iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Tom Hayden

GET UPDATES FROM Tom Hayden
 

What Is Obama's Position on Afghanistan? Say It Again?

Posted: 05/16/2012 9:49 am

As a candidate opposing the Iraq War, Barack Obama improved his hawkish credentials by promising to track down Osama bin Laden, expand drone attacks, and escalate the American troop numbers in Afghanistan. Three years later, bin Laden is dead, the drones inflame Pakistan opinion and complicate a peace settlement, and 33,000 American troops are scheduled to pull out by the end of 2012 with "steady withdrawals" to continue after. Sixty-eight thousand U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan by this year's end, with the deadline for withdrawing most of them by December 2014.

By the numbers, Afghanistan has already directly cost taxpayers $528.8 billion, and the Obama request for Afghanistan this fiscal year is $107 billion. That does not include the hidden, indirect costs -- accrual such as long-term Social Security, disability, and medical care for veterans, etc. -- partly spurred by an order last year from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which will add hundreds of billions, if not trillions to the ultimate financial impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The president's internal political calculation in 2008 was that he could never pull out of Afghanistan without killing Al Qaeda's top leadership and building a firewall against a Taliban return to power. While perhaps correct politically, this has led to an Afghan quagmire shaken by severe contradictions.

  • Hamid Karzai remains an unpopular, unreliable president whose term ends in 2014, the year of the troop withdrawal deadline. He seeks $3.5-6 billion each of the next two years to build up the Afghan armed forces, plus a Western commitment to funding for at least another decade, an impossible expectation.
  • According to Pentagon evaluations, those troops are unable to function independently, though insurgent infiltrators are skilled at shooting NATO allies. (Twenty percent of NATO fatalities have occurred this year, according to The New York Times).
  • Foreign aid to Afghanistan equals its entire gross national product and, according to the World Bank, "cannot be sustained."
  • "Intractable Graft by Elite Afghans" makes reform out of reach.

Earlier this year, the Taliban indicated through intermediaries a willingness to hold dialogue with the West, in Qatar, but demanded the release of several detainees now in Guantanamo, possibly in exchange for an American POW, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Those discussions are in trouble, partly because of Republican opposition to releasing U.S.-held Taliban combatants. As a result, the Obama administration's hope for progress in negotiations has hit the skids.

Despite these insuperable obstacles, Obama will try mightily at the Chicago NATO summit to indicate that the Afghanistan war is winding down, aware that an implosion is possible as Karzai trembles, millionaire Afghans flee the country, and the Afghan forces flounder. The Republicans will blame Obama for "losing" Afghanistan while trying to avoid any recommendations of their own.

Obama's latest Afghanistan speech indicates where he is headed in a situation clearly out of control:

  • He has narrowed the mission to an obtainable one, "to make sure that al-Qaeda could never again use this country [Afghanistan] to launch attacks against us."
  • In Chicago, NATO will announce the "goal" of Afghan forces to be "in the lead for combat" by next year. NATO, however, will fight alongside them when needed."
  • Current troop reductions will continue on a "firm timeline" and "at a steady pace," with Afghans becoming "fully responsible for the security of their country" by December 2014.
  • The U.S. will continue to focus on counter-terrorism and training, without building permanent bases or patrolling Afghan cities and mountains. The U.S., however, will use Afghan military "facilities" on a short-term basis.
  • Obama is offering a "negotiated peace" with the Taliban, as long as they "break with Al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws." This is a retreat from the original U.S. demand that the Taliban and other insurgents abide by the Afghan Constitution. This opens the possibilities of a new power-sharing arrangement of some kind.
  • Obama's offer to Pakistan that they be an "equal partner" in the negotiated outcome suggests that Pakistan's interests and alliances in Afghanistan will be respected, thus ending the rationale for drone strikes over Pakistan.
  • Obama's statement, "we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize," can be interpreted as only rhetoric, or a veiled indication that the Afghan elite will have only a "decent interval" before being replaced, the same offer Henry Kissinger proposed for South Vietnam before it collapsed in 1975.

If this seems much too muddled a process, it is because it is being rushed for the Chicago summit and is beyond US control in any event.

But if Obama campaigns on ending the Iraq War and "winding down" Afghanistan, it will only accelerate the march to the exits. No one wants to be the last American soldier to die, or the last Western country to suffer casualties, in an unwinnable, unaffordable war that Americans do not much care about.

 
 
 

Follow Tom Hayden on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TomEHayden

FOLLOW POLITICS
As a candidate opposing the Iraq War, Barack Obama improved his hawkish credentials by promising to track down Osama bin Laden, expand drone attacks, and escalate the American troop numbers in Afghani...
As a candidate opposing the Iraq War, Barack Obama improved his hawkish credentials by promising to track down Osama bin Laden, expand drone attacks, and escalate the American troop numbers in Afghani...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 28
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
AZreb
equal-opportunity Independent heathen
11:23 AM on 05/17/2012
The "agreement" with Karzai is being touted loudly as a success for the US. However, there are a few little problems with that agreement - one of which is that there is no agreement on immunity for our troops. If Obama agrees to the stipulation by Karzai, then any of our military being charged by the Afghan government with a crime would suffer Afghan "justice".

Plus, we are going now with hat in hand to beg other countries to continue funding for Afghanistan. How does anyone think that will play, with Europe facing austerity cuts and other countries just plain fed up with pay, pay, pay? If they do not pony up funds, then we will be on the hook for more billions.

We will be supporting one of the most corrupt countries on the face of the earth - with the blood of our troops and our tax dollars, neither of which we can afford.
ElCojonuo
I believe in WISDOM
10:51 PM on 05/16/2012
His position is ' EVOLVING ' Tom, you know that ( folks ' evolve ' in Politics = is I don' t have one and wish the thing would go away and leave me alone ).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rogiec123
Look Beyond The Surface
09:31 PM on 05/16/2012
Obama has no position on Afganistan. Never has had one, never will have one. How come he hasn't closed GITMO, like he said he would within one year of taking office? Why are we still in Iraq? If you think we're not you're only fooling yourself! Why hasn't he reduced our debt, like he said he would? Instead, he, and his Democratic cronies, raised it $4,000,000,000,000 and blamed it on everyone else! Now he has the gaul and arrogance to compare himself to many of the great Presidents of the twentieth century from Coolidge to Reagan, All of them except Gerald Ford, including at least one, terrible President Jimmy Carter. He has no position on anything he can't change his mind on and then blame it on someone else.
11:11 AM on 05/17/2012
You do understand the reason we are fighting in Afghanistan is to attempt to, to quote our President from the article "to make sure that al-Qaeda could never again use this country [Afghanistan] to launch attacks against us."

It was Reagan who approved issuing money and weapons to Bin Laden and al-Qaeda to fight of the Soviets in Afghanistan, we perpetuated this problem and we have to clean it up. All great leaders even the ones you mentioned have had their failed policies and blemishes on their records.

As for Gitmo, I agree it should be closed, however congress maintains it as a base for indefinite counter-terrorist detention. Referring to Iraq, as we discussed before it is my belief that we will always have a presents anywhere we send troop, if for anything else to maintain order (that the US approves of).

Last, but certainly not least let shift focus to the $4T, without getting into semantic over the cost of the wars, and Bush-era tax cuts (which is spending according to Keynesian economics), let’s focus on the stimulus, during recessions governments (not just ours) spend money to stimulate the market this is a common practice.
08:49 PM on 05/16/2012
The French were in Vietnam for almost 15 years, the Soviets were in Afghanistan over 11 years before cost broke up the Soviet Union. What is it going to take before we see that this war is not winnable, another Civil War?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
GoldwaterKid
Vote Person, Not Party
08:37 PM on 05/16/2012
Well, here he is, one of our very own past Senators from California, trying to speak like he used to in the old days.

It's not my fault, it's everyone else s fault.

How many of our American Troops have died since Obama 'added' troops to Afghanistan, thaw we are now trying to withdraw?
02:20 PM on 05/16/2012
Unfortunately, in reality President Obama has no Afghanistan "policy". He is just trying to kick the can down the road, past the general election this November, and make it look like has some semblance of a plan in the meantime.
01:50 PM on 05/16/2012
The drones are far more precise and with less collateral damage than the rockets your friends the North Vietnamese and Vietcong that slammed into Saigon back in the day.
01:47 PM on 05/16/2012
Tom, Tom, Tom... where can I start. Oh yea, it was 1969...
jhNY
Mercy.
01:22 PM on 05/16/2012
Can't lose if we never leave; can't leave if we're losing.
Sergeant
Dress Right
11:42 AM on 05/16/2012
Funny how these liberal elites criticize without being acrimonious. How nice.
botazefa
Sounds like Bodhisattva
02:30 PM on 05/16/2012
Funny how these right-wing extremists think they own sarcasm.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
inthedesert
Those who never question will fall for anything.
11:12 AM on 05/16/2012
Excellent post Mr. Hayden. Thanks!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carl Caroli
I just don't understand people
11:02 AM on 05/16/2012
We're wasting lives and resources there. We need to get out entirely, now.
10:56 AM on 05/16/2012
While there may not be physically permanent base I feel it is unlikely that we will ever be without a presents in Afghanistan. After nearly seven decades we still have troops in Germany and Japan.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rogiec123
Look Beyond The Surface
09:13 PM on 05/16/2012
Those troops in Germany and Japan are on military bases. Many countries have military bases on foriegn soil. in accordance with treaties signed between friendly nations and/or nations that were required to allow those bases at the end of military actions. What would happen if we didn't have our bases in Germany? Do you know how many more American soldiers would have died before reaching adequate medical care? Thats where many of our injured go. When they leave the battle field for R&R thats where they get it many times. Those bases in Germany are a stop over for soldiers who are leaving the battlefield after their tour is over. Those bases also are used to protect our soil from attack. DO NOTbe foolish enough to think we would be better off without them.
08:14 AM on 05/17/2012
It’s not that I think we are better off without those bases, I think we are like a party guest that doesn’t know when to leave, once we have troops on the ground it is understandably to leave a presents behind. After reading the article it was my understanding that a presents in the form of troops would not be left behind, I find this unlikely. I used both Germany and Japan as example to illustrate a point. Perhaps those examples are a bit of a reach.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Itsbeenalongday
Eliminating poverty is smart business
10:40 AM on 05/16/2012
There are two mafia groups in Afghanistan, one is the taliban, the other is in government and the US is backing one of them.
photo
Boduognat
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'entrate.
01:03 PM on 05/16/2012
"...There are two mafia groups in Afghanistan, one is the taliban, the other is in government and the US is backing one of them...."

In fact, the US has backed BOTH of them.
08:53 PM on 05/16/2012
when did the US back the Taliban? Only the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan recognized their government from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban rose to power out of the Afghnistan Civil War from 1991 to 1996. THe movement sprung in Kandahar and remained in a war with Ahmad Shah Massoud until September 9, 2001 the day he was assassinated. Massoud was our man in Afghanistan, its on public record, Sept. 4, 2001 Condi RIce held her NSA meeting on MAssoud and Afghanisan policy.
After the Soviet War, Bush Sr. closed our embassy in Afghanistan and Clinton effectively zeroed out all foreign aid.
TO suggest that america backed the Taliban suggest that you don't know the difference between Al Qaeda, the Taliban (all 3 sects) and the Afghan Mujihadeen of the Soviet War.
01:48 PM on 05/16/2012
Pakistan is the man behind the curtain.