The War In Afghanistan Was (and is) A Choice
President Obama said this morning that the United States didn't "choose" to fight the war in Afghanistan. I think we did. It may have been the right choice. I certainly thought so at the time. But it was a choice. No choice means no other reasonable options. We had another reasonable option though. We could have said, "We weren't attacked by Afghanistan, we were attacked by crminals operating under Afghanistan's protection." Then we might have had a different response. No matter, the choice was made.
And we're making choices now.
In the face of all our problems at home I'm having a tough time getting behind more money and more troops going to Afghanistan. I was surprised this morning when Obama said that 2008 was the deadliest of the war for US soldiers. I have to admit, when I supported the war back in 2001 I never thought it would lead to an occupation going into its 8th year.
Where's the exit strategy?
Beyond that, and probably more important -- we can't fix our economy if we continue to allow our military to dominate our budgets. We can't trim military spending while leaving a huge force in Iraq and calling it a withdrawal and by increasing our military exposure to Afghanistan. It's time to bring troops home and declare ourselves at peace with the rest of the world. Our economy needs a peace dividend. This occupation just isn't vital to our interests.
And we're making choices now.
In the face of all our problems at home I'm having a tough time getting behind more money and more troops going to Afghanistan. I was surprised this morning when Obama said that 2008 was the deadliest of the war for US soldiers. I have to admit, when I supported the war back in 2001 I never thought it would lead to an occupation going into its 8th year.
Where's the exit strategy?
Beyond that, and probably more important -- we can't fix our economy if we continue to allow our military to dominate our budgets. We can't trim military spending while leaving a huge force in Iraq and calling it a withdrawal and by increasing our military exposure to Afghanistan. It's time to bring troops home and declare ourselves at peace with the rest of the world. Our economy needs a peace dividend. This occupation just isn't vital to our interests.
Advertisement
Agreed.
I also recognize that Obama had to make this choice because of what he had said during the campaign.
He cannot allow the replublicans to distract or undermine him by restarting "soft on terrorists" from last year.
So, in a way, it's a political choice with economic consequences. In my opinion.
March 27, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's rather demeaning and unjustified.
March 27, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really believe most Americans have moved past the terror boogieman, which is one of the reasons Obama was elected.
With our economy in the tank (unemployment, the new boogieman), I’m sure there are even more supporters for ending our Harold and Kumar Go to the Middle East adventures and winding down our unnecessary military leviathan with thousands of bases (about 250 golf courses alone) across the world. Our oversized, overstretched, outmoded military program is insolvent and ready for restructuring and downsizing.
Respectfully, to your main point, I can’t think of a worse or more irrelevant consideration than basing serious FP policy, the lives of our kids, restoring our enfeebled standing in the world and further depleting a depleted treasury on whether or not Republicans may call you a wimp (and they would anyway). That’s the mindset that must be changed in D.C.
March 27, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
March 27, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
To deny that political calculations (upcoming elections and party fights) played a role in this decision is, frankly, childish and delusional.
My comment wasn't judging the merits of his decision one way or the other, simply stating what I think is obvious.
March 28, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, I took your comment as an observation of the situation, not an endorsement. I wasn't criticizing you, at all, but the fact that decisions of the utmost seriousness are made for frivolous, shelfish and bogus reasons (and appreciate you bringing it up) in spite of the people supposedly represented here.
I don't think calling for a change in priorities and allegiances is naive, childish or silly. Perhaps it's childish to continue to keep buying the same BS and being fooled over and over by elected representatives who really represent corporate and big lobby interests?
And again, I think this election was about the country slowly reaching a tipping point against this kind of selfish DC pay-to-play game, which continues though not without more and more criticism. My point was that we can no longer accept the status quo.
March 28, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're not. Obama's budget includes an increase in defense spending.
March 27, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could recommend this blog if you had stopped after your second sentence. After reading the rest, I'd recommend twice if I could. I think Lalo makes a good observation as well regarding the political component of the choice to escalate our involvement in Afghanistan. At some point, I think we have to step back, analyze the facts, and ask ourselves, what, if anything, are we gaining by our continued investment there? Like the Soviets before us, I wonder if in another 10 years, we will be espousing in plain English something to the effect of this.
March 27, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
March 27, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the concepts you present here, destor.
I do believe, though, that it's not entirely in sync with what the world (particularly, say, Afghanistan and northern Pakistan) thinks of us.
I have no objection to pursuing AQ - and it's politically suicidal to not do so. My problem with the war in Iraq was always that there was a glaring lack of justification. That problem never existed for me in Afghanistan.
I understand what you mean about choosing versus not choosing. However, once the perpetrators of 9/11 were identified (and they were correctly traced to Afghanistan first), there was no serious option besides military engagement.
I'm tired of war, believe me. And I still get this angry feeling in my chest whenever I think about the years, lives and money wasted in Iraq, with not much to show for it besides a destabilized region and a more powerful Iran.
But I do believe Afghanistan is the right fight, and has been all along. It is, I believe, much more than just a political necessity. I don't believe it makes much sense to leave Afghanistan/Pakistan alone and allow AQ/Taliban to grow in strength and importance any further.
Going after these regions - finally, and with proper manpower - is part of cleaning up the mess Bush left. And, it should be noted, it's exactly what Obama ran on. (I know that's not part of your case; I mention it here only to be thorough.)
March 27, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally accept that there are justifications for Afghanistan being the right fight. But I think it being the right fight isn't enough anymore. We have to rethink. Sometimes even the right fight isn't worth the price.
Thanks for the thoughtful dissent though!
March 27, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fighting the Taliban in Afg. is not the right fight if AQ is the enemy.
March 27, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fighting the Taliban in Afg. is not the right fight if AQ is the enemy.
Change that to "fighting the Taliban in Pakistan" and you might be wrong.
It all depends upon intel which we are not privy to, but recent signals suggest that is what is going on (including the increased Predator attacks we are doing there.) I'm not saying I agree with doing it. I'm just pointing out that recent developments strongly suggest that the "al Qaeda leaders" as most Americans think of them, the oldies but goodies, are indeed there, and are once again having success at getting all the other Taliban let bygones be bygones and to operate under them, and are planning a "surge" of their own.
Take the reporting in that link from today's NYT, and combine it with the reports of Predator attacks since Obama took office, and there's some patterns and suggestive rhyme and reason there.
March 27, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might be wrong if I said something different??
I don't get the point of your link in this context.
I'm saying that we need to be clear about our objectives in Afg., and if you like, in Pak. too. If our conduct drives AQ and the Taliban closer together, is that good for us? Can we separate them? Who is the true enemy and who is simply in the way or collateral damage?
If AQ and the Taliban have merged, that's another story. We clearly had more than one motive to invade Afg. the way we did. At first AQ was separate, protected and tolerated by the Taliban. I'm not so sure now.
March 28, 2009 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
If AQ and the Taliban have merged, that's another story
This is suggested in that article, even in its title: Pakistan and Afghan Taliban Close Ranks :
(An aside: when we see "American officials" quoted that way, we have to get used to the idea that they are Obama's American officials now, not Bush's.)
It would also make sense that they see Obama (who promised in his campaign to return to ramp up the fight,) as a threat that would inspire to solidarity where factionalist problems existed before. It is the factions allied with old al Qaeda in Northwest Pakistan. Given the current situation of strengthening of other Taliban in Afghanistan, a call to solidarity for another push or surge makes sense from their point of view. Without the Mullah Omars (and Zawahri and possible bin Ladens and others) there are no inspirational leaders to do this. Plus they have managed to stymie Pakistan and have growing power there--the Swat Valley for instance
It seems to me that if you believe al Qaeda is still a threat to the west like Obama says he does, northwest Pakistan, and the unified surge those in Pakistan want to create in Afghanistan, is the place you have to deal with them.
If you read what Obama said about it, it sounds like this is what he believes is going on, too. He basically implies that if we leave now, Afghanistan will return to the same as it was pre 9/11, as a haven for al Qaeda type extremism. They were sort of in exil in the Pakistan frontier regions, but what happened is that they have been quite successful there. Meanwhile, in Aghanistan, we lost ground to other factions of Tailban, not so allied with al Qaeda types. If they unify for a push like the article claims, it is the place to be if you still believe defeating old al Qaeda types is important.
I have a tendency to believe it's not that important anymore, but then, I don't know how tenuous the situation with the entire nation of Pakistan is, I don't have that kind of intel.
And yes, that is a worry similar to "domino theory" in some ways, that is the argument that Obama seems to buy. Still, it's not some big eternal fight with some Soviet empire he would be fearing, it's more like a real game of dominoes: if they get Afghanistan back as a haven, and then have Pakistan fall to chaos, they get more access to larger weapons, then continue on to attacking and destabilizing India, and continue with attacks in the west as well...that to leave now you would be very sorry that you didn't finish the job while you were there.
Even without that concept, though, you have the remnants of old Al Qaeda in northwest Pakistan, and he promised in campaign speeches to get them. In itself, doing that would be a psychological coup against the effects of terrrorim on Americans; i.e., terrorism won't have the punch it can if Americans don't think still think there is the same old sophisticated plot behind it.
To repeat: what most Americans think of when they hear "al Qaeda," those people are in Northwest Pakistan, and they have in the last couple months tried to reunify the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan against NATO. You may not think it's the way to get an amorphous al Qaeda, but if that's the al Qaeda you want to get, those leaders, that's where they are and what they are planning, and that's where you want to be.
March 28, 2009 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for linking to that Times article, AA. I was in a bit of a hurry when I wrote my original comment, and didn't have time to find it. I wanted to give a fuller treatment to the growing linkage between AQ and Taliban, which you provided nicely here.
March 28, 2009 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
AQ is a combo of a meme (culture and language) with inspirational leadership. People can be killed, people and ideas can be co-opted or distracted, and ideas can be ridiculed or belittled. Without leadership, AQ as an idea probably isn't something to spend billions per month fighting militarily.
I'm not clear on what we've been doing besides targeted killings. And it's not clear to what extent those killings have been getting at AQ leadership vs. displaced Afg. Taliban vs. Pak. supporters of either. That said, I suppose Taliban ideology is very similar to AQ ideology even though AQ was imported into Afg. by foreign leaders.
What did Bush/Karzai accomplish so far on the cultural side? Can Talibanism coexist in relative peace with other ideals in Afg?
March 28, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right fight would be for genuninely universal healthcare. Why do I think that fight won't be fought?
March 27, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's such a shame, really. Why can't Americans realize the glories of socialism? Tsk tsk. I guess it's just going to take a little longer for the enlightened few to force it down their throats, but it looks like progress is being made!
March 30, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is why fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan is only part of this new strategy. The other, and most important part, is fighting the Taliban and AQ in nuclear armed Pakistan. If you do not believe that Pakistan being overthrown by the jihadists (which these guys are) and losing control of its nuclear weapons (which is part of their goal), wouldn't have extraordinarily serious consequences for the safety of millions of American citizens, you are living in a fantasy world. Even if we completely withdrew from Afghanistan and the Middle East, do not pretend that they will let bygones be bygones. Sure, Israel will be the first, but I promise New Delhi, London, and eventually Manhattan will be on their shortlist.
That is why the Bush invasion of Iraq was always such a short-sighted disaster. Even Iran's potential nukes scare me less than the ones in Pakistan. At least the Iranians aren't suicidal and have a well known address. AQ, not so much.
March 27, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, Destor, what alternative choice could have been made regarding Afghanistan following 9/11? Please provide an alternative. We launched more than 100 cruise missiles in response to the bombings of our Kenyan embassies, and AQ considered us weak. The Taliban under Mullah Omar would never consider cooperating with us after Bin Laden assassinated their main opponent, and helped to fund their government. What police action would prevent them from continuing to plan, train, and send out more jihadists? We can't keep those borders closed with more than 50K troops inside that country. Beyond a few isolated, predominately muslim protesters, we had near unanimous support for that invasion. Even Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban government and Iran helped with our operations.
The only holdout, as always, remains Pakistan.
I know people are war weary, but conflating the two wars only serves to muddle the important facts.
March 27, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worldwide global dragnet for Al-Qaeda, it's leaders and operatives. A more subtle campaign, the way mafias and gangs have been broken in the US throughout history. Meanwhile, we should have been building schools and infrastructure around the world and asking nothing in return, not to win hearts and midns over to our way of life but just to do the right thing.
March 28, 2009 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
What was done instead was to invade Afghanistan as a nation on the cheap by using the Northern Alliance as the muscle on the ground. It would be hard to come up with a better way to weld the Taliban and Al Qaeda into a single operation than establishing the new Afghan government on such a foundation.
March 28, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's something funny; in July of 2001, a reporter interviewed a bunch of Taliban prisoners who were being held by the Northern Alliance, including some from an Arab Brigade supported (recruited by, paid for, and equipped by) by Al Qaeda who were fighting for the Taliban.
You're right, though; it was the Americans who really cemented the bond between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Not much linkage before that.
I mean, the Taliban said that they had confiscated bin Laden's cell phone after the embassy bombings in Africa, right? See? That shows you right there that the Taliban are really not so bad after all. And if they were willing and able to disable Al Qaeda so quickly the first time, if we had asked them pretty please instead of being all, you know, demanding and arrogant Americans, then I'm sure the Taliban would have eventually given him up.
Then we wouldn't be stuck in that icky little country and we would have more money to spend on what we want to spend it on!
You know what? I did the math this morning... if we all took a thousand dollar a year tax increase, we could all have a hot tub! Wouldn't that be fun?!
March 30, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've stabilized Iraq, now we'll stabilize Afghanistan. As a country it's our responsibility to do this. Whether we decide to stick around to *ensure* that stability is another matter, but it is our moral obligation to leave it as stable as possible.
Sorry to be crude, but you can't take a dump in someone else's toilet without flushing.
March 27, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I have to admit, when I supported the war back in 2001 I never thought it would lead to an occupation going into its 8th year." It wasn't your job to foresee this, and that is why we should have had good leaders back then, and again, why the American people should have *resoundingly* rejected the obvious total incompetent Bush in the disgraceful 2000 election.
A sober view of Afghanistan's history (by professionals) would have told decisionmkers this was far, far too risky ("bound to fail" might be more accurate). There should have been a careful, quiet, vigorous, and simple police action to capture or kill Bin Laden and his fellow madmen (in a broader context of preventing such in the future), and that's all. For centuries, this lunatic badland's women walk around in blue tents with heavy cages in front of their faces -- it's great if they somehow want their girls going to school nonetheless; but it isn't worth American lives.
Exactly what we should do now is a bit different, having gone down this foolish path.
March 28, 2009 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let India handle Pakistan, the two nations have been in conflict since 1947 when, against the pleas of Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru and the pompous contemptible Lord Mountbatten hastily split up the country generations of Indians and British had spent 100 years uniting.
Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims soon started killing each other in Kashmir, and the conflict with the nation that should never have been, Pakistan, began.
Pakistan is a country where members of the current government backed the burial alive of two women, one for refusing an arranged marriage, the other for supporting the first. (it was reported in NYT)
Pakistan has an incentive to ensure conflict continues as the military and the ISI run the country, and without conflict they don't get billions in US military aid.
March 28, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink