An Open Letter to President Obama About Afghanistan From William R. Polk

The Nation:

I was an early supporter of yours. So I hope you will accept the following analysis and proposals as being from a friend as well as a person with considerable experience on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In recent events I see an opportunity to accomplish American objectives while avoiding a course of action that could derail plans for your presidency, just as the Vietnam War ruined the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

Read the whole story: The Nation

Comments

[Radicalthinker]

07:24 AM on 11/12/2009

Unless we develop a comprehensive South Asia strategy, the most we can hope for is a temporary peace in Afghanistan.

What would such a strategy look like? Well, at the very least it requires some moderation of the strategic competition between India and Pakistan. Without attention to this aspect of the problem, we really are only playing around at the edges of the conflict.

For more, there's a good piece here: http://bit.ly/3vYHPk

[TOOO]

06:49 AM on 11/12/2009

Great article and letter. I hope the President sees it.

[Thermodynamics]

09:14 PM on 11/11/2009

A great article but ---

William Polk is discussing the political and ethnic realities of our engagement In Afghanistan as if they were matters of decisive importance. It would be more useful to discuss our motives for being there.

In other words, he is still lost in the cover stories about our our hugely expensive endeavor.

We are there to:
get oil and pipelines
prevent Russians and Chinese from getting oil and pipelines
use the drug trade to finance operations
and, because planners think that a unified Asia can rule the world, we have to control the crossroads of Asia.

Are the planners right? Should we fight for the oil and pipelines? Heroin is certainly unethical but maybe it is a necessary evil, etc.

[Chazmania]

08:14 PM on 11/11/2009

Fist off all wars are wrong in the fact that they cause suffering and loss of resources!
War is a children's crusade. anyone that thinks differently is apparently childish!
That said we find ourselves in this because of BUSH INC!
Obama should be getting out of there or making it CLEAR the objective!
And not lies! if its to secure the region say it! if its to secure resources SAY IT!
I am just so sic of the dishonesty and manipulations!

[Palemoon]

05:36 PM on 11/11/2009

Why are my comments disputing Mr. Polks claims being blocked?

[Palemoon]

05:35 PM on 11/11/2009

Mr. Polk makes some glaring errors in his letter. 1. Pashtuns are the majority in Afghanistan, not the minority. Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun, which is why he was initially chosen to be President, for example. 2. Trying to portray the Taliban as being less dangerous than they are. The Taliban is 100% Pashtun. 3. Trying to downplay the significance of the Pashtun in the affairs in the region when in fact the government and military in Pakistan are dominated by Pashtun which is the #2 group in Pakistan. The majority Punjabis are actually the oppressed group. 4. Mr. Polk asserts that it was the Taliban that tried to eradicate poppy. Not true, it flourished under their reign. It was the Northern Alliance that tried to eradicate poppy. 5. The contentious election we just had in Afghanistan was due to the fact that it came down along "Pashtun vs Everyone else" type voting. That's why the top 2 vote getters was a candidate who was Pashtun, and a candidate who represented everyone else (Abdullah).

[Nuyorican21]

11:22 AM on 11/13/2009

Most of his comments regarding historical insurgencies are still valid. The very fact that nobody will be able to dictate the future of Afghanistan with or without more troops remains. And responding risk with putting up more costs is Wall Street ideology, shouldn't be the one of our government.

[bluesmann]

03:42 PM on 11/11/2009

Say "we won", and leave..

[Chazmania]

08:08 PM on 11/11/2009

HA like old bushy!

[dsws]

12:49 PM on 11/11/2009

"There are many reasons for Pakistan's problems, but one stands out: it is an amalgam of ethnic/cultural nations. ... The Pashtuns wanted to form an independent nation-state in 1947 but were prevented from doing so."

Nationalism is completely irreconcilable. If one ethnicity has control of a sovereign government with with jurisdiction over all the area where significant numbers of people of that ethnicity live, then ipso facto all other ethnicities in the area don't. Woodrow Wilson has a lot to answer for, with his promotion of a supposed right to "national self-determination".

If we want to help bring lasting peace to Kurdistan, Baluchistan, Palestine, and so on, the best we can do is to seek to develop ideas as powerful as nationalism but more conducive to peace. No more nation-building -- anywhere, ever. No more nation-states. Build something better instead, like a world with justice, legitimate government (which isn't the same as the trappings of democracy), and rule of law rather than arbitrary exercise of power.

[mcantwell]

10:56 AM on 11/11/2009

This Open Letter is by far the best article on HP. President Obama needs to give more people, like this author William Polk, a seat at the table in the WH. The Neo-cons, the General's. and the MIC have only one goal and that is Perpetual War.

[december30]

11:12 AM on 11/11/2009

I totally disagree with you. If this was such a good thing, why didn't the writer send the Letter directly to the President. The writer is trying to make a name for himself and his organization. Please think before you agree to this type of message. Just think about. I tell you my dear, think for yourself. Open Letter, give me a break. LOL

[mcantwell]

11:26 AM on 11/11/2009

Your comment is laughable. You have a right to your own opinion, as do I. You say, "think for yourself", yet here you are attempting to convince me to see things from your perspective. Nice try but.......NO THANKS.

[nikki2009]

11:52 AM on 11/11/2009

I agree.. It is brilliantly written. I have often said on HP that we need to pull out of Afghanistan. We cannot fight in that terrain - or the causes. They are too many and too complex. We need to use the money we're spending there on building up our own country. However, this article has given me more insight into how disastrous the war is, and will continue to be.

Excellent article Mr. Polk!

[mcantwell]

12:04 PM on 11/11/2009

Absolutely! Fanned!

[MinasTirith]

07:39 PM on 11/11/2009

Those who refuse to learn the lessons from the past are doomed to repeat them...

Hauntingly appropriate.

And we are continuing to repeat them.

Expecting something different to come out of what is essentially the same approach anyone else has ever taken, (Spare me the subtleties of the fact that it is US, or that WE represent the 'Good Guys', as that was the view anyone else who invaded Afghanistan or any other nation, has always had) is the definition of insanity.

And I propose that any escalation of troops within Afghanistan in an effort to claim some kind of 'Victory' (Particularly when that concept has eluded us in all such attempted interventions in other nations) is utterly insane.

Brilliant letter. But it won't be read or taken to heart in any way. Generals (Who are the equivalent of Hammers in a room full of nails) will seek war because it is their business. And their misguided influence will be ruinous to our nation and its people, if Obama gives it any credence.

[myjoyy]

10:37 AM on 11/11/2009

For those who voted for Obama, why are some either upset or surprised that he’s continuing the war in Afghanistan? One of Obama’s campaign promises was he would send “at least” two additional brigades. I read that the number of troops in a brigade’s between 3000 and 6000. Using the largest number, we’re looking at 12000. According to reports an additional 40000 troops are expected be deployed. My question: is it the number of troops scheduled to go, the fact that Obama has decided to send them, or you just didn’t believe him or ignored what he promised? For those who say he’s sending too many, remember he said “at least”, not, “only” two brigades. Some say people voted for Obama because he promised change. Before the votes were cast was the cost of change considered? Some said that votes were cast for Obama along identity lines. For those people remember, it’s always best to identify the issues and platform that the candidate supports to ensure they’re in line with your ideals/expectations. Then others have indicated that this POTUS was elected because of the hype. If hype won the election, I understand more why liquor stores are closed on election day – hype and drunkenness could render a fate worse than Bush/Cheney. When you know you’ve done your best to research and get to know your candidate, even when some promises/expectations haven’t transpired, you can still be jobless in TX (since 2008) and sleep at night

[Ergon]

04:38 PM on 11/11/2009

It isn't about who voted for or did not vote for the president. They didn't vote FOR the war, they voted because they thought he WASN'T Bush.
And now that the war is clearly, unwinnable, where is the candidate who said he wouldn't engage in a war without a clearly thought out plan?

[myjoyy]

11:19 AM on 11/12/2009

Since no decision has been made yet, obviously still planning.

[Nuyorican21]

11:30 AM on 11/13/2009

HYPE WINS ALL ELECTIONS. REAGAN HAD HYPE, HE WAS AN ACTOR. SCHWARZENAGER IS HYPE, HE'S IN OFFICE. HYPE IS POLITICS.

If intelligence, rationale and resumes won elections, Bush wouldn't have gotten reelected. Either way Obama was the better choice for the anti-war movement. If you're going to complain to Obama supporters about 'hype', get off the banwagon of every American politician, especially Joe the Plumber, Palin and Bachmann, none of which should be POTUS. At least Beck has something right, the government doesn't listen to the people.....we just like to think he's wrong about that for our own purposes.

.................i can't believe i said i agree with Beck......I have to go wash myself now.......

[myjoyy]

12:53 PM on 11/13/2009

If you had actually read my comments, then you would have realized that I was referring to what another commenter said about “hype", not complaining about it. I hope you make sure you use a good anti-bacteria soap when you wash.

[Emerald1943]

10:10 AM on 11/11/2009

The bottom line....we cannot afford this war! Not in the precious treasure of our young men and women who will surely lose their lives for no advantage to our security, nor in the treasure of our people who cannot pay the dollars from our depleted funds.

They don't "hate us for our freedom"....they hate us because we are there! This letter makes that point perfectly clear.

Mr. President, please listen! Bring our troops home! Save the lives and save the money! If you should choose to continue in Afghanistan, your presidency will be a one-term of "Despair" in place of the "Hope" you gave us last year!

And even now, as I sit here, trying to express my feelings, the Pentagon is pushing and pushing for thousands more! Thousands of more troops...and BILLIONS of dollars...and many more years in that quagmire. Why do I have this feeling that no body is listening to the American people???

[nirek]

10:20 AM on 11/11/2009

Thank you for the exceptional post! This letter and your post are right on the money. Everything you said I agree with and the open letter is very well written.

I fan you for the fine comments.

Nirek, Vietnam 1969, 25th Infantry and my best to all our Vets today and every day.

[MinasTirith]

07:43 PM on 11/11/2009

They won't listen until China pulls the plug on our war allowance and stops lending to us.

They will bankrupt the nation if they think it means 'saving face' or 'winning' or whatever word they want to wrap around it or disguise it with.

If they win, we as a people... as a nation, will lose in the long run.

[VOTER]

10:00 AM on 11/11/2009

Last week Canada's PM announced 2011 as the Withdrawal Date for Canada's 2,500 soldiers
in Afghanistan.

Today, Veteran's Day, is the perfect day to announce the date
for the USA's withdrawal from Afghanistan.

IT IS TIME!

[whitehawk]

09:50 AM on 11/11/2009

Pearl Harbor LIE; The government of the USA had no idea that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor. TRUTH; President Roosevelt's administration had prior knowledge of a 'planned' attack and used it as justification to enter the War.

D-Day; The Allies needed to open up a second front to help the Soviet Union defeat the Nazis. TRUTH: The Allies needed to invade France to ensure that they were able to reach Germany before Soviet troops got there!

Vietnam LIE; The North Vietnamese began the Vietnam War by attacking U.S. forces in South Vietnam. TRUTH; An over-eager sonar man was a bit too jumpy!! President Nixon quote.....Ïf in order to avoid further communist expansion in Asia and particularily in Indo-China, if in order to avoid it we must take the risk by putting American boys in, I believe that the executive branch of the government has to take the politically unpopular position of facing up to it and doing it, and I personally would support such a decision"........Richard M. Nixon................

Assumption is the mother of a screw-up. As with Iraq and Afghanistan, the gulf of Tonkin incident led directly to the Vietnam War, perhaps America's biggest foreign policy blunder. In Vietnam, 3 million people were killed and at least one million Laotians and Cambodians also died.

Shameful display of a Superpower, this also is demonstrated the middle east today, same blunders, zealous generals, idiotic ego's. Shameful 'Lest we Forget',.

[MinasTirith]

07:47 PM on 11/11/2009

We will repeat our foreign policy blunders ad nauseum.

We do not 'learn' from our mistakes... because there's always someone new to say that this time will be 'different'.

While they try out their latest demonstration of insanity and develop their new 'strategy', we as a country suffer during their experimentation.

It is actually a very typical American response... There's nothing a few big guns and some cool technology can't fix if given an unlimited budget, willing bodies to squander wielding it, and unlimited time in which to do so.

[HamletsMill]

09:45 AM on 11/11/2009

Excellent article. These are now the three best MUST READ articles on Afghanistan that have eappeared on HP:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gilles-dorronsoro/who-are-the-taliban_b_335592.html

http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/AFGHAN%20CONFLICT/TALIBAN/intro_kakar.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/an-open-letter-to-preside_0_n_353355.html

Anyone who thinks raw U.S. military force can defeat a Pashtun insurgency in Afghanistan functioning in the tribal code of the 7th Century is completely deluded. Hasn't anyone thought this out over eight years? Anybody at the Think Tanks? Anybody at West Point? Has anyone ever heard of Alexander the Great and what he ran into in those fierce mountains? They are just starting to think about the situation now? I have it direct from people there on the ground for many years that the war was lost in 2005-2006 when the drug trade money began to corrupt the entire country. The situation is much more complex now because of that draconian Rubicon moment. The current situation requires detailed, very nuanced knowledge of those ping pong balls in his analogy. We do not have that kind of nuance in our ham fisted military, ham fisted state department, or ham fisted system of government in general. We will now be seen as the ancient foreign invader. It will cost us trillions of dollars and we will be "defeated" because the war is completely unwinnable in any military way.

[nirek]

10:21 AM on 11/11/2009

Another great post , thanks!

[DevonTexas]

09:42 AM on 11/11/2009

Very well stated! I hope it finds a readership in the White House.
I would really hate for this to be Obama's Viet Nam. He seems to have a grasp of this eventuality but the forces in the Pentagon and DOD might be influencing him to stay in that sand pit and keep digging.