Brzezinski: Obama Risks Getting "Bogged Down" In Afghanistan

President Obama's decision to deploy an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan has, as was expected, provoked concern among foreign policy observers skeptical of military escalation in that theater.

By deploying 12,000 combat soldiers and Marines and another 5,000 support troops, Obama is following through on a campaign promise that defined, in many ways, the foreign policy approach of his candidacy: a pledge to shift resources away from the misbegotten war towards the good fight.

But the dynamics and perception of America's mission in Afghanistan have changed drastically since the Democratic primary and even the general election. And over the past few weeks and months, a variety of respected voices in international affairs have cautioned against an accelerated military engagement.

"In a nutshell," former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Huffington Post. "We have to decide more precisely what is the objective of our involvement. Because we are increasingly running the risk of getting bogged down both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan in pursuit of objectives which we are lacking the power to reach ... The problem is the more we get involved in Afghanistan the more deeply we get involved in Pakistan as well. Hence we need very specific narrow objectives."

The Obama administration, it seems, was aware of the complexities that Brzezinski discussed when it crafted the Afghanistan proposal. The number of military personnel heading to the country is lower than the figures suggested by Gen. David McKiernan, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. And, as Spencer Ackerman notes at the Washington Independent, "Obama says that the troop increase does not "pre-determine" his ongoing strategy review." In other words: he won't let himself be tied down militarily if the nature of the mission demands alteration.

"This troop increase does not pre-determine the outcome of that strategic review," read a statement from Obama. "Instead, it will further enable our team to put together a comprehensive strategy that will employ all elements of our national power to fulfill achievable goals in Afghanistan."

As it stands now, Obama's progressive allies, who are most wary about Afghanistan, are supporting the president's plan. But not without the requisite amount of caution.

"I am encouraged by President Obama's focus on Afghanistan where the 9/11 attacks originated," read a statement from Sen. Russ Feingold. "But we need to make sure we have a strategy in place for Afghanistan that will actually work before we commit thousands more U.S. troops. A military escalation without a strategy to address the complex problems facing Afghanistan and the region could alienate the Afghan people and make it much more difficult to achieve our top national security goal of defeating al Qaeda."

Comments

[leonel]

The strategy so far is for the generals to flim-flam Obama. Decision-less decisions to keep getting deeper. Pretty soon, it's "we have too much at stake to leave." The idea to have a "strategy review" is not the answer, buying time but may unavoidable. Obama has to think through this issue as much as the banks. He needs to figure what it will be like when we are gone. This country from when-time-began will be helped or hindered by Pakistan, Russia, and Iran mostly. Obama cannot let the generals decide, it is a political solution. He knows, its just not easy. Afghan is supposed to have elections soon and that is in the air. So things may go one way or the other on this. Roller-coaster war.

[Martymar74]

I agree that Aghanistan is going to be nothing more than a show of false bravado by the BHO administration. But, I have never trusted Brezinski, Kissinger, Rahm Emanuel, or any of these other foreign-agent globalists who bring their old agendas into our policy development. They don't have American interests at heart and don't trust anything they say.

[vesaversa1]

This is the Pentagon Psyops campaign at it's best, president Obama need to retire a few generals who is leaking this type of information even before he could address it properly .

[lmvd3]

Mr. President, please immediately bring our troops home from Iraq AND Afghanistan. No more American lives, please.

[Dr Scott]

Afghanistan is no longer winable. We lost this one the minute we decided to go into Iraq. I was there in 2002. We really were greeted as liberators. And at that point, we were all hoping to invade Pakistan. I literally lost my mind when units began pulling out in July 2002 to go to Iraq. I sat down in the dirt and wept. I could not believe that our leaders were just throwing it all away. Afghanistan is the most primitive place I've ever seen. It would take a massive effort to bring them into the 19th Century. We will never get bin Laden. Bush screwed that up when he gave Musharraf a pass. Pakistan ALWAYS has harbored terrorists and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. The fact that we do nothing about it is a major failure of "The War On Terror."

[LeeCalif]

This is Obama's Vietnam.

[nanotubz]

psychic?

[gmlaster]

President Obama inherited the mess in Afghanistan. He can't just sit back and do nothing while American soldiers die there. We do run the risk of getting bogged down there, just like everyone who's ever gone to war there has done. It's a third-world shlthole that sucks down the treasury of every country that fights there, and we really don't have the money for any more protracted war-making. I hope that Obama just stays focused on scouring the country to get Bin Laden. Find him, separate him from his head and get our soldiers the hell out of there. It's Pakistan's problem after that.

On the whole, I think Dr. Brzezinski is right. He's a brilliant man and I've always admired him. So sad for him that his daughter is such an id-jit.

[TJCole]

Afghanistan is where empires go to die and we are dying, so I guess it's our turn...!

"The one thing history teaches, is that man learns nothing from history..!­"

[Samalabear]

For sure. This is one of the most frustrating things when you start studying history. You want to shake people and say don't you get it? We've been here before.

[S1m0n]

He's got a nerve. More than any other, Zbiggy is the man responsible for the mess in Afghanistan. He's the one who convinced Jimmy Carter back in the 70s to back the rebels attem[pting to overthrow the mildly socialist Afghan government of the day. Zbig's idea was that this would likely lure the russians in, to their cost.

Which is exactly what happened. Yes, the Soviet Union collapsed a few years later, but Afghanistan is STILL in a state of collapse and still killing americans 3 decades later. Take a bow, Zbig!

[Norge]

It is a sink hole and has been for every invading force in history. It is so obvious to see the end results
of the present situation. though it seems the lessons of history are the most difficult to learn and so often it seems those lessons are not wanted to be learned when it involves the Business of War.

[eminent]

it's true, he could be bogged down. Nobody has solved the maze of Afghanistan and who knows this? smoke 'em out

[suzyku]

I am getting very tired of "everyone" having an opinion, everyone criticizing whatever President Obama does and says! The left is mad, the right is mad, the centrists are mad, paul krugman whines and complains but offers nothing, the right whines and complains but has zero to offer, enough already! He's been in office for a month and done more good that we've seen in the last 8 years! He didn't create this bad economy, the repugs did, he didn't start the Iraq war, the repugs did, he now has to deal with the mess they created! He needs to get us out of Iraq as soon as possible and he needs to concentrate on the "real" war in Afghanistan, he has said, and I believe it's true, that the war won't be won without diplomacy. Give him a chance, have some patience! Be mad at the republicans and let them know we're mad at them, email them, call them, write them! They are hypocrites and the party of just say no to this President and to this country, they put themselves and their political ambitions first. We need to support President Obama!

[08timefortruth]

Well said!

[Samalabear]

We can't afford the lives and the billions it is costing. Insanity.

[lmvd3]

And in the meantime young Americans die in Iraq and Afghanistan. Easily said, Suzyku. As much as I admire our President, and appreciate the work he has already done, and as much as I might agree with most of what you say, President Obama needs to bring our troops home to safety now. Enough of Bush's war. I personally cannot be patient about this when military personnel are dying.

[vote-obama]

Brzezinski needs to stop speaking out of both sides of his mouth

[nanotubz]

He can't, he'd lose his tan from the camera lights.

[wm1066]

Sending in big heavy tanks wont work in this part of the world, the Soviets proved that. I think it should all be done from the air, tactical bombing. But we would need an air base and thats a problem. Why waste our soldiers on the ground when we should just bomb them. The taliban understands bombing, they have done enough of it on their own.

[bubbuh]

For the uninformed, Obama is implementing a plan he published almost a year ago.
http://easterncampaign.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/obamas-afghanistan-plan/
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, I hope he simplifies our goal to catching and killing binLaden, especially if we can not generate substantial(by that I mean at least 50% the armed forces in Afghanistan) support from other nations.