Obama in the Thicket of "Afghaniranistan"

Considering that he is the most recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, President Barack Obama is in a seemingly curious set of positions. He's spurred major military offensives in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has been deeply enmeshed in a tense stand-off with Iran.

There are many complex things to be said about each of these situations, which are all interrelated with not only one another, but also US relations with such challenging countries as Israel and Russia. But let's start with the basic versions.

Afghanistan. There's much to be said on the question of how best to go about securing Afghanistan for a democratic, modernizing future, free from the influences of a Dark Ages theocracy which oppresses women and closes the minds of children. But two fundamental things are true. First, America cannot be the world's crusader rabbit, seeking to rush about and right all wrongs. Second, re-making Afghanistan is not why we are there in the first place. We're there to disrupt Al Qaeda and keep jihadists from using the country as a training and staging area for attacks on the US and its allies.

After complaining about the killings over the weekend of top Revolutionary Guards commanders and recent abductions of individuals involved with its nuclear program, Iran has agreed to a deal pushed by the US to have most of its uranium enriched by Russia.

Iran. I don't know if the fundamentalist theocrats who run Iran have intended to develop nuclear weapons. I do know that if they have not, they've done an awfully good job of acting as though they are. Constant delays in international negotiations. And no new inspections have taken place yet in Iran in the wake of last month's revelation of a previously secret underground facility next to a Revolutionary Guard base. Last month, the Iranian regime said it wouldn't even discuss this nuclear program. Yet now there is an apparent breakthrough in Vienna, with Iran agreeing with America, France, and Russia to send most of its nuclear fuel to Russia for enrichment.

Pakistan. This is the ongoing success story of Obama's anti-jihadist strategies. After conning the Bush/Cheney Administration out of many billions of dollars, all the while turning a blind eye to the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda cadre it harbored in its midst -- with jihadists extending their grip over much of the country in the process -- Pakistan has, at Obama's strong urgings this year, pushed back hard. Pakistani Taliban gains have been reversed and the Pakistani Army is now engaged in a ground offensive in the longtime jihadist stronghold of South Waziristan, which it launched over the past weekend. During the Bush/Cheney days, the old Pakistani government had a formal truce allowing jihadists free reign in that region. But much can still go wrong there.

Afghan officials are scrambling to organize a November 7th run-off election after months of wrangling over the largely fraudulent re-election victory of George W. Bush's man in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai.

Obama is in the thicket of "Afghaniranistan," a multi-faceted complex of geopolitical crises. He is actively using military force in two of the countries, and has threatened, at the least, tough sanctions in the third. (The Obama Administration also recently accelerated the development of advanced bunker-buster bombs, suitable for use against, say, underground nuclear facilities.)

Which is a seemingly odd place for the most recent Nobel Peace Prize winner to be.

Many on the right have convinced themselves that Obama is a peacenik, a man who won't stand up to the forces that attacked America on 9/11 and have carried out attacks around the world. Many on the left have convinced themselves -- or say they convinced themselves -- of much the same thing, albeit with a very different cast on the same set of facts.

But both are wrong. Obama is a politician of the center/left. While as a college student he wrote approvingly of disarmament and disapprovingly of intervention, as a mature political figure he has not eschewed the use of force. In fact, in the speech that helped him win the Democratic presidential nomination -- his October 2002 speech as a U.S. Senate candidate opposing the invasion of Iraq -- he did not oppose the war because of any pacifism on his part. Instead, he opposed it as a dumb war.

Still, Obama, in large part due to his soaring speeches, leads many to project upon him what they will. For example, he is an abolitionist when it comes to nuclear weapons. In the long run. Just as his idol, Abraham Lincoln, a famous man of peace, was an abolitionist when it came to slavery. Lincoln, however, came along at a time when slavery could actually be abolished. And yet it took a war to do it. A paradox of politics.

Lincoln was a profound idealist, and a profound pragmatist. Obama also blends idealism and realpolitik in his political technique. He is blending a high-profile program of reaching out to the Muslim world as a whole -- evidenced by his brilliant Cairo address of June -- while lethally targeting jihadist cadre.

This is why aerial drone strikes against Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders and cadre in Pakistan have actually increased under Obama. He authorized a daring special forces mission to kill a top Al Qaeda leader deep inside Somalia, as well as the highly publicized rescue of an American freighter captain (and execution of his captors) by Navy Seals off the coast of Somalia. And this is what we know.

Following the killings on Sunday of much of its top leadership, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard claimed that the US, Britain, and Pakistan instigated the action.

With Iran sending signals that it would not budge on the question of further enriching its own uranium, rather than send it to Russia or France, top leaders and cadre of the Revolutionary Guards -- the military organization with a base next to the previously secret underground nuclear facility revealed last month -- were killed in terrorist bombings apparently carried out by an Iranian Sunni militant group on Sunday. The surviving Revolutionary Guards commander claimed that the killings were instigated by British, Pakistani ... and American intelligence. All three governments denied any role.

Intriguingly, Iran did not claim that operatives from Israel's Mossad or Sayeret had a hand in the deadly strikes. This is a serious blow to Revolutionary Guard prestige. After all, if they can't protect their leaders, how can they protect, and intimidate, the nation?

Just before the apparent breakthrough in nuclear negotiations in Vienna, Iran's foreign minister accused the US of being behind the abduction of three Iranians involved with the nuclear program. (Though one of the apparent abductions took place before Obama became president.)

If the Iranian nuclear deal is approved, it looks to be a good step forward. After refusing yesterday to deal at all with France, stalling yesterday's talks, Iran today agreed in negotiations with the US, France, and Russia to send 75% of its nuclear fuel for further enrichment to Russia.

Obama, in what was no doubt a lovely conversation, congratulated Karzai for "accepting the certification" of the Afghan election.

The other 25% is deemed insufficient to start a nuclear weapons program. I'm not sure of the status of international inspections in Iran with regard to being sure that it is only 25%, or whether the delayed inspection of the previously secret underground facility will take place this weekend.

The governments of Iran, Russia, France, and the US must all approve the deal. Israel, which is not a party to the negotiations but a more than interested bystander, to say the least, had a deputy defense minister say today on Israeli Army Radio that, "It shows that the international pressure is working, but it must continue so that Teheran will not have an atomic bomb."

Then there is the question of Russia, which wants more sway over the post-Soviet space around it. For the obvious great power reasons, and for its own historic sense of self-defense, which is often missed in discussions of Moscow's intentions.

Assuming that the deal is implemented and appropriate inspections are carried out, Obama looks at least to have delayed the Iranian crisis, if not eliminated it entirely.

Which leaves the eternal AfPak question, and Obama's latest coming course correction in Afghanistan.

A UN-backed elections commission found massive fraud in the claimed August 20th re-election of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, leading to a long-delayed November 7th run-off election.

Obama is taking his time with this decision, as he should. It's merely one of the most momentous of his presidency.

It took a lot to get this November 7th run-off between a very reluctant President Hamid Karzai and former Foreign Minister and Northern Alliance spokesman Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. You can't have a strategy for a country if you don't have an at least moderately credible government.

Incidentally, major kudos are called for Senator John Kerry, with whom Obama met today in the Oval Office. Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, has returned from Afghanistan where he played a key role in effecting a run-off presidential election upon a recalcitrant Karzai, who proclaimed himself a landslide winner, only for the UN-backed elections commission to find evidence of massive fraud in his vote. Half the local registrars for the original August 20th election have been fired.

Kerry, incidentally, personally picked Obama to deliver his famed 2004 Democratic national convention address, which vaulted Obama into the political stratosphere. He's known to be an advocate of caution on Afghanistan, having served in Vietnam himself.

There's just one thing about having a better government in Kabul, assuming one emerges through a variety of means after November 7th. It might convince Obama to slide down the old nation-building skids.

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

 

 

Comments

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

I can't find the original in the nested HP system, so here goes ...

The answer is that's what we want. People going home after the new offensive is a very good thing.

> If that's all that happens then we're not making any progress here...so why bother? In reply to: There are now 200,000 people displaced by the Pakistani offensive.

[LizM]

People going home is often a good thing. I'm just saying that this offensive, and others like it in these tribal areas, will be of little value if the people in these areas remain separate and apart from the rest of Pakistan, politically speaking.

Until there are real political reforms here, these tribal areas will continue to be a going concern.

[Winning09]

It looks like Iran is reneging on the Vienna deal.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Not exactly.

They are stalling.

[Jude Nagurney Camwell]

William, thanks for providing your big-picture analysis. I plan to share it with others. I give Senator John Kerry great credit for his accomplishment, getting President Karzai to see the wisdom of a run-off election. Imagine how much better off our country would have been by now if John Kerry had been our President in 2004. President Obama needs to cause all Americans to think about the need for reconciliation and restoration within our own politically divided nation while bringing wars on two fronts to some kind of conclusion. All of this while attempting to reestablish international diplomacy and facing an economy that poses great challenges. No easy task! I saw an article today where U2's Bono said he was surprised to see the Obama election/i­nauguratio­n spirit of joy dissipate so quickly. I'm disappointed, too, but I think I understand the problem. The world community is still hopeful while citizens within our own country are bombarded daily with American-m­edia-gener­ated controvers­ies-du-jou­r that would even murder the spirit of the perpetually giggly woman from the film "Happy-Go-Lucky." I think it would serve the spirit of our nation well to understand how much our President has on his plate and for our media to grow up and report facts that would naturally enlist us citizens to share the burdens of our nation rather than focus and capitalize on our divisions. I suppose there's not enough MONEY these days in reporting that way.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks, very welcome!

[LizM]

The latest military offensive in South Waziristan is part of the latest Crisis Group report...but, I guess time will tell how all of this shakes out.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, and the description is off.

[LizM]

Like focusing on the number of troops that should or should not be sent to Afghanistan, we may be missing the point in debating how many IDPs have been displaced in Pakistan and whether or not they have returned and to what.

One thing that's not off...the ICG's warning that if the people of the tribal areas in Pakistan continue to be politically estranged from the rest of the country then whatever the Pakistani military tries to do in these areas to defeat the militants, they will be unsuccessful in the final analysis.

And, the situation on the ground in Afghanistan for the US/NATO troops will continue to be dire and deteriorating.

In any event, it looks like we're getting very close to a big announcement about the new Afghanista­n-Pakistan grand strategy. It should be worthy of a very, very long oval office address to the American people and to the rest of us out in the world.

[TEHelms]

In my past posts I have talked about how cobbled together this entire area is. When you see Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc. and realize the borders were drawn not from tribal ancestry but rather as a way Communist Russia could keep Islam and the tribes weakened, you see how futile looking at this area as countries is. Afghanistan exists only in the mind of politicians and not in reality. Go after Al Qaeda where we can find them and enlist the locals to help but get out of the area known as Afghanistan.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Right, a lot of it's abitrary. Except that Afghanistan was not created by the Soviets.

[LizM]

What do ya say we include India in on all of this fun...Afgh­anirankist­andia, anyone?

Okay, okay...it doesn't exactly roll off your tongue but...ahem...it is inclusive. :)

[horhay]

Right! Think about our valiant troops that will achieve victory on the Malabar Front...

[LizM]

Well, that's not quite what I had in mind.

[research]

now our longest declared war. The War in Afghanistan is over. The occupation is now counterproductive.

The USA CANNOT remove ALL safe havens for terrorism,

Without instituting world fascism,

Which would be worse than terrorism

The USA tortures, wages war for proffit and has a plutocracratic government for sale to the highest bidder.

The USA CANNOT bring democracy is does not have at home.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes. We are evil. Thanks for that balanced perspective.

[research]

No The USA is not evil as a state of being.

The USA has done great evil lately, however and if we can't face it, the country will get worse.

[research]

Please prove me wrong, BTW.

[SparkyDash]

I'm not seeing text....Was ist los?

[elfNW]

Sigh. I am old enough to recall a time when "Afghanistanism" (worrying about what was going on in Afghanistan) was an expression that meant worrying about something totally unimportant..

[LizM]

"There's just one thing about having a better government in Kabul, assuming one emerges through a variety of means after November 7th. It might convince Obama to slide down the old nation-building skids."


That's one big assumption but it will definitely require a variety of means! As for the old nation-building skids, that should be ultimately up to the Afghans themselves, of course - through a variety of means. Though, there will be a definite supporting role for the UN, the US, NATO, and the rest of the international community. And, they will all have to be firmly commited for a very, very long time.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Perhaps.

Biden is against a big ongoing presence, ya know ...

[LizM]

I've heard that.

[SparkyDash]

*snorts*

[PrometheanSalvation]

Wow, think how far we have come in the last ten months and a day. I doubt peace in our time is realistic, but at least we have halted the slide into a William Gibson world of corporate rule in all things, especially war. While I have no illusions that war is fought for any other reason than money, I do have some hope that at least for now there is a chance albeit slim that we could dig our way out of the most brazen of the corpo-kleptic wars and institute some semblence of sanity. I am curious as to what you think of our real reasons for the Afgan invasion, was it terrorism or was it pipe line, are we far enough away from the starting point that we can grow past the reason. By the way nice pick up and highlight on the kidnappin of the scientists as well as the questions about the suicide bombings. Are we creating another Mujahadien in Iran? Have we learned our lesson yet?

[Antifascist-08]

Make a deal with the Taliban to keep Al Qaeda under wraps and then get out of Afghanistan. The whole Al Qaeda threat is such a crock at this point. The taliban are the only force around there that can deal with Al Qaeda, which is much weakened and can be handled by special forces and law enforcement. There is no need for us to be in Afghanistan and lots of reasons to get out.

Who cares what the neocon cowards think. iran can be handled. Obama has started to do it, with help from other countries. We don't need to think about going to war with them.

Pakistan is a mess but at least they are trying to have a central government there. They can be finessed with deals for aid.

it seems like O is strting to put his own plan together and he is also thinking about getting out of Afghanistan. I doubt he will add more troops. McCrystal should be relived of duty. He has no clue about what is going on over there. he just sounds like MacNamara and Rumsfeld all over again. Fail.

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

Having read his report, I think the good general is practicing CYA. He guarantees nothing even if he gets the troops.

[LizM]

Hey, you...I thought that report was classified. I don't suppose you would consider sharing a link ... :)

[LizM]

Actually, that report really does read like a CYA effort. I hope the classified version is more reality-based.

[Winning09]

Does the report have a link?

lol

[S1m0n]

Amidst all the complaint, it's easy to ignore the fact that Iran is more than compliant with all of it's obligations under the NPT, and that just as in Iraq, the US response to its complete failure to uncover evidence of an illegal weapons program has been to demand ever more onerous inspections and to call Iran recalcitrant when it demurs.

It is these additional demands that Iran gets called evasive about; its real obligations have been fulfilled, and then some.

~~

The recently 'discovered' facilitiy is a great example. The NPT requires Iran to give 6 months notice* of a new facility. Iran's recent disclose came 18 months - three times more notice than required under the original treaty. There have been a number of enhanced versions demanded by the UNSC. Iran has acceeded to some, refused others, and signed at least one that they have since renounced. One of these demanded more than 18 months notice of a new facility. The UN's position is that Iran can't repudiate such an agreement, but renuncuiation is a basic of the international law of treaties, and no such treaty is valid.

~~

The failure of inspections to reveal wrongdoing and the constant escallation of demands makes it increasingly obvious that no answer but an Iranian confession will ever be acceptable, whatever the reality. The hawks are determined not to take "No" for an answer. Even if it IS the answer.

*In advance of the start of production.

[Winning09]

This was false before.

It's false now.

[OneTop]

Not so

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/25/iran-secret-nuclear-plant-inspections

[LizM]

I’m not so sure that we can say with authority that Pakistan is an ongoing Obama success story but, the anti-jihadist strategies of the Obama-Biden administration may have very successfully stirred up a veritable hornet’s nest in Pakistan and one that may be next to impossible to subdue.

The Pakistani military is making claims that it is achieving success in its latest attempt to beat back the Islamist insurgency but the opposite may be true. Surprise, surprise.

It seems that the Pakistani military, as it goes after the Taliban in South Waziristan, is also making deals with other rival Taliban groups, as per usual. And, more than a million civilians have been displaced already as a result of this military offensive and little is being done to mitigate their misery. The Pakistani military is, apparently, blocking desperately needed humanitarian assistance. I think this is what you call counter-productive and a great recruiting tool for the Taliban militants.

There is hope, however. And, it may depend on whether or not Obama-Biden can successfully pressure the civilian government in Islamabad to finally make progress on political and economic reforms in South Waziristan, and the rest of the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan. Otherwise, these areas may remain a stronghold for the Taliban and worse, an endless supply of militants.

Frankly, I wouldn't hold out much hope, though. This is a mess that, I fear, is on the verge of spiraling out of control.

[Winning09]

Forgetting, I see, that this all happened BIGGER with the first Pakistani anti-Taliban offensive.

[LizM]

So, you're agreein' with me, then? :)

[abdik8]

Perhaps the majority of people there want to live in a dark age theocracy. If so, leave them alone. If not, they need to be the major part of the solution. We are too broke and have lost too many lives. Time to bring the troops home and focus on our own problems.

[NeverUndecided]

The only thing correct in this analysis is that Obama is no pacifist (nor even remotely "left" of center - the "center" over the last 30 years having been pulled so far right that only perverse fools like Beck , Limbaugh, etc. are now considered "right").

Otherwise, a fairy tale version of what is going on:

1) George Bush in 2007 gave the CIA unlimited scope (and huge $$) to de-stabilize Iran. The recent election "crisis" was one operation. The "hit" on the Revolutionary Guards (note: they were local leaders, not National as you claim) was purportedly carried out by Sunnis. Quite likely, as this would be in keeping with US policy in Iraq, ie, paying local Sunnis to do US bidding (note that brbing the Sunnis was & is the key to the so-called "success" of the surge).

2) The US has hit 14 "leaders" in the Afghan/Pakistan border region, while killing 700 civilians - this has fed directly into the near-insurgency in Pakistan.

3) The Us is , unbelievably, going to allow Karzai, who has been a disaster, run again (if a deal is not cut first) - after he STOLE the election through massive fraud.

4) The only reason Iran is pursuing a nuke is that they have every reason to believe they are next on the list.

Millions more lives will be lost in the region if we do not, finally, clean up OUR act, not theirs.

[Winning09]

Hey, it's the big conspiracy theory!

Barack is really a conservative!

The govt. of Iran is really nice!

We didn't really see it crack down on its own people!

Iran should have nukes!

Forget 9/11!

Yada yada yada...

[OneTop]

AFGHANISTAN: A WAR OF LIES

http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/afghanistan-a-war-of-lies.aspx

and another interesting article as well

FLAMES FROM AFGHANISTAN IGNITE PAKISTAN

http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/flames-from-afghanistan-ignite-pakistan.aspx

[William Bradley - Huffpost Blogger]

So many mistakes.

Incidentally, this is an enormous contradiction. America should never intervene, you say. Except when it should.

>The Us is , unbelievably, going to allow Karzai, who has been a disaster, run again

[noneIn2008]

Obama is a hawk, digging us in deeper. No more excuses. No more blame. Get us out.