Afghanistan, Again: The Thicket Obama's Not Getting Out Of

President Barack Obama is getting ready to reveal his latest strategy for Afghanistan, perhaps after the election a week from Friday. He appears to be preparing to split the difference. Perhaps he should be preparing to split the territory.

Afghanistan has a government, of a sort, but it doesn't really have a nation. It won't have a nation unless we build it. And there is hardly a guarantee that, as the saying goes, if we build it, they will come.

President Barack Obama spent early Thursday morning publicly honoring the return of fallen soldiers. Obama attended the return of 18 soldiers killed this week in Afghanistan at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. He is the first president to do this since 9/11.

In any event, we can't afford to build a nation in Afghanistan. (Not that America has ever been good at nation-building since the Marshall Plan, which involved rebuilding educated modern societies with industrial know-how in the aftermath of devastating them in World War II.) And we don't need to build a nation in Afghanistan. We have one reasonable goal there: To prevent it from again becoming a base for jihadists, as it was before 9/11. Everything else, no matter how seemingly noble it may or may not be, is a luxury. And today, it's luxury that we can't afford -- geopolitically, financially, militarily. America can't play crusader rabbit, rushing about to write all the world's wrongs.

Obama meets with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday to discuss Afghanistan.

The newest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is evidently moving to a compromise between two schools of thought on Afghanistan: the maximalist approach advocated by the new commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal; and the minimalist approach advocated by Vice President Joe Biden. One would have 40,000 additional troops go there, in a counter-insurgency strategy of building up Afghanistan. The other would eschew escalation, instead focusing on counter-terrorist operations using surveillance, intelligence, high-tech weaponry, and special operations troops to disrupt potential new bases. Which presently, as it happens, do not exist.

Obama flew very early this morning on Marine One to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware for a solemn movement.

Obama looks likely to split the difference. There is talk of four new combat brigades for Afghanistan. That's 14,000 troops. With support personnel, we get to the middle point between McChrystal and Biden.

As it happens, a new poll shows that this approach may fly with voters. But only barely. And perhaps only for now.

With President Obama's ratings holding steady, a brand new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is very revealing with regard to views on Afghanistan, national health care reform, and hyperpartisan fighting and gridlock in Washington. It shows that this is a country that is rather confused and contradictory, and decidedly disappointed, with regard to its politics.

A plurality of Americans now backs a troop increase, and a strong majority supports waiting on a decision until after the country conducts its presidential runoff election next month.

Also, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moves forward crafting a Senate health care bill that contains a public option -- with a state "opt out" -- the survey shows that support for a government-run insurance plan is at its highest level since the debate began and opposition is at its lowest level.

Perhaps most revealing, the poll highlights the public's disgust at Washington, with the number trusting government at its lowest level in 12 years and with nearly half of Americans favoring the creation of a new political party.

Afghan police said an attack yesterday by gunmen on a United Nations house in Kabul left 12 dead. The Taliban claimed responsibility, saying the assault was aimed at the upcoming presidential election on November 7th.

Let's take those one at a time. On Afghanistan, the message is decidedly mixed. Decidedly. While there is support for a troop increase -- which is a sharp reversal since last month -- it's at a much lower level than that advocated by General McChrystal. Think 10,000, not 40,000. And nearly as many want to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan right now.

On national health care, the public option is favored by a near majority. But most doubt the overall plan, not that they understand it. Still, most want to pass an Obama health care plan, while worrying at the same time that it might go too far. Okay then.

What is especially striking is the public disgust with Washington. (It sounds like Californians' disgust with their Capitol.) A big majority says there's too much partisan infighting. Republicans get the rap more than Democrats, but a strong plurality blames both parties. And nearly half want a new, independent party.

But asked to choose between Republicans and Democrats, the not so Grand Old Party gets the decidedly shorter end of the stick. Only 25% have a favorable view of the Republican Party, while 42% have a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

That ties the Republicans' all-time low. So Obama can sustain some more criticism from Republicans, considering the source.

Eight American troops were killed on Tuesday in Afghanistan, making October the deadliest month of the war.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, officials are scrambling to mount a November 7th run-off election for president between President Hamid Karzai and former Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. Half the country's local elections officials have been fired in the wake of findings of massive fraud in what was claimed at first to be a landslide win for Karzai. The Taliban say they will disrupt the election. Abdullah says he won't go into coalition with Karzai if Karzai "wins" again.

Perhaps he's looking down the road. Abdullah was the spokesman for the Northern Alliance, the group that was most effective in fighting both the Soviets and the Taliban. (Abdullah, unlike Karzai, who raised money outside Afghanistan during the fighting, fought in both those wars.) The leader of the Northern Alliance, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was assassinated by Al Qaeda operatives posing as journalists two days before 9/11. (Their camera exploded during the interview.) This was no coincidence. Osama bin Laden banked big credits with his hosts the Taliban, which feared Massoud and would now refuse to serve bin Laden up to the Americans. And both the Taliban and Al Qaeda eliminated a strong ally for America in any retaliation for 9/11.

The Taliban are strong in the south, which is also Karzai's political base, but not in the north, which is Abdullah's base and the place in which the Northern Alliance flourished. Perhaps Abdullah doesn't want to be tarnished by association with Karzai, George W. Bush's handpicked choice inherited by Obama, a figure further compromised by a brother widely linked to the drug trade and reported by the New York Times to have been on the CIA payroll since 2001.

Three helicopter crashes killed 14 Americans in Afghanistan on Monday. It was one of the deadliest days of the war for U.S. troops. Two of the helicopters collided. In the other incident, the helo was engaging Taliban fighters.

And perhaps Abdullah sees that America is very unlikely to sustain a long-term, scaled-up presence in the south. The north is much more capable of sustaining itself free of Taliban domination.

For now, however, Obama seems to be moving toward a less aggressive than McChrystal prefers yet still ongoing form of nation-building for Afghanistan as a whole. To the extent that Afghanistan can be said to be more than a failed state or, more accurately, a never-was state.

Or perhaps Obama's real aim is to buy more time, with a bid to get more European assistance through NATO in building up Afghan security forces while trying to strike a deal with elements of the Taliban. He may get more help, but probably with an exit plan in mind on the part of the Europeans.

That is, unless Tony Blair becomes the first president of the European Union and spins up more support.

We'll see soon enough what finally emerges from Obama's weeks of meetings and deliberation. I don't have a good feeling about it.

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

 

Comments

[digger0007]

Afghanistan is not a monolithic country with a homogeneous political situation from north to south, east to west. As Hoh's resignation letter indicated, every valley and every tribe in Afghanistan has its own unique loyalty and circumstances. A single strategy for the entire country is simply wrong. It is necessary to apply a number of different strategies in the countries, applied according to the local conditions, from province to province, from valley to valley. Some places require counter-insurgency. Other places require counter-terrorism. Still other places, with more advanced and educated urban populations, can be given more political freedom, as in Iraq, to demonstrate to the Afghan people the road map to sovereign self-determination. Once all the provinces have evolved from one strategy to the next, to finally gain sufficient self-governance, a final strategy of united confederation for all the provinces will give the Afghan people lasting peace and prosperity. It is a long and difficult road, but it can be done, as long as we are not stuck using old paradigms in a new situation. Afghanistan is not Iraq, is not Vietnam, is not like any other country or war. Using old strategies will guarantee failure.

[craigb11]

Not the change I voted for.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Yeah.

Well.

It's all in his book.

"Change We Can Believe In."

I keep it on my desk.

[Winning09]

ROTFL

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Moderators.

Let me be very clear.

DO NOT DELETE WHAT I SAY.

ARIANNA IS ON MY SPEED DIAL.

As she has been since 1994.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Moderators.

I haven't seen one thing to be deleted yet on this thread.

[azphoenixwolf]

To: "The Soviets were winning before America intervened­."

The Daily Beast article states:

This heroin bomb then does collateral damage back home. The returning soldiers brought home a heroin problem to Russian cities that grew exponentially during the past two decades. This past March, Russia’s anti-narcotics bureau announced that the country had become the planet’s “No. 1 heroin consumer.”

Today’s Taliban-fighting Americans were yesterday’s mujahideen-fighting Soviets. They saw how heroin helped disable a foreign fighting force more than 20 years ago. And that lesson isn’t lost on them.
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---
In Greek tradgedies, ego/hubris was the sin the Gods punished the most. Some estimates were that 15-20% of soldiers came back from Viet Nam addicted to China White. What are the drugs that Afgans grow and make: opium/heroin. We're going to invade a country where we're not wanted, prop up a corrupt regieme, kill a whole country of guerilla fighters and "win". Sound familiar? I guess we never learn.
Pride comes before a fall. Balance the equation.


Pride comes before a fall. Balance the equation.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

This is a persistent canard on the left.

You should learn what the word "Taliban" means.

>Today’s taliban-fighting Americans were yesterday’s mujahideen-fighting Soviets.

[Winning09]

Exactly.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

... Incidentally, the syntax is all wrong. However, I get the gist and responded accordingly.

[Winning09]

The Daily Beast?

Does Arianna know?

lol

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Very nice!

[azphoenixwolf]

"Then again it is also important to realize the opium crops are key to regional security and the provision of economic alternatives is necessary to keeping these farmers from returning to the poppy trade."

Maybe these farmers want to grow poppies. Maybe they think it's their country and realize they have no allegience to a corrupt US puppet government (think Viet Nam). Maybe they've been growing them for generations and feel it's their right. Maybe they think it's really none of our business.

Ya, they can grow marigolds for the floral trade at say $1 a bushel when they could grow poppies at prices orders of magnitude higher which they've been doing for hundreds or thousands of years.

I wonder what you have been smoking?

[Winning09]

Hey, people want to get $$$$. That's the reality, all over the world.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Yep.

[Ishmael1]

The lesson I'm drawing from the Taliban attacks of the past few months in both Afghanistan and Pakistan is this:

The Taliban control the tempo of the fighting and can strike key targets at will. Whether it's the UN guest house, the Pakistani Army HQ or the Chief intelligence officer of the Karzai government. They control the engagements and all NATO troops can do is react. Meanwhile, Predator drone attacks kill more civilians than jihadists, further inflaming the very people we're trying to win over. For what purpose? To what end? Thirty years of war have devastated the functional indiginous governmental structures of Afghanistan as power politics have prevented any real attempts at fostering a civil society, leaving only extremism, death and slaughter in their wake. The author states a goal of preventing the reestablishment of terrorist training camps in the area. What good will that do if those camps are merely reestablished in Somalia or Sudan or any of the other failed states/wild regions on the planet? We can no longer afford either foreign adventurism or being World Cop. Bring all our troops home from everywhere now. Use the money and manpower we pour down the drain in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to secure our own ports, inspect every container of cargo coming into this country and end our dependance on foreign oil and energy.

[Winning09]

Oh, BS, The Taliban attack occasionally, when they think they won't get wiped. They are going after soft targets like the cowards they are.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

The Taliban don't control. If they did, they wouldn't be out of power.

They are hitting soft targets out of weakness and cowardice.

[nirek]

Lets just stop all our military actions all over the globe and put our military on our borders and at ports inspecting all containers coming into America. Stop giving money indiscriminately to rogue nations . Give aid directly where it is needed , to the people who are hurting , NOT their corrupt governments.
Doing what I just said will make America a good example for other countries.­It will make people in other countries stop hating America for interfering in their affairs .

Nirek

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

It'd be nice if that world existed. It does not.

[Winning09]

This is, frankly, very silly nonsense. It says: "Attack America whenever you want and nothing will happen."

[Antifascist-08]

Afghanistan never attacked us. Neither did iraq.

[JJeff88]

The article smacks of one of those Harvard B School decision trees - posing each aspect of a very complex situation in "go" or no-go" terms.

Afgh/Pak needn't be a series of either/or decisions about 40,000 vs, Zero, Counterterrorism vs. Counterinsurgency, Cities or Hamlets, Aghanistan or Pakistan, Nation-building vs. "Security"; Stay or Leave. Nor should each solution in-between necessarily mean "waffling", "dithering" or "political triangulat­ion."

Several Afgh/Pak gurus on C-Span seem to conclude: (a) the cities need protecting, (b) if we abandon the countryside, the Taliban will gradually strangle the region, (c) a secure Pakistan requires a stable Afghanistan, (d) a secure Afghanistan requires a helpful Pakistan, (e) our key reason for involvement is to eliminate/limit the threat of Al Qaida in order to protect our own borders from those who've proved they are willing and capable of attacking us on our own soil.

None of the various options are pretty, but nation-building and abandoning the region altogether would be the worst 2 of the bunch.

The optimum strategy boils down to: (1) protect the cities, (2) forge alliances with the tribal leaders and commit most of our development resources there while (3) still playing cops & robbers in the mountains and (4) employing "tough love" in Pakistan - and with this the realization that Afghanistan will never be successfully governed centrally.­.

Bottom-line - What's not important is "too much", "too little" or "impolitic­." What's imporant is "getting it right."

[HamletsMill]

Good analysis.

Point "(2) forge alliances with the tribal leaders and commit most of our development resources there" is the true key. 40 years after Vietnam there is no indication whatsoever that we have any people in the U.S. Military or the State Department that are capable of doing this in the least. All of the current effort is being doled out in various kinds contracts. The same old, same old. We have no developed internal governmental capability on being able to do any of this. The fate of NYC being vaporized by a nuclear weapon within the next 50 years by religious fanatics full of hate from the Infidel border region of Afghanistan now hangs in the balance of the lowest bid contractor on socio-economic development. We are making it up as we go along on the MIC gravy train. I truly hope someone gets to a high level of competency on this. We never got anything right in Vietnam. I wonder if we will now?

[azphoenixwolf]

Guns or butter anyone? Didn't we learn from Viet Nam or the Soviet Union's disasterous invasion of Afganistan that drained their treasury and led to the collapse of their empire? Apparently not, although I don't think the military industrial complex cares if they bankrupt this country as long as they get their's. They're like greedy pigs gorging at the trough allong with the oil industry, cash for bankers, and insurance interests. We already have Viet Iraq (the campaign pledge to withdraw is eventually leave 50K peacekeeping troops behind), Viet Afganistan (12K additional troops are being sent, more may be "needed"), and Viet Pakistan (so far we just have our toes in the water with billions and bilions being sent in "aid" and the sending of Terminator style killer drones - oops, evidently someone forgot to program Asimov's 3 laws of robotic nonviolence in them - someone must not have read the book). Choices are being made. Guns or butter? Balance the equation.

[Winning09]

The Soviets were winning until we intervened, big time.

[Ahsanm]

No my friend. Pathans are extremly tenacious enemy. Just do a google search and see for yourself. Dealing with Iraq was a piece of cake compared to Afghanistan. Pathans learn to handle guns generally by age 5.

[hu.man]

Obama is between the rock and the hard place. If he denies the troops requested for the Afghan war, then he will be deemed responsible for any possible set back in this campaign down the road. If he approves the troop levels, then he is caving into those who want us to become more mired in this seemingly never ending conflict.

Therefore, he has little choice but to give the go ahead to the military request. But, he must engage the diplomatic front in full force in order to bring a termination to the hostilities because this war cannot be won the military front.

The military may be able to at best contain the opposition and stop them from gaining any additional ground. But to think that any troop level will actually result in a wholesale triumph over the Taliban is sheer fantasy.

The troop level increase must be accompanied by performance conditions that military must abide by. Too often military just gets a pass under the banner of patriotism. It is time now that we hold the brass accountable for their failure to perform effectively. This is the only way that badly needed reforms can be enacted in the military.

[Winning09]

This sounds right.

[LizM]

This much I know...if a decision to increase combat forces in Afghanistan is made on the basis of political expediency, as you suggest may be the case, then Arianna might be right and the vice president may just have to resign.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

A politician acting politically?

Shocking. Positively shocking.

[hglindquist]

Obama put himself in this trap ... and the "politcal expediency" of his Afghan War policies was foreshadowed early on:

"While much continuity with Bush policies exists, some opportunistic changes in the execution of the Afghan war have been made. Most are inspired by the aim to better market “the good war” to the American public."
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/04/12/americaand-8217-s-afghan-war-the-real-world-versus-obamaand-8217-s-marketed-imagery.html

David Brooks has an insightful peice on today's OpEd page of The New York Times. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30brooks.html

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Brooks' piece of rah-rah warmongering is ridiculous, as usual.

[opines]

The term"Nation Building' is nothing more than our current excuse to continue our occupation of countries we have invaded.

[Winning09]

If we "occupied" Afghanistan we wouldn't have these problems.

[Ahsanm]

Afghanistan is wrong country to invade. It produces nothing, no infrastructure, no functioning govt. What is US getting back. It is not even strategic location. Above all it is still in 14th century.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

The reason to invade was to retaliate for 9/11 and get after Al Qaeda.

Otherwise, we have no reasonable interest whatsoever there.

[FrozenNorthObserver]

test

[FrozenNorthObserver]

it's a thicket with very familar thorns, and puts Obama in Nixon territory,

"Brother of Afghan Leader Is Said to Be on C.I.A. Payroll"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking#Vietnam_Era

[buttonz]

Without security there can be no nation building. However, unlike the Marshall plan Afghanistan does not require the extent of nation building than what may seem. Afghanistan is very capable of running a representative government as demonstrated over the decades until the communist takeover. Then again it is also important to realize the opium crops are key to regional security and the provision of economic alternatives is necessary to keeping these farmers from returning to the poppy trade.

But it is important to understand that the massive troops request is very temporary. Like in Iraq there will be initial heavy fighting which will die down to a trickle in which many of these troops can be returned. Keep in mind that Pakistan is getting at the Taliban from the other end, and there isn't a better time to escalate the fight.

[LizM]

Afghanistan isn't Iraq...whi­ch, by the way, currently sits on the edge of the abyss.

[Winning09]

Oh, that is nonsense. Really.

Get a grip.