Not a Surge, but a Wash, in Afghanistan

Sometimes it's just flat-out funny to watch the Bush administration spin when it comes to military operations. The New York Times reported this weekend that the U.S. could see a surge of troops into Afghanistan. Surely, groups like VoteVets.org have to be happy with that, right? I mean, since our inception in 2006, we've put a top priority on taking Afghanistan more seriously.

Except, this isn't a "surge," it's caulk. You know, the stuff you use to fill the gaps.

Here's why. Our NATO allies are slowly pulling out of Afghanistan, leaving forces short. Even as the Bush administration begged them to send more troops, our allies promised a couple of thousand, on a very short term basis. That's a heck of a lot less than the 7,000 we were asking for. Not only that, but those who did promise more troops are planning to pull out completely later this year, or early next year.

So, we're just making up the shortfall. And yet, the administration seems to be pushing the line that the US, after the Afghanistan surge, will have the highest number of US forces there -- 40,000 -- since the initial invasion. Of course it will represent the highest number of US troops -- it has to, now that our allies are bailing. In reality, it's just a wash.

The fact of the matter is that until we begin to take our global alliances seriously again, until we make it politically popular for world leaders to work with the US again, we'll continue to bleed aid from foreign nations in our global commitments. It's not just Iraq, either (though that seems to be the main thing that's made the US so unpopular around the world). It's not making a serious commitment to combating global warming. It's a lack of commitment to human rights and the Geneva Conventions. It's beating other nations over the head saying, "You're either with us or against us," but using real diplomacy with our allies and foes, to convince them that our fight is their fight too.

To continue down that Bush course, as John McCain seems to want to do, means further alienation of our allies. That means they'll continue to leave our side. And that means that not just in Afghanistan, but any other security crisis down the road, we'll be on our own.

There's not enough caulk in our arsenal to handle that.

Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz

Comments

[Durango]

I don't know what the solution is in Afghanistan, the least worst solution is suppose. But I do know that those fools in the White House will never find it. Not even by stumbling over it in the dark.

The people of Afghanistan deserve much better from the US and the world. We have torn their country apart in a modern version of the Great Game, using the Afghani's as pawns in our (perceived) national interest. We owe them an awful lot. How we can repay them , like I said, I don't know.

Since the Taliban were conceived, created and were a wholey owned subsidiary of the Pakistani Intelligence Service I suspect the solution lies in talks with Pakistan. 7 years of war and blustery talk certainly haven't succeeded.

I also suspect that the religious fundamentalism of the Taliban is not all that much different than the religious views of the allies we have put in power there. So there ,may be much room for compromise.

The key may be in getting the who ever is hiding Bin Ladin and the Arab/Afghans to turn them over. There must be much room for treachery in that relationship.

[bkholmes79]

Who has been hiding their head is what you ask??? UMMMMMMM, How about the majority of the far-left leaning democrats who think that Islamic Terror is just going to disappear once we leave Iraq. Dick Durbin comparing Guantanammo Bay to Soviet Gulags. What's up with that? And by the way, Nobody pulled out of Afghanistan. What do you want to do, send 150,000 troops to Afghanistan? Give me a break. Afghanistan is one of the world's biggest hellholes. Nothing is going to change that country. The best we can do is keep the country stable. If Osama Bin Laden wants to hide in a cave there then I say "great". It's better then him being in U.S. custody with the lunatic left calling for him to be treated humanely.

[Durango]

Yes, I remember you bravely going on record against the humane treatment of Saddam Hussein.

That was quite an accomplishment from your mothers basement.

[rayanthony]

Saddam was treated as humanly as any mass murderer should be.

[CanuckforObama]

I am a Canadian and the mission in Afghanistan is still relatively popular here yet, in per capita terms, Canada has lost more troops in Afghanistan than any other member of the coalition. Myself I have agnonized over why we are there. It is a good thing to provide security, allow girls to go to school etc., but at a certain point the Afghans have to save their own country. Furthermore, the war is now more against the Taliban than Al Qaeda. Are the two the same? I don't think so. Undoubtedly the Iraq War was a huge mistake vis-à-vis Afghanistan. Imagine if 150,000 U.S. troops were patrolling the Afghan-Pakistani border instead of Iraq. Somehow I think Bin Laden would have been caught by now.

As for the other NATO allies stepping up to the plate, remember this: Spain, Italy, France and Germany are inherently pacifist countries today because they have been so devastated by war in the past. Unless there is a clear threat to their national survival, they will not support a long and potentially bloody fight against an insurgency half-way around the world with anywhere near the troop commitment needed to win it.

[Berettasskeeter]

Jon,
I note that you do not call for increased troop levels in Afghanistan, as you used to do. Now you show that you were never really for success in Afghanistan?
The fact that our allies are pulling out, partially or completely, merely illustrates their political realities. It does not indicate our popularity, in my opinion. But the larger question is: Why do we need to be popular? We have given millions of tons of food aid over the generations, with little thanks! We have given hundreds of millions of dollars over the generations, with little thanks! We have expended the lives of our young men, in the hundreds of thousands, over the generations, with little thanks! While we as Americans have groused about the lack of gratitude, we have not cut off those needy countries, regardless of a dearth of gratitude.
It's nice to be loved, but right it right, regardless of popularity.
Semper fi

[egal]

No, the reactions of the other nations DO represent our popularity. If you had been to even one country outside of the American continent in the past several years, and really talked to the people as someone other than a soldier while they were there (heck, some of them would tell you even if you walked right up to them in uniform, going on about how they used to love the United States but believe our current president is an incompetent baboon--their words), you would know this.

We need to be popular because we aren't self-sufficient; it's as simple as that. Armies must defend their supply lines, and our actions have made it harder for us to do so, because we foolishly attacked a place that supplies something we desperately need. And we have done this so reprehensibly that nobody can trust us, let alone care whether we get what we need with our weak dollar. Now we have potentially fatal breaches between us and nations we need because of our greedy-corporation-driven economy, accompanied by loss of produce and emigration of jobs to foreigners even as our money becomes less and less useful..

[Berettasskeeter]

I'm 57, with 26 years of active duty. I've travelled around the world, mostly to allied countries, but not all. Most of the people I met loved us, hated us, or were entirely indifferent. I didn't care then, either way, and I don't care now. If it matters to you, I pity you. Get over it.
Semper fi

[Oceancal]

Great turnout here Jon.

You may want to post on KOS.

OC standing down SIR!

[JimReed]

Why are we still in Afganistan? The reason we went there in the first place was supposed to be to go after OBL. But when we had him pinned down we turned our attention elsewhere. We are not there because of OBL, so why are we there? It seems like the Taliban have more right to be there than we do.

[Dunnage]

Failure in Iraq. Flairue in Afghanistan. Anybody, and there are a bunch, that thinks we need to stay in Afganistan and chase terrorists in the mountains beween Pakistan and Afghanistan is nut.

Ask the Russians. If we would just put a huge multinational base outside Kabul and turn the city into a modern place of trade, the tribal leaders could get back to smuggling and police their own land like they have done for centuries..

[Richard729]

John Soltz is right, the surge of troops to Afghanistan is more caulk to plug the gaps left by the mostly unwilling allies who thought this mess would be over quickly. Since Bush's "shock and awe" 6 years ago the foreign troops that were sent there were expected to contribute to rebuilding the Afghan nation's infrastructure such as roads, schools and hospitals.

Last week an embedded NBC reporter in Afghanistan stated that destroying the opium crops would deprive the local farmers of income they get from the opium-producing poppies. The poppy crops produce the opium and provide funds for the Taliban and al Qaeda to purchase weapons to kill American troops. But if we destroy the poppy crops the local Afghan population will turn against us. Lose, lose.

The Bush mob reminds me of that old Elaine May and Mike Nichols comedy skit in a hospital operating room. Nichols is the surgeon and May is the nurse. The surgeon first asks for the scalpel which the nurse hands him. Then the patient starts hemorrhaging. The surgeon calls for gauze, a little more gauze and then he keeps calling for more gauze.

Gauze or caulk, the Bush mob run amok hasn't a clue what to do because they went in way over their heads from the get-go. Bush is hoping for just enough gauze until he can quick-step his way out of the White House on January 20, 2009. "There's an old saying in Tennessee..."

[lgillooly]

Jon,
I used to see you on TV,but not recently. After the story on Pentagon propaganda last week I expected some discussion on MSNBC or CNN. It is amazing that these military stories are blacked out and we get stuck with 24/7 Rev. Wright etc. Have you tried to get on any of the political shows? The people of America need to know what is REALLY going on and which candidates REALLY support our troops.Thanks for all you are trying to do.

[apoyo]

Fareed Zakaria said on Charlie Rose that the rest of the world has moved on. They are busy living their lives, improving their lot, forming new trading partnerships.

It may be time for this country to stop, look, and listen.

[PADDYWHACK]

apoyo,I spent a lot of time in Yurrup over the time since 9/11 and the feeling of empathy vanished after Cheney invaded Eyeraq.Zakaria's article is insightful and the rest of the world is fed up of being insulted and intimidated,new markets are developing and money is flowing.Who wants to deal with a leader who knows zip and calls our democracy into disrepute.People abroad still like America but our policies are bs.Great post as usual.

[apoyo]

Obama mentioned in his speech that his pastor was stuck in a time warp.

I'm beginning to think this country is too.

[burnt]

The most reliable assessment in my opinion, is that the "war" in Laughanistan would have been over long ago if the CheneyOilCo had not lied its way into the invasion and colonization of Iraq. NATO countries have reluctantly recognized the conflict for what it is: a bad never-ending joke that is decidedly "not funny".

The saddest part is that those troops who have been broken and traumatized by repeated and extended tours in Iraq, are the most likely candidates for deployment to this arena.

alienated in Seattle

[Richard729]

burnt, you're right of course. The war we should have won in Afghanistan 5 years ago is now costing lives of our U.S. military, many who ended up in Iraq. Bush shortchanged the military and ignored the real purpose which was to clean out al Qaeda and try to capture Osama bin Laden.

We're now doing the same thing the Soviets did in all the years they lost men while fighting against an enemy that the Reagan-Bush team armed with shoulder-fired missiles and training tactics provided by the CIA and U.S. military advisors. We got the Russians to leave but then Afghanistan fell prey to the Taliban and al Qaeda.

We are reaping the whirlwind today. Thanks to Bush-Cheney and their ignorance.

[hopeless277]

If electing McCain will bring this barbaric country to it's knees, then I'm voting for McCain. I had about enough of this country using force, blackmail and lies to launch it's imperial adventures. Only when the United States of America is a burning heap of radioactive ashes will the rest of the planet be safe.

[liberalghost]

It's easy being an idiot, isn't it, hopeless? You think madmen like bin Laden, or the ones running Myanmar or Darfur,would never have existed except for the existence of the US? Really? Where did Genghis Khan come from? You're not just hopeless, you're a hopeless ass.

Maybe you're the reason Bush was able to almost win in '00 and get the presidency handed to him by the Supreme Court.

KKKonservatives can point to faux-liberals like you to gain political traction with their political tools.