What Should Obama Do About Afghanistan?
Sep 23rd, 2009 | 18 responses
With McChrystal et al. pushing for a significant troop increase — an irresponsible one, in my view, given that it’s not clear anymore what the purpose of the war is — this comes as something of a pleasant development:
President Obama is exploring alternatives to a major troop increase in Afghanistan, including a plan advocated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to scale back American forces and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan, officials said Tuesday.
The options under review are part of what administration officials described as a wholesale reconsideration of a strategy the president announced with fanfare just six months ago. Two new intelligence reports are being conducted to evaluate Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said.
The sweeping reassessment has been prompted by deteriorating conditions on the ground, the messy and still unsettled outcome of the Afghan elections and a dire report by Mr. Obama’s new commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. Aides said the president wanted to examine whether the strategy he unveiled in March was still the best approach and whether it could work with the extra combat forces General McChrystal wants.
In looking at other options, aides said, Mr. Obama might just be testing assumptions — and assuring liberals in his own party that he was not rushing into a further expansion of the war — before ultimately agreeing to the anticipated troop request from General McChrystal. But the review suggests the president is having second thoughts about how deeply to engage in an intractable eight-year conflict that is not going well.
Yes, “testing assumptions.” It is possible, of course, that the White House is just floating this development to give the appearance of serious internal debate — and, of course, to make the president look good. I give full credit to the Times for considering this possibility, even if it credits it to anonymous “aides.”
Still, I hope that Obama really is having “second thoughts” and that he is seriously considering alternatives to what the military brass want.
Given that this is now a war without a defined purpose, without a clear goal, and without an acceptable definition of what would constitute victory, the option of more troops — and, with them, more war — just isn’t as desirable as it once may have been. And with the situation in Afghanistan deteriorating, or at least not improving in any real or sustained way, it doesn’t make much sense to commit even more resources and to risk even more lives for the sake of what could become more and more of an insurmountable quagmire.
No one is saying — well, I’m not saying — that the U.S. should pull out of the region. Even if there is a significant troop drawdown, there are still the not insignificant matters of the Taliban, which is increasing in influence outside Kabul, and al Qaeda, which continues to find safe haven in the AfPak border region, to attend to. On this, Biden is probably right. Focus on narrower and more limited goals. Defend Kabul, perhaps, and target Taliban areas in Afghanistan, as needed, but address the greater threat of the terrorist stronghold, something the U.S. should have done a long time ago, when Bush et al. diverted attention and resources to Iraq.
Surely such a viable alternative like this exists. Obama would do well to consider the options, not just to rush into an escalation of a war that no longer makes much sense.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
18 Responses to “What Should Obama Do About Afghanistan?”
Let's see, troop surge. Worked in Iraq. Nah, can't try it in Afghanistan, might work there, too.
I hope Obama doesn't repeat Bush's mistake in Afghanistan (which he rightfully condemned during the campaign) of not having enough troops there to do the required job. Hate to see him cut and run or do a Rumsfeld and trying to do the job with inadequate troops levels.
Setting aside the issue of whether or how the well the “surge” actually “worked” in Iraq, why do you believe that it would work in Afghanistan as well? This, imho, is one of the biggest problems with the American way of war: One size fits all. We go into countries having no clue what they're about, try this, try that, and if something appears to work, after years and years of bloodshed, exclaim,”Say! we should do this in Country X, too!”
Afghanistan's history, culture, ethnography, geography, everything, are completely different from Iraq's. Not to mention that to the extent the surge accomplished its goal, it was because Sunni leaders were willing to work with us. That is not the case in Afghanistan. You don't have a cohesive population there who want to work with Americans.
Well this may foreshadow Armageddon and throw the Earth spinning out of it's orbit, but I agree with Kathy here. Using Iraq tactics may well not work in Afghanistan. The population, political background and terrain are all much different.
There is another difference which Kathy may not agree with me on, and that's in Iraq the surge and Petraeus had the full support of the president. I don't think that is the case with Obama and McChrystal. Trying to “pull a Rumsfeld” with inadequate troops will be a recipe for disaster. I think Obama either needs to commit whole-heartedly to a surge or start looking for a way to get out.
http://www.hazara.net/hazara/geography/ethnic/e…
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_…
Etc.
Not going to mince words like I usually do…
Not!…lol…
The military mind is one programmed for robotic fight-and-win mode. Diplomacy, withdrawel and surrender are all words foreign to that mind. So naturally any advice they will give or push they want to do will center around avoiding any one of those three words.
The military is a tool of higher minds. Higher minds have common sense and longterm goals in mind. The Commander In Chief has that title because the People elected his mind to think sensibly about how to use the military tool. That's why he gathers information from this tool, but ultimately makes a sane and sober, multidemensional decision on how to use it. The tool cannot think for the Mind.
Our presence there was the result of just a whole lot of evil and bad policy making on behalf of the Cheney administration. Our continued presence there is therefore, just a blatant mistake. Al Qaida, who still curiously strikes out and flexes whenever Cheney has an agenda that needs some scare-factor, is a lot like shadow-boxing. I say, wish Islam well and let them know we aren't infidels. That would go a whole lot farther than trying to destroy the greased eels that will always slip from our fingers. True, it won't be glorious and bloody, but it makes sense. It is a mature and sensible decision.
Leave the tools in the toolbox when examining the final blueprint and subsequent plan of action.
Actually, the military is made up of a variety of thinkers with different perspectives. They can't be pigeonholed into one category and its insulting of those who risk their lives for our country to be so insulted by someone sitting on the sidelines. You can disagree with military operations or strategies and thats fine with me, but when you are so insulting to members of the military in this way I must condemn you for your statement.
We are talking about Afghanistan, you know where Osama Bin Laden planned 9-11. Where every single member of Congress voted to invade. Only 1 person in the entire Congress voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, Barbara Lee – D-CA. it authorized the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those whom he determined “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.
So everyone in government except Representative Lee approved of going into Afghanistan.
Time to give someone a promotion…
Not to put to fine a point on it, but the planning was done in Germany and the flight training in the USA… When can we start “shocking and awing” those two countries?
Now that our man Karzai has won the election and that Afghanistan is a “democracy”, we should declare victory and go home…
Yeah why didn't I think of that. Grabbing our panties and running screaming like a sacred little girl! How Obvious a solution to terrorism! What genius!
“Given that this is now a war without a defined purpose, without a clear goal, and without an acceptable definition of what would constitute victory, the option of more troops — and, with them, more war — just isn’t as desirable as it once may have been.”
Great point, Michael!
Can any of the war hawks here define our current goal in Afghanistan or define what would constitute victory?
Can anyone point me to a link where Gen. McChrystal has indicated what the “goal” is or what “victory” would be? He should know and he should be talking about it. Maybe he has, which is why I'm asking somebody to show me that he understands what his mission in Afghanistan is. “Keep fighting” is not a goal or a mission.
Every military operation has to have a mission. I haven't seen any indication that ANYONE knows what the mission in Afghanistan is anymore. (It was quite clear in the beginning; we wanted to deprive Al-Q of a safe haven, which the Taliban provided.)
Now?
“running screaming like a sacred little girl”
How do Sacred little girls run and how do you know?
Been chasing them have you?
<g>
okay, the war hawks must have retreated for the evening. Chasing sacred little girls is very tiring…
Here's what I found about the McChrystal plan:
“A War in Search of a Reason: the McChrystal Report”
The report which stresses understanding Afghanistan in depth was put together over a month by a group of a dozen mostly defense hawks, including several neocons, without any Afghanistan expertise. It stated that the US policy goal was to keep Afghanistan from becoming again “a base for terrorism.” That is an incredibly vague policy and does not take into account how conditions have changed since the initial US invasion. al Qaeda has morphed over the last 8 years into a loosely affiliated terrorist network. Despite our efforts and those of Pakistan, al Qaeda has succeeded in maintaining headquarters for its senior officials across the border in Pakistan. At the same time, it is no longer tied down to any one country and has or can move bases to other countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Why we need a large, comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, as the report recommends, but not in these other countries goes unaddressed and unexplained.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/8386
Hope y'all will read and respond.
g'nite.
Joe
There is one main military objective in Afghanistan: Provide a secure environment in which the seedlings of a democracy can grow. This means keeping the Taliban out, and that requires muscle. This is why Sen. McCain has been pushing for an Afghanistan surge, because he realizes that the lessons of Iraq are applicable here as well. And in case we forgot, then Senator Obama during the campaign ad nauseum talked about the need to send more troops to Afghanistan. In fact, this was his constant counterpoint during the debates when his opponent talked about Iraq! And Kathy, nice dodge on the issue of whether the Iraq surge worked. It did, and with flying colors. That's the only reason it can be considered as one possible way forward in Afghanistan. A little credit where credit is due, please.
People seem to be blaming McChrystal for the lack of a clear goal in Afghanistan. The goal should be provided by Obama, and McChrystal would then be responsible for coming up with a military plan for acheiving that goal. Just as Bush was responsible for Rumsfeld and General Casey, Obama is now responsible for the people under him, and providing them with clear goals.
Well, we could stick around for another ten years, spend a few hundred billions, kill a few millions Afghans, leave the place littered with unexploded munitions, watch a few thousand Americans get killed and wounded before leaving in ignominy. So when are you sending your children there?
Afghanistan, the graveyard of Empires…
You can't kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan, the Taliban are the Pashtun and vice-versa. It makes almost as much sense as this sentence:
There is one main military objective in America: Provide a secure environment in which the seedlings of a democracy can grow. This means keeping the Christians out, and that requires muscle.
[...] What Should Obama Do About Afghanistan? (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
So, Taliban = Christians? I just found the TMV stretch of the day! Knew I could count on you, DQ. Now, if you had said the Taliban = the KKK, then you might be on to something. But neither the Taliban nor the KKK have any place terrorizing people.