REALITY BITES
We have just suffered through the deadliest month in Afghanistan since that war started eight years ago. Afghan President Karzai and at least one of his brothers have been accused of throwing the recent elections (at least 30 percent of the votes appear to be tainted), participating in the extremely lucrative Afghan poppy/heroin trade, and allegedly being on the CIA payroll. Can anyone say Diem?
President Obama is weighing the option of sending 40,000 more U.S. troops, i.e., a surge, per the request of General McChrystal. Just to add to the abundant white noise, the Penguin, a.k.a. former Vice-President Dick Cheney, has squawked that Obama is dithering and needs to act decisively.
Let’s start with Cheney. Blame may be too strong a word, but if any one man is responsible for the absolute mess we find ourselves in with respect to Afghanistan it is Dick Cheney. The U.S. military there has asked repeatedly over the last five years for more troops and resources. Without such support, they predicted the situation in-country would spiral out of control, which is exactly where we are today. The Bush/Cheney administration denied them such support because our country was too busy—and resource constrained—fighting the “other” war in Iraq.
Putting aside partisanship and without reciting the very long laundry list of examples we now all know, Cheney was consistently and profoundly wrong with every assumption, decision, and prognostication he made while in office—especially with respect to making war. The man has zero credibility and we need not listen to him. In fact, it may be worth considering doing the exact opposite of anything he recommends.
With all of this Afghan turmoil, the president has a clear opportunity to break from the dubious legacy he inherited from his predecessor. The immediate question is whether the addition of more U.S. troops will lead to more violence in Afghanistan or vice-versa. Will not sending troops lead to more violence? The answer is yes. It doesn’t take a military genius to connect the dots either way.
The bigger question is what is the U.S. goal in Afghanistan? Through the fog we can catch occasional glimpses of what that is—eradication of Al Qaeda. Which begs the question as to why we’re invading countries and fighting this “war on terror” geographically. Bin Hidin’ and his boys are a borderless group, they have no national allegiance. A cave or a desolate camp site is all they need to set up shop—doesn’t matter where—Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen. I’m not suggesting that the U.S. military is not necessary, but its use is a means, not an end.
This re-establishing of realistic goals in Afghanistan with a workable strategy is the opportunity President Obama has in front of him. We need to understand Afghanistan will never look like the 51st state of the union and that we will have to work with the Taliban—as unpalatable as that sounds. Lofty rhetoric about democracy and freedom, as well meaning as it may be, is simply unattainable in Afghanistan. This isn’t about giving up or tossing in the towel—it’s about focus and reality. Seventy percent of the Afghan population lives in 30,000 villages. On the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs, most Afghans are concerned with staying alive, not civil liberties. This is a population that has known nothing but war for decades. This is a country that is not militarily conquerable—just ask the British and the Russians. It’s time for a Plan B.
With the Nobel Peace Prize still fresh in our minds and that of the international community, the president can drastically change our direction in Afghanistan, the Islamic world, and The Middle East. Eradicating terrorism is in our best interest as well our allies’. Invading countries and staying there for years with the loss of American lives and treasure is not, especially when we’re propping up corrupt governments.
I’m not suggesting we abandon our mission in Afghanistan or Iraq or the Middle East, but we do need to redefine it, articulate it, and sell it worldwide. We can not remake the world in our image, but we can make it safer. If military incursions are needed then so be it, but these should be strikes, not open-ended invasions.
Whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan is not the question simply because more troops are not the solution. It may be part of it, but without a new plan and a new set of goals trying to come up with a number that would make both sides of the political aisle happy would be in fact, dithering.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/01/09 at 04:23 PM | Comments (0)