My Afghan Problem

My doubts about the US mission in Afghanistan, like those of many other Americans, have grown substantially over the past several years. While I think America was justified in toppling the Taliban government in 2001 for harboring the Al Qaeda criminals who killed 3000 US citizens and foreigners through their suicidal airplane assaults on New York and Washington, at the same time today I am wondering whether the cause we are fighting for in Afghanistan now is the same that Washington embraced eight years ago -- namely, to eliminate Al Qaeda.

First, the remnants of Al Qaeda have over the past half-decade scattered and most reside in Pakistan, so we are now mainly fighting the Taliban, a local, not a global fundamentalist insurgency, in Afghanistan.

Second, we have already about 68,000 troops in that country but we are primarily defending the nation's few big cities, and little of the countryside, making our mission, in geopolitical terms, a limited one and one no longer concerned about liberating a nation.

Third, General Stanley McChrystal's strategy, to provide security for Afghans while we build up the Afghan military and police forces, doesn't seem very workable as long as the Afghans realize the US will ultimately leave the country.

Fourth, the Karzai regime on whose behalf we are fighting, is corrupt, and, after a rigged election, also illegitimate, so we no longer are working with a truly legal government.

Fifth, in pursuing all of these policies, we are spending billions of tax dollars a day, which could be put to use in solving our vast economic problems at home.

It is time that we should be insisting on two things -- first, that major changes be carried out by the Afghan government to stamp out graft and bribery and institute democratic reforms and that our assistance be contingent on such changes being implemented.

Second, we should also demand that the burden of our Afghan undertaking now be shared more broadly than just between us and our few NATO allies. It is time that the nations in the region, including Russia, Iran, China, and the various "Stans", who are putatively supporting our fight, should now be engaged themselves in this struggle, supplying forces and resources to defeat the enemy. After all, we are safeguarding them right now them against their own bitter enemies -- religious extremists and drug smugglers but getting little thanks in return.

If this situation does not change, then President Obama's reappraisal should certainly forgo any troop increase and instead aim toward gradually pulling out US and NATO forces and handing over to the Afghans the sole responsibility for settling their own internal conflicts.

 

 

Comments

[cinoti]

People,people, try to stay on tract! Afghanistan is a needy country, and needs help
to get out the 14th century, but America should not and cannot be the only force
to stabilize the country. America is being "suckered" by the rest of the world.
Divide the country into international zones and get the other "big"powers to
step-up and bear some responsibility. We are borrowing money from our
grand children. at some point we will go broke, what then?
Please "big ol strong America" go help those poor Afghanistan's, while
we in the rest of the world benefit from the "peace" that you provide with
your soldiers lives and of course lots and lots of money.
America is and will remain the leader of the world for a long time
but there is no reasons for America to do all the heavy lifting."
I think we just have to make that clear!

[UKOH]

Quite honestly this is all about "We started so we will finish" rather than any real reason for being in Afganistan right now. It would look terrible for the USA to pull out and have the Taliban take over completely again, with or without a renewed Al Qaeda presence in the country.

There are some major questions which few, if any, in the mainstream media are raising:
(1) Why are we so concerned about spending money on a broken health care system but nobody quesitons the huge increase in deficit spending caused by the billions on this war? It seems that spending money to kill people is fine but spending money to heal peop[le is not.
(2) There are so many places that Al Qaeda can find a "safe haven" in this world that all the attention on one old place of theirs doesn't make sense anymore. The world - and Al Qaeda - have moved on.
(3) This is not about protecting the USA but nation building in Afganistan. Al Qaeda can attack from almost anywhere. We are playing - univited - the "world's policeman" again.

Obama is quite right to question what we are doing there before taking any actions.

[CitadelYankee]

The US and NATO must defend Afghanistan's frontier, assist with internal security, cooperate with NGO's and make every effort to work with the Afghans and the United Nations to construct a Constitutional Monarchy. Jeffersonian Democracy is not feasible but a Constitutional Monarchy is. Afghanistan's history demonstrates that a Constitutional Monarchy is the only feasible Western alternative to an Islamic Caliphate. If the West leaves Afghanistan abruptly then it leaves a power vacuum and all the moderate Afghans will be repressed or massacred. Afghanistan is a necessary war because, in the big picture, this is a clash between extremist Islam and the West. The invasion of Afghanistan was a just war. Make no mistake the Western world is invested in this and has an opportunity to repair the 30 year rape of Afghanistan and demonstrate the value of the nation-state system. The wise use of military power (guarding the border) to attain a feasible political solution (constitutional monarchy) is a sound strategy and based on Von Clausewitz's thesis On War. Escalation and the occupation of population centers is costly and unwise use of our military power. Let's be smart about this and help Afghanistan with the right force mix and a political solution - that is the "exit strategy." Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/percy-blakeney/hold-the-line-in-afghanis_b_321156.html

[iridium53]

Even if the two demands you suggest are met, so what?

America is risking the lives, limbs and blood of young Americans in Afghanistan.
For what purpose?
What is the best outcome that we could possibly achieve? A stable Afghanistan? And, so what?

The source of Terrorist capability is not people. It is money. Without money they cannot travel, cannot buy weapons, cannot function.

United States forces have chased them for eight years into Pakistan. In Pakistan they are free to act and train as they wish. After eight years what has changed that would make this strategy successful?

Even if you argue that the terrorists were, then, eight years ago, in Afghanistan, they are no longer there. What is the logical connection between their location - then - and current activity now? At this point is seems rather like a coincidental condition.

The mission in Afghanistan to eradicate Al Qaeda seems to be deeply flawed by optimism bias. Rather like chasing the vermin on your neighbor's property down the street in a vain hope of eliminating them from your property.

If there's no point, why do we continue to risk the lives, limbs, and blood of our precious people. And, why do we continue to waste our fortune and build a deficit for the benefit of the Afghans?

[mjc]

As usual, a fine comment with detailed questions and answers about the US involvement in Afghanistan. IF the terrorist part of this is such a problem, then certainly Pakistan, perhaps more than any other nation should be trying to eliminate the Taliban. And Russia, India and the many nations of the Middle East...inc­luding Israel should be front and center trying to end the terrorist hold on this almost-nation. Why do we assume we are the ONLY nation whose mission should be to eliminate terrorists in Afghanistan? It's the military-industrial complex in this nation and in perhaps other Western nations that want this war to continue. Once again we are throwing away American lives for some completely unachievable goal, not to mention the civilians in this region.

[S1m0n]

Justified isn't quite the question now, is it? From here, it's looking like a really bad idea, and getting worse all the time. Justified or not, it's been a disaster. Like Iraq, instead of teaching the world they couldn't get away with doing that to America, it's taught the whole world the limits of US power, and the hollow irony of all that talk of a new world order of unchallenged American hegemony.

The vaunted US might has been sold out to profitteers and religious fundamentalists, while America's business leaders systematically looted, destroying the stock market, privatising and looting much of the military, and running amok through what was supposed to have been an attempt to rebuild iraq, instead turned into a combination kindergarten for post-adolescent evangelistics and looters' paradise.

[Cosatjockomo]

The neo-colonial aim of capitalizing third world nations should never have been applied to Afghanistan. It will never be a "market" for capitalists. Should have simply gone into Afghanistan with the idea of teaching the world that it doesn't pay to attack the US. In fact we should have made it clear that to do so would be national suicide. Afghanistan should be a nuclear wasteland right now. Screw their hearts and minds.

[voxpop4]

Get out! Use drones! Special forces! Find Osamma! Our troops are like in a shooting gallery! Make them miserable from the sky. Infiltrate their groups. Destroy the poppy fields! Get out now. No more troops. Get out of Iraq too! These monsters of Shariah Islam are bleeding us slowly! We need all the good soldiers for the Big One!

[DeadPossum]

The reason we invaded Afghanistan was because Bush needed to beat someone up following 9/11.
Not a very noble cause but easy enough to achieve given that Afghanistan has never been able to stop invasions. But then poor Bush got sucked in by his own claptrap and justifications and failed to leave after a few months of mindless destruction.
Big mistake. Domination is achieved by the invaders decapitating the heads of state and taking over the apparatus of government. Afghanistan has never really had a cohesive system of government to take over. Just a motely collection of tribes and warlords vieing for survival and power.
It is like playing the war game of chess, but the opponent doesn't have a king on the board. If we cant even describe what a win would look like, we are unlikely to achieve it.
An effective military intervention is to achieve a large effect with a little force.
The sad history of US military interventions have achieved little/no/counter effect with massive force and cost.
We cant win. We cant solve Afghanistan's problems because we dont understand them. Let's go home.

[msblkwidow]

We need to leave Afghanistan now...yest­erday.

[Eggsackley]

I agree one hundred percent that our initial invasion of Afghanistan was a legitimate self defense action. I would also contend that we were successful largely because a large portion of the Afghans supported our invasion because they were already at war with the Taliban. I agree that our continued presence in Afghanistan is no longer crucial to protect us against the terrorists who attacked us. I also don't think we can "win" in Afghanistan as long as the current government remains in power. The only reason I can see for remaining at this time is to keep the radical terrorist groups from using Afghanistan as a safe haven in their attempt to overthrow the government of Pakistan, and to assist the Pakistanis against those groups. If the Pakistanis request assistance, we should assist them in subduing the lawless border areas. In the meantime we need to help the Afghan's increase their security and rebuild their infrastructure, so that they will not be in a worse situation because of our invasion. In the long run, the best way to show the people in that part of the world that we are not the enemy is to get our military out of both Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible..

[wadenelson1]

If we called it what it really is, which is a "War on Fear" rather than a "War on Terror," Americans might realize the only place it can ever be won right here at home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SEo5uHDKV0&feature=related

FDR had it right.

As for a war against Islamic terrorists, that's in cyberspace these days.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/08/cyberspace-gives-al-qaeda-refuge.html

[Garvagh]

The president of Afghanistan says putting in more US troops will not improve security. Surely he is in an excellent position to judge this matter correctly. By all means, China, Russia, Iran, India and other countries should be brought to the table, to work out how best to lower the level of violence in Afghanistan. Iran says Nato should have sent tractors rather than tanks.

[TLV]

The whole purpose for the Afghanistan "adventure" was to soften the area to allow the trans-Afghan pipelines to be installed. Turrkkeee helped the oil companies' cause by first training and providing safe-hven for a handful of men willing to die for Islamic Jihad. We, in turn, restarted the heroin trade on which Turrkkee's economy so desperately depends.

Once we invaded Iraq - the neo-cons' long-awaited plan for once a Republican president was installed - Turrkkkeee let us use their country as a staging ground. It explains who did 9/11, why Tuurkkee insisted on allowing the skirmishes with the Kurds in Iraq, and how the poppy production got back to pre-war levels in spite of our military presence there.

[BR549guy]

Oil says it all. Between Bush the Lesser and Obiwan, all they seem to be able to do is focus on OIL pipelines and think they can effectively LIE to the American public. Now they want to start the recruitment tactics in middle-school environments. Can you spell "BROWNSHIRT?"

What the hell has happened to this country? I think that T-shirt showing Geronimo with three of his compatriots all brandishing rifles and titled, "Homeland Security", says it best. I wouldn't expect anything less from the Afghanis ..... and I as far as the potential of that population to embrace the benefits of a democracy, that's a joke. They just aren't ready to have that rammed down their throats; not that the U.S. is a shining example, mind you.

We're the LAST country that should be waving the banner of FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY, yet everyone from Reagan through and including Obama keeps belting those terms out from their soapboxes. Liars and hypocrites, every one.

[mickthebiologist]

absolutely correct. the influence of turkey in this sordid affair is thick and deep and cloudy. the gas, the oil the poppies, influence near the bellies of russia and china, a different way to spook iran, etc. etc.

the misdirection called nation building is a fantastic ruse. the us of a always has a sympathy angle, a noble new democracy angle, an independent nation-building angle, a keeping the world safe from nukes angle, a revenge angle (9/11, the shah, the attack on our 'ally' kuwait, the uss cole).

there is only one goal: hegemony, which is a polite way of saying racism and economic and environmental tyranny.

fear of the 'other' is still the reptilian brain driver. nothing has changed in that arena.

[TEPK]

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it! (See: the English and the Russian failures in Afghanista­n.)

The area called Afghanistan has NEVER really been an effectively centrally-governed "country" in the traditional sense and its tribal and religious fanatics are not about to go that route now!

I'm with Biden!

G-E-T O-U-T!

A-S-A-P!

[BR549guy]

Repeat it, indeed. Obama had a wonderful opportunity to turn things around, not just for the US, but for the entire world community. Instead, what has he done? He either had all this under his sleeve going into office (which I partially suspect) or he was threatened with not being around to see his kids graduate. Either way, it's SSDD for the rest of us.

Feinstein's "miraculous" involvement in brokering that pre election deal between Hilary and Obama; that's when I wish I could have been a fly on the wall. Obama's charismatic Christ-like demeanor changed after that. Now he looks down his nose at everyone.

I voted for Obama because the media muscled Ron Paul right off the stage, but, that said, I had objected to Obama because no one could pin him down about the Trade Agreements. He just WOULD NOT answer and questions on them. Now we know why. The T/As were probably the single-most disruptive multi-admi­nistration influence in sabotaging our country's manufacturing base ......... and now this idiot is doing the same thing.

We're not getting out of Afghanistan because there's still too many people/lob­byists/def­ense contractor­s/politici­ans who need to propagate the belief that Obama and al-Qaeda are threats to our security. The real threat to our country's security is in Washington DC. THEY were ones who destabilized the global security.