Afghanistan: Middle ground or ‘Pollyannaish misadventure?’
R.J. Matson/Post-Dispatch
President Barack Obama is scheduled to meet today with the Joint Chiefs of Staff amid reports that he is close to a decision on new U.S. strategies in Afghanistan.
Not surprisingly for a president who has made conciliation the watchword of his administration, Mr. Obama is expected to stake out the middle ground between positions espoused by Vice President Joe Biden and Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.
Mr. Biden has opposed further military build-up in Afghanistan, arguing that U.S. counter-terrorism efforts should be focused on Pakistan. Gen. McChrystal has argued that at least 40,000 more troops should be sent to Afghanistan for a broad counter-insurgency effort focused on major population centers.
The New York Times reported Wednesday that administration and military officials say Mr. Obama might send as many as four additional brigade combat teams — some 15,000 to 20,000 troops — to bolster the 62,000 U.S. troops already in country.
They would be deployed mostly in urban areas, creating “enclaves” that Afghans presumably would recognize as safe and successful. Special operations units would be deployed as needed in remote areas.
The strategy acknowledges that al-Qaida terrorists no longer are the problem in Afghanistan. The focus will move to marginalize Taliban insurgents by focusing on nation-building in urban areas.
To have any chance of success, this strategy must be accompanied by change in Afghanistan’s corrupt central government. First, the Nov. 7 run-off presidential election must be far more legitimate than the disputed first round of voting Aug. 20. And second, whoever wins on Nov. 7 — the incumbent Hamid Karzai or challenger Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister — will have to clean house.
The likelihood of that happening with Mr. Karzai in charge seems remote. The Times reported Wednesday that his brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, has been on the CIA payroll for eight years and is widely believed to be a major player in Afghanistan’s booming opium trade. He even owns the compound outside Kandahar where U.S. special operations forces and CIA agents are based.
President Karzai repeatedly has refused to move his brother out of southern Afghanistan, where he acts as a mediator between the CIA and local insurgent groups. If you’re going to establish a credible government that Afghanis can believe in, getting rid of the president’s brother might seem a crucial first step.
One man Mr. Obama should talk to before sending more troops to this “graveyard of empires” is Matthew P. Hoh, who resigned last month as the State Department’s senior civilian representative in Zabul Province, not far from Ahmed Wali Karzai’s turf in Kandahar Province.
Ordinarily the resignation of a mid-level diplomat would not be cause for concern. But Mr. Hoh, a former Marine combat officer, was no ordinary diplomat. The story of how he became disaffected with U.S. policy, published Tuesday in The Washington Post, is troubling on many levels.
His letter of resignation should be read and absorbed by every American, but particularly the president.
“I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan,” Mr. Hoh wrote. “. . . .Our forces, devoted and faithful, have been committed to conflict in an indefinite and unplanned manner that has become a cavalier, politically expedient and Pollyannaish misadventure.”
So Mr. O is going to go with the “McChyrstal Lite” plan. This will clearly secure many, many more deaths. Most intelligent people knew this adventure was a waste of time and treasure 8 years, especially the way the U.S. under both Bush and Obama were going to wage the war thanks to all the lefties. Obviously Mr. O is waiting until after the Nov. elections before making his decision. I hear that Code Pink now supports the war in Afghanistan. Go figure!
Is the Afgan conflict the central front of the war on terror as President Obama has often stated? It seems to me that’s the key question that ought to guide policy choices and I find it odd that the editorial fails to even address it.
a_mac - We are not in Afghanistan to fight a war on terror. We are there to protect the CIA’s drug dealing business. The CIA was being supplied heroin by The Taliban and Bin Laden until the late 90’s and were then cut out. 9-11 was not about the hate of western culture and American way of life. It was about money. Why do you think the government is paying so much money to eradicate the poppy fields and keep farmentrs from growing poppy plants. They don’t care about addicts in this country. There is a movie that explains a lot about why we are there, but the Post-Disgrace said they would ban me from ever posting again if I mentioned it one more time. You have to wonder why they would take such drastic measures for the promotion of a G rated movie.
Can anyone explain to me what the mission in Afghanistan IS, and what “winning” would look like? Answer those two questions, and then we can make sane decisions. If not, declare victory and leave.
For purely political reasons the US can’t defend our own borders from invasion by an unorganized army of illegal aliens, smugglers, and opportunists. That failure daily causes death and injury to innocent U.S. citizens who are victims of the invaders’ violent crimes, drunk driving, drug trafficing, and contagious diseases.
If we are incapable of defending our own homeland and loved ones, what kind of idiots are sending our young warriors to suffer and die half way around the world. The corrupt politicians in Washington should be prosecuted and jailed for their abuse of our law enforcement, border security and military heroes at home and abroad.
I think Mr. Obama had better first marginalize the Republican party. The Republicans are staking out extremist positions claiming that the democrats are not deploying enough troops so the effort will lead to lost lives without real opportunity to succeed. Just like they claim that the only party that fights communism is soft on communism. If one looks back on the effort to contain communism the Democrats fought the Republicans did not. They are just positioning themselves to snipe at democrats. Mr. Biden presents a strategy that can succeed, the General pandering to Republicans presents a propaganda gain for the Taliban. Loose lips sink ships and the General likes talking in public attempting to pressure the Commander-in-Chief in order to gain republican points. See one mounts a horse with his left hand and left leg not his right. The Republicans are just attempting to refuse to support the Commander-in-Chief and save face.
Since history hasn’t been a required course for journalism majors, our ‘media’ tends to be a bit thin on context. Sometimes facts are rearranged to fit our cultural perspective and flow chart presentations when the reality isn’t so clear cut. In this case, the poorly explained context is that the Taliban and Afghanistan are only one aspect of a regional dilemma (along with Pakistan and India) leftover from the previous administration.
Significant details make ‘Graveyard of empires’ analogies misleading. Give the Afghani people credit for knowing the difference between invasion, conquest and temporary occupation. They’re wary of being abandoned again. According to the reports I’ve read, they’re not attacking us. We’re combating the sociopaths and criminals trying to regain power.
Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal are even more vulnerable to Taliban takeover! The Taliban originated in Pakistani madrasahs. Segments of Pakistan’s Army’s Security service encouraged their control to restore order in Afghanistan. Pundits claim that Pakistan can help clear up this mess. The country’s military resources focus on their border with India due to historic conflicts over Kashmir. They refused to acknowledge that the Taliban presented a threat until recently when Taliban/Al Qaeda, as we predicted, moved to invade Islamabad. So, while our troops are staged in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s army is now opposing Taliban encroachment on their country and there are intensive diplomatic efforts to ease Pakistani-Indian tension.
We rarely ever hear about the works of the NGO’s and NATO allies (clinics, schools, humanitarian aid to internal refugees, etc.). The ‘boys’ like to show off their ‘toys;’ as a result, we’re mostly getting the military perspective. I recommend reading Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold Story / by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould. They produced PBS documentaries on the subject.
President Obama sacked the previous commander and appointed General McChrystal. He’s Obama’s guy.
President Obama announced a new Afgan strategy in March, so what either working or not working today is his plan.
If it’s true as President Obama has stated many times that Afganistan is the central front in the war on terror than it seems to me logically he must do everything possible to win the war. You simply can’t justify abandoning the key front of a war. If however the past Afgan rhetoric from President Oabama and various editorial pages was simply an opportunity for Bush bashing that wasn’t rooted in true conviction then for our soliders sake, come clean and admit that it was a cynical lie.