Shoot First, Ask Questions Later? Say It Ain't So, Mr. President

Yesterday's announcement by the White House that the president was ordering 17,000 more US troops into Afghanistan was particularly troubling to many of us who - unlike Mr. Limbaugh and his followers on Capitol Hill - actually want President Obama to succeed.

As a candidate, President Obama offered - and American's overwhelming chose - "new thinking" on foreign policy and national security. We had all seen the devastating results of a "Bring 'em on" foreign policy where the hole dug by "shock and awe" militarism got progressively deeper and the incessant demand from Pentagon officials for yet more troops to deal with the consequences became increasingly greater. President Bush was always ready to meet these demands. The result was a weakened America, a broken military and more than a trillion dollars - and counting - added to the national debt.

We were relieved when the new president announced during his first week in office that he was ordering a comprehensive review of an obviously failed US policy in Afghanistan. Things had steadily gone from bad to worse there. What was desperately needed was a fundamental course correction guided by a healthy dose of "new thinking."

New thinking was not in evidence yesterday when the White House announced that it was ordering 17,000 more US troops into harms way in Afghanistan even though it's comprehensive review would not be completed for several more weeks.

Military commanders apparently warned that it would be too risky not to deploy troops now out of fear that they would not be in place by the anticipated spike in fighting this spring. Nothing surprising here - when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Military commanders have a point of view born out of their training and orientation.

But, new thinking requires a broader view than what can be seen from a military lens. It begins with considering the risk that a military escalation will actually make things worse, not better.

First off, where does military escalation end? According to the Army and Marine Corps field manual, counterinsurgency operations require, at a minimum, twenty counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents. In Afghanistan, this would mean combined forces of 640,000 troops. No, I did not incorrectly add an extra zero - that is 640,000 troops. In short, even if we wanted to go down this road, we can't.

Several independent analysts have publicly warned that the presence of foreign soldiers fighting a war in Afghanistan is probably the single most important driving force in the resurgence of the Taliban. New thinking would at least consider the option of reducing, not increasing our military imprint as a means of dividing and weakening the armed opposition. At the very least, it would withhold final judgment and action until all of all options are subject to a truly comprehensive review.

The risks are too high to do anything else. As Katrina vanden Heuvel writes in The Nation:

Escalating the occupation of Afghanistan will bleed us of the resources needed for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift with our European allies, and negate the positive consequences of withdrawing from Iraq on our image in the Muslim world.

We hope that this early display of shoot first, ask questions later will be an anomaly for the new administration. What the nation needs is a truly comprehensive plan for Afghanistan and the region that is fundamentally different from the approach that led us to where we now find ourselves. What we don't need is another military quagmire and an albatross around the neck of a nation and an administration that we all need to succeed.

Comments

[CONCERNED122]

Salt the poppy fields from the air, drop wheat seeds together with dollar bills and get the heck out of there. We need the money at home and no more lives to the third world infidels who slayed untold Brits and Russians and bankrupted them all as well. Also do the same in iraq and go green at home off oil completely and let the desert rats who happened to perch heir tents on black gold suffer the consequences while we become the sophisticated manufacturers of the world with renewables.

[Gidster]

The boots on the ground now are spread too thin, it is a security measure not an escalation.

[A.D. Faried]

When I was still an ROTC cadet I was going to ask for an assignment in Afghanistan (providing my national standing among cadets was high enough) because i realized even then that Afghanistan was where the real battle lay. We should have been there in the greatest numbers but for reason unknown we were distracted or chose to be distracted by Iraq. President Obama's move to deploy more troops to Afghanistan is welcomed. Even with the ISAF the total number of troops there was about 30,000, this being the place that harbored Osama bin Laden. It will take more than just boots on the ground to change Afghanistan, but until that strategy is created, the troops there can at least stop Afghanistan from falling back into the hands of the Taliban. With the exception of Kabul, most of the other provinces have already been over-run by the Taliban or their sympathetic warlord/chieftain allies. This is a welcome change.

[PlaceboStudman]

The author said:

What the nation needs is a truly comprehensive plan for Afghanistan and the region that is fundamentally different from the approach that led us to where we now find ourselves.

Problem.The only truly comprehensive plan for any region in The Middle East that would have any sort of hope of winning is to basically go in and carpet bomb, then send in ground militia to the entire region from Greece to Asia. Anything short of that would cause nothing more than a domino effect of "the enemy" fleeing east and us chasing the bad guys.

On the other hand, let's be realistic. We will NEVER fully pull out of Afghanistan or Iraq, the same way we have never pulled out of Germany and Japan 50 years later. We need to find a way to work with the people, in a dual strategy of military power, diplomacy, and economic support of the entire region. We also need to put our heavy hand on NATO to stop allowing The Middle East Fundamentalist Rulers to enforce strict warped skewed religious doctrine into the children, literally breeding new sets of potential terrorists through their schools.

Until someone, The US, allies or NATO themself go in with real humanitarian aid, reinforced by military strategy, millions and millions more Middle Eastern women and children will be brutally and needlessly murdered

[marxmarv]

"We also need to put our heavy hand on NATO to stop allowing The Middle East Fundamentalist Rulers to enforce strict warped skewed religious doctrine into the children, literally breeding new sets of potential terrorists through their schools."

Why would we, when the other hand is allowing that very thing to be established at home?

[jeg]

Apparently Mr. Andrews wasn't paying attention to then-Senator Obama's comments during the election that Afghanistan needs more troops, and that Iraq was "a distraction from the real front in the fight against terrorism, Afghanistan".

Having said that, there's been more than enough news in the last two weeks about the President being slow to respond to the Pentagon's request for more troops, because it's obvious we need a strategy based, not on shooting the locals, but encouraging them to work with us to stabilize their country. The "Sunni Awakening" seems like a good model to attempt to replicate, although I don't know enough about the various players to know if it's got a chance of success-- fortunately, I'm not involved, because I simply don't know enough to second-guess the President.

[Yermammy]

We can't disappoint all of our TV's sponsors. You know, the ones that pay for "Meet the Press and other Serious People Talking". What would Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics do if they didn't make killing machines; make wind turbines or solar panels? Ridiculous. That make entirely too much sense.

[TJCole]

The Russians had 190 thousand troops there of 10 years and failed....

Yes if we can get the Afghans on our side then we could win but we are not winning them over, the trend is the opposite and what's happening in Pakistan bodes ill for any stability in the border areas...

"The one thing history teaches, is that man learns nothing from history.."

[randyjet]

The Russians did not have that many, but they DID have a really bad regime in Kabul that represented nobody. It was a Soviet installed government with no elections or input from the people. They also had the US supplying the other side with Stinger missiles. The Soviets were actually close to stamping out the rebels until the arrival of those missiles which ended the Soviet air superiority and monopoly. I see that some people do NOT learn from history at all since they are too stupid to see differences in situations.

I would like to know where the Taliban support will be coming from that will defeat NATO.

[Gidster]

At their peak the Soviets had close to 200,000 troops in country.

They were trying to take and keep Afghanistan to add to the Soviet Union, we are trying to get Osama Bin Laden. That is a much more finite goal.

[oxygen]

albatross is the right word - good article, ~ bad move obama - you're making us around the world feel betrayed

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/images_major_operations.html#albatross

[vernbvb]

Our President depends on intelligence and military leaders for information necessary to make sound decisions regarding military action. I believe that one problem we have when it comes to military involvement abroad is that the intelligence informing our President has a vested interest in promoting military activities. What we need to do is engage a diverse think tank similar to the one used to inform the President's economic plan. These leaders need to discuss various aspects of our military involvement and how it affects our society as well as whether or not the civil situation in Afghanistan is one in which we should be so heavily engaged. I believe strongly in multi-tasking but in my opinion we need to get our house in order before committing so many troops abroad. Some of the funds appropriated for military spending could then serve as additional stimulii for our economy.

[Seldon]

Well, Afghanistan is not Iraq. It may or not be the "right" thing to do but as far as I understand it, sending more troops to Afghanistan IS changing the thinking. Considering Afghanistan was barely talked about by Bush and Co, surely sending more troops does seem to show that he is taking a new approach.

[oxi]

"sending more troops does seem to show that he is taking a new approach."

New approach would be to pull out altogether.

This is continuing Bush's plans. Bush first secured the cheap oil in Iraq and laid plans for Afghanistan before he left office that Obama has not accepted. This is not all new, Obama is just continuing Bush's plans.

[Jezreel]

oxi wrote: "This is continuing Bush's plans. Bush first secured the cheap oil in Iraq and laid plans for Afghanistan before he left office that Obama has not accepted. This is not all new, Obama is just continuing Bush's plans."

Puhleeeez. Sounding forceful and self-assured about what one speaks does not mean that one knows what he or she is talking about.

President Obama is demonstrating a new approach to Afghanistan. First, he has already said that America can not win militarily in the country. Second he devised a set of objectives before approving of the additional troops. Thirdly, he cautioned that our choices in the country are limited. And fourthly, he is only sending in the additional troops to bolster the strength of the small number who are already there because the fighting season will begin in a couple of months.

If you think that this is a continuation of Bush's plans you didn't understand Bush's plan and you certainly don't understand President Obama's plans.

[scooperss]

"anomaly"? May be the first one regarding this particular matter but it's hardly the first one.