Obama's War On Terror: Proceed With Caution
The Obama administration is facing military uncertainty regarding the war on terror. President Obama inherited a hefty load of problems that are arguably unsolvable. He may not be able to live up to his campaign promises of ending the war in Iraq and shifting military focus to Afghanistan.
During the campaign the ideas sounded wonderful in theory. I supported Mr. Obama and still do. However, he's got a lot of work to do.
Lets start with Iraq. The Iraqi people just had another democratic election. But was it successful? Don't form your opinion from me -- the eternal pessimist.
Look at the facts. The Washington Post reported that election fraud was committed in every Iraqi province. But not serious enough to change the final results. Kareem al-Tamimi, an official on Iraq's election commission stated:
"We have received complaints over violations in all 14 provinces, with varying degrees of seriousness, but most of them were not critical and did not change the final results. Some of the provinces had more than others."
Well then, I'll just take al-Tamimi's word for it. However, the Sunnis and the Shias probably wont. This is likely to cause more civil strife down the road. After all, the Sunnis and the Shias are not Democrats and Republicans.
Violence in Iraq is down. However the key word is "down" not over. U.S. FOBS still receive regular rocket attacks. Sunni suicide bombers are killing Shias on religious pilgrimages -- and vice versa. U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians are still dying. The current death count for U.S. troops is at 4,245. We'll probably never have an accurate number of Iraqi civilian deaths because the numbers are so substantial.
Our troops were supposed to move out of Iraqi cities by June 30 as established in the U.S./Iraqi status of forces agreement. However, General Odierno's assessment of Iraqi police and security forces is dismal. They're not ready to take over combat operations.
Secretary Gates (a straight shooter) has stated that the President's plan to withdraw all troops within 16 months is just one option on the table. It's not the end-all-be-all. President Obama is now considering a 23 month withdrawal of U.S. troops -- 7 months past his promised deadline. What happens if in 23 months the Iraqis are still not up to the task? Will there be another extension? That will leave President Obama between a rock and hard place.
In the meantime Afghanistan is calling. With Bin Laden at large and believed to be in Pakistan the mission has yet to be defined. The newest U.S. troops who've arrived in Afghanistan kicking off President Obama's 30,000 troop surge have already seen action. Unfortunately, not against those who attacked us on 9/11. Instead they're clashing with peasants.
Colonel David B. Haight, commander of the 3rd Brigade 10th Mountain Division reported from the field:
"Afghan officials don't believe it's hardcore al-Qaida operatives that you're never going to convert anyway. They believe that it's the guys who say, 'Hey you want $100 to shoot an RPG at a Humvee when it goes by,' and the guy says, 'Yeah I'll do that, because I've got to feed my family."
Well that's just great. Are we going to pump tens of thousands of U.S. troops into a country that is historically known to be unconquerable to fight impoverished Afghans who will kill for money?
Boris Gromov, The last Russian General to command troops in Afghanistan said:
Afghanistan taught us an invaluable lesson ... It has been and always will be impossible to solve political problems using force. One can increase the forces or not -- it won't lead to anything but a negative result.
While our troops come under fire in pursuit of members of Al-Qaida our allies in Pakistan have brokered a truce with the Taliban who've aided and harbored Bin Laden and Al-Qaida.
How do we fight those who actually attacked us on 9/11 when they're given sanctuary by an ally of the United States?
Mr. Obama is not in an envious position. But hey, he spent millions to get where he is --he's got to take the heat.
If you think I'm being critical of the President please hold your horses because I'm not ready to saddle up. I'm just highlighting the dilemma he's facing.
In Vietnam LBJ's war became Nixon's war. The President should proceed with a lot of caution. Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.
Hanna Ingber Win: Iraqi Elections: Share Your Experiences, Photos
Iraqi voters go to the polls this Saturday for the first time since 2005 as they cast their ballots in provincial elections. Early voting began...
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Is it about getting OBL and Al Quaeda?
Or, a pipeline?
Poppies and heroin?
Propping up our sagging defense industry?
Maybe making the Taleban treat women a little better?
Helping Karzi keep some sort of a grip?
Securing the nuclear weapons of Islamabad?
Getting "them" over there, so we don't have to fight them over here?
Occuping the place?
Revenge?
Does anyone think we can accomplish any of these objectives? Or anything else over there?
Does anyone out there know why we are in Afghanistan?
Can hope lead us to success in doing what no one else in history has been able to do?
Where is our end game, our exit strategy?
It's too late now. It's always been too late. We have no idea what we are doing in Afghanistan. We have no understanding of the place or the people.
We should quit now. It will only get worse.
My impression is that our most important goal in the region is to prevent people who want to harm the US, from seizing control of Pakistan's atomic arsenal. I got this impression from the recent book, "The Inheritance" by David Sanger. So is fighting the Taliban and its allies, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the best way to achieve that goal? What are some other reasonable approaches to this problem?
I posted on another article that the only way to "win" would be to conquer Pakistan.
And I mean a WWII style conquering. Not an enviable prospect and one we cant afford.
What is the political solution? The Pashtun's seem to be determined to keep their lifestyle and
adopt Sharia law. Are they determined to push Jihad outside the Frontier?
Many of the decision makers have already expressed their concern with fighting ANY sort of war in Afghanistan and Gates himself is known to be very reluctant on any mythical thinking that we can WIN such a war. Afghanistan is more a region than a nation and the natives there have brought down many a conquering nation. The reason to be interested in this area is OIL and access to it and it borders Russia. But is it worth it to lose over 4,000 Americans in warfare to secure the region? The number 4,000 is a little less than the number of Americans killed in Iraq. Obama needs to rethink the entire concept of "securing" Afghanistan. We help the Afghanistanis against the Russians and created al Qaeda to do so. It is difficult to put the jack back in the box but it probably MUST be done.
See John Bruhns's Profile
Interesting observation.
There are some great maps on the net of gas and oil reserves in that area and existing and proposed pipline routes. Sort of puts it into perspective.
Let's get Bin Laden and get the hell out of the entire region. Capture him, bring him to justice, and bring closure to 9/11. Move on, making sure we don't make any more mistakes of this magnitude.
See John Bruhns's Profile
Indeed. If were only that easy. Though I share your sentiment. At some point the aggression has to stop. We should keep in mind that if this was Bush's doing, we would all be screaming bloody murder from the mountain tops, tree tops, hill tops, and sky scrapers.
I feel like the MIC is so entrenched in this situation that they have a stranglehold on all of it. God forbid anybody mess with the commerce and profits being made by the promulgation of war.
Afghanistan is a quagmire that will NEVER end!! I say turn it and NW Pakistan into a PARKING LOT.
See John Bruhns's Profile
Well, that is certainly one way to solve the problem.
Obama distinguished himself when he said he doesn't favor "dumb wars." He meant Iraq, not Afghanistan. He clearly didi not think that attacking the Taliban was "dumb."
However, we lost the opportunity to get Bin Laden and kill many of the people who attacked us at Tora Bora. That was a passing moment, and it's long over.
What we have in Afghanistan now is another "dumb war." Those who escaped Tora Bora have found sanctuary in Pakistan, and can't be uprooted. We simply don't have the forces, never mind the convoluted relations with Pakistan.
It's too early to say what Obama hopes to achieve there now. The rational thing would be a temporary reenforcement so that this mess doesn't turn into a rout, to buy us some time for an orderly withdrawal.
We'll see.
Unlike W, Obama is literate and curious, and probably realizes that even Alexander the Great had to marry his way into what is now Afghanistan rather than conquer it militarily.
As it did to the USSR, Afghanistan will bleed us, frustrate us and serve as an ongoing waste of our military and economic resources. I'm sure the jihadi pray five times a day that we plunge in -- it's great for recruitment and continues to destabilize Pakistan.
Defeat is always hard to acknowledge, but only idiots keep on when there's no real point.
See John Bruhns's Profile
I feel Afghanistan is a bottomless pit. We missed our window of opportunity in 2001.
Yep, Time to close the books on this.
How can someone so smart make such a dumb decision to escalate war in Afghanistan?
I feel this increase in militarism in Afghanistan is a huge mistake. Obama may have the support of "war hawks", but he has lost his moral authority with this decision.
No matter what else Obama does, he has nothing on which to stand from this point. Killing people half-way around the world is still killing.
See John Bruhns's Profile
How can someone so smart make such a dumb decision to escalate war in Afghanistan?
Good Question !!
It was reported that Obama did not want to make any decisions at this time regarding Afghanistan but Gates along with the Pentagon said they needed additional troops now. Obama complied with their request but what will be done at a later time is undetermined at this point.
People that don't understand that the solutions to the 3 Middle East conflicts are in the cards, need to chill out and read a little positive psychology. Iraq is just a matter of time and months, we can even encourage them to get a little more fed up with us, and ask us to please leave asap; with Afgan, it's a little tougher but Obama will soon have Iran and Russia helping, they are already trying to provide travel routes; Israel sounds impossible, but only to people who don't want to give it 100 years or however long it takes for the religious considerations to accommodate themselves. The view that Jews and Muslims cannot share holy sites will eventually die out. What everybody wants eventually is respect and recognition.
See John Bruhns's Profile
I wish I had your optimism.
How naive.
"How do we fight those who actually attacked us on 9/11 when they're given sanctuary by an ally of the United States? "
Tell the Afghans that if they give us Osama, we'll leave. Then do it.
I don't suppose you would, by any chance, have a two-sentence (or three) prescription for Iraq, would you! :-)
Not one, unfortunately, that Wall Street would buy, and they are Obama's greater enemy.
See John Bruhns's Profile
In a perfect world.
It's NOT a "War on Terror" which is the biggest Lie of the Century, it's "Money for WAR". Our stupid military adventurism, combined with our economy tanking are going to cause this Nation to implode on itself. The maniacs that flew jets into the WTC towers were guilty of murder and destruction of property. THAT'S ALL. And not only did we invade the wrong country, but now we're chasing a dead man into the Graveyard of friggin' Empires... I don't know what time you have on your damned watch, but mine is reading CRAZY TIME. Like a slow motion train wreck and I'm pulling on a broke brake chain.
(the following rant brought to by Sperry-Rand, Boeing, General Dynamics, blah blah blah...)
See John Bruhns's Profile
Okay
By the way, it's unfair to refer to Vietnam only as "LBJ's war" or even as "LBJ's and Nixon's war." Our post-WWII military involvement in Vietnam began during the Eisenhower administration (I knew someone who served as a U.S. Military officer there shortly after the French loss at Dien Bien Phu), and it expanded during the Kennedy administration, after which LBJ "inherited" it.
See John Bruhns's Profile
Make the argument as you see fit.
FACTUALLY CORECT!! Finally someone who sees that it wasn't LBJ's War.
The mere fact that Obama inherited a mess is not a reason to avoid criticizing him if you believe he is not acting properly or sufficiently promptly to clean up the mess he inherited. At the moment, by committing additional troops to fight in Afghanistan without having clearly defined objectives and a clearly defined goal (hopefully something better than the last administration's goal of "victory" in Iraq), it appears that Obama is not acting in a way that will lead to a positive result for the United States. Nor does it appear that he is acting in a way that will lead to a positive result for the people of Afghanistan. Our interests are, or should be, rather limited. As long as Afghanistan does not serve as a base of operations for Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group intent on causing damage to Western society, we have achieved one of the two major objectives that were the basis for our original invasion of Afghanistan (the other was the capture or killing of Bin Laden and the leadership of Al Qaeda). Unless the current administration is able to articulate some additional objective, so long as we prevent Afghanistan from serving as a base of operations for terrorist groups, either through a continued military presence or merely a credible threat that the United States will intervene in Afghanistan to the extent necessary to protect its interests, then we will have satisfied the only objective that we still have for Afghanistan.
You're right to be pessimistic; but Obama wasn't left with lots of good options, only bad ones and worse ones.
See John Bruhns's Profile
Yes indeed. Hence the blog.
John,
I'm so glad that you wrote about this. I couldn't agree more with your assessment of what President Obama is up against. And, the last Russian General to command troops in Afghanistan, Boris Gromov is bang on, too. And, of course, the valuable lesson that he speaks of applies to Iraq just as well.
Forgive my constant harping on this but when are we going to start hearing more from the Obama/BIDEN administration about the lack of progress on the political front in Iraq and Afghanistan?! All we ever hear about is that we need more troops in Afghanistan and how soon we can pull out of Iraq. If only it were that simple!!!
...continu
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
