President Obama is being pushed by some, including General Stanley McChrystal, to quickly approve the deployment of more troops to Afghanistan. At the same time, others are demanding a plan for the speedy removal of U.S troops already there. So far, he has refused to be rushed into an important judgment that will have profound consequences for our country.
Afghanistan has been characterized as a war we should have been fighting all along. It can be argued that near the top of the Bush Administration's stunning list of foreign policy blunders was the decision to start moving troops, equipment and most of our attention from Afghanistan to prepare for an invasion of Iraq. However, I do not believe that military victory in Afghanistan is simply a matter of reappearing with enough troops and the right military strategy. Afghanistan did not come with a PAUSE button to freeze the action until we were ready to resume. Any such notions are seriously flawed.
To begin with, Afghanistan is a honeycomb of ethnic groups and tribes. About half its people are Pashtun, but with primary loyalty to more than 30 different tribes; another 25% are Tajiks; 18% Hazaras; 6% Uzbeks; 3% Turkmen; 1% Qizilbash; and about 7% are Aimaq, Arab, Kirghiz, Wakhi, Farsiwan, Nuristani, Baluch, Brahui, Qizilbash, Kabuli or Jat. The country has been accurately described as "one of the most dizzyingly complex tribal societies on earth."
President Hamid Karzai's 'national' government has very little to do with the lives of the Afghan people outside Kabul, and isn't even recognized in every sector of that city. Classic counterinsurgency doctrine depends on an indigenous government we can support, but the current national government in Afghanistan doesn't remotely qualify, unless one considers an isolated, corrupt government "worthy."
The presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is a two-edged sword. They may be utilized to suppress violence and impose civil order in limited areas, but their presence is often the spark that ignites the same violence and resistance. No people willingly submit to be patrolled or garrisoned by a foreign military. Our own founders didn't take very well to it 234 years ago. Afghan culture has always opposed the presence of large numbers of armed outsiders, and with the continuation of combat, killing of civilians and destruction, our troops are being increasingly viewed the same way Macedonian, British and Soviet troops were.
Before the United States commits to a military strategy, Congress and the Obama administration need to begin at the beginning and take the time to review the history and contemporary culture of Afghanistan. Against a backdrop of knowledge, there are a number of very practical questions about our expectations there that must be asked -- and answered, including:
Thoughtful and careful consideration of circumstances, goals and alternatives before committing to a course of action was supposed to be one of the hard lessons we learned in Vietnam more 40 years ago, and again in Iraq six years ago. Absent clear and achievable policy objectives and a cold-eyed assessment of the costs to achieve them, the United States should not commit a single additional Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine to Afghanistan.
Before a decision is made, President Obama, after proper consultation with Congress and with the support of the American people, must be able to articulate a compelling case with "clear and achievable objectives" for a continuing U.S. commitment in Afghanistan.
No such action would constitute walking away from Afghanistan or abandoning its people. The United States could consider providing financial, logistical, intelligence and other support to an Afghan government and training for its security forces. But only if American goals in Afghanistan abandon fanciful and messianic visions of "fixing" a nation that is simply not fixable by outsiders.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie chairs the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces. Abercrombie represents the 1st District of Hawaii.
Excellent post. This "war on terror" is turning out just like the war on drugs, the war on poverty and all the other silly "wars" that are not wars.
Afghanistan isn't really a country to begin with, so why are we trying to make it one? Haven't we learned anything?
And you correctly state that Al Qaeda doesn't need Afghanistan to do whatever it is they want to do. This was just another mistake that has lingered for 8 years now, the longest "war" in American history. If we had gotten Bin Laden and enough of the inner circle of Al Qaeda back when this started, we could have come home and everyone would have been happy, but we didn't. At that moment, all bets were off. Yes, perhaps they would have come back, but it would have taken them a long time and we would have established a sensible way to combat them. As it is, we are in a no win situation.
I agree.
Then again I agreed when I didn't vote for Barack Obama because I knew he was Bush lite.
Hillary 2012.
End Bush's Presidency by voting Obama out?
Yes we can.
But getting to what he's talking about here:
Part 1
McChrystal's plan for withdrawing U.S. forces into more populated locations is an utterly insane strategy, given the likely responding tactics--bombs directed at U.S./NATO installations and troops parked "protectively" next to civilians; the other side of this "protective" strategy involves the use of aerial bombardment, and drone attacks, a tactic that is a proven failure--how many weddings and other celebrations will U.S./NATO forces bomb? (Of course such acts will always be "mistakes.") This sordid war, started as an act of deliberately misdirected vengeance by the Bush administration, needs to be brought to a close ASAP.
The reasoning that the U.S. is preventing terrorism by perpetuating this war is fundimentally flawed--terrorists likely to carry out acts of violence in Europe, Asian or the Americas have no actual need to go to Afghanistan or Pakistan to either train or plot, nor, likewise, are the "masterminds" or "brains" necessarily located in those countries; a figurehead like bin Laden may or may not be there, but this is irrelevant because global communication will provide such people with a voice regardless of where their speeches and gestures originate.
Part 2
A fully democratic government in Afghanistan is obviously a fantasy at present, and likely to remain so for the immediate, and possibly for the long-term, foreseeable future. Moreover, providing intelligence--let alone military training, arms and money--to a government as corrupt as Karzai's is clearly foolhardy at best, and it will likely backfire.
We will leave behind a shattered country whether we stay there for another year or another ten. As has been pointed out again and again, historically this has always been the case with Afghanistan, and there is no evidence that things even CAN work out differently.
Humanitarian aid, economic assistance, non-predatory trade and investment, and lastly but probably most importantly a control and containment of the distribution of arms in this heavily weaponized region are key ingredients to achieving the beginnings of peace. And peace for the people of Afghanistan, and Pakistan also, is the key to real security for the poeple of the United States.
Iraq-- Al Qaeda and other Jihadists were defeated -- ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SURGE.
Unless Americans, Afghan tribes only believe in negotiation backed by overwhelming force, not words and promises and NGOs.
ALL of them can be bought off or subjugated with enough show of force. This i EXACTLY what Taliban is doing, This process should be reversed. Yes, we all know Americans are somewhat naive in this game. Get someone local to teach you.
"No people willingly submit to be patrolled or garrisoned by a foreign military."
That's OK. Japanese got used to it so could Afghans. If the patrols are strong enough.
"What should our relationship be with the Taliban?"
Demoralize them, inflict heavy causalities, disrupt their suppliy stream. Only then they can be negotaited with. Otherwise their religious hubris and fanaticism will make any negotiations utterly worthless.
Example: see Pakistani Taliban arrogance in dealing with Pak government.
Anything remotely close to what you're suggesting would require an overwhelming US presence that would be nothing short of an all-out occupation. I doubt Obama is willing to face the political blow back of such a decision.
But go ahead and keep living in your hawkish masturbatory fantasy. No one will miss you.
If she doesn't like the health program for kids, she holds on to the money and doesn't release funds for it -- even though they've been allocated by the legislature (in a balanced budget).
If she doesn't like environmental laws, she ignores them.
So it will be VERY refreshing to have Neil Abercrombie win the Governorship. Crossed fingers.
Next subject.
Anyone comparing the so-called wars we have today to WWII is automatically confessing their ignorance.
Why bullshit around trying to make it appear that you can win anything there now, or ever?
This is complete crap to suggest anything other than to exist immediately because the Taliban will eventually take back the country anyway!
They want Islamic, religious rule, tribal rule. Let them topple the Taliban on their own.
If the Islamic religion wants to make slaves of it's own people so be it.
Invading foreign countries has shown to be a losing battle every time.
Exit Iraq, exit Afghanistan, bring all the Troops home from foreign soil, and let them protect the American Homeland, and with that we can cut the Defense budget in half or more and apply it to Domestic needs.
No waffling Mr President. Afghanistan could easily be your Vietnam?
Next, criminal trials for Bush and Cheney and the Bush regime.
http://www.richmonk31.blogspot.com
This is factually incorrect.
Peace in Japan was assured by American invasion and occupation.
Peace is Europe has been assured by American invasion and occupation.
Invading foreign countries is how peace was achieved in World War One and World War Two.
Pax Romana was achieved by invasion and occupation ( and alliances) of other countries.
Peace and "nation-building" is only possible through extended commitments; this is not what Iraq or Afghanistan were "proposed as" to the American people by the Bush Administration. Ignorance prevailed and "we the people" were convinced these would be brief operations. Our opinion on the matter has now changed, and we are no longer willing to pay ($$$ and innocent lives) to support a lost cause.
The biggest flaw in invading Afghanistan is that war has evolved. We are no longer fighting countries, we are fighting independent groups with no real established base of operations. They can be anywhere, and can rapidly change locations. This is NOT a task to be accomplished by full-scale invasions but "strategic incisions" with elite troops & technology (see Predator Drones). I would even make the argument that the U.S. should abstain from military action as much as possible, given the counter-mobilization that occurs, i.e., more and more young Muslim men committing themselves to terrorist actions against the West.
Btw, Israel is probably the worst nation-building experiment ever.
(surprise, another country propped up by U.S. funds and military for the past 60 years and considered a "success")
We should always remember and heed Karl von Clausewitz's admonition that war is simply an instrument of national policy by other means. If we are to ever defeat the Taliban, we must implement a coherent political policy for the conduct of this war that's both realistic and achievable, and we must also make plain to the Taliban their ultimate fate will be even more unpleasant than the sacrifice they are presently prepared to make, and further, such hardships on them will not be merely transient.
That said, we now need to be truly honest with ourselves here, and assess where we as a country are really prepared to stay the course and win this conflict at all levels - militarily, politically and socially.
If we're not prepared to make that commitment - for obvious reasons which are reasonable and understandable - then it's best we now leave the Karzai regime to its inevitable fate. Otherwise, if we dither, time is on the side of the Taliban, and they have only to wait us out as we stumble toward what can only be a very unsatisfactory conclusion.
And you are certainly right about the need to define our objectives. It astonishes me that, after eight years in Afghanistan and more than six in Iraq, no one at all seems to have a clear notion of what "victory"--or even "failure"--would be. For me, I don't care about "winning" the war "militarily, politically and socially" (which I don't believe could be done with anything very short of genocide) or even about "victory" over the Taliban. I want more or less what I wanted when we first went into Afghanistan: the death or capture of everyone, or almost everyone, who was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. I think we still might be able to achieve this limited objective, but I also think it would be a mistake to try to do it by a massive build-up of an invading army.
The tribal factions defeated the Russians in Afghanistan. The Russians had superior numbers and firepower but couldn't overcome the tribal differences. They withdrew.
The tribal factions are now defeating the US in Afghanistan. We had superior numbers and firepower but couldn't overcome the tribal differences.
I think anyone can finish the previous sentence. Get out. NOW. Why must we be doomed to repeat the history that everyone else has read about in books?