Bush's Afghan Troop Plan Didn't Work, Neither Will Obama's

President Bush's demand for more troops by 2009 in Afghanistan to win the war there predictably was scoffed at by the Joint Chiefs. They'll do the same with Obama's demand for more troops. In fact, any president or would be president who demands more troops will get the brush off. Yet Obama and almost certainly Republican rival John McCain will make that demand. The combat deaths of more U.S. troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq in May and June stirred panic and ignited a spurt of campaign jockeying and political oneupmanship between Obama and McCain on when and how to get more troops in the country.

But it's just talk. There are two reasons why. There aren't enough troops to effectively fight the Afghan war, much less two wars. Obama's plan to pull two brigades (about 7000 troops) out of Iraq and ship them off to Afghanistan is laughable. It won't come anywhere close to the number of troops needed to bring any semblance of military and political stability to the country, let alone win the war. That will take an estimated 400,000 troops. That nearly matches the number of troops in Vietnam at the peak of the U.S. war effort there. It took years to get to that level of troop deployment in Vietnam even with a compulsory draft. Moving that many troops to another war zone, assuming they were available, would be a nightmare of logistics, planning, supply, transport, funding, retraining, command changes and rotation.

But finding the troops and moving them from Iraq to Afghanistan is the smaller problem. The bigger problem is Obama's plan to escalate a war that's unwinnable; at least the way he wants to win it. That way is to toss more troops into a country that's stuck in a political and economic quagmire, where drug trading is endemic, the economy is crumbling, that has a long sievelike border with Pakistan where fresh Taliban recruits can move back and forth virtually unimpeded.

In recent months more Afghans say they distrust and dislike the U.S. and cheer the Taliban. In fact, dumping more American troops in the country would almost certainly increase that distrust, dislike and encourage greater military resistance.

An ABC News poll last December found that less than half of Afghans rated U.S. efforts in Afghanistan positively. This was a drastic plunge from the nearly 70 percent who two years before said they welcomed the U.S. presence in the country. A large number also said that the Taliban had grown in strength, and that they did not think the U.S. and NATO forces could do much about them. Since then the Taliban numbers have grown bigger, and even bolder in their armed attacks from suicide bombings, occupying towns, and controlling huge chunks of the country.

A massive troop build-up flies squarely in the face of the lesson of Vietnam. The lesson is that military might and firepower alone doesn't win wars in countries with fragile, shaky, and unpopular governments, an outgunned internal police and military force, against a resistance that controls a large part of the country and the loyalty of a big percent of the population.

Yet, on the eve of Obama's star driven campaign hyped jaunt to Afghanistan, McCain and Republicans and even a surprise Democrat Senator Joseph Biden whose name has been bandied about as a possible Obama running mate furiously wagged fingers at him on Afghanistan. The issue is what did he say and do about Afghanistan before his trip, before he became the presumed Democratic presidential nominee and before the spike up in troop deaths in the country.

The record doesn't look good. In February, he candidly admitted that he did not hold any hearings of his Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs on the problems and progress of the Afghan war. He chalked it up too a busy campaign schedule. This is a feeble explanation. The war even then seemed to be slipping badly out of U.S. control, and that was certainly a crucial time to deal with what went awry. The more credible reason is that Obama's subcommittee is supposed to deal with all U.S.-NATO related policies and issues. But that task is far too broad and ill-defined to make much of a policy impact. A full examination of such a weighty matter as Bush policy on the looming war crisis in Afghanistan is better handled by the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The committee subsequently held three hearings on Afghanistan. Obama attended only one of the hearings in March 2007.

Obama's Afghan appearance won't stop the criticism from foes that he doesn't know enough about fighting and winning a war, and that his credential as a tough guy on the war against terrorism is suspect. It certainly won't stop criticism that Bush's Afghan troop build up didn't work, and neither will Obama's. That's a criticism that shouldn't stop.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is How the GOP Can Keep the White House, How the Democrats Can Take it Back (Middle Passage Press, August 2008).

Comments

[Greygolla]

I think the terrorists would favor McCain for President, since they'd be presented with more targets of opportunity. I read a book on an Afghan visit made by commentator Lowell Thomas in the 30s. He traveled up by way of the Frontier Territories on the border of Pakistan. He had to rent an inflated hide at a river crossing. He did find a large Buick to carry his crew up the Peshawar Pass over the improved road the British built while being shot at by snipers. He met and interviewed the King who graciously offered a favor. Lowell wanted a free pass to visit the countryside. The King choked and chuckled and had to refuse for the safety of his guests. Infidels were then considered fair game by the fun loving locals. Alexander the Great made a name for himself here by pacifying the populace. Mothers still threaten their kids,"be still or Alexander will get you." The only way to fight terrorists is to become a terrorist yourself as in our experience with the American indigenous population. McCain thinks to show us how to win a war,"Give me more troops, I've used mine up." It might be nice to have a President with some diplomatic skill.

[Wonderwheel]

Obama's centrist militant blather about moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is a sign that he really doesn't offer any change in foreign policy principles and is just offering the usual political bait and switch for political expediency. He doesn't have a clue about real change in foreign policy, such as what Dennis Kucinich means by not using war as an instrument of foreign policy.

Afghanistan is already a lost cause for US foreign policy, and unless a radical change in direction is made in the policy toward Afghanistan -- a change in fundamental principles in foreign relations -- Afghanistan will continue to be lost.

We are aiding and abetting the war lords and drug lords growing opium poppies and the opium trade is as high as it has ever been. We are supporting Hamid Karzai who is protecting the war lords from prosecution, while the war lords continue to prevent the development of democracy in their territories. Karzai has hardly any influence beyond Kabul and only has that control because he won't challenge the war lords and local dictators.

[Liberal2]

Actually, what Iraq and Afghanistan really teach us is that war isn't always a solution and commonsense concepts (secure airplane cockpit doors) are more productive. Likewise, if people had listens to environmentalists and other reasonable minds about oil being a finite resource, and gotten us off the OPEC crude barrel immediately following the '70s OPEC oil embargo, the Saudis would not have been able to finance bin Laden.

Vietnam also should have proven that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan didn't break the back of the Soviet Union, a disasterous, incompetent economic system did that enriched only the top few (Hello, anybody see a hint there?).

[research]

Let's try democracy!

Let's ask the Afghans if they want us to leave.

Of course we don't even do democracy in the USA, so I guess that's just silly.

[larry278]

There are a few examples from history which show that it isn't possible for foreign troops to occupy much less stabalize Afghanistan. The British failed, The Russians failed.

[harriscrl3]

I dont agree and I will tell you why you do the same thing everyone does when it comes to looking at Obama's policies. They act like its a single-minded policy when in reality Obama favors comprehensive strategy. I notice that everyone tends to do this I dont know if its our laziness the way our minds think but Obama recognize that we dont just need military troops in Afghanistan we also need non military technical professionals to assist the people of Afghanistan to help them learn to plant things othe than poppy seed that is use to fund terrorism. He also realizes that in order to fight terrorism you have to get at the root cause and deal with things like poverty and education in these countries. McCain and Obama are VASTLY different in their approaches to terrorism and its unfortunate that we are incapable of looking at the bigger picture and we fall into the dangers of using one strategy to explain a candidates position. We really need to think differently. This is why many do not understand Obama's position even some of his supporters. Obama favors a wholistic approach to every problem because finally we have a candidate that realize to fight something you have to come at it from several different fronts and its disappointing to me when people just pick one front and criticize it as if thats the only thing he is advocating.

Carol

[egal]

Too bad the generals, other commanders, NCOs, and soldiers on the ground primarily believe Obama is right. We DO need more troops in Afghanistan, we've needed it for quite a while. We need to take the opportunity to attack the terrorists we should have been fighting all along.

No, we honestly don't have the toops to spare, with too many overextended already and serious familial, mental, and physical problems in addition to the social impact of multiple deployments. But nor can we just pull out with the mess we've made, much as our soldiers need it, both for the security of our nation and the region.

There is no way of winning a war on terror, but Obama has been right from the start, and focusing our efforts on the actual terrorist organizations is the only way we can win any battles against it.

[Liberoservative]

O has also said that the best way to win is through economic help. Put more money into food and restructuring and have enough troops there to make sure that the peacemakers have protection.

The biggest problem in Af/Pak is corruption, though. Until we get some honest people in power over there it will be a losing proposition.

[LettuceB1]

The biggest problem in Af/Pak is corruption, though. Until we get some honest people in power over there it will be a losing proposition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good luck with that.

[WorkingClass]

The way to deal with Afghanistan is to get the h**l out. If thats what you are suggesting I agree completely.

[jcorrington]

And so do I!!!! Afgan is and will be as bad a nightmare as Iraq. We should bring all the troops home.

We missed our big chance to get alquaida when we invaded Iraq - its too late. Those guys are so entrenched we will never catch them.

We should be spending our money on our own infrastructure and internal national security. Please please let us not rush headlong into another quadmire.

[wbramh]

Your 400,000 troops estimate has no bearing on the reality of Afghanistan.
Vietnam was one big battlefield against insurgent guerillas AND the North Vietnamese army - both well-armed by the Russians and Chinese.
Since the outing of the Taliban in 2001, battles in Afghanistan have seldom involved more than 500 enemy combatants in any confrontation (about 250 were involved in last weeks attack). We need more boots on the ground, but nowhere near the number you're suggesting. More critical is the need for more surveillance equipment -something US commanders have been begging for since 2003 when all support was funneled into Iraq. Most important is the reconstruction of the Afghan society - from electrical grids to alternative farming to building new schools. Nicholas Kristoff''s NYT Op-Ed last week gave a grounds-eye view by equating the value of a new Afghan school to a 2,000 pound bomb of equal cost. The school meant more to our National interests, and the US commanders agree.

To lump together the policies of Senators Obama and McCain is laughable.
Contrary to your claim, Senator Obama didn't start talking about Afghanistan in a panic after last week's bloody attack - that was Mr. McCain. Obama has been espousing our need to focus on Afghanistan for years. while McCain was and coninues to the Iraq War's biggest promoter.

After miring our forces in Iraq, and ignoring the real War, it's no surprise that the Afghan people want us out - we've done little for them - or

[sfarnell]

So, what is your plan for Afghanistan? We're "listening"

[onetwo]

The goal of Obama's plan is not to defeat the Afghanistan state in some misguided war.

The mission is to neutralize Al Qaeda and any other suspected perpetrators of 9/11. Taking out their biggest rogue allies is a bonus that was never central to the definition of victory. A mission guided by these parameters will not require 400,000 (!) troops to succeed.

Obama has stressed the refocus on Afghanistan for months, years probably at this point. Why is he being lumped in with McCain as if he's emphasizing it now for the first time?

[mscriblerus]

The interesting thing about this article is how one dimensional it is. How can you be considered a credible journalist at this juncture conveying the same myopic,tunnel visioned analysis that got us into a pinch to begin with. Off course, troops alone won't fix the ills we've allowed to fester while we ignored Afghanistan. But a troop increase will be the first step. I believe that both parties are being optimistic with the conservative estimates for troops needed. But there is no doubt, to begin to establish security, we need more troops. The real question is, what do we do coupled with that.

[solarenergy]

I didn't really understand the post.

Obama said he wants to fight Al Q, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that Iraq was a distraction that's allowed Al Q and its ally the Taliban to regroup and re-strengthen.

He is not saying we should occupy Afgh. forever, so 400,000 troops aren't needed. Find and attack the people who attacked us. Maybe kill OBL, or at least pursue him until he dies from his poor health. Then get the hello out of that country, too.

Then I read the poster's bio:

"Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a political analyst and social issues commentator, and the author of the forthcoming, The Emerging Black GOP Majority (Middle Passage Press, September 2006), a hard-hitting look at Bush and The GOP's court of black voters."

The Emerging Black GOPS Majority?

How's that working out for you? A best seller?

[mscriblerus]

I just laughed coffee through my nose. Thank you. Funniest thing I've read all week.

[JNV]

Viet nam? What about Russia? And before Russia? For the nth time. Occupiers can go home. The Taliban and Afghan insurgents are already home. They await only the departure of foreign meddling.

I still can't figure out why we invaded in the first place. On 9/11 we were invaded by an airforce of 19, 14 of whom were Saudis and none were Afghani. We kill thousands of Afghani, hundreds of our own soldiers, spend billions and screw up nuclear Pakistan because the Taliban let Osama reside in their country.

[NorVaGal]

"On 911 we were invaded by an airforce of 19, 14 of whom were Saudis and none were Afghani..."

And, we haven't attacked Saudi Arabia for just why, exactly? But Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan are fair game?????