Will Barack Obama Think Twice about Afghanistan?

Presumptuous to tell Barack Obama to think twice, but this is not alright.

Here is the New York Times crack military reporter Michael Gordon essentially broadcasting to the world what is being planned.

American intelligence reports underscore the seriousness of the threat. From August through October, the average number of daily attacks by insurgents exceeded those in Iraq, the first time the violence in Afghanistan had outpaced the fighting in Iraq since the start of the American occupation in May 2003. Almost half of the insurgents' attacks were directed against American and other foreign forces, while the remainder were focused on Afghan security forces and civilians.

The entire Gordon piece has the air of a fait accompli.

And as Gary Kamiya notes in Salon:

Obama's proposal to escalate the U.S. war in Afghanistan, though qualified by his greater emphasis on rebuilding the country, seems to indicate that he believes the Taliban can be defeated militarily. This is a recipe for failure: As former British Foreign Service officer Rory Stewart noted in the New York Times, the U.S. military buildup in Afghanistan has inflamed the Taliban resistance and made the situation worse. In a recent interview on "60 Minutes," Obama said he would make capturing or killing bin Laden a top priority, and he has threatened to strike terrorist targets inside Pakistan if the Pakistan government proved unwilling or unable to do so.

Killing or capturing bin Laden is obviously desirable. But as Mideast expert and Salon contributor Juan Cole has pointed out, achieving that goal may come at too high a price. A major U.S. military campaign in the tribal agencies on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where bin Laden is thought to be hiding, would anger Pakistanis and weaken the Pakistan government. It's not clear this is an acceptable trade-off.

Barack made many references to carrots and sticks while arguing for a more robust diplomacy. Sadly, if the Gordon report is indicative, the window for a real debate leading to alternatives to an extended military event in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) is only open a crack.

Comments

[Ron1951]

It's certainly right to keep the capture of OBL as a priority of our mission in Afghanistan, but if 120,000 Russians couldn't subdue this country, then increasing our armed presence there is not the answer to dealing with this situation.

Militarily, an association of warlords can have their "awakening" and take control of their own areas from the Taliban again. Providing them with arms has worked before, and there is no reason it should not work again. Forget about establishing a western-style democracy and just let them re-establish their own political system the way they want it.

But the key is economic and national growth in Afghanistan. Coming up with an alternative to growing poppies. So what if the alternative is a loser for us as we buy the Afghan production of whatever can grow there? This is not only less expensive than waging war, it will result in a lasting peace.

Let's make our strategy one of giving the Afghan people a way to live their lives in peace and relative prosperity without interference from the thought police/Taliban, or from us.

[Rafay]

The recent statements made by leading American military and political officials in Afgahnistan that they would be willing to talk to "reconcilable elements" among the Taliban is a positive window of opportunity to start considering and building up on non-military options in the country.

Between the lines it is also a tacit acceptance of fact that Pashtuns (now more widely labeled and recognised as the Taliban) are the majority in Afghanistan today, as always; And that it would be prudent to take the majority on-board for any workable, poltical solution to bring an end to three decades of war and bloodshed in that unfortuante country.

Off course any such actual move definitely would be - and should be - made conditional to the Taliban's or the Pashtun's un-conditional willingness to resolve the issues through NON-OFFENSIVE MEANS ONLY.

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

I very much hope something like this happens. The last thing we need is an extended almost unilateral military engagement.

[Romulus]

I think that the latest incident in Mumbai clearly illustrates that there are elements in Pakistan that will not negotiate, at least not in good faith. I believe the Taliban are like that. Their rule in Afghanistan demonstrated the radical Islam belief of "my way or you die." I do not believe they will ever be satisfied with anything less than regaining that amount of power.

You might say that is Afghanistan's business but the Taliban's influence didn't stop there. They harbored Al Queda and Al Queda, using force and violence, has inferferred and continues to infterfere with the governing of many other nations, not just the U.S.

While Al Queda may not have had anything to do with Mumbai, it still was carried out by those with the same mentality and radical agenda. I see no way of bargaining with these people. They want their brand of Islam to rule the entire world.

[Egalitare]

I fully understood the need for Candidate Obama to say we needed to reload in Afghanistan, but circumstances on the ground may force the incoming Administration to indeed pause before acting. As reprehensible as the Taliban may be to me, they really are only guilty of granting "safe harbor" AQ Inc. If Kabul really does have in mind some political accomodation with the Taliban, then that trumps any interest we might wish to inflict upon the Afghan people. This uptick in violence may be positioning for better advantage at the table. Painful to watch, yes, but certainly not illogical.

I always felt that we made a mistake in rushing into Afghanistan. If we had simply amped up our intel, let them FEEL as if we were not quite sure if or how to respond tactically, and allow them to feel they were operating in relative safety, we MIGHT have caught or "terminated with extreme prejudice" bin Laden and his inner circle when they had become just a bit too careless.

[Michale32086]

Isn't it even SLIGHTLY possible that PE Obama knows more about the situation on the ground than all the pundits et al and that proceeding as he is is the RIGHT thing to do for this country??

Isn't that even SLIGHTLY possible???

Michale.....

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

If I go by his record so far, the answer is yes. But I have consistently felt that this is an Achilles Heel for anyone with an illusion about how easy it might be to resolve this. It will take a major diplomatic coup. Is he capable of that? I have no doubt. Will it happen? I do not know.

[Michale32086]

It's rare to see a Commentator actually follow up with people in their commentaries..

Kudos and thank you..

Anyways, I understand where you are coming from.. I just feel that second guessing that this point in time may be a tad premature..

On the other hand, I can see the logic in that, better to second guess now, than to have to pick up the pieces when things go south.

As you indicate.. Time will tell...

Michale.....

[speeddeeps]

Michale, I usually appreciate your comments, but do you think that we should sent more troops to Afghanistan? Arent we making the same mistake as in Iraq

[Michale32086]

{{{{
Michale, I usually appreciate your comments,
}}}}

Thanx... :D

{{{{
, but do you think that we should sent more troops to Afghanistan? Arent we making the same mistake as in Iraq
}}}}}

Well, I don't think Iraq was as much of a mistake as more here, but that's another debate.

The one overriding concern in our current military activities is to accomplish the mission. If it takes more troops to do that, then that is what must be done.

I simply cannot see any possible alternative that would have the desired effect..

Michale.....