Maybe it's a generational thing, but as someone who was growing up as LBJ's war was tearing his administration down, I had a pit in my stomach as I watched President Obama announce his "Af-Pak" policy as Secretaries Clinton and Gates watched approvingly at his side.
I can't shake this sinking feeling that what has now become "Obama's War" is a one-way ticket into a quagmire that will undermine if not destroy all too many of the things that we need the president to accomplish on his watch.
Already the news is not good:
Today, the New York Times reported that the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban are burying their differences and uniting their forces to fight the United States in response to our military escalation.
Then there's the report of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, released in January, that concludes that the single most important factor behind the resurgence of the Taliban is the presence of foreign forces on Afghan soil.
But perhaps most ominous of all, the coordinator of the UN Security Council's al Qaeda/Taliban Monitoring Team has reported that one of al Qaeda's immediate aims is to provoke a greater foreign military presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan so that they are better able to unite disparate tribes in fighting a common enemy.
In short, "Obama's War" could already be playing into the hands of al Qaeda and the Taliban, providing them with a cause to build their ranks with Afghans who might otherwise have zero interest. As it turns out, Afghans are famously sensitive to foreign soldiers on their soil -- just ask the Soviets and Brits. They may not be interested in jihad against western infidels, but they don't mind helping getting yet more military occupiers out of their country.
Despite the president's call for marshalling international support, his policy is likely to have just the opposite effect on some of the most important countries in the neighborhood. An indefinite commitment of tens of thousands of US troops on the sensitive borders of Russia and China, for example, will hardly make them eager to join in productive regional diplomacy. Not to mention Iran.
Meanwhile, our NATO allies are increasingly divided, putting the burden of waging this war increasingly on the shoulders of Americans. The sun might have long since set on the British Empire, but they turn out to be the only country that has committed more troops to Afghanistan. Sound familiar? Others, including Canada and the Netherlands, have announced plans to bring their troops home. At least no one is calling this dwindling group the "coalition of the willing".
On top of all that, the "Obama War" is economically unsustainable. Even before the escalation of troops, the cost of our military intervention in Afghanistan is more than $2 billion per month and rising. His announcement that he will be seeking $1.5 billion per year for increased foreign aid to Pakistan is a small fraction of the cost of our military commitment. This could all add up to even more fuel for Blue Dog and Congressional Republican calls for the Congress to start jettisoning as "unrealistic" many of his key domestic initiatives.
Ominously, today's news event made no mention of even some version of an exit strategy, despite the president's admonition last week on 60 Minutes that when it comes to US policy in Afghanistan, "there's got to be an exit strategy." Meanwhile, the president announced his intention to have performance "benchmarks" to hold his policy and the Afghanistan government accountable. Unfortunate, then, that he gave no indication of what these benchmarks might actually be.
Unlike Rush Limbaugh, I want the president to succeed; I want to be able to support his efforts to protect the American people from the threat of al Qaeda. But the policy announced today will fail to do so and, instead, takes a new generation one step deeper into a perilous quagmire.
Follow Tom Andrews on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@THAndrews
Tom Andrews is right.
You all should send this article to your members of Congress and to the Pres. and VP.
WAKE UP AMERICA
Andrews, you are using an old rightwing tactic....lol...it won't work. We all know what President Obama inherited.
Bush should have gone to Afghanistan, because that is where Al Queda was known to hide out. Bush should have focused all his attention on Afghanistan.
This is why President Obama shoring up support for the troops in Afghanistan. And reducing troops in Iraq, until they are all gone.
I just hate it when people write these articles, trying to rewrite history.
Mr. Andrews, with all due respect, many of us are well aware of the problems in the world, past and present. If you wish to stand out in the pack and promote your organization, you might try offering solutions of some sort. Otherwise, you’re simply one more soul whistling in the darkness of cyberspace.
1 and 2 World Trade Center used to cast very large shadows in the afternoon. Those shadows are gone. I wonder what happened to them?
Unlike the f00ls who preceded him and his administration, O thinks long and hard before acting. He has been thinking about Pakistan for years, as was evident in the primary campaign. He has no tolerance for incompetence, wastefulness and corruption. On balance, this seems to be the right approach, at least for now, and likely to be the least costly to the nation in the long-run, if not to him in the political short-run. I'm willing to wait and see how it goes, confident that O. will adjust or change course if this one goes irretrievably sour.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/head-shot/
Had President Obama been any threat to the "project" in Afghanistan he would not be in the White House. After all, there are pipelines to build and the angry locals will not be allowed to hinder them.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/the-ones-who-attacked-us/
If we just stay the course for another 7 years, things are going to get much better. I think the best way for us to spend $2 billion per month is shooting and bombing people halfway around the world. I can't think of any higher priority for our tax dollars than to use it to send our young people to a faraway country to be shot at and killed or maimed.
I think we are building up a lot of goodwill in that part of the world by bombing their villages. I'm sure they are all very fond of Americans now that we blow up their buildings on a regular basis. It probably creates lots of construction jobs when they have to be rebuilt.
I say we are not sending enough young people overseas to be killed. This effort clearly needs to be escalated. It is obviously the best method for getting America to forget about its own troubles. The war news can replace the bad news about the economy as the lead story on the evening news.
I fully support defense contractors in their fight for more wars and bigger wars. I call on every American to wholeheartedly support the defense contractors in this epic battle of good versus evil.