I’m sure it will make for one helluva crash.
Let’s assume that getting out, as soon as possible, is the best option, and even assume that Obama agrees.
He’s got a big political problem, though, which I would frame this way:
In view of his campaign promises – not to mention our checkered history from Vietnam through Iraq and a GOP ready to pounce – what is the best way to transition to that position?
At the outset, I don’t think it’s reasonable to answer either with: (1) public already wants a full withdrawal; or (2) to hell with public opinion, he’s the president.
Politics do matter. I believe Obama is keenly aware of the need to persuade the public that withdrawal is right. And I don’t mean this solely in terms of elections. Rather, I mean it terms of advancing peaceful, progressive foreign policy. Obama needs to sell withdrawal in order to ensure that the public does not suckered into supporting future misadventures abroad.
So, I repeat my question: how does Obama get the country to the point of understanding that total withdrawal is best? I don’t know, but I think it begins with communicating that he has thoughtfully considered and rejected other options. Part of that process might, ironically, entail a temporary surge, just to demonstrate that a permanent presence is unworkable.
Maybe in the end, the best that he can do is redefining “winning.”
Here’s what I wish Obama should say:
*****
Like many Americans, I believed going into Afghanistan in 2001 was the right thing to do. In 2001, that war had a legitimate purpose: to defeat al Qaeda and capture or kill bin Laden. And shortly after that war began, al Qaeda was on the run, and bin Laden himself was cornered at Tora Bora.
However, thanks to former Secretary Rumsfeld’s disastrously short-sighted war-on-the-cheap outsourcing scheme, bin Laden was able to pay off the non-US forces surrounding Tora Bora and escape to Pakistan. Now, eight years later, we’re mired in a nation-building exercise that nobody but defense contractors benefit from and that we, frankly, can no longer afford.
The former Soviet Union tried to pacify Afghanistan with 100K troops. It didn’t work. Empires have attempted to subdue that region since Alexander the Great. All have failed. But even if we could successfully occupy Afghanistan — with the billions in funds and countless deaths and casualties it would require — it wouldn’t address the original legitimate purpose for being there in the first place: bin Laden isn’t there anymore, and al Qaeda now bases its operations in a nuclear-armed neighboring state that is our “ally” and in dozens of other sites around the globe, perhaps even in our own country.
So what are our options in Afghanistan? Well, General McChrystal believes 40K more troops would allow us to protect the civilian population sufficiently to launch a counterinsurgency campaign similar to that currently winding down in Iraq. But you know what enabled us to reduce the chaos in Iraq? Making peace with the Sunni insurgents — the very people who allied themselves with al Qaeda after our ill-conceived invasion of Iraq.
Do we want to station 40K additional troops in Afghanistan with the goal of making peace with the Taliban to stabilize the country? Is it worth it?
Another option is a smaller influx of troops. But it’s difficult to see what effect that would have other than to continue the status quo. Can we afford to keep expending blood and treasure to maintain the stalemate? Is it worth it?
I think the answer is no. And I believe the only reasonable course of action is a withdrawal. Now, I know my friends on the Republican side of the aisle and their official media organs will characterize this move as “cut and run.” But remember who was in charge when the legitimate aims of that conflict were in sight and our chance at securing them slipped away.
“Winning” in Afghanistan requires us to either commit ourselves to an all-out nation-building exercise that we cannot afford and which has little chance of success and unclear benefits. Or we can prop up the status quo to save face. But while we’re metaphorically saving face, our finest young citizens will be literally losing their lives.
As my good friend John Kerry once asked a congressional committee decades ago, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
Sadly, we find ourselves in another era in which that question is starkly relevant. Maybe going into Afghanistan wasn’t a mistake in 2001, but the ends we pursued are no longer within our grasp. I will leave it to history to assign blame for that. But I say we don’t ask another soldier to die for what has become a mistake. I say we bring our troops home now.
******
There, I wrote his speech for him and everything.
.
You cannot discuss Afghan policy without regard to Pakistan foreign policy, its military, intelligence and tribal areas.
The draft metrics devised by the Obama administration to evaluate progress in the AfPak theater, while providing a useful list of issues to follow, analyze and gauge the developing situation in Afghanistan, leaves much to be desired in its treatment of the Pakistan side of things. The informed and constructive analysis of said metrics by Steve Coll and Katherine Tiedemann in this forum are must reads to understand the context of this discussion. I almost entirely agree with their assessments but believe that a few additional lacunas in the document must be addressed. Of course, not having access to the `classified annex’ (regarding Objective 1: disruption and degradation of terrorist networks and their capability in Afghanistan and Pakistan) limits one’s ability to grade the overall effort (if you may)!
It is quite striking that framers of the metrics have avoided the merest mention of Pakistan-India relations as a factor in understanding which way the wind is blowing in Pakistan’s security environment. While the Obama administration has every right to wish that Pakistan delink its rivalry with India in the Kashmir region from its policy towards Afghanistan (and consequently in Federally Administered Tribal Areas), one cannot ignore the prevailing ground realities.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."There is always going to be a segment of the country who will call Obama a traitor or weak or a commie. That’s the slice of America who will oppose withdrawing from Afghanistan. From what I gather among my contacts in Wacko World that number does not even equal the number of people who, say, oppose health insurance against their own interests. That is, except as another topic to bash Obama with, even a very big portion of right-wing wackjobs don’t like Afghanistan.
Walk into any store or coffee shop or cafe and ask if they’d rather have healthcare/a balanced budget/more jobs or another ten years in Afghanistan and you can guess the answer. I grew up during the insanity of support for the Vietnam war and believe me, even at the height of support for this war it was never like the lockstep true belief and support for Vietnam. There’s just not a big base of support for it. And the whole idea of “We have to control them so they don’t hijack our planes!” isn’t selling very well anymore.
The true constituency (and I’m not counting the whore cheerleaders in the media who love these wars) are the military and Big Oil. They are the ones who have the power over the President and the Congress to continue this, and they are the ones who will continue this mess. And they still want to construct that pipeline across Afghanistan, just like they’ve wanted to for decades.
It’s hard for the actual supporters of this war to reveal themselves or to actually admit to the real reason for the war so they have to rely on bizarre theories like hunting the ghost of bin Laden or bringing democracy and women’s rights by fixing elections and bombing weddings.
By the way, “counterinsurgency” translates to “Phoenix Program”. More civilian casualties, more torture. The calculus is that more people will fear our military than will be able to act out against the corporate economic interests.
You have to check out the Frontline documentary, “Obama’s War”. A preview is available now and the real deal airs on the 13th. Hard to miss the adverts.
One interesting scene: as part of the COIN strategy, a marine is talking to villagers/farmers to convince them to go back to a local market the Taliban had forbidden these people from going to. The marine was getting angry because the people wouldn’t agree to go to the market and wouldn’t give him good intel on the Taliban and a villager said, and I paraphrase:
“we are just simple farmers, we have nothing. You have big guns, tanks, and planes. I don’t even have a sword. If you can’t defeat the Taliban how do you expect us to do it?”
Needless to say the locals seemed to have no interest in ratting out the Taliban or to go to this new market which the Americans were supposedly providing security for. Makes one realize how all this COIN talk may sound good but doesn’t really translate on the ground.
Bob in P, sounds right to me. My concern is that Obama wants to “win” a la Nixon with George C. Scott’s speech at the beginning of Patton.
Obama may want to rehabilitate the Democratic Patry’s image vis a vis winning wars. He campaigned on Afghanistan being the right war and Iraq being the wrong one.
Over at Pat Lang’s place is this piece by FB Ali: A Plague of Crooks and Fools I strongly recommend it.
To quote Han Solo, “I got a bad feeling about this.”
Okay, so how DO we keep Pakistan’s nukes secured?
Engaging in a covert/not-so-covert drone war on the Pakistani people is probably not the best way to convince them to do what you want them to do. Also, most people do not like it when their government becomes a puppet of a foreign country and lets its people get bombed because the government receives money and arms from this great power.
How do you win a population over to your position by bombing them but refusing to officially admit you are doing it? And talk about legal problems–what give us the right to bomb Pakistan??? Because Obama and McCain agreed to make this public so now it’s acceptable for America to have secret border wars? Has this country thrown out all legal rules of war? Can our military now just drop bombs in Sudan, Somalia, in Pakistan, or sniper-assassinate anyone they want on the high seas? This would be like McGovern and Nixon agreeing to just come out declare that bombing Cambodia is acceptable without any declaration of war and then the media and all of America not even considering the legalities and just accepting one war bleeding into another with the thinnest of legal justification. . . . how quaint that all seems now.
And if the goal is really to “secure” Pakistan’s nukes . . . then maybe Obama should act on his fake promises to employ a consistent legal regime to all state actors . . . which he recently REAFFIRMED and made a nice speechy speech about ridding the world of nukes (what a fraud) . . . . and that legal regime is called the Non Proliferation Treaty.
So if America was serious, if Obama’s recent speech was serious, we/he should insist all rogue nuclear nations sign the NPT or face sanctions.
Only problem is that Israel would have to be treated like Pakistan and North Korea and it’s better if we pretend that Iran is the only country that is not following the law of non proliferation.
What a joke.
.
Pakistan recorded the most striking drop: In 2004, 41 percent of respondents justified suicide terrorism, whereas the number recorded this year was five percent. Terrorism has surged in Pakistan since 2007, and this year alone, at least 750 people had been killed and 2,276 injured in 365 bombings inside Pakistan as of the end of August, according to figures compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal in New Delhi.
The Pew survey also found although majorities in Nigeria (54 percent) and the Palestinian territories (52 percent) expressed “confidence in the al Qaeda leader [Osama bin Laden] to do the right thing regarding world affairs.”
Confidence in Obama Lifts U.S. Image Around WorldIn the other countries surveyed, the Saudi terrorist enjoyed the backing of 28 percent of respondents in Jordan, 25 percent in Indonesia, 23 percent in Egypt, 18 percent in Pakistan, 16 percent in Israel, four percent in Lebanon and two percent in Turkey.
The biggest drop in support for bin Laden was measured in Indonesia (down 34 points since 2003), Jordan (down 28 points) and Pakistan (down 28 points). The trend in Nigeria was in the opposite direction – up 10 points since 2003.
Brand Barack Obama USA Soars to #1
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."