I Wanted to Stop Bush's Surge, but I Support Obama's Stabilization

In January of 2007, I stood up with many of my fellow Iraq veterans and Votevets.org to call on Bush to "Stop the Escalation." Many of us felt that the Bush administration lacked an overall strategy to provide the necessary tools needed to bring the fragile stability we see today in Iraq. Votevets hosted a group to be a part of a national ad campaign that showed during that year's Super Bowl.

Watch the Ad.

Unfortunately Bush failed soldiers like us so many times that we lost faith and confidence in his ability to lead at a time when Iraq was on the brink of a civil war. His continued "stay the course message" was chilling for many of us who understood that he was forcing a military answer to problem where there was no military solution. We witnessed the lack of support for the political and diplomatic solutions needed to engage a frustrated civilian population or negotiate with Iraq's neighbors.

Even the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group published a plan that looked very different from what President Bush was promoting as "The Surge." Thankfully, General David Petraeus proved to be the leader that was needed in Iraq as he worked to implement a counter insurgency strategy that laid the foundation for a stable Iraq.

Today we face a much different situation in Afghanistan as President Obama has ordered an additional 17,000 U.S. troops "to stabilize a deteriorating situation." Karen De Young reported on this in the Washington Post . Now, many of those veterans who stood up to "Stop the Escalation" are now standing with President Obama to announce their support. This is the right war, and the right time.

When we took our eye off the ball to invade Iraq in 2003, many of the needed troops and resources were allocated to the wrong fight. As a result, the situation in Afghanistan continued to become more fragile as U.S. and NATO forces struggled to keep control and of regions where Taliban forces are reasserting their power. Now we face a challenge in which Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government is crumbling and allowing the same widespread lawlessness that gave birth to Al Qaeda.

The difference for our veterans of these recent wars in supporting President Obama, is that he has already announced his understanding for a change in strategy. He talks about the needed reforms that will allow our country to develop smart power and real national security. Unlike George Bush who buried his head in the sand until the 2006 elections slapped him awake, the Obama Administration is undergoing a massive review process to better understand and execute the fight. He talks of including diplomatic and political solutions to the military effort.

The addition of troops right now is not putting the cart before the horse, though. The addition will allow us to provide some security through the expected spring offensive from the enemy, so that there's an actual Afghanistan situation to review, and not a failed state completely overrun by the Taliban.

I believe President Obama will take counsel from experts like Nate Fick and John Nagel who recently published a must read article "Counterinsurgency Field Manual: Afghanistan Edition" in the current copy of Foreign Policy. They argue:

More U.S. troops are absolutely necessary to turn the tide in Afghanistan, but American troops are a short-term answer to a lasting set of problems. Supporting Afghan and Pakistani governments that can meet the needs of their own people--including security--must be the long-term solution. The paradoxes of counterinsurgency detailed here, counterintuitive though they may be, provide the best guideposts on the rocky trail toward success. It will not be the death or capture of every last enemy fighter that wins this war, but creating a position of strength from which to negotiate a lasting political solution to a cycle of conflict with no other end in sight.

We are not giving President Obama a free pass, but many of us have the faith and confidence that he will move us forward with a strategic vision that encompasses the change we need. I hope you will join me in supporting our President Obama and our troops who work to stabilize this "deteriorating situation."

Comments

[Chris]

Mr Powers please elaborate on your closing?

We are not giving President Obama a free pass, but many of us have the faith and confidence that he will move us forward with a strategic vision that encompasses the change we need. I hope you will join me in supporting our President Obama and our troops who work to stabilize this "deteriorating situation."

What exactly gives you this confidence? His great cabinet appointments? His choice in Sec. of Defense? His belief in Gen Patraeus?

Where does your confidence in Mr. Obama come from?

[holeybuybull]

How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghani?

[spartanmom]

Thank you for a lucid discussion of the Afghanistan situation. You have summed up my thoughts exactly and expressed them more clearly and with more authority than I ever could.

I am just hoping that real and effective development aid follows our soldiers closer than their shadows.

In the meantime, we can all help a little.

http://www.beyondthe11th.org/

https://www.ikat.org/

http://www.womenforwomen.org/global-initiatives-helping-women/help-women-afghanistan.php

[DuPageDem]

I wonder what sort of mental gymnastics the Soviets used to rationalize their occupation of Afghanistan -- right up until it destroyed them. How will our contined imperialist bullying on behalf of oil companies demonstrate that democracy, freedom and peace are the right path?

[Tom McGraw]

"How will our contined imperialist bullying on behalf of oil companies demonstrate that democracy, freedom and peace are the right path?"

What in the world does Afghanistan have to do with oil companies?

[DuPageDem]

Afghanistan and its politics stand in the way of a pipeline & port/tankers scheme to bring Russian oil to western markets. That's why we invaded, and that's why we're still there now. Western oil companies have the project shovel-ready, they're just waiting for some degree of political stability to start building it.

[emjay1954]

Hilarious.

Bush--surge--bad. Obama--sta­bilization­--good.

Let's recap. Bush started an illegal, immoral war based on falsified information and scare tactics. That made him a war criminal. Then Obama becomes the godfather of the crime family, continues and expands the war--but he's NOT equally culpable?

This is why I voted for Nader.

[talk2me]

Mr. Powers you are the epitome of hypocrisy. You have joined in the chorus to go along with BO even though he campaigned on the promise of bringing the troops home. Remember Biden pounding his fist opposing Pres Bush surge? The NY Times frontpage headline? "No free pass for BO"? My, things sure have "changed". Pity you were sucked into it.

[GOBsaysCOMEON]

To be fair, Obama campaigned on less troops in Iraq and more in Afghanistan. He is still planning less troops in Iraq, so he's basically sticking to his promise. His plan for troop increases in Afghanistan was one of the central reasons I didn't vote for him. It seems to me that people think he campaigned against both wars because of his uncanny ability to get people to project their hopes and views on him.

[hillvoter]

Love the example of hypocrisy. You make a good point. There are too many people that put politics ahead of their country.
I do not support troop deployment anywhere in the world except the Mexican border. The border is our greatest national security threat.
We already have seen how little support Americans will sustain for troops deployed overseas to make life better for people in other countries. It isn't pretty. I will never again support troop deployment and think we should stop this troop buildup in Afghanistan now.

[UltraClassic]

Jonathan, I got called up for OIF like many other service people and like many other service people, I don't agree with hardly one thing "votevets" stands for. I have never seen a group of people outside of the MSNBC evening crowd that goes so far out of their way to call a success a failure.

Jonatha, you were there, I was there. Be honest. The surge worked and Iraq is a better place today because of it. Stop playing the MSNBC talking points.

[oldtree]

We have never been able to turn the tide in Afghanistan. No one ever has. Why would anyone ignore history, ignore the facts on the ground, ignore reality, and claim that there is either a reason for action, or an end result that would be satisfactory?
Pakistan is soon going the way of the Taliban as well. Do you think we should attack there too?

We are going to have to learn to get over the nation building, nation destroying aspect of our culture. It creates despots, bribery and plots to keep the teevee warm for decades. But it bankrupts our country. It takes everything people want from a democracy and throws them away.

Tell us again why the Saudi's don't answer for their Taliban, and we pretend it isn't them banking the them, and we go and pretend to fight them in another land?

Are you getting how absurd this nonsense is yet? Sounds like Vietnam, doesn't it? Just a reason to enrich the arms makers, and volunteer up some American meat for the slaughter.

[sdskelton03]

The primary difference is that you like this president and want him to succeed.

If you loved your country as much as you hated president Bush, you would have supported the surge as well.

[JeffKolakowski]

It seems that the majority of people posting comments are against the surge in Afghanistan, as am I. But it is consistent with what he said on the campaign. It is one of the reasons that I could not support him. But my question of any of you who would like to answer is this: Why did Obama’s supporters not object to an Afghanistan surge during the campaign?

[IllinoisGOP]

With all due respect to the author's service, I found his comments on leadership disingenuous. Petraus has turned out to be an effective leader. This also shows some leadership on the part of Bush of pushing forth this plan and finding a General who could successfully execute the surge. Think Lincoln turning over Generals until he found Grant. The current situation in Iraq has made it possible to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Once we moved into Iraq (with heavy bi-partisan support in Congress), Bush owned that war and today it would appear that conflict is slowly ending (next 16 months). The debate won't end on whether either of these wars were a good idea. As a country we tend to allow our CIC's a lot of latitude on how to execute a war. There is little consistency with Mr. Power's group in opposing escalation in Iraq and supporting it in Afghanistan, except the latter is the actions of his guy.

We also have little proof that Afghanistan is the right war either, our fight is not with the Taliban it is with OBL. During the campaign that was BHO's constant message. BHO is actually continuing the Bush doctrine of "nation building"

[DKLabRat]

Bush went into Afghanistan to punish the Taliban for thumbing their nose at him and refusing to give up Bin Laden. That was achieved. They weren't eradicated, but they were humiliated and pushed into the margins for a few years. Which is probably about the best you can do on that issue.

Otherwise, the grand ideas that propaganda gave us have not materialised. I recall a UK government minister telling us that as Afghanistan was the major source of heroin we would have eradicated the drug on UK streets in a year. Now we have the absurd position of UK soldiers guarding poppy fields for local farmers against the Taliban!

The lives - and abuse - of women has hardly changed. Early on, Bush realised that he couldn't defeat the entire country, installed Karzai as a puppet whose control barely extends beyond the borders of Kabul, and divided up the rest between a group of vicious warlords who are every bit as repressive as the Taliban who were ousted. The great concern for women which our politicians showed evaporated as soon as it became politically expedient. Now, we have CIA operatives handing out free Viagra to our warlord allies so that they can continue to rape their many wives.

Problem solved. Yeah, right.

There is no end to Afghanistan. And no clear idea of why we're still there.

[DuPageDem]

Uh, the Taliban did offer up Bin Laden, for trial in a neutral country. Bush turned them down and unleashed hell, instead. Heckuva way to win hearts and influence people.

[holeybuybull]

Wrong. The Taliban representatives were in Texas for discussions with our oil cartel in. re. a pipeline deal across Afghanistan prior to W's selection. The Taliban's refusal to cooperate led to the invasion. It's just another corporate war for resources. You did know that Karzai, the puppet, is a former oil company executive, didn't you?

[Tom McGraw]

yeah, that makes sense. i guess it had nothing to do with september 11th. right buddy

[scooperss]

Afghanistan has already been mucked up too much by bush.
Time to cut our losses, leave and find bin laden, if he's alive which I doubt.

[janeyu]

Of course you support BHO and blast GWB.. isnt that we do now? Everything BHO does is great and even if GWB has said or done the exact same thing, when he did it was wrong wrong wrong.. Change Change Change