« Nuclear Inspectors in Iran: Who Could have imagined this happening a year ago? | coonsey's Blog | Obama: Smart Electric Grids also equal Jobs »

Afghanistan War: Treat it like Cops Did in Chicago against Mobsters


Eugene Robinson of Washington Post


By turning from Afghanistan prematurely to launch an elective, unnecessary and ill-advised invasion of Iraq, Bush and Cheney managed to transform one war we were winning into two that we were in danger of losing....

But the decisions on Afghanistan truly are either-or. Obama can decide to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy or a counterterrorism strategy. He can do one or the other -- not both. If he chooses counterinsurgency, he has to send enough troops to make that strategy work. If he doesn't want to send all those troops, he needs to pursue counterterrorism or do something else...

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan who has devised the counterinsurgency strategy, is asking for 40,000 or more additional troops. Obama is right to examine the general's calculations, but it would make no sense to try a middle path and approve, say, a troop increase of 20,000. That would just put more Americans in harm's way without giving McChrystal the resources he says he needs. This game's been going on for eight years. It's time to raise or fold...

We invaded Afghanistan to ensure that the country could never again be used to launch attacks against the United States. That mission is accomplished, and our only goal should be making sure it stays accomplished -- whether the place is run by Hamid Karzai or the Taliban. The counterinsurgency campaign that Obama is contemplating looks like a step onto the slipperiest slope imaginable. It doesn't matter whether the step is tentative or bold.

Sometimes a "war president" has to decide to start bringing the troops home. That's what Obama must do.

I'm sorry Eugene but I have to disagree.  This is not the time to be rushing the troops out of Afghanistan.  You are correct, we've spent 8 years there, you are wrong however in thinking we've given it our 'all' and that Afghanistan will never again be used to launch attacks against us. 

As you pointed out, the war we 'thought' we were winning was suddenly dropped or forgotten by President Bush and Vice President Cheney for a war they preferred to be fighting --in Iraq.

We haven't given half the attention we gave Iraq to Afghanistan, not in troop strength nor politically.  For the past 6 years our troops have been in limbo in Afghanistan, protecting a few major cities like Kabul.  This is not fighting a war, it's policing a city.  It's kind of like having police in downtown Chicago and not training more police officers to help control the violence across the rest of Chicago

I'm guessing because I don't know the details of what's happening over there (we hear very little from you in the media about the actual war - except for the political side of it); but I think perhaps there needs to be enough troops sent over to help protect the other troops, give them reinforcements, to cover their backs - and possibly spread the security around the nation. 

Think about Chicago during the mob days in the 40's and 50's.  If the cops had just gone downtown and ignored the suburbs (which they did in the beginning), they would have never gotten control of Chicago.  Instead, the cops were sent across the city, showing up on the streets of small neighborhoods, giving at least the sense of 'control' - giving those that lived there a feeling of security and in some cases making them feel a little braver.  Because of that feeling, they began squealing on the bad guys to those same cops on the streets.

There needs to be a surge alright Eugene; but not in combat troops, in the training of Afghans to fight for their own country.

Until we have given Afghanistan our 'all', as was done in Iraq, we should not leave.

As for the U.S. political side of the issue;  Can't you just hear the Republican Party's accusations toward the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama if he were to come out tomorrow and say, "Enough is enough, we're leaving Afghanistan"?  

"Be prepared to be attacked again because Democrats are weak on defense.  We warned you", they would say.  Ignoring of course that odds are, we'll be attacked whether we stay or not.

No sir, it's not time yet.  President Obama and his administration must prove they've given Afghanistan their 'all'; then and only then should he announce our withdrawal of troops from there.



7 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Coonsey - I agree with your general point that we can't afford not to mount a vigorous effort to prevent a complete destabilization of Afghanistan and the reinstitution of Taliban rule. When it comes to evaluating the various strateges for carrying out that effort, from Biden on the low end (maintain current troop levels and concentrate on focused attacks on Al Qaeda) to McChrystal on the high end (add 40,000 or even up to 80,000 troops), my problem, and I suspect it's the problem for most of us here, is that we don't know enough about the fine points of strategy to express an informed opinion. I think that's true of Eugene Robinson as well. I appreciate the time President Obama is taking to evaluate the merits of different approaches. Despite what Robinson claims, Obama may indeed decide - on the merits - that a troop increase smaller than 40,000 would be the best next step, with further steps to depend on future events, including, as you say, the rate at which Afghan security forces can be trained. Even before that, he may decide not to make too large a commitment all at once until convinced that the Karzai government or it's replacement has undertaken some needed reforms, in essence a tactic of "you reform and we'll send troops". I'm not suggesting that political considerations in the U.S. are irrelevant, but I don't think they will force him to make a choice he otherwise believes to be a mistake.

I'm also confident that Obama sees the effort as a combined military/civilian approach that requires rebuilding of Afghan infrastructure and legal systems to create the possibility of a better life for many in this ravaged land, with much of the military effort designed to provide the security for this to happen until the indigenous security forces can replace us.

Clearly, there will be others who insist we should withdraw from Afghanistan as rapidly as possible. I've stated in detail why I believe that decision would be profoundly dangerous, so I won't repeat that here. Again, though, I believe geostrategic thinking along these lines needs to be clear headed, based on the actual consequences that any choice is likely to bring about rather than an overarching ideology that neglects consequences.

user-pic

As usual, you say it much better than I. Thank you Fred.

user-pic

Why can't Afghanistan now be used to launch attacks against the USA? I missed that somewhere.

Maybe you meant the nation ruled by Hamid Karzai, which is officially known as The Peoples Republic of The Coupla Blocks Around Karzai's House?

user-pic

I didn't say they couldn't, Eugene did. I'm not sure why he said it. Hell, even the U.S. can be used to launch attacks against the USA! If it weren't being used, who are those people they just arrested recently for plotting to attack us?

Geez...

user-pic

Well if we didn't invade Afghanistan to make it a place where attacks are magically unlaunchable, what was the reason for the invasion?

Right now we've got a Drug Lord on the CIA Payroll and a corrupt guy that runs a couple blocks of Kabul. Nice results for a quarter trillion bucks or more? Hardly.

We should fight terrorism by spending the money to give everyone in the world clean running water and reducing our CO2 emissions. What we've got going on now is nothing but pissing away lives and treasure, as if Vietnam never happened.

user-pic

I don't see where Robinson says we've already 'given it our all.' I think he's saying the opposite, that Iraq caused us to NOT give it our all and so now Obama is faced with a Hobson's choice of 'raise or fold.' Then Robinson merely writes which one HE would prefer, what's wrong with that? It is an 'opinion' column, after all.

user-pic

Robinson said implied that since we've already been there for 8 years that we've given it our best try. I disagree with that. It's because of Iraq that we haven't actually given it our best shot, so in MY opinion, we should first do that, THEN move out.

As Sec Of Defense said recently, Obama's plan in March hasn't even been finished yet, the troops nor the civilian side have yet to even get over there. He also pointed out the Gen in charge just arrived in June.

We need to give Obama another year at least to give it HIS all...as the Sec of Defense wants as well.

Leave a comment

coonsey

user-pic

Following:
Followers: 24

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Location Illinois
  • Politics Independent

Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address