Win or Come Home In Afghanistan

Speaking last week to the UN General Assembly, President Obama told world leaders that we need a "global response to global concerns." This call for greater engagement and multilateralism is the right approach for US foreign policy. It is an imperative, however, not just on issues such as Iran, where our allies have been cooperative in supporting tougher sanctions, or on nuclear non-proliferation, where Moscow and Beijing have recently showed a willingness to lead with America, but also on the more divisive issue of Afghanistan. America is trending deeper into the Afghan war without adequate resources or political support, at home or abroad. This issue is now the greatest test of the President's foreign policy leadership.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released last week indicates waning domestic support for US involvement in Afghanistan, and even stronger opposition to troop level increases. Only 39% of Americans favor the war and 63% percent believe that we should hold stable or reduce our forces on the ground, not increase them.

Counteracting this deterioration in popular support will require a change in the current US approach, requiring greater NATO involvement, but also clear conviction by the President that increased troop levels, technical support, and supplies will make the conflict winnable. Without a clear path to accomplishing this, the President cannot ask that more American or European lives be placed at risk, and he should begin the process of limiting US involvement in Afghanistan.

But to the extent that Obama remains committed to the Afghan conflict as a war of "necessity, not choice," with success hinging mostly on resolving the "adequate resources" question, he must be willing to communicate a more forceful message to NATO countries -- that continued US involvement and leadership in Afghanistan will be closely tethered to a correlating European response, commitment to shared objectives, and a unified strategy.

The consequences of not re-fashioning US policy in this way seems clear, especially in light of the recent memo written by General McChrystal assessing US involvement in Afghanistan. In that memo he stated that "failure to provide adequate resources ... risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs and ultimately, a critical loss of political support," and that "any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."

President Obama must confront this stark reality by acknowledging what his predecessor couldn't - that there are real limitations to US power and resources. But he must also take a series of steps to set parameters around further US involvement in Afghanistan, as well as to win back popular support among the American public:

First, the President must tether any further troop commitments, US or European, to a legitimate political resolution of the Afghan election. NATO's main role in Afghanistan is to assist the Afghan government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance. But clear evidence of fraud and electoral manipulation would create resulting illegitimacy for the government that would make the mission much less tenable politically and far more likely to fail militarily as well. This is especially true in light of recent concerns raised by the US government's highest-ranking UN diplomat in Afghanistan, Peter Galbraith, about electoral inconsistencies and potential fraud.

Second, if there is a resolution to the election that is workable, the President needs to re-make the case for the Afghan war to the American public in an address that clearly defines the mission, our reasons for being there, the changing strategic focus on the ground, a military assessment, and the resources needed to win. Popular support for the conflict relies primarily on coherence in these areas and justifiably, the public is seeking answers. Over the past six months, however, the President has been quiet on Afghanistan much to the detriment of popular support. His last major address on the subject was in March, but since this time we have had substantial troop level increases, more than 21,00 in total, losses in soldiers lives, and deterioration of overall US strategy. The President needs to regain the initiative now at a time when members of Congress and significant portions of his own party are moving rapidly away from their commitment to the conflict.

Finally, Obama must convene a summit of NATO member countries to address the needs of Afghanistan and decide on a unified, multilateral objective. This must also be coupled with a formal request that more troops, supplies, and technical assistance be sent using European resources, not American ones. This request has been back-channeled in recent months by Obama and his team to European leaders and officials, but it has stopped short of being the defined policy of the US or as a predicate for our ongoing commitment in Afghanistan. This must change in light of what our generals have communicated about the state of the conflict, the risks, and relevant needs.

Internationalizing the war effort and executing a successful Afghan troop "surge" is the right policy for the President to follow. The stakes of failing in Afghanistan are simply too high to accept failure. But success will only be realistic if we send a signal to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda that NATO is an immovable, inexhaustible, tireless force that is willing to stay the course for years to come if necessary.

Right now, using the playbook from Iraq, insurgent groups see weakness in the European and American commitment and believe that an overstretched US military, in particular, will not be able to defeat them over time. This is fueling the current opposition and making the strategy on the ground more difficult and complex. President Obama can only forestall a failure in Afghanistan by recognizing the need to build consensus around the mission, to spread the costs widely, and to harness overwhelming force and resources. If he cannot accomplish this or has wavering commitment to it given recent assessments of the military challenges, it is time for US forces to come home

 

Comments

[SouthpawSass]

TYT interview with Anthony Zinni on the Afghan war.. interestin­g...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwKMECZMO9c&feature=PlayList&p=677BF4F15A82D9E5&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=52

[Artemis34]

How are we going to do what was last done by Alexander the Great?

And that was prior to Islam!

[Ergon]

We lost, can we come we come home then?

[marignymitch]

I suspect we'll maintain our strategy of the past 40 years or so: stay, escalate, lose big.

[OdysseusNemesis]

General McChrystal seems to be saying that the West can win the war given adequate resources. The West reaction to situations is too predictable, that is to say, apply force and if that fails, apply more force.

The question is whether the Afghan war is winnable and at what cost? The thinking in many Western capitals is that the Afghan war would be “too risky to fail”, because losing it will empower and embolden the Talibans and extreme groups, if not a mecca for extreme groups.

Also, the “Western ego” is at stake here. Of course, the West will win some battles but they will not win the war. The Afghans actually enjoy fighting and they also have history to prove that eventually, the West will fatigue, fail, pack and leave. So why would they give up fighting?

Further compounding the problem is the West's obsession with planting democracy in the most unlikely of places, Afghanistan, but there is a way out; thus let the Afghan military replace President Hamid Karzai with a strong military man who will and can take on the enemy.

Of course, the West should show their displeasure, at least in public -- “a sad day for democracy in Afghanistan” and all that --, but after a short period of peacekeeping, the West should then pull out and then directly or indirectly supply money and hardware to the new military junta to help stabilize Afghanistan.

[JohnTy]

Sounds a little like the policy we used to pursue in Iraq when we supported Sadam Hussein against Iran!

[holeybuybull]

This "war" has morphed into a cash cow for preferred American corporations. Example: per "Democracy Now"; there is an American contractor in Afghanistan that is paid $10,000 for each water well (old time manual pump type) completed. They either subcontract the project to an Afghani company for $1,000 per well, or sometimes just submit a photo of a preexisting well they've completed to collect their $10K, without oversight and independent verification. There go our tax dollars.

[rpahk]

"Win or leave" begs the question: how do you define 'win'? Alexander the Great, the British and the Russians all failed to 'win' in this hell hole. There is no upside for expanding the war and plenty of downside.

[BradSmith]

Yet another media piece that frames the debate as an either or. Cut and Run or escalation.

There is a third alternative it's called Peace. We can negotiate with the Pashtun and thier allies. They have their own government it's called a Loya Jurga or grand assembly this is how they appoint their leaders. Let them appoint leaders who we can sigh a truce with and then find a reasonable peace.

These were our allies and we can make peace with them again.

[viper234]

Just get out of Afghanistan. Bring the troops home. The American people don't support the war. What is it about "the public does not support the war," that government does not understand. No amount of government war propaganda is going to change that position based on the fiasco in Iraq. When it comes to waging war, the government has lost all credibility with the American people, particularly when they parrot the same rationales that were used to invade Iraq, a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. And since Al-Qaeda is no where to be found in Afghanistan, the US has no reason to be there. So now the Taliban have been morphed into Al-Qaeda so they can become the new enemy. Actually, the Taliban live in Afghanistan and are just another incarnation of Afghan fighters whose experience in expelling foreign invaders from their country dates back centuries.

[raskefing]

Thank you for your post, the concept that the solution to the problem of anger and hatred of America anywhere in the world is to attack and "democratize" them, only benefits the Military industrial complex. and provides a self perpetuating cycle of hatred and death, ( and profits ! )
All wars are at core a forceful grab of other peoples resources! behind every major war has been a select few who manipulate public opinion and political leaders for a profit. this has been so from the beginning of time.
There is no benefit for the average American in this war . why support this " war on terror " which is designed to be non- winnable , long term and a source of perpetual profit and power for the few ?
The most profitable business in the world is the ARMS TRADE. Follow the money !

[cupcake65]

I couldn't agree with your premise more - win or leave. However, first Obama has to figure out a way to have someone else appear to have made the decision (let's face it, accepting responsibility and taking effective action are NOT two of Barry's strong points) so that he can vote "present", thus having "plausible deniability" when something goes wrong. This being President stuff, especially when you have no experience running anything - even a lemonade stand - can be tough! What really troubles me, however, other than his being President, is that while he and his "administration" (politburo) are dithering around about the decision, American soldiers and Marines are being killed and wounded on the battlefield that HE called the most critical theater in this war. MAKE A G*DDAMN DECISION!!

[THISTLE]

What does "winning" look like?

[Ihaveadream]

I thought Obama campaigned to end this. Unfortunately, he has no experience, either in the military or as a leader. As such, he as been completely bowled over, and believes the BS coming from the military brass, the CIA, and the war profiteers, who are as good as the financial industry that also owns him, in looting the treasury. To those powerful interests, the blood of US soldiers (men and women who can't get a job at home) doesn't count in the equation. The same "war is good for business" gang kept the clusterf*ck going in Vietnam - sending platoons of soldiers out to get ambushed in jungles instead of mountain valleys in Afghanistan. History, and the Russians have repeatedly shown us it's a no win. We now have a crooked US puppet president, and former CIA bag-man, in there to help justify the US being there.

[MorpheusXNYC]

Look, neither the Russians nor the Brits could do it and we've been there for 8 years and haven't ben able to do it.

The post Afghan war's window of opportunity, where the Taliban were driven into exile and military, humanitarian and infrastructural intervention could have reshaped the face of the country and it's culture has closed. It's come and gone and now we have only an assortment of bad and worse options to chose from.

Yes, the U.S. is "responsible" for the ramifications of our invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq, but when we're drowning in debt and financial dire straits and desperately need the money we're pouring into resources for those wars for us to stay afloat, the Obama adminstration is going to have to do what the rest of us have to do when we are broke and have bills to pay and things we'd like to afford but cant - prioritize, make tough calls, pay what you can and cut what you can't afford.

We need to give the Afghan government 3 month's notice that we are withdrawing and only leaving a small residual force to train help their military and execute tactic, surgical, drone-based strikes against Al Qaeda encampments, then we get the hell out and repurpose the billions being spent on a lost cause back into propping this flagging economy up and creating new jobs here at home.

[susanthe]

By all means - let's have a surge in troop levels, ship money over on shrink wrapped pallets, build a few hundred more bases, and then build the second largest/most expensive embassy ever. Then we can move on to invade Iraq. We're in a permanent state of undeclared war - gotta keep the profiteers pockets full.

[MyVesta]

Nobody can "win" in Afghanistan. That is a "country" which is determined to continue it's tradition of being one of the most primative countries in the world.

They like it that way.