Obama and Afghanistan: Danger Danger Danger

A leaked diplomatic cable published in France yesterday underscores the dangers that will confront a new Obama administration in Afghanistan.

Published in the French press, the cable quotes Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British ambassador in Afghanistan, predicting that the NATO-led military campaign against the Taliban will fail.

"The presence of the coalition, in particular its military presence, is part of the problem, not part of its solution. Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would rapidly collapse without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence from the crisis."

To consider the significance of this, think back to the first presidential debate, where yet again, Barack Obama made moving large numbers of American forces from Iraq to Afghanistan the centerpiece of his foreign policy. Then, to double the trouble, remember that the British have been the United States' closest ally in the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, don't forget that another central criticism Obama has made of the Bush administration was its unilateral approach to major foreign policy issues.

So here we have Senator Obama arguing, as the central point of his foreign policy, that the US needs to work more closely with its allies to escalate the war in Afghanistan, while the ambassador of our closest ally to Afghanistan forcefully argues in coded diplomatic cables that escalation would only make matters worse and policy must head in the opposite direction, towards taking troops out.

Tellingly, Ambassador Cowper-Coles sees the Obama and McCain policies on Afghanistan is equally disastrous.

"It is the American presidential candidates who must be dissuaded from getting further bogged down in Afghanistan."

Don't get me wrong - I am NOT arguing that there is no difference between Obama and McCain on foreign policy. Obama wants to open diplomatic talks with Iran, McCain sings in public about bombing Iran. Not to mention Iraq and Georgia. However, the most urgent problem facing the next administration will be in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And here, in the assessment of the British ambassador (and myself), Obama's stated policy is at best unworkable and at worst catastrophic.

Obama and Biden are in an incredibly difficult position. The situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan is rapidly unraveling, and presidential campaigns can't evolve policy at the same rate as an administration without seeming to "flip-flop." Just in the past few weeks Pakistan has collapsed into full scale civil war. A quarter of a million civilians have been displaced by the fighting. In places the situation for civilians is so bad that 20,000 have fled across the border to relative "safety" of Afghanistan!

Yet both Senators Obama and Biden continue to restate at every opportunity their readiness to strike across the Afghan border into Pakistan "if there is actionable intelligence" concerning the location of Osama bin Laden, a perspective on US priorities in the conflict that is frighteningly out of date.

These are very dark clouds on the horizon. As I have mentioned before, they underscore the similarities between Obama and JFK, but not the positive ones the Obama campaign plays on. After all, it was the Kennedy administration which decided to escalate in the face of a rapidly unraveling situation in South Vietnam, even as its European allies were counseling it to do the opposite. That was Kennedy, the young president who felt like he had to prove his mettle, and that of his Democratic Party and his younger generation of advisers. Is that ringing any bells?

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

OK, now for reality.

"Taliban split with al Qaeda, seek peace. Taliban leaders are holding Saudi-brokered talks with the Afghan government to end the country's bloody conflict -- and are severing their ties with al Qaeda, sources close to the historic discussions have told CNN."

Taliban SHOULD have done this in 2001 and saved everyone untold grief, Instead they had to be defeated first. Al Qaeda is now finished!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghan.saudi.talks/index.html

[FLA1]

Bin Laden was where this whole "war on terror" started and I agree with the idea that if we get Bin Laden, it will perhaps give Americans sufficient closure to say that we did what we needed to do and let's look to use diplomacy to continue the "war on terror." The point being that, if you get good information as to Bin Laden's location, you have to take a shot.

[Stanley]

In wars of occupation, leaving can be both losing or winning depending on how it is sold and how long it remains stable afterwards. Losing is a term that the British used but under what parameters? Killing or depleting enemy forces for temporary stability is achievable. Bribing warlords and power brokers like we did in Iraq is also workable and less costly than military operations. There are wars of principle and wars of power and money. This is a war about power more than principle. Our goal is to kill Bin Laden and leave. Saving face by making nice with the people who really have the power is not an unwinnable goal. Even if they were Taliban and now are known as Afghani stability forces they will add to the perception of "winning" much like the Sunni in Anbar. They will ultimately want us out as long as we are in far enough to keep giving them money. Killing Bin Laden is symbolic and achievable if he doesn't die of natural causes in the mean time. Winning is a matter of diplomacy not military commitment. Keeping terrorists away from our shores is a different matter altogether.

[cylindar]

Apparently you have not really been listening to what Obama has been saying. He wants to take out Bin Laden. He has said nothing about wanting to fight the Taliban and or other orthodox Muslums in the area. They are indeed part of the mix at the moment but are not the main concern of Obama. Have you noticed that the US administration has said nothing lately about finding and killing Bin Laden. Don't you think that is strange? The Taliban may take over both Pakistan and all the other stans but our focus is on or should be on Bin Laden. Bin Laden and the Taliban are two different types of animals. They tolerate each other for the moment as they both need each others support. But don't kid yourself the Taliban could really care less about Bin Laden. The Bush administration is both stupid and confused.

[Indubio]

Ostertag places confidence in "extracts" from a British diplomatic cable leaked to French media but until this items is released, interpretations by anyone are premature. Ostertag complains about the futility of the Afghan War and vents frustration about deteriorating situations in South Asia but unless he's found creative solutions his venting isn't helpful. It doesn't take an international affairs PhD to comprehend that because of its association with political/economically unstable nuclear powered Pakistan, Afghanistan's war is critical.

India stated that Islamic extremists will never control Pakistan's nuclear weapons and so I suspect the targets for Indian nuclear weapons have been selected. In the 1990s, India's ambassador stated India was would sustain millions of civilian causalities in war against Pakistan never ruling out a preemptive first strike. If we bail on Afghanistan it's hard to understand how this would help stabilize Pakistan and placate nervous India. Limited war against al Qaeda/Taliban isn't working and if Pakistan represents a failed state being used by terrorists for training, then a solution seems clear enough: A ramped up, near-total war in South Asia that uses everything in our arsenal. Ultimately, we're going to face a couple of ugly choices: Pull troops out and let the chips fall where they may and permit India to deal with Pakistan or win the war irrespective of how many people die. There are no good answers here but bailing isn't a viable alternative and propping up a dictator isn't either (Russia tried that and failed).

[newshawk14]

I don't disagree with your analysis, I just feel the USA will be much better off with an intelligent
president, than someone who would have flunked out of the USNA if his father and grandfather
had not been four star admirals.

[anticonformist911]

You are assuming Obama is exactly like George Bush and that he won't adapt his strategy to the ever-changing conditions on the ground. Give him a little credit, please.

[Bob Ostertag - Huffpost Blogger]

Actually, I was comparing him to JFK.

[larry278]

Obama isn't JFK or FDR. As for Iraq/Afghanistan & maybe Iran he's in a late LBJ & RMN position except the melt-down has destroyed the value of the little money which the USA has. We are broke; so is everbody else, even China. If we have conflicts, we must do it on the cheap with threats only. The world has no money for war, fuel or recovery from the wars & the melt-down. We must walk softly, carefully & carry only a straw. There is no money, anywhere.

[customgreen]

Ambassadors and other diplomats should be taken at face value. They have an opinion but in the end that is all they have. Just because they say something will become worse if a certain path is undertaken does not mean it is destined to happen. Once Obama and Biden get into office I am sure they will take a very serious and sober look at everything.

[standard]

You raise an important question, but you say, "[T]o strike across the Afghan border into Pakistan 'if there is actionable intelligence' concerning the location of Osama bin Laden [is] a perspective on US priorities in the conflict that is frighteningly out of date."

Listen to yourself. That's like saying that, prior to the Japanese surrender on the U.S.S. Missouri, bombing Japan was a perspective on US priorities in the conflict that was frighteningly out of date.

British diplomacy helped get us into the Iraq war and, for that matter, helped the world get into World Wars I and II. Before we follow Sherard Cowper-Coles, a British ambassador (whose subject at a lesser college at Oxford was classics and who may have been chosen for his present post chiefly because he is fluent in Arabic), and yourself, a gifted musician, away from our current combat objectives in Afghanistan, let's just listen to what Joe Biden, a 35-year U.S. (not British) Senator and a foreign policy expert says about the changing situation--and what Zbigniew Brzezinski says. YOU MAY BE RIGHT, but--with all due respect--let's think this through way more thoroughly.

And yes, Kennedy made major blunders during his first hundred days in office--but we would not have become a country that not even Ronald Reagan and the Bush family could wreck were it not for FDR's first hundred days. Let's not forget that, also.

[PDinCA]

Over the last few weeks, thinking about Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Obama, I have been thinking of the Cuban Missile Crisis continually. This essay has made me consider the probability of getting into such a situation, which has been quite sobering. But until now I had been thinking about which admininstration, Obama or McCain, would be more capable of getting us out of such a situation. I don't think I have to describe how that line of reasoning went, other than to drop the phrase "best and brightest."