Shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center, President Bush began strikes on Taliban targets in Afghanistan and began a military operation to root out the radical group. But before nearly finishing the task at hand, neo-conservatives (some of whom had established the Project for the New American Century and had previously tried to push President Clinton into war with Iraq) renewed their effort to make a case based on faulty intelligence for Iraq. The effort led to a poorly thought out unilateral invasion that cost the U.S. billions of dollars, thousands of Iraqi and American deaths and tens of allies.
President Obama ran with the promise that he would bring the Iraq war to an end and refocus our attention to fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, who were our real adversaries. The promise made sense, had international appeal and gained the strong support of Democrats, independents and some Republicans, who voted to send him to The White House with a 7% advantage over his war veteran Republican opponent, Senator McCain.
But as it sometimes happens, we have begun to see some flip-flopping taking place following the election. The difference is that this time, it is not the politician, now President Obama, who is doing the flipping, but some of the very people who so faithfully supported him and his position on Afghanistan. As President Obama is getting ready to live up to his promise, renew American efforts in Afghanistan and make a number of critical decisions regarding an increase of troops, an ever-growing chorus of liberals is pressuring him to abandon Afghanistan and withdraw without any regards to what will happen next. These individuals make a number of unpersuasive arguments, from generic anti-war platitudes to faulty comparisons with other unsuccessful wars.
One of those overused comparisons has been with Afghanistan's war with the Soviets in the 1980s and the fact that the Soviets were unable to root out the Taliban after 9 years of fighting. But the Soviets' war with the Taliban was fundamentally different than ours.
First, Soviets' main objective was quite narrow: to support the Marxist government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan against the Taliban. They did not focus on defending the population, helping to educate and build schools or support development and trade. The American policy under President Obama is fundamentally different and more comprehensive. While President Bush saw Afghanistan as mostly a military project, President Obama has a comprehensive policy that goes far beyond just the military operations.
Secondly, the Taliban were in a stronger military position during their war with the Soviets because they garnered full American support. As soon as they began their war, President Carter authorized the CIA to begin a massive propaganda effort against the Marxists, making the Afghan government unpopular and Taliban popular. And shortly after President Reagan was sworn into office, the United States began training and arming the Taliban. Of course the Taliban were able to fight the Soviets more ably with the strong help of a super power like the United States. But the Taliban now have no state sponsors, putting them in a much weaker position.
And the third major difference between the Soviet's war with Afghanistan and current American efforts -- which also makes comparisons with Vietnam irrelevant -- is that while Afghans may have felt ambivalent or supportive of the Taliban in the 1980s, they are now deeply unpopular in all parts of the country. Afghans have now had the chance to live under a Taliban regime and remember the brutalities and carry the scars. Because of this experience, Afghans by and large were ecstatic to see the Taliban go and deeply fear their comeback now. This reality also makes American initiatives in Afghanistan much more popular than those of the Soviets. The same issue of popularity makes comparisons with Vietnam irrelevant (where Viet Cong was very popular and had the state sponsorship of the Soviet Union against the United States, leading to the American failure for some of the same reasons that the Soviets failed in Afghanistan).
It is true that we are not going to bring true democracy to any country. Those who believe Iraq is a full-fledged liberal democracy now should expect major cases of corruption, rigging of various elections, insurgency and inter-ethnic and inter-sect violence in the coming years. Democracy will only survive and flourish in a country if a critical mass in that country has evolved through the necessary stages that would allow them to understand the value of democracy as the system that can best serve their collective and common interests.
However, if there is one country where this rule does not apply in the short run, it's Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an extremely tribal country that lacks the most basic infrastructural elements that would enable its people to get educated about not just mathematics and biology, but nationalism, government and all the different ways in which they can take control of their own destiny. As long as they lack those necessary elements, they will not be able to evolve and embrace democracy and reject the extremism of the Taliban. The United States and NATO are now in the unique position to help modernize Afghanistan enough so that the population can have a reliable window to the rest of the world, raising their social consciousness and seeing how they, too, can live in a free, advanced and respected country. Only one aspect of the project should involve the military; others should include helping the Afghans shift their economy from opium to other areas, build schools and opening up the country to foreign companies that are willing to invest and bring communication technologies such as cell phones, satellite dishes and the internet to all parts of the country
Some may admit that there is an advantage in a comprehensive NATO strategy in Afghanistan, but still question why the U.S. should be the one to take leadership of this modernization project. For three reasons:
Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamSedaei
The U.S. in Afghanistan: The Longest War - TIME
Obama, war council review Afghanistan strategy -- latimes.com
gary
Totally deceptive. The prime signatories to PNAC were those very same people who were then running the White House and the Pentagon... namely Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz , etcetera.
Why omit this fact?
The Taliban currently controls 80% of Afghanistan and have done so for over two years (per the International Council on Security and Development). The Taliban has still not provided "safe havens" to Al Quaida, which has only a negligible presence (per both Petraeus and McCrystal). Al Quaida has used Spain, Portugal, Germany and other countries to "plot and plan," and launch attacks... but we do not propose invading and occupying those countries in order to deny "safe havens" to Al Quaida.
The Taliban does have sponsorship and support from Pakistan's ISI.
At the time of the U.S. invasion, the poppy growing and heroin trade had been all but decimated... but under U.S. occupation, that has now been fully restored.
The main purpose for the United States presence in Afghanistan is to protect the pipeline. Secondarily, it is to protect the CIA's highly profitable heroin trade. We are not there for "the People," and our presence will never have anything to do with benefitting them, unless it happens by accident.
There will always be those who push this away and cling to violence; they are criminals and should be treated as criminals, not elevated to the status of enemy combatants through war.
Following is a commentary on where we need to focus our resources in Afghnaistan if we are to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda there:
http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m10d7-Difficult-decisions-abound-for-President-Obama-on-eighth-anniversary-of-Afghanistan-War
gary
There is NOTHING to be gained in Afghanistan. The proper policy should be containment and isolation, NOT internal intervention.
gary
Common sense says that if the USA is going to war (or in a current war) then the draft should be re-in-stated and that every able bodied person should have go to war.
Especially those that live on Wallstreet and the children of our politicans.... no exceptions.
If their children had to wear fatigues they would not support a war!!!!!
Wake up Mainstreet and STOP enlisting.... you are not fighting for your country.... you are fighting to keep putting more profits into the war-mongers pockets.
And if we have Fascism, it terrorism anyway.
The country that tortures, wages war for profit, and has a plutocracy for sale to the highest bidder,
IS NOT
CAN NOT
bring democracy or anything good to Afghanistan.
Kucinich says:
"If the Obama administration is determined to ‘win the war' in Afghanistan, then we should be prepared for another Vietnam. An unending military commitment is unacceptable to the American people and it should be unacceptable to Congress. If the Obama administration refuses to bring this war to an end, then Congress should use the power of the purse, granted by the Constitution, to end the war and bring our troops home. Many objective analyses indicate that the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan. If the Obama administration can't do it, then Congress must," said Kucinich.
I see the distinctions between Afghanistan and Vietnam, and between the Soviet presence there and the US presence. And I definitely agree that we should not leave Afghanistan until the Afghan people action are able to defend themselves against the Taliban: I've been supportive of Obama's expansion of troops in the area (and have taken heat from those who want us to get out now.)
But--after of the recent election, which showed the extent of corruption in the Afghan government, I am very concerned that we do not seem to have a local partner that we can rely on to rebuild the country. This is a problem not only for democratization but also for post-war reconstruction, because getting "the most basic infrastructural elements" and modernization that Afghanistan needs to develop will be considerably harder without a functional government,
In the end, I agree with Sedaei: I'm not for removing our troops right now. (Adding more, I am not sure about.) But at this point, I am terrified that Obama got to the White House too late, and that the damage caused by W's neglect will not be reversed for quite some time.
No. You're the one with the faulty reasoning, relying on altruistic platitudes pertinent in the ridic ul ous assertions that good intentions will somehow dictate the outcome of such a campaign.
In fact, the Soviet and British misfortunes in Afghanistan are completely appropriate comparisons, which have much more to do with geography and tribal society than attempts to orchestrate imperialist objectives.
Whether we're building schools or not, the fact remains that Afghanistan spans a conglomerate of isolated villages, interspersed betweem thousands of square miles of desolate and rocky terrain, ideally suited for insurgent activities. As the resentment among the Afghani population grows about Amercans failing to adequately "protect" them, the fact remains that even 300,000 troops will not be able to sufficiently guard every major population center in the country.
Your superficial analysis bodes plenty of simplistic deductions while your inability to contemplate both history and geography hardens your incentive toward accusing others of suffering from what clearly afflicts your conception of things.
You're the one who needs to be educated, not us.
gary