My, how times have changed. Remember way back in 2004, when John Kerry denounced the Bush administration for short-changing the Afghan war by diverting men, resources, and attention to Iraq and he was denounced as unpatriotic? Now, on the eighth anniversary of the Afghanistan war, major media proclaim it as fact, and the conservatives don't even rouse themselves to respond (Dick Cheney apparently hasn't seen his shadow, so it's six more weeks before he resurfaces).
So, we fucked up, we took our eye off the ball, we got distracted. President Obama made that point to his advantage during his election campaign, and now he's cursed with getting what he wanted: the Presidency and the Afghan war redux, complete with a general saying publicly, "Gimme more troops or else." So, as the White House engages in deliberate debate on the matter--a debate which ostentatiously excludes the prospect of getting the hell out of there--some questions:
1. Is it sane, reasonable or prudent to pretend that, after six years of ignoring this struggle, we can just pick it up where we left off? Can we seriously act as if history in the area stopped and waited for us to re-engage? Has the passage of time been more favorable to this project, or less so?
2. We are told by war supporters that the Taliban's return to power in Afghanistan would destabilize nuclear Pakistan. That would obviously be a bad thing, since nuclear Pakistan is not all that stable already. But, hasn't Pakistan funded and supported the Afghan Taliban all along, as a protection of their "back door", so the country could devote all its military resources to the "front door", the border with nuclear India? Would a Talibanized Afghanistan draw Pakistani Taliban across the border, where the power is, or energize them to ramp up their insurgency against the Pakistani government (which funded their cross-border brothers, but not them)?
2a. Hasn't al-Qaeda achieved all it could have dreamed of--suckering the United States into two protracted, expensive land wars in the Middle East and Asia while al-Qaeda itself morphed and decamped to Somalia and other hospitable climes?
3. I've just been reading a somewhat politicized but useful history of the country in question, Afghanistan: The Untold Story. It's clear that the country has seen all this before: not just foreign invasions (neatly repelled all the way back to Alexander the Great), but attempts at modernization, education for women, democratization, spreading literacy (as recently as the 1920s). Is it possible the intractability of these problems, their resistance to our favored solutions, is not the fault of the Afghan people? In the same way that America's favored journey in the world was at least strongly influenced by our geography (protected by two oceans, a large agricultural heartland drained by a commerce-friendly river), is it possible that Afghanistan's tortured history is at least somewhat dictated by its geography (most crucially, finding itself forever at the borders of competing empires)?
4. Will, therefore, Obama's war turn out to be an even more spectacular historic mistake than Bush's war? Will it be seen as the final step in the American empire's exit stage right as the Chinese empire enters stage left?
Just askin'.
Follow Harry Shearer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/letwits
Anand Gopal: Who Are the Taliban?
If there is an exact location marking the West's failures in Afghanistan, it is the modest police checkpoint that sits on the main highway 20 minutes south of Kabul. Here, the American-backed government of Afghanistan no longer exists.
War in Afghanistan (2001–present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War Report - Iraq and Afghan Wars - hundreds of sources and ...
Afghanistan - the proxy war - The Boston Globe
Obama is reevaluating Afghanistan war strategy -- latimes.com
This question is largely irrelevant to the situation. It is a given that Bush seriously mishandled the situation. it is a given that Taliban and other militants have been given a golden opportunity to rebuild and restore alliances. And taken advantage of it.
Therefore, we need to stop making speeches and attempt to duplicate the "surge" which helped to pacify Iraq ( along with alliances with Sunni etc).
Of course, the strategy must be adopted to the unique topography and demographics of Afpak region. The worst thing Obams has done to-date in Afpak is what he is doing-- next to nothing.
OR
NATO can betray Afghan people yet again, and leave them to the mercies of Taliban and other petty war lords.
This is the stark choice which confronts Obama administration.
I do not agree however, that relationship between the surge and relative calm was a mere coincidence. The calm happened after many factors clicked into place including: Sunni alliances, Petraeus' aggressive efficiency and strategy, careful negotiations and carefully calibrated show of force on the part of Americans ( among others).
Regardless, it is somewhat disingenuous to deny credit where credit is due. Darwin knows, U.S. has a few foreign victories to brag about since Clinton left office :-)
Absolutely not.
Only the naive think that Al Qaeda's leadership's aims included losing Afghanistan, losing in Iraq, have most of top leadership killed, be hunted down like animals and losing most of the Muslim world's support. But this is in fact what happened.
Just as many dystopian movements before, Al Qaeda's aims are lofty and rather focused on building "pious caliphate" ( Bin Laden), declaring Baghdad "the the capital of the caliphate" ( Osama) and taking over Saudi Arabia. None of it is forthcoming.
Thanks to U.S. military,Northern Alliance, NATO troops, CIA, FBI, police, and others who are working hard to marginalize the reach of global Jihadist movement.
P.S. And zero thanks to Bush who began well in A-stan and then went on a wild a#@ adventure in Iraq.
Incidentally, there are fascinating parallels between radical anarchist movement and modern Jihadism. I suggest you look into it. It is a rather interesting subject.
And therein lies our dilemma. Somewhere between doing too much and the do nothing option. Both situations merited action, but the execution was lousy and wasteful. We need to apply these painful lessons learned to future policy.
This time there is no option but to stay and fight it out.
The invasion was just. And this is no other option available but is for the world community to marginalize the Taliban and help Afghan to rebuild.
Those who choose to betray the Afghan people yet again, need to develop a conscience.
Although I doubt we would agree on the methods.
Show of strength to prove to the tribal leaders who's the boss.
Provide high quality security
Rebuild infrastructure.
Help a strongman ala Musharaf come to power
Leave.
I really don't see the logic in that speculation, for it anything, it's the other way around. Our counter-insurgency activities have only fueled the Taliban across the borders where the continue to indulge in the alternative of exerting influence in Pakistan, a nation which is truly far more worthy of our concern than Afghanistan.
It's simply brilliant
and I think President Obama said it best six weeks ago at
the Veterans of Foreign Wars meeting
when he said that Afghanistan is
"fundamental to the defense of the American people."
As I watched the CBS news reports this week (Afganistan: the road ahead), I was struck by the similarities with Viet Nam, the same political football that was kicked up and down the field and took so long to "resolve". It shamefull what's going on right now. Didn't we learn anything?
Afghanistan is not Vietnam. And I would hope our military leaders ;learned something from Vietnam.
I think the biggest difference is that the Afghans are sick of war. And want peace at almost any cost.
Which is why many Afghanis, Karzai included, accepted the Taliban 15 years ago.
15 bloody years ago.
YES
YES
what, er....YES
In that order...What are we doing there???
As I've said before, time to sh#t or get off the pot regarding Bush's Twin Follies. Obama ought to bust butt shutting down Iraq within the next few months, and leave it to the Iraqis to sink or swim.
He can put the extra troops over in Afghanistan, but not before deciding on some realistic goals with a solid (albeit secret, if need be), termination date. If those goals are not met, Americans declare victory and get the hell out.
You know, we can build all the girls' schools, community hospitals, water wells, and bridges we want, but as long as the local people let a small group of insurgents sabotage them, it's same ol same ol. When all is said and done, it's their issue, their problem, and we can't fix it for them.
France didn't come over here in the 1700's, invade us, make us eat escargot, and force us to rebel against Britain because a few of us wanted to. We did it ourselves, and asked their assistance. Had they invaded us to "help" us do it, we'd have fought the French just as hard as we fought the British.
And we'd have thrown their escargot back in their faces.
Instead of building up the Afghani Army to allowed the forces of the Northern Alliance to disappear.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy was the assassination of Massoud.
I think he would have known how to deal with Bush and the resurgent Taliban.
...So much for your border argument,
Why complain about the corrupt governments we've set up in Iraq and Afghan, they are modeled after our own ( we've got the pharma and military -industrial war lords..just suits and K St..no camels or beards here).
Either get out or take our rotting Neutrons (remember..no choclate mess, kinda green way to go) and carpet bomb Pakistan border to border ala McNamara.
A kid gets kicked to death on his way to a bus stop in Chicago (send in Eric Holder), the Pakistan Military bombs New York with planes (send billions).Between the healthcare charade and Obama's morphing into LBJ, I'll never vote for a major party again. Won't get fooed again.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
We're fighting the same kind of battle we fought in Viet Nam in 1972-73.
That ISN'T a winning strategy. It's a delaying operation.
.
Harry, I suggest you read this:
"On January 6, 1842, the British began their withdrawal from Kabul. Leaving the city were 4,500 British troops and 12,000 civilians who had followed the British Army to Kabul. The plan was to march to Jalalabad, about 90 miles away.
The retreat in the brutally cold weather took an immediate toll, and many died from exposure in the first days. And despite the treaty, the British column came under attack when it reached a mountain pass, the Khurd Kabul. The retreat became a massacre.
More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon, had made it alive to Jalalabad.
It was believed the Afghans let him live so he could tell the grisly story."
Although not in this specific account but included in others, the Afgans left the skeletons along the road as a warning.
Sixteen THOUSAND skeletons in uniform.
Alexander the Great couldn't figure out how to subdue these people and he was accustomed to doing things we would NEVER do. Things that make Gitmo and waterboarding seem like holiday camp.
.
By reading Sun Tzu, the answer is OBVIOUS.
I thought Sun Tzu was required reading at military college.
Perhaps Obama needs a copy.
.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the supreme of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence."
- Sun Tzu
I paraphrase:
He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns."
.
2. Maybe Pakistan can build a giant wall or mote with US tax payer dollars or pay the Taliban to go bother China.
2a. Sure looks that way, eh?
3. or cursed, you'd think the Democrats would understand you can't fool with mother nature when she ‘vants to be alone’ and Afghanistan is supposed to be her quiet place. I mean look at it, who would want to live there 24/7 other than nomads and hermits?
4. I'm a bit of a cynic on this topic, so I say follow the money.
When this all started someone went up to Bush and said, "Sir, ferget Afghanistan it's a dead end and here's why... basic Afghani history lesson… " and Bush had the good sense to say, "Good job Afghani Guy, but we got to give um a war and bomb somethin’. What do you say Oil Guy?" Oil Guy says, "Let's bomb Iraq instead." Bush says, "heh heh heh, Okay!"
Obama's mistake was his rhetoric during the campaign when he said the fighting should have been in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. It makes logical sense, to some degree, but he went for the easy throw instead of going with the facts. Terrorism 101 says, it doesn’t care what country you’re in, whatever works.
more...