Rethinking Afghanistan

What in the world is Barack Obama thinking? Mercifully, he plans to scale down and end the Iraq misadventure, yet he insists he will expand the effort in Afghanistan, and pursue Osama bin Laden to the ends of Tora Bora. In his first debate with John McCain, Obama said: "We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there. . . . So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan." (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/27/america/27transcript.php)

Are Obama's foreign policy advisers, like those in the State Department in the 1960s who talked of falling dominoes and drawing the line in the sand in Vietnam, absolutely ignorant of history and of the limitations of American power? Or has he surrounded himself with the Clinton's advisers of the 1990s who drove us deeper into the quagmire of Iraq, and gave aid and comfort to the neo-cons who harbored grandiose visions of expanding American power and influence in the Middle East?

We can also ask whether Obama plans to follow Niall Ferguson and his merry band of neo-con followers who want America to be what the British Empire failed to be -- oblivious, of course, to the graveyard that was Afghanistan for British imperial dreams. Or do Obama and his advisers forget how we gleefully supplied the mujahideen with awesome weapons to turn their country once again into a graveyard -- this time for Soviet ambitions? In those days, the lessons of Vietnam still remained clear and the CIA indulged in an orgy of self-congratulation for making Afghanistan the Soviet's Vietnam.

Now we have a preview of a forthcoming national intelligence estimate, pointing to the obvious: the Taliban has recovered its strength, nearly in proportion to the ineffectiveness and corruption in the present Afghan government. This report, not due for completion until after the November election, nevertheless, has been dutifully leaked (New York Times, October 9, 2008). Such thinking parallels the conclusions the British have reached.

The UK commander in Helmand Province in Afghanistan, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, praised his forces for having taken "the sting out of the Taliban for 2008." But he also issued a warning for lower expectations. "We are not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan Army," the Brigadier said. Shades of Vietnamization! (Financial Times, October 6, 2008.) Other NATO commanders in the field also have warned that military means alone are not going to reduce the threat. Ultimately, negotiations will have to bring a political solution.

The Bush White House reacted with predictable anger. Spokesman Gordon Johndroe (see "Ubiquitous Gordon Johndroe moves to the NSC, http://www.potomacflacks.com/pf/2006/10/ubiqitous_gordo.html) insisted that "we plan on winning in Afghanistan. It's going to be tough and going to take some time, but we will eventually succeed." Meantime, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has asked Saudi Arabia to mediate with the Taliban -- apparently not without irony, given the Saudi commitment to fundamentalist thought, only several degrees from Taliban policies.

The White House was noticeably silent after the UK's Defense Ministry reacted to its field commander's assessment, saying it "did not have a problem" with warning the British people not to plan on "a decisive military victory' and instead prepare for the best deal that can be made.

So, back to October 2008 and the American election. John McCain apparently has little interest in Afghanistan. For him, as he repeatedly said, his line in the sand for the War on Terrorism is Iraq. What else can we expect of him? He brushed aside the debate moderator's attempt to draw him out on the lessons of Vietnam; he slipped that knot by simply using Iraq in his topic sentence. McCain's time as a POW marginalized him at a time when America learned the painful lesson of the limits of power. At least until the Bush White House sold its snake oil conclusions on the threat from Iraq.

And Barack Obama? Is the healthy healing and reinvigoration of his promise to be dashed on the rocks of Afghanistan and Tora Bora? Why are Democrats and liberals so fearful of the war-loving Right that they think they must have their own adventures? Fortunately, such "progressive" stalwarts as Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, and several others, apparently are feeling a little less heat and have withdrawn support from the onerous H.Con.Res.362 that would have paved the way for a naval blockade of Iran. Obama must recognize that he cannot appease the neo-cons, the Right, or whatever we call those who nurture our great national industry of dispatching mercenaries around the globe.

Obama and his advisers would do well to understand Afghanistan's history -- and for good measure, its geography. We can ill-afford the costs of the lives and treasure resulting from mistakes, based on the premise of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address, that we "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." There are limits to our power -- sadly, presidential candidates will not utter that truth.

Would that Obama repeat in 2008 what he said in 2002: he did not oppose war; only dumb ones. Our diminished capacities and resources make such endeavors problematic. Then, too, we might do something other than ignore present realities and forget the past.

Stanley Kutler is the author of The Wars of Watergate, among other writings.

Comments

[BarackMarley]

Whatever you say about Obama, he still has a much better grasp of the situation that mcCain. In the last two debates, McCain said 'we helped the Afghan Freedom Fighters drive the Russians out of Afghanistan.' If you look at the history, MCCain is really referring to Osama Bin LAden and the Mujahideen.

Does McCain believe that Bin Laden is a Freedom Fighter?
http://newsone.blackplanet.com/elections/mccain-called-bin-laden-a-freedom-fighter/

[Napoleon]

As Kutler suggests, the policy on Afghanistan Obama currently seems to favor, may well lead to a dive over the precipice. Alienating Pakistan, the most effective available route into large landlocked Afghanistan, through U.S.'s attacks inside Pakistan, would make the dive more steep and disastrous.

Obama can avoid the apparent logic of his position. Obama has yet to clarify distinctions between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He should do this now tor in early 2009 elected president.

Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, sponsored the 9/11 attack. The Taliban government grievously erred in providing after the fact sanctuary for Bin Laden. This distinction is mportant one, not to be glossed over with "you are with us or you are against us" angry rhetoric.

The Taliban represents a home-grown, nationalist force. This is the source of its strength in an endless, destructive war against Western armies. A war by the West against Al Qaeda that excludes the Taliban, is not likely to cause the disaster predicted by Kutler. The prior human rights violations by the Taliban do not justify the Western war against it.

Today, we see more and more calls from government officials and military leaders for accepting this distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Nothing Obama has said so far rules out making this differentiation, and the consequent changing of the U.S.'s mission in Afghanistan. If Obama is elected president, the chorus is likely to grow, and then sink in.

[TimeGrid]

What may lead to "a dive over the precipice" is disregarding Afghanistan as irrelevant.
That's what we did after the Soviet Army left, and after the Talibans and Al Qaeda were defeated in Tora Bora.

Yes, the Talibans had no involvment in 9/11. But they were "hosting" Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and they refused to provide any cooperation.

You are wrong saying the Talibans "represents a homegrown nationalist force".
How do you think the US helped the "Afghan Freedom Fighters" (aka "Mujahideen", aka "Talibans, Bin Laden & Co.") in their struggle against the USSR?
Such "help" was provided via Pakistani military and secret service.
The Talibans were "grown" in Pakistan and inspired by Pakistani fundamentalists.

Those connections among Al Qaeda, Talibans, Pakistani fundamentalists and portions of the Pakistani military and secret services are still in place nowadays. Can you believe it?

That's why some NATO allies stress the importance of creating political or economic wedges to break those connections.

The suggestion that Obama is focusing on Afghanistan to "appease the neo-cons" is laughable.
Obama doesn't care about neocons. Neocons don't care about Afghanistan!

Obama and his advisors understand the danger of such a messy situation in Afghanistan (and neighbouring countries) after so many years, while you, Kutler, McCain and the neocons still don't get it.

Remember when Clinton tried a strike against Bin Laden and informed the Pakistani after the missiles had already been launched? Guess why.

Also, remember when Obama in a debate mentioned a "suitcase".

[TimeGrid]

You should read carefully through Obama's comments on Afghanistan and Pakistan. What he says, and what he avoids to say. And you should look into his work to secure loose nukes.
You would probably end up understanding why Obama thinks Afghanistan (and Pakistan) are so important right now. Here are some hints that you may want to consider.
Pakistan (unlike Iran) already has nuclear weapons. In the last decade Pakistan has gone through significant political turnmoil. President Zardari has just taken on after Musharraf. There's increasing Islamic extremism in Pakistan... And there have been repeated allegations of connections between Pakistani secret services and/or military and some Islamic factions.
Then there's the situation at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and please remember that this is exactly where the Talibans got started during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (Talibans means "students"... and - guess what - they were "educated" by Pakistani fundamenta­lists...).
Last but not least, there's the connection between Al Qaeda (and Bin Laden) and the Talibans.
Remember that they fought together as "Mujahideen" against the Soviets, and that northern Pakistan was the ground where they used to regroup before each new offensive.
And remember that some of the guys involveed in the London and Madrid public transport bombings had visited Pakistan few months before those bombings occurred.

So, think again about Obama's words on "loose nukes".
Then think again about his comments on Pakistan.
I'm sure you will understand why getting the things right in Afghanistan is so important.

[MagisterLudi]

It is myopic to view Afghanistan action strictly in views of American political narrative. No, guerrilla warfare is not pretty. But Afghanistan action, unlike Iraq, is a genuinely international response of enormous strategic importance for the world. The U.N. Security Council on Monday again unanimously extended the mandate for Afghanistan. While rarely exhibited by journalists, patience and long term planning is a virtue in a statesmen.

[jhNY]

Obama is trying mightily to win the electrion and now is surrounded by professional Democrats who have believed for years that such a victory was impossible for their party's candidate if he was perceived by the electorate to be 'weak on terror' or 'weak on defense'. And for the time being, Obama seems content to adhere to this line of thinking.

There is of course, apretty massive downside to this sort of thing. See Iran and Kerry's pronouncements about same during 2004. Unwilling to be a candidate for peace, Kerry instead postured as a smarter warmonger, as did his political allies, complaining that Bush was fighting the wrong enemy, Iraq, when it was obvious to him that Iran was more dangerous to the US. So now, anytime anybody wants a war with Iran, there are literally reams of Democrat war talk to bolster their case. And unless they want to be branded as flip-floppers, the Democrats just have to nod in solidarity . Israel policy is another such quagmire of quotes for Democrats, as they have likewise found it impossible to consider anything but unconditional support.

Afghanistan was lawless and broken and broke when Bin Laden showed up there to plot our undoing, and it will be lawless and broken and broke when we leave, however many tons of armament we explode around the bewildered population in the meantime, Hope Obama knows that, whatever he's saying in order to win.