Keep Al Qaeda in Our Crosshairs

Today's 8th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks should refocus our sites to the unfinished business against Al Qaeda. As victims' names are read one by one and the sad, rain soaked faces of families who lost loved ones peer into Ground Zero, this most essential of national purposes warrants revisiting. Eight years after blasting apart the Taliban government in Kabul we are perilously distant from breaking the back of Al Qaeda and breaking the necks of its leaders.

Admittedly, Al Qaeda is no longer what it used to be before 9/11. And even if we captured Bin Laden, et al tomorrow, self-directed terrorists around the world have bought into his ideology and need no command ordering them to commit terrorism against us.

There is no reason to think that Al Qaeda cannot reconstitute itself if accorded the opportunity to do so.

Which brings me to U.S. goals in Afghanistan, of which there are essentially two:

1. Denying Al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan if the U.S. withdraws.
2. Preventing Afghanistan from collapsing into the hands of the Taliban which would likely destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Anyone professionally knowledgeable about the Afghan situation knows we are not fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan -- their leadership is not there but likely across the border in Pakistan or in Yemen, Somalia or wherever terrorists safely find refuge.

But the two goals are inexorably linked -- really two sides of the same coin.

In reality, our strategy in Afghanistan is focused on achieving Goal #2 as a precondition to achieving Goal#1 -- a task more difficult to sell to war-weary Americans, and far more challenging and costly to achieve because of what President Obama inherited from his predecessor.

Some critics of the Afghan campaign use Al Qaeda's absence in Afghanistan as an all-too-convenient rationale to urge a withdrawal from Afghanistan and acknowledge its historical destiny -- a nation forever ruled by warlords trafficking in opium.

Oh how so tantalizing for armchair generals to assert the two goals can be de-linked.

But the reality of the situation in South Asia provides us no easy way out. There are simply no shortcuts around the necessity of preventing Afghanistan from falling into Taliban hands if we are to prevent Al Qaeda from destabilizing Pakistan.

Thank you (again) President Bush for putting us in this terrible situation.

Recall that President Obama inherited a deteriorating mess in Afghanistan that from the Bush administration's perspective was, for over 5 years, little more than a side show while it focused on Iraq.

Conveniently subcontracting the future of Afghanistan to a weak and corrupt leader in the form of Hamid Karzai, and withdrawing the necessary military and intelligence assets and diverting them to Iraq, rather than maintainining the pressure on the Taliban is the pitiful legacy of the Bush administration's Afghan policy, which is why the worst vestiges of the extremist Taliban who are now resurgent.

There is a rising chorus of critics who have developed a collective case of amnesia about what happened in Afghanistan under Bush between 2003 and 2008. They have gone wobbly and want us to wage a war against Al Qaeda in South Asia by remote control.

From the right bunker, armchair General George Will has peered through his reading glasses and concluded that Al Qaeda and its Taliban sympathizers can be better fought from the confines of the military equivalent of a Sony Play Station lobbing Tomahawk and drone missiles willy-nilly into the FATA regions of Pakistan and bordering Afghanistan.

From the left bunker, futon Field Commander and Nation publisher Katrina Vanden Heuvel insists the U.S. should vacate and let Afghanis deal with Afghanistan. Better to focus on Pakistan where Al Qaeda really resides.

Let me play the devil's advocate and give Obama's critics their due. Both ideological flanks are raising important concerns.

After all, the U.S. could find itself bogged down in Afghanistan for another five years, yet suffer a terror attack hatched and launched from, say Yemen, Somalia or Iraq by self-directed terrorists. Moreover, why should Americans support a regime led by Hamid Karzai, who by every reasonable account outdid Ayatollah Khamenei in rigging an election? These are valid points.

So what to do?

A few days ago, the White House released "The United States Government Integrated Civilian-Military Campaign Plan for Support to Afghanistan." The Report constitutes a sanitized version of a classified document that essentially reflects General Stanley McChrystal's recommendation that the U.S. substantially increase its troop levels above 68,000 while the Afghan army and police reach sustainable levels to prevent further erosion in the security situation throughout the country.

President Obama has a very tough decision to make whether or not to accept the troop level increase recommendation from his field commanders under mounting pressure from some prominent Congressional Democrats to reject it.

Increasing troop levels alone will not guarantee any outcome without a substantial injection of civilian resources to help establish the infrastructure of security necessary to generate anti-Taliban support. Working with a corrupt Karzai has taken on a very malodorous quality and perhaps a UN-sponsored recount may award the election to Abdullah Abdullah. But the stakes are too high to forfeit the chance to stabilize Afghanistan because of Karzai's antics, so an American troop increase appears vital in the absence of NATO taking more of a role.

President Obama would do well to devote more diplomatic effort to bring NATO's membership along into a more convincing burden-sharing role -- something many of NATO's members have so far resisted. He will also need to find better ways to choke off the Taliban's capacity to wage war against NATO troops by convincing Pakistan to play a more assertive role interdicting their arms smuggling across the border from Pakistan. Most importantly, he is going to have to more effectively convince a skeptical American public that terrorism cannot be fought by remote controlled drones alone, and that Al Qaeda's future potential, not merely its past atrocities, must remain in our cross hairs.

Comments

[Ozarks]

Where did you come up with this idea?? "Preventing Afghanistan from collapsing into the hands of the Taliban which would likely destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan." The Taliban were not threatening Pakistan pre 9/11. Omar and the Taliban are based in the Helmand, Kandahar, and Uruzgan regions overwhelmingly ethnic Pashtuns and predominantly Durrani Pashtuns. This tribe is a bout 45% of Afghan population and probably 100% of the Taliban. With the caveat that they don't ally with Al Qaeda or will get their heads handed to them again I doubt this Pashtun tribe will be of any threat to Pakistan..

[rbenjamin]

Part 2
The ambassador attempts to elevate Goal #1 something more than a Pyrrhic Victory by setting up Goal #2: Preventing Afghanistan from collapsing into the hands of the Taliban which would likely destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan. Can he please show a plausible cause and effect mechanism for how poor little Afghanistan, 28 million people, nominal GDP 12 billion, can destabilize a nuclear armed Pakistan with 180 million people and nominal GDP 167 billion?

Keep in mind that Pakistan is already plenty unstable, so what we are really talking about is additional instability that 1) we might actually notice and 2) actually control. Fighters, money and ideology flow both ways across the boarder regions, but it’s the Pakistani side of the boarder that’s serving as a refuge for Islamic insurgents, not the other way around. By opting to target insurgents on the Pakistani side of the boarder with drones we are inevitably alienating civilians and adding our own measure of instability to the side we say we are trying to prop up.

The ambassador has attempted to inextricably link his two goals as two sides of the same coin, but they are really entirely different currencies, with a complex and constantly changing exchange rate. We’ve spent 8-years in a quagmire because our strategy hasn’t taken this into account. Bush got us where we are, but it’s up to Obama to find a strategy where ambitions match our means and long term national interests.

[Amb. Marc Ginsberg - Huffpost Blogger]

I am not advocating inexorably linking us to a prolonged nation building strategy in Afghanistan. On the contrary, the sooner we train enough Afghani troops to do the job the better. However, if the more extremist elements of the Taliban secure control over Kabul (and I don't know or not whether that is possible) they will surely/surely serve as the cavalry support for the Taliban fighting the Pakisani government. That is the linkage I am most concerned about and to pretend they are not linked is to ignore facts.

[rbenjamin]

Part 1

Where to start? NATO and the Northern Alliance did not exactly blast the Taliban apart in 2001. There was plenty of fighting, but the Taliban lead central government was ousted in classic Afghan fashion when tribal warlords and their retainers switched sides. New management and logo up at company headquarters, but staff in the far-flung branch offices (where the real power resides) remained much the same.

The Al Queada argument is a red herring. Al Queada is another one of many foreign agencies that set up a franchise in Afghanistan. They shared common interests with the Taliban, but Al Queada money and manpower did not come from the Taliban. “There is no reason to think that Al Qaeda cannot reconstitute itself ..” says the ambassador. Well, yeah. Al Queada is an ideological franchise, not a rigid hierarchy. Bin Laden is it’s Colonel Sanders, anybody with money and charisma can open a new branch in the failed state of their choice. The ambassador has identified three: “across the border in Pakistan or in Yemen, Somalia.”

Let’s assume we achieve the ambassador’s goal #1: Denying Al Quaeda safe haven in Afghanistan if the U.S. withdraws. The result is that Al Queada, or something calling itself Al Queada, looking like AQ, acting like AQ springs up someplace else. From the US perspective, achieving goal “#1 seems like a one yard gain on 4th and 10.

[ModernTimes1]

Radical Islam has is losing. Just like any other movement it had its heyday and now, having overpayed its hand it has created a genuine backlash around the world.
Example: Irawi people with US assistance have defeated Al Qaeda and foreign Jihadist.
In Pakistan radical Islam is on the run.
Now it s time to make Afghanistan safe for Afghans to live normal lives without havignt o fear the Islamic fanatics.
U.S. abandoned A-stan to the warlords and fundies. U.S. will not repeat that mistake agian.
More troops to A-stan, more rebuilding with Muslim money.

[WillTell]

It appears a big force acting on bad intelligence hasn't worked out very well. As a more cost effective method, why not try gathering good intelligence and then send a small Delta type force(s), perhaps
with airpower etc. to strike a finishing blow on the known targets. Just keep taking the known bad guys down, big and small wherever they're found to be.

[WillTell]

It seems to me that having a standing army on someone elses turf with the type of wars being fought today is as antiquated as the old British Square was during the American Revolution. You fight fire with fire, your covert guys against their covert guys, with the odd airstrike.

[noneIn2008]

Eisenhower - "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

[ModernTimes1]

Tell this to the victims of London, Bali, Mardrid, Mumbai and 9/11.

[chappelforpres]

Better yet, tell it to the over 3 Million Vietnamese killed in that useless fiasco. Another war based on lies, deception and the vast profits reaped by "The Complex - Oil, Weapons, Command".

Until we elect officials who stand for something besides the gilded interests who feather their nests - we'll keep repeating this inane crap. Oh, and it was Nixon who spurred inflation, devalued the dollar and not only created the 1st oil crisis (in order to write-off the enormous sums wasted in his "Crusade Against Communism") but, like Bush, devastated the US economy. God save us from his ilk.

[Thelonius]

Yes, let's keep an eye on Al Qaeda. At the same time, however, let's not forget the conclusions of the Senate 9/11 Commission: The attackers' prime motivation was America's support for expansionist Israel and its occupation, dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians. As Obama seems to understand, this is an issue that we must deal with. To do so, requires doing whatever is necessary to force Israel to comply with international law and its previous commitments. There is simply no alternative.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Well, there is an alternative...

Do what Mr. Ginsberg and the neocons who rally around Bill Kristol say and continue with the never-ending morass of increasing US militarism and declining prestige and power.

[noneIn2008]

Get us out, now. No more excuses.

[ModernTimes1]

Attempts to justify Al Qaeda terrorist acts for ANY reason is treacherous and unacceptable behavior.
Especially in those, who escaped to the West from the indigence and hopelessness of Islamic theocracies.
And especially on this anniversary of 9/11.
Shame.

[rwe2late]

What is really despicable are attempts to exonerate those whose greedy actions and misguided policies had to result in blowback.

[Thelonius]

As ye sow, so shall ye reap!

[noneIn2008]

Let's pay Russia to take over and promise we will not fund opposition.

[Amb. Marc Ginsberg - Huffpost Blogger]

I suspect you never read anything Bin Laden wrote explaining why he attacked the U.S., which by the way, was focused primarily on U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia and its support for "apostate" regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.

[Rule Of Law]

8 years, Mark.

8 years!

America won a war with two fronts in less than five once upon a time.

It was a real war.

If Bush could not "bring 'em in" in 8 years, our chances of getting that job done are pretty slim.

Let's look at another alternative. US out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and the 85 other military bases we run around the world. Have those countries step up and support their own MIC's and stop using our military as the weapon it is to support our Empire. When we return to our own borders, I believe we will see hatred of America disappear.

[rwe2late]

more like 850+ US military bases worldwide

Defeating 'AlQaeda' (even if it were possible) would NOT end the so-called counterinsurgency wars of the US. Nor would it end resistance to US-Pentagon plans for global military dominance.

As long as there are US military bases spread throughout the world, as long as the US government supports foreign despots and dictatorships, as long as global finances are rigged to support US profligacy, as long as the US launches 'pre-emptive' wars and unilateral wars, so too will there be armed resistance to US ambitions.

[Rule Of Law]

rwe, sorry, I dropped a zero--though it seems I'm behind the count. They build those things faster than FEMA camps!

[rwe2late]

Keeping AlQaeda in the "crosshairs" is a fool's errand.

AlQaeda derives its only appeal from what it has begun to stand for, namely foreign resistance to US militarism, bases, support of corrupt puppet regimes, invasions, and occupations.
'Fighting AlQaeda' is doublespeak for war against all the so-called insurgents, militants, radicals, nationalists, Baathists, terrorists, subversives and whoever else is given a label for being a potential 'threat' to US ambitions.

Forget the propaganda for the public. It's not about building "democracy" , combating "terror", or keeping the average US citizen "safe".

Start talking about the real goals of Obama and his upper circle of Pentagon advisors and civilian war hawks. Only then will one be discussing the real driver of policy, namely: Pentagon plans for full-spectrum global dominance over all 'potential' adversaries, plans fostered and backed by warmaking contractors, and supported by international corporations eager to gain control over foreign markets.

[ModernTimes1]

"Keeping AlQaeda in the "crosshairs" is a fool's errand."
Sorry to disappoint you.
Many Al Qaeda leaders have been arrested or taken out.
The popularity of Al Qaeda has sank to the historic lows.
Primarily, due to the very effective Western and Arab campaign against them.
Al Qaeda and related Islamic militants will be pursued and stomped out without mercy.
Get used to it.

[rwe2late]

ModernTimes1
Indeed, the world will surely run out of people long before you run out of 'enemies' you want to stomp "without mercy".

[Amb. Marc Ginsberg - Huffpost Blogger]

Bin Laden issued another of his audio tapes this morning. How about acknowledging at least the need to parade his head down Pennsylvania Avenue.

[den1953]

Where is that great Republican American John McCain he knows where Bin Laden is why don't he step up to the plate and smoke him out just like King George stated? Maybe it's time this country stops chasing ghosts and start telling the truth why have 19 Saudi's attack us and what link did the Bin Laden family have with the Bush's both father & son? Why was Prince Bandar the Saudi envoy to the US always by Bush's side? What link did Ronald Reagan have with Afghanistan during there war with the Russians was there more promise's that were not delivered and was Bin Laden promised something and was never paid?

[ModernTimes1]

These are all very interesting questions one can think about while drinking decaf latte at the local Starbucks.
Meanwhile, the real covert and overt struggle against Islamic militants continues.
So events of 9/11, London, Madrid, Bali, Mumbai will not be repeated.
Enjoy your latte.

[THEPILGRIM]

I disagree with you on basically all points you make.
Let me clear we have no business in Afghanistan what so ever.
We have been there for the past 8 years and we have achieved basically nothing and no matter how much troops you’ll put over there we will achieve basically nothing.
First and foremost this is more or less a political problem that cannot be solved, militarily.
Second we cannot do nation building abroad when we need to do nation-building at home (and it is desperately needed-trust me).
Third we can absolutely not afford such military operations at all. We are bankrupt and drowning in trillion dollars of debt that we cannot repay – ever!! What makes you think we can afford nonsense like this? The military-industrial complex has to be put in its place – now.
Fourth – terrorism is a nuisance to begin with. Yes the terrorist can blow up building and kill some people but they are not real threat to our country.
Fifth: We have to change our role in the world entirely. The US is the most hated country on the planet based on what we have done over the past 8 years and even before.
Because of our financial system that we use to poor the rest of the world we became number one enemy world wide. We have to do the right things. That will be the most devastating blow we can ever bring upon terrorist.

[x76]

1. There IS no "Al Queda" -- the CIA and British intelligence agents have admitted as much. It's a label we placed on OUR database.
2. Isn't this the kind of thinking that kept us in Viet Nam so long?
3. How watered-down do I have to make my comments to get posted here? This is my third attempt.

[ModernTimes1]

Series of statement that simply doen't tie togehter.
Statement A:There's no Al Qaeda.This is just label.
Statement B:This kind of thinking kept us in VIetNam

Coherence--zero.
You mean Viet Cong wasn't real, it was a figment of American imperialist imagination??
ROFL....

[rwe2late]

Moderntimes1
trying to make it simple enough for you to understand:

A) AlQaeda, like the world-wide communist conspiracy, is a bogeyman
B) fighting the bogeyman to keep from having 'commie/AlQaeda terrorists running amok in our streets (as Bush II claimed would happen) is fearmongering nonsense.

[GF646]

Same old story. No money to help Americans at home. But billions of dollars for the Department of Petroleum Protection, also known at the Department of Killing Muslims in the Mideast.

[arvay]

Ambassador, this is a role for the vaunted IDF.

Your country has the most to lose, why aren't Israeli commandos operating inside Pakistan? (your country has a very flexible concept of other peoples' sovereignty.)

[GardenerNorCal]

Well said and to the point.

[arvay]

:-)

[ultrabop]

Nobody has ever "stabilized Afghanistan." They are already stabilized in their sexist, homophobic, warlord mentality.

Oops. Who does that sound like?

At least they are not dictated to by corporations.