Did the last two weeks signal the beginning of the end of the war in Afghanistan?
President Barack Obama came into office describing Afghanistan as the good war, the must-win war — a conflict linked directly to the 9/11 terror attacks and uncomplicated by the Bush Administration’s “war of choice” ethos in Iraq.
Mr. Obama was chastised by conservatives for spending three months last fall in consultation with his generals and his civilian war council. But in the end he essentially doubled-down on his commitment to this fight.
The surge now underway in that country (one which directly involves thousands of North Country men, woman and families) is the brainchild of this White House.
Mr. Obama’s one caveat — and the policy that Republicans still criticize him for — is the deadline he set for withdrawal almost exactly one year from today.
It remains all but certain that the US will maintain an active and aggressive campaign in Afghanistan as the clock winds down to July 2011.
But over the last two weeks, developments have raised troubling questions about the policy.
Unless Mr. Obama can answer them satisfactorily, doubts will continue to grow about the sacrifice of American lives and treasure in this fight.
Here are the questions that need answering:
1. Is it true that there are only about 50-100 Al Quaeda agents in Afghanistan, as CIA chief Leon Panetta argued last week? Or, as other administration officials have suggested, is the number only around 300?
If so — and if the vast majority of Al Quaeda’s operatives are now in Pakistan and other countries — what is the argument for fighting the Taliban?
Shouldn’t our forces be reconstituted to pursue our enemies in a more agile and flexible way, in the countries where they have taken refuge?
2. There is growing evidence that the US military itself lacks conviction that this war and this strategy are tenable.
The Rolling Stone article was controversial for a lot of reasons. But most troubling was the fact that nearly everyone, from Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s top aides to front-line grunts, seem to think we are stalemated.
Major General Bill Mayville said, the end of the war is “not going to look like a win, smell like a win, or taste like a win. This is going to end in an argument.”
Another top aide said, “If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular.”
Yet Mr. Obama offered no fresh explanation to the American people for why we should believe that a tangible success — one worth so many precious lives — is plausible.
3. To complicate matters, the head of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, has now described the war in Afghanistan as unwinnable, condemning Mr. Obama’s surge:
“Well, if [President Obama is] such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?
All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed.
And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan.”
Mr. Steele has since qualified his statement, but publicly-stated doubts raise serious questions about the political will in Washington to prosecute this war effectively.
If the leader of the GOP thinks the war is a lost cause — a view shared by many top Democrats — is there a strong argument for staying there?
4. It’s not just Washington that is getting queasy.
Average Americans are increasingly impatient with our bitterly long fight in Afghanistan. A Gallup survey completed last week found that 65% of Americans support a deadline for withdrawal — or want the troops home sooner.
Which raises an important question: Is a year long enough to accomplish something meaningful? Or are we simply running out the clock, at the cost of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of American lives?
5. Finally, if we do remain, are we asking front-line soldiers to fight with limited rules of engagement that put their lives in additional risk for a policy of nation-building that seems increasingly dubious?
It was Gen. McChrystal’s idea to limit the fire options for our soldiers, in an effort to win the hearts and minds of local Afghans and to limit civilian deaths caused by US firepower.
But most credible anti-insurgency experts will tell you that this kind of patient, deliberate effort requires years, not months, in order to succeed.
The bottom line? Our soldiers and the American people need a clear, concise argument for why we should continue this fight over the next year, along with a clear vision of the best possible outcome.
.jpg)
We went into Afganistan nearly 9 years ago to get Osama…that didnt happen. Evidently Al Quaeda is pretty much gone from the country but we are still there fighting the Taliban, to what end I’m unsure. How will we “win”? It sounds like Vietnam, I know people hate saying that…we “win” when Afganistan has a pro-Western, honest, legitimately elected, popularly supported government in Kabul.
Like that’s gonna happen.
I know people hate saying that…we “win” when Afganistan has a pro-Western, honest, legitimately elected, popularly supported government in Kabul.
they should try that in america.
Leave now, and in 25 years, the Afghans will be making our underwear and setting up tourist traps.
Just like Vietnam.
(Kidding, but that is what happened in Vietnam.)
Brian says,
“Our soldiers and the American people need a clear, concise argument for why we should continue this fight over the next year”
Unfortunately, we elected a community organizer who is not experienced in clear, concise decisions.
Obama’s speech on Afghanistan laid out a 3 prong approach:
1. Military
2. Civilian
“Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.”
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/12/obama_afghanistan_speech_as_de.html
The statement was an oversimplification on Obama’s part but even so it was a part of the speech which hardly anyone in the press really picked up on but is the most important part of the strategy, and it is the reason we will not win in Afghanistan, in my opinion, because we are not pursuing the means to ultimately end this conflict–untangling the conflict outside of Afghanistan that fuel the war there.
Ron Paul looks better all the time
“Shouldn’t our forces be reconstituted to pursue our enemies in a more agile and flexible way, in the countries where they have taken refuge?”
Are you advocating more use of secret forces conducting black-ops missions in sovereign nations? I would advocate for a more robust and active State Department working with other nations to diffuse tensions and encourage those nations to deal more effectively with the destabilizing elements within their borders.
Steele’s comments about nobody ever winning in Afghanistan are false. Apparently nobody in the media has ever heard of Babur who founded the Mogul empire. Everyone has been so focused on the history of Britain and the USSR but nobody it seems has looked for answers from somebody who actually conquered and held Afghanistan.
To address the issue of winning hearts and minds: Babur gave orders that his men were not to pillage the locals after winning a battle. Some of his men did it anyway. In the first ever recorded use of a firing squad Babur had his men executed. Babur was born in Ferghana and lived his final years in India but he had his body entombed in Kabul where he is considered an Afghan.
A question you do not address, why are we stifling Karzai’s talks with elements of the Taliban? We should be offering all Taliban footsoldiers amnesty and decent paying work if they lay down their arms. Camps should be set up where they can be held securely for at least a year or two. They can be given CCC type work, literacy classes, health care, and their pay would be sent to their family. If they caused trouble their family would not be paid. If they fulfilled their service they would be given a bonus that would allow them to fund a marriage or buy a plot of land to farm.
Instead, when Karzai tries to have secret talks with people like Baradur we have the Pakistanis arrest him. This sends a message that the US/Karzai cannot be trusted to talk in good faith.
Is a year long enough to end this conflict? No. But it is long enough to change the dynamic. Judging by the actions that we see here playing out in the news I don’t see that happening. It is possible that some sort of talks are going on without fanfare. I hope so because otherwise we have already lost the war that we won 8 years ago.
We blew it. Bush/Obama blew it. Lets call it another loss and move on.
deja vu all over again
Wars are only won when one side cries “Uncle” or there is no one left to cry “Uncle.”
Any war effort that doesn’t recognize this simple fact is doomed.
It looks like we are near to crying “Uncle,” as we did in Vietnam and Korea.
Bush blew it? I thought Obama started this war…. against the wishes of the American people.
There is little hope for the USA as long as we have voters who believe the above claptrap.
Forget about Bush. And forget about Obama.
We could walk away from Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow. The Muslim world would celebrate for a week. Then with no distractions from the West, the Sunnis and Shias could finally get back full-time to slitting each others’ throats in the never-ending quest to become the modern-day Big Man of Islam, albeit with greatly-reduced financing. But Saudi Arabia can’t have any of that. So we are where we are now, doing what we are doing now. And that will continue for another twenty years.
But blaming does not matter, people dying or not in Afghanistan is much more important than who gets to make political points over the outcomes or who’s fault it is for all bad things which happen there.
We have not had any attacks from Afghanistan since we invaded and we put al-quida out of the country which was the whole point. Bush was correct, mission accomplished, time to go. When did the mission change to another nation building world police exercise?
I don’t think we are good colonizers and I don’t see us having the ability to really create a nation in our image in Afghanistan who will be friendly and serve us, which is what colonization is all about. So from that perspective I think the time has long past for us to leave. If they start to launch attacks again we simply go back in and beat them down again.
Lets face it we all know we are going to leave, everyone does it is all about timing at this point.
Mervel, the point of setting an end date was to show that we are not colonizers; but you are right, it is all about timing at this point. And the Afghan people will adjust to whatever suffering comes along next. It’s what they do best.
Yes many people in many nations suffer; we could start with a good portion of rest of the world outside of industrialized democracies.
I agree with setting an end date I believe we should have left right after we drove out the Taliban but this is better than these insane ideas that we must make a 50 year commitment. President Obama did the right thing with that. I think leaving Afghanistan and Iraq could save his presidency. Think of the collective sigh of relief for this nation when we end these occupations.