The conference on Afghanistan with Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, sponsored by the Center for American Progress on August 12 turned into a disappointing press conference promoting the virtual nation-building plan being integrated into the US military operations in that country.
It was an opportunity for CAP to begin distancing itself from the military occupation which has claimed 781 American lives thus far, and at this rate will cost one trillion dollars by the end of President Obama's first term.
CAP continues to call Afghanistan a "war of necessity" against al-Qaeda safe havens, an argument which could just as easily apply to Hamburg, Germany, where the September 11 highjackers plotted, or many other locations in failed-states around the globe.
Podesta sat at Holbrooke's side during a 90 minute discussion that was mainly promotional. Podesta did ask the only pointed question of the day, which was whether the Afghan mission has expanded well beyond President Obama's early focus on neutralizing Osama Bin Ladin and any terrorist cell focused on attacking the United States.
Holbrooke joked about the previous evening's Stephen Colbert show which featured an interview with Clintonite operative James Carville, now the campaign consultant for Ashra Ghani, a Western-educated World Bank economist running at four percent in recent polls against Hamid Kharzai. Aren't you campaigning against America's favorite client?, Colbert asked. The following day the New York Times reported that Ghani was likely to be appointed prime minister if Karzai wins, putting the US deeper in the drivers seat after Afghanistan's elections next week. Holbrooke joked that Colbert and Carville "got it right."
Holbrooke's team, most of whom were present, includes senior State Department diplomats, former advisers to the John Kerry campaign, counterinsurgency liaisons from the Pentagon, CIA and FBI counter-terrorism operatives, AID and agricultural experts, a British diplomat, a former Soros official in Kabul, women's rights advocates, an Air Force commander, and well-known authors Barnett Rubin and Vali Nasr. This was described as "the civilian side" by Holbrooke, though he noted that his CIA adviser "can't be surfaced" for public events.
This was a nation-building team, a parallel government, assembled for the very long haul.
There was virtually no acknowledgement that "the civilian side" depends entirely on the success of "the military side" in killing, capturing and defeating the insurgencies raging in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nearly ninety percent of US funding goes for military purposes, and General Stanley MacChrystal soon will be asking the White House for more troops.
Barnett Rubin described the American policy goals in terms that put security -- military success -- first: to enable Afghanistan to gain control of its territory and make the entire region more secure.
It is little wonder that the Obama White House lobbied in recent months to kill Rep. Jim McGovern's simple resolution calling for a report on an exit strategy from the Pentagon by December.
There is no exit strategy, even though President Obama once offered his opinion that one was needed, and a majority of House Democrats voted for the McGovern bill. [John Burton, chairman of the California Democratic Party, recently sent an email to 100,000 Democrats endorsing McGovern's measure, a sure sign of discontent at the grass-roots of the party].
Holbrooke, a highly-educated and articulate diplomat who long ago was an author of the Pentagon Papers, wriggled in trying to answer Podesta's question about mission creep. "It's a good question why we are in Afghanistan if al Qaeda is largely not there," he began. "The connections between al Qaeda and the Taliban are 'very elusive'", he added. But Afghanistan could become "recruiting territory" for al Qaeda in Pakistan if the US left Afghanistan, he claimed, so if you abandon Afghanistan you will suffer somewhere else.
Podesta asked another question: can America settle for a "weak Afghanistan" combined with military intervention in Pakistan? The commitment is not "open-ended" but will take a "long time," came the answer.
"I don't use the word 'victory', but 'success' instead", Holbrooke noted. And what is the "success" that will allow an exit? You cannot define success, he mused, "but we'll know it when we see it." Success will not involve a battleship surrender or a Geneva conference, he predicted.
The biggest problem will be "strengthening the police after the military does the clearing", he noted, which sounds like subcontracting the war to local forces once we have paid for, armed and trained them.
The sense one got from this presentation was that Holbrooke is assembling an infrastructure which will be in place if and when the troops have finished their "clearing", which may not be anytime soon.
What Holbrooke didn't say is that quagmire is more likely than success in the predictable future. And then he will be presiding over Dayton-style talks as he did in the Balkans a decade ago. "We feel the impatience of the public and the Congress", he admitted in response to a question.
Like success, a quagmire will be known when the public sees it. Forty-five Americans were killed in Afghanistan in July, a rate that is continuing in August. For every one of those dead American soldiers, not to mention the uncounted dead Afghan and Pakistan civilians, the quagmire already has begun.
YouTube - Did James Carville Out-Colbert Stephen Colbert?
Keep up the good work. We need to apply all the lessions we learned from the Vietnam War.
Those orchestrating the war have no idea why they are there, no clue as to what it is they want to win and no exit strategy for getting out. Those who want to invest other peoples lives and money into their own delusional idealistic goal will follow the path of the Soviets, the British, Neapolean, the Islamic Empire and Alexander the Great.
Why won't these people have a public forum or town meeting on Afganistan to see how many people think this is a good idea? They won't because they don't want to hear the answer.
But they couldn't. Ergo the occupation
Yes, it was grossly mishandled by Bush Admin. Yes, there were some reverses.
Yes, NATO must stay in Afghanistan as long as necessary. There is no alternative. And those who oppose this occupation offer no coherent strategic policy, only slogans.
Last 8 years were wasted. Historically, average time of an occupation required to pacify a country is around 10 years. If enough resources are provided.
Given difficult terrain, I would estimate 2020 would be the year to wind it down.
And even with that, how much of $1 of development money actually makes it to on-the-ground projects versus lining the pockets of foreign contractors? We need to send development aid that works with local communities, produces on-the-ground results, hires local workers, and keeps track of the money and results with oversight and accountability.
bc of the oil & middle-east politics
It chose Afgan for liberation & nation building bc of Pakistan, its nukes
and the politics of Muslim insurrections
''when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?''
The US was unable to oppose Rumsfeld and Cheney and other people who would understand that so many objectives could not easily be accomplished. Check out the players such as RAW, RAMA, and TTP.
Then again:
Egypt, Syria and Jordan were defeated in 6 days.
I have yet to hear a convincing explanation as to why we are there.
Quagmire in Afghanistan is just as likely as a military "victory." So much for Obama's "good war." What is Obama's exit strategy, leaving the mess to his successor.
Like the problem with banks lending on inflated collateral to people with no credit or income, and not wanting to accept (recognize) the writedowns and losses, the war will indeed be a long war, probably dragging out indefinitely.
The Af/Pak will be another Vietnam since the objectives are so varied and mixed. The means of accomplishing reconstruction of entire nations and their societies is not within our grasp. Judging from Town Hall meetings in the US, ignorance is swallowing up the nation. right here at home.
If fundamentalists need to be confronted, how about starting right here at home and educating our own people. In my opinion, surrounding Iran and provoking Russia are the real priorities in the region. Watching the movie the Kite Flier - I haven't gotten around to reading the book still - gives you some insight into the effects of our foreign polices on the Afghanistanis. Holbrooke "did" Indonesia and the Balkans, now he will "do" Afghanistan. I am not encouraged by the conduct of the "good war."
That Holbrooke authored part of the Pentagon Papers should demonstrate that he just improvises as he goes. Here is just another example.