Believing a victory is possible in Afghanistan is foolish
Oct. 8,2009
By
Joseph Chez
Eight years at war in Afghanistan and the nation questions;' how many more?
Yes, this week marks the 8TH year anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan - the forgotten war that a great majority of Americans has placed in the back or their minds. However, American forces have suffered significant casualties as well as countless severe and disabling war related injuries. Moreover, the ballooning deficit facing the nation is partly the result of the no-ceiling expense for the war.
Today, our economy is moribund and many question if whether the nation is capable of further economic drain. This is one reason national polls are showing wavering support for the war. In contrast, the White House is feeling pressured from the GOP and the Pentagon for continued involvement and even troop level increases. But soon, the President will be deciding on what will be the course for the war - whether to embrace Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops or perhaps come to the realization that it is not in the best interest of the country to continue a military presence in Afghanistan.
But something is needed as the status quo appears not to have an ending. However, the President must also conclude that remaining in that part of the world will not keep us safe here at home, for if that were to be true, we would have to be in every part of the world - forever.
The final caveat : a war with no viable exit strategy may only cause a protracted war that will further strain our economy, weaken our military readiness and not provide the country with meaningful safety. The answer is therefore not difficult; let's get out before the sandpit turns to quicksand.
President Obama campaigned on a platform that Afghanistan was a war of necessity. He did this in order to gain support from conservatives who believe in strength as the all encompassing solutuion for peace. Yet, Pres. Obama now sees the reality of war; eight years in Afghanistan and there is no significant change.
October 8, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's tendency to split the difference disturbs me. Yes, his campaign talk of bombing Pakistan and wars of necessity in Afghanistan were bluster to get conservative votes; on the other hand, I am concerned that, like LBJ, he is so preoccupied with his domestic agenda that he will compromise with the hawks on the supposition that they will support his reforms.
At this point, a half solution may well be more catastrophic than all or nothing. I am glad that Obama is deliberating, and I think he is trying to be responsible after the orgy of recklessness that was the Bush Admin, but I think he has underestimated the complexity and dangers of the situation. For instance he seems to have been surprised by our key "ally's" response to the Kerry Lugar Bill that is in itself a praiseworthy piece of legisalation. We cannot make over Pakistan in an image more pleasing to us, any more than we can build Valhalla from scratch in the Hindu Kush. But the war, in its present configuration, requires the first, even more than the second.
I am not sure Obama gets this.
October 8, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't believe President Obama is ambivalent as much as he calculating. Let's hope he chooses reason over comprimise. Has he not noticed that our presence in the Middle East is a recruitment tool for Al Qeada? Have we not realized that the enemy wants us there, will involve more countries to the east and get us mired in a wider war? Pakistan/India next?
October 8, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
When MacArthur wanted to invade China, Truman fired him.
A widening of the war to Pakistan and India would be even worse, because these are two nuclear powers that have come perilously close to nuking each other on their own.
Will Obama have the sense and decisiveness of Truman? Probably not, but let's hope someone with a steadier hand (Gates) will make the decisions.
OK, I am just making facile judgments, but I don't think Obama is particularly decisive. That is not a problem provided he knows whom to trust to make a given decision.
October 8, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, let's just cut and run. Screw all the people who put their lives at risk by working with us, let the Taliban kill them. Who cares if girls can go to school, or women can walk outside without being beaten. Who cares, it's not like it matters to us, they can't do anything to us. Well, yeah, there was that 9/11 thing, but other than that...
October 8, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saudis committed 9-11 and I don't see us taking them out anytime soon. Cut and Run is a slogan, not a strategy and leaving Afghanistan is not losing. That is not a winnable war, so we need to modify our expectations of what is possible.
October 8, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As occasionally happens, Jason, we agree here. The chihuahua has no idea what to do beyond slogans and bluster.
Maybe he could volunteer and take the point on a few patrols?
We're looking at a large, mostly empty landlocked place where the locals know each other and we don't blend. So human intelligence is not an option, nor is stealth. And overwhelming firepower, which is a something we do well enough when faced with classic set-piece engagements, is little help when facing irregulars. Tends to alienate the locals, you might say.
The real parallel with Vietnam comes in that we are trying to prop up a government that has literally no chance of surviving without us.
Wasn't a good idea then, isn't really one now. Had we gone in to Tora Bora and taken Bin Laden down when Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld had the chance, things would be much different now. As it is, the best we can play for is a stalemate unless Pakistan gets serious about the Waziristans. The good side of that is that they might. Apparently they have taken some serious steps in that regard. Let's hope they continue, and then let's declare success and get out.
October 8, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've commented on this topic in Jon Taplin's blog, Fatal Choices In Afghanistan. Rather than rehash the details here, I would briefly state that Obama is committed to remaining engaged in Afghanistan as long as necessary - probably at least 2-3 years, and is correctly convinced that premature withdrawal would be potentially catastrophic. Given that this decision has already been made, the remaining choices will revolve around the optimal means of pursuing our interim objectives. The other blog already discusses this in some detail.
October 8, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama is just going over the means, and not rethinking the strategy in its entirety, then he is as foolish as the prior occupant of the office.
October 8, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say he is considering all strategies, but not rethinking the necessity to remain engaged in Afghanistan, nor should he, for reasons described in the other blog.
October 8, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, the strategy I would advocate would involve defending Kabul, and other regions in the non-Pashtun heartland. The principal obstacle to the creation of a stable Afghan state is Pakistan itself, but going to war against Pakistan is not a possibility. So the Taliban should have their Pashtun state- the Pakistanis can play their games with the Taliban themselves. They will not find it easy!
In turn, that will make the other, and far more crucial, job- that of untangling the many strands of the massively corrupt Pakistani state- more manageable.
October 8, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In turn, that will make the other, and far more crucial, job- that of untangling the many strands of the massively corrupt Pakistani state- more manageable."
I have been following several posters discussing the whys and wherefores of our engagement in Afghanistan...This XStan will do this and therefore some YStan will do that. Manage Pakistan? The posts are basically (I'm sorry)...opinionated BS!
How well did we manage:
Our industrial base?
Our auto industry?
Our economy?
Health care?
Our veteran's care?
Education?
Crime?
Energy?
Environmental concerns?
The list goes on and on.
I've got two loved ones on active duty. One just returned from the Iraq region and another forced to cancel his leave pending special orders.
China, Iran, Russia and India are just setting back watching the brawl. This is not a game of chess. My ego nor my bank account will suffer permanent injuries if we get the hell out of Afghanistan. We screwed up our chance to get even. When one finds himself in a hole...Stop digging!
October 9, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chuck, I understand your pessimism and can empathize with your plight. The US Government is a massive failure on almost every level. It does seem impossible that we can get money to Pakistan (the Kerry Lugar Bill) while ensuring that it is not illegally diverted.
But this is why we voted in Obama.
For the record, our getting out, or the threat of doing so, carries with it a certain strategic weight. Namely, Pakistan would rather have us taking out their enemies with drones, while maneuvering for power against us in Kabul. If THEY suddenly had to manage Afghanistan, or the non-Tajik portions thereof, without our drones killing off their enemies, and our forces to maneuver against,they would find themselves in some hot water.
Call it the power of strategic weakness... I do consider this an act of "stop digging." If we negotiate with the Taliban/Pakistan, giving them favorable terms, that may stop the escalating war. We can then leave Afghanistan in an orderly way.
Sorry if this is opinionated BS.
October 9, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, the word out tonight from AP indicates a shift in Obama's thinking.
[...]As far as I'm concerned, that's at least half the battle. The other half is to realize that militarily focusing on the 100 members of AQ in Afghanistan is also a dead-end. Since 2001, AQ has spread its operations in flat, segmented networks that are spread throughout the region and the world. It doesn't need Afghanistan to operate. None of the 9/11 highjackers trained in or came from Afghanistan. Nor did the 7/7 bombers in London or the Madrid bombers in Spain.
The AQ problem is not in Afghanistan, but here politically. The truth does not go down well in certain parties.
October 8, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe the news item reveals anything new. Obama has always recognized the impossibility of eliminating the Taliban, while at the same time recognizing the necessity to remain engaged in Afghanistan as long as necessary to prevent uncontested Taliban domination of the country, which would provide sanctuary for Al Qaeda and make it harder to maintain stability in Pakistan - a nation with nuclear weapons coveted by the terrorists. Afghanistan and Pakistan can't be completely separated in that regard, because neither can remain stable if the other is completely destabilized.
Whether he will add to troop levels, maintain them, or reduce them slightly is still uncertain, but he has already stated his intention to avoid massive troop reductions anytime in the near future. Ultimately, the goal will be replacement of U.S./NATO forces with indigenous forces, but that will take time.
October 9, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the last clause that I think is wrong. Obama seems to have rethought the Kabul government and its ability to field an army that can take our place.
I also, as I have said ad nauseam, think that the relation between Afghanistan and Pakistan is not as you say. Stability in one creates instability in the other, which in my opinion is the factor that has made this war unwinnable. Evidence in my favor includes the drastic increase in terrorism in Pakistan, and evidence of ISI involvement in terror attacks in Afghanistan. True, Pakistan does not want total chaos in Afghanistan. But they want it as a safety valve for the terrorist groups (Jaish e-Mohammed, etc.) they have nurtured for use against India. Pakistan also does not want to change the status quo in their tribal regions. That is not possible if there is an influx of Taliban from over the border.
What I am saying is analogous to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. They should have been applied there, and applies as much here.
October 9, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's stop this debacle in Afghanistan. If not, might as well open up the pearly gates - we've got another Vietnam!
October 9, 2009 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink