Is Obama Locking himself into Afghanistan -- or What?

The temptation was always very strong and, before the Daschle kerfuffle, mounting speculation culminating in this starkly titled piece in the New York Times, suggested that it still is. This should raise red flags for all who wish Obama well because the risk to his administration on this front is very severe.

It was clear throughout the campaign how much he needed Afghanistan to be tough with. Only by running to the right of even Bush, let alone Hillary, on aggressive action there could he maintain that his opposition to the war in Iraq was a strategic judgment and not a namby-pamby liberal reflex. Afghanistan was the necessary war, the war against those who actually attacked us - that was the frame within which he vowed to pursue it until, well, at least until bin Laden and his cohort were captured or killed.

Does Obama still need Afghanistan? Is he convinced that he has to follow-up and how quickly, with what force? Is he going to plunge into a situation that brought disaster to the Romans, the British, the Russians? The man who reads and thinks long? Or is he playing for time, hoping to catch a break, hoping to change the context before he makes commitments he can't adjust?

There is some reason to think so. The title of the Times piece, for example, turns out to be a bit misleading upon a closer reading. "Elevate war over development" actually seems to mean something quite specific - and specifically aimed at Kabul, on the one hand, and NATO allies on the other. It seems to be saying to Karzai, look, we are here to get Al Qaeda not to prop up your crooked brother and others like him. It seems to be saying to NATO, look, we understand your rules of engagement are limited but you haven't even delivered on pledges of civil support. So how about you guys skip the fighting and take over development and training and we will focus on military operations.

Secretary Gates was quoted dismissing "previous American goals" as "too broad and too far into the future." That doesn't sound like a prelude to escalation. He also seems to be slow-walking the already modest troop increase of the 30,000 into 2010. That doesn't sound like escalation, exactly. How about - what might the military call it? A focal intensification?

All it would take is one stroke of luck on the intelligence front, one successful raid, bin Laden taken - and Obama could just declare victory and make policy choices freely thereafter. A good reason to dawdle?

Comments

[messy]

The ROMANS?!?!?! The Romans never got anywhere NEAR Afghanistan, and the Greeks stayed there three hundred years.

[SaulZ]

Instead of war, Obama Administration should opt for economic development in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What did the war in Afghanistan get? USA and NATO pushed the terrorists inside Pakistan instead of finishing them off on the Afghan soil. Pakistan ended up with insurgencies, terrorism and economic collapse. On top of it, India, which has long range inter-ballistic missiles capable of reaching any part of the world, has blocked Pakistan’s water, effectively declaring a water war. Its media, parliament and foreign office are working 24/7 to malign Pakistan. Its expert are proposing to approach the powers that be to convince them to go for an economic blockade of Pakistan. And every now and then a military head from the USA has the audacity to go to Pakistan and berate them on not doing enough.

War is certainly not a solution for the region. Stability and economic development is. When Afghans and northwestern Pakistanis will have jobs and means to take care of their loved ones, they will be holding the USA and the west in highest esteem.

[Arawak]

Funny how so many assume that the US government has said the truth about Afghanistan. Why did they lie about Iraq? Does it really take this many years to find a guy that was on the CIA payroll? It's not about him. Never was. It is about the theft of natural resources. How else do they justify bringing "peace" to the region? Exaggerate the threat. "We wanted to kill hundreds of thousands of people in order to control the oil reserves in the region." Will someone please come out and say it.

[a human being]

It’s admitted that the USSR vanished because of the war in Afghanistan, and given that the government the USA helped put in place in that country is considered “corrupted” even by its own President, it is wise to reconsider all the alternatives.

[Geauterre]

The facts are irrefutible. We're broke, thank you very much, Bush & Co. Also we cannot afford any further Teddy Roosevelt Victorianisms. Naivete must give way to common sense. Afghanistan is an empire breaker. Go there and war at your own peril.

That said, I offer a solution. Want to break the warlords' grip on the country? Want to expose the hiding places of international criminals? Simple enough. All you have to do is legalize the narcotics trade. Once the black market is exposed to the light...wh­at came of it will dry up and blow away.

[mitsie]

IMO we have to go in, along with as much world support we can get and use all tools, including troop support, negociations and what ever it takes to get the terrorists. I don' t want to see our President back down to any promises he made.

[carnelld]

It is a mistake to continue the increase military build up in Afghanistan. After nearly a trillion dollars spent in Iraq our economy and financial circumstances can not maintain the enormous drain on our treasure. America's infra-structure has been neglected, especially during the last 8 years. We are repeating a failed strategy. One of Bin Laden's stated objective is to lure America into never ending conflicts and wars. There is an attempt to wound America's economy and finances. It looks like Bush accommodated Bin Laden and Obama if he is not careful, will continue this failed strategy.

[vakibs]

Everyone read carefully this essay written 1 year ago by Barnett Rubin "Across the borderline : Taliban and Pashtun in two states".

http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/02/rubin-across-borderline-pashtuns-and.html

The only way to win the war against the Taliban and Islamic extremism is to support its natural enemy : the liberal and secular political consciousness in that area. In contrary to most people's prejudice, this region has a long and deep history of secular and non-violent political activism.

It is precisely these people that the Taliban are murdering today.

[mergina]

I certainly HOPE SO. If the Taliban and Bin Laden are not crushed, WE and a few other Free Nations will be visited by them and their newly acquired Pakistani nukes, the acquisition of which is not that far off in the future.

[Robert59]

Moving 30,000 troops from one theater to another isn't simple. Iraq is relatively easy to keep supplied Afghanistan is landlocked. The major overland resupply route goes through Pakistan as that's also the port we use.
North of Afghanistan are Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. We pulled out of Uzbekistan and don't even overfly it at this point. We could set up a base in Tajikistan but you have to overfly Kyrgyzstan (where Manas is located and where we might be forced out or you have to overfly Afghanistan or Uzbekistan. You could rail it going provided Russia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan say yes.

why are we in Afghanistan? Is it to modernize them, make them more Western, break the grip of the fundamentalists? Maybe. Is it encircle Pakistan which appears to be the heart of the jihadist movement? Maybe. Is it to have a base from which we can pursue Bin Laden? Maybe.

What we've done to date is showing some progress, but can we sustain it? Can we educate enough Afghan children and provide them jobs when they graduate so they aren't attracted to radical Islam later? Can we build the country's infrastructure to a 2nd world level? Can we keep the Taliban at bay and not alienate the population while we do this? Will we lose interest if we kill Bin Laden? Will the jihadists take over Pakistan before we change Afghanistan?

[Ozarks]

Bush's defeat of Taliban/Al Qeada meant propping up Karzi's corrupt government as an alleged democracy while Karzi's brother makes fortune in Narco trade. Bush/Chene­y/Rumsfeld goal was to try and democratize , with minimum troops ( sound familiar?) , the entire country of Afghanistan. Think Obama's goal will be to defeat Al Qeada and leave Afghanistan politics to Afghans. Defeating Al Qeada means big time hits on Al Qeada at its now safe hideouts in Pakistan. Once Al Qeada is defeated. The Taliban versus Afghans will probably turn out like the Sunni versus Al Qeada. It will become a local police action.

[ranscot]

We should not leave until the Waziristan question is answered.

[RoseMerry]

That the new President will continued the wars of the old for so long is a big disappointment.

Bring them home. Imagine if America would mind it's own business and lead by example?

[jcwtts1]

Mind our own biz, you mean like the Taliban helping keep Osama Bin Laden safe and helping him train for 9/11. Imagine if the rest of the world realized if they attack us on our own soil we will own their country forever.

[happy camper]

The CIA trained and financed jihadists who fought the Soviets throughout the 80's. Since our own intelligence infrastructure "helped train" jihadists, maybe we should stay in our own country forever?

[ranscot]

Even Rome didn't last forever.

[sloLes]

Gates is already on record as saying that the Taliban cannot be defeated. He went even further and recommended negotiation and compromise with them. So, he is firmly rooted in the reality of war in such a remote place.

[happy camper]

Maybe Gates noticed that the Soviets couldn't defeat the Taliban either. It's pretty hard to "defeat" someone inside their own mountainous country when they know the terrain far better than you and have local support, while your military force is viewed as outsiders.

Have we ever won a counterinsurgency on someone else's soil? No.

Why do we keep getting embroiled in them and expecting different results? I have no idea.

[RickyJ]

The case for US involvement in Afghanistan comes from Pakistan's possession of perhaps 100 Atomic weapons and the fear that they could get into the hands of wicked people like Al Quaeda and the Taliban, which are based in the area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. How using drones with bombs to knock off certified bad guys, and whomever else maybe close by, helps in this regard, is a mystery to me. I am half way through a book "The Inheritance" by David Sanger which goes through the Bush administration's follies in this location and elsewhere. You learn things like how popular the US was in the early days of the invasion because Bush was promising a "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan. Also US Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad was so beloved that he could have become President of the country. But then the US decided to switch its focus to Iraq and the situation then deteriorated.

Maybe true, maybe false but exactly what Obama wants to accomplish be sending more troops there is a big mystery to me. Hasn't any reporter tried to drag it out of him?

[jcwtts1]

here is what he wants to accomplish­... take over the country, permanent bases all over the country, a stable solid workable economy that doesn't rely on poppies, and for them to never attack us again. That is what he wants and what we should all want. The legacy of Bush is that by taking the eye off Afghanistan he has doomed us to a much longer harder fight in that country then we had before. But we're up to it. This is a long term occupation. Ask Japan about what the US reaction is to an attack on our soil.

J

[RickyJ]

But it wasn't the Taliban who attacked us on 9/11, or were behind the Cole and African embassy bombings. It was a group of Arabs from the oil rich states, who were acting in a way their religious culture and hatred of Israel was dictating. Yes, they were hanging out in Afghanistan with the acquiescence of the Taliban. But the going after the remnants of these Arabs, by bombing, with lots of collateral damage, seems to be a very inefficient and perhaps counter productive procedure.

I would hope that Obama would be intelligent enough to see that the the best goal is to somehow get all weapons of mass destruction out of the control of national entities, including the USA.

[happy camper]

Who are "certified bad guys"? We really have to get out of this type of good/bad John Wayne dichotomy. The Pakistanis aren't going to give nuclear weapons to jihadists because Pakistan is not a theocracy and therefore Pakistan itself is a jihadist target. Whereas relatively poorly armed jihadists can be sent into Kashmir and pose little threat to Pakistan, a nuclear armed jihadist could blow up any city in the world. No state anywhere wants that. Even a theocracy like Iran runs the risk of getting into a scriptural disagreement with any number of jihadist splinter groups, so no state on earth has an interest in providing a nuclear weapon to such an unpredictable "ally". Much like we wouldn't give a nuke to the Contras. People who think otherwise have no understanding of how states operate in relation to proxy paramilitaries and irregular armies (sometimes called freedom fighters, sometimes called terrorists).