Proud Democratic Owners of the Afghanistan Occupation

Hear me.

President Obama's decision to escalate NATO's Afghanistan occupation - with the addition of as many as 17,000 troops - makes him the owner (if not instigator) of whatever consequence or outcome occurs there as a result of that deployment, at least during his term in office.

Likewise, those Americans who unquestionably support or acquiesce to the president's decision to increase U.S. military presence and involvement in Afghanistan need to take a moment and acquaint themselves with their party's unaccustomed role as an advocate of military aggression in defense of Bush-like, democracy-spreading nation-building.

Moreover, if that support and acquiescence of the new administration's military posture against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan is based on opposition to the Muslim organization's objectionable practice of Islamic law (Sharia), that reasoning mirrors Bush's own self-serving justifications for his self-perpetuating ideological crusade behind the force of our nation's defenders.

Okay, admittedly, there were such absolutely corrupt influences in the Bush cabal, with such a despicably pernicious PNAC agenda, that there really isn't enough call to accuse fellow Democrats today of some moral betrayal regarding support for the Afghanistan occupation akin to Bush's political prosecution of his cynical 'war on terror'. But, there is something undeniably transformative about our Democratic president's escalation of the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan beyond Bush's own level of prosecution of his mission there; and in the apparent support for that escalation among Democrats who, contradictorily, do not believe any 'war on terror' will be won in that effort.

That embrace of the vestiges of Bush's militarism abroad, albeit offered with trust and belief in our Democratic president's judgment in managing it to 'success', strains to avoid using the same jingoistic rationales to justify the heavy-handed exercise of our military forces against violently resisting populations. President Obama's own language in explaining his intention to 'move forward' militarily in Afghanistan avoids repeating the verse and scripture of the last administration by replacing Bush's redundant reminders of the threat from 'terror' and 'terrorists' with his own definition of a struggle against 'extremists' and extremism'.

Still, there remains a reflexive assumption that our nation's participation in military aggression in Afghanistan is directly related to our nation's response to the 9-11 killings here at home. There was a clear call from all corners of the Democratic party during Bush's term for a refocus on capturing or killing the fugitive suspects after years of a (deliberately) distracting occupation in Iraq which diverted the bulk of our military resources and attention away from what Mr. Obama has described as the 'center' of the 'war on terror' in Afghanistan. There is an understandable belief that, even now, years and years after the original attacks on our nation, doubling up on the militarism there would heighten the potential for 'success' in the enterprise.

As for the targets of our heightened militarism, there is still no firm knowledge of the health or whereabouts of bin-Laden. There's no firm lock on the location of the propagandist accomplices who've well advantaged themselves of the public promotion the last administration gave their every utterance.

The targets of our devastating militarism are mostly the ghosts of resistance to our own grudging military advance on the Afghan's homeland. Additionally, the casualties have tragically involved scores more innocent civilians than original 9-11 perpetrators or accomplices. In fact, AP reports that in the last two months, the number of innocent civilians killed by U.S., Afghan, and coalition forces far exceeds the numbers killed by the Taliban; over 100 dead so far, this year.

The escalating military involvement and aggression in Afghanistan this year has also resulted in a tripling of the number of U.S. troops killed there. Disturbingly, the rate of those killed in Afghanistan this year has surpassed that of Iraq. Twenty-nine U.S. troops died in Afghanistan the first two months of 2009 - compared with eight Americans in the first two months of 2008.

"It has a lot to do with the fact that we have a presence in places and going into places and disrupting insurgents in area where they haven't been bothered much," Col. Greg Julian, the top U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan, told AP Saturday. That, he said, means more battles and more attacks.

It should be emphasized that, along with the increase in force, President Obama has promised a 'surge' of diplomatic and humanitarian activity in Afghanistan and has included a tripling of foreign aid to Pakistan in his budget. At the completion of a 'review' of policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in late May, the president is expected to produce a new mission plan in time for the NATO summit in April. That strategy is anticipated to be a comprehensive mix of 'achievable' goals which reflect the admission by Pres. Obama and his military leadership that military means alone "cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan - the Taliban and the spread of extremism in that region."

Despite the president's pledge to continue the fight against 'al-Qaeda' and the Taliban 'extremists', there isn't any broad inference in his declarations that he intends to use the force of our military to combat some objectionable ideology, belief, or religious practice he disagrees with.

"I am absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means," Mr. Obama told reporters from the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.. "We're going to have to use diplomacy. We're going to have to use development."

In Pakistan last month, the government decided to negotiate a ceasefire with local Taliban in an isolated province in their tribal region of Swat. Despite the controversial deal which would allow the Taliban there to enforce their sometimes unbearably oppressive, sometimes deadly Islamic law, or Sharia, there was a beneficial trade-off of an end to the corrosive fighting and a disarmed Taliban militia.

Asked about applying a Swat-type deal to the conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan, U.S. Defense chief Gates indicated that he would indeed be open to an offer by the combatants there to lay down their weapons and negotiate. Although a remote and extremely optimistic prospect, the comment by Gates is evidence of the willingness of this administration to think outside of the reflexive militarism and nationalistic paranoia that passed for the Bush regime's Afghanistan strategy.

There is certainly none of the strident moralism in the Obama administration that the Bush folks practiced behind the sacrifices of the troops they expected to prosecute their 'ideological war'.

There is, however, a danger of elevating the visibility of the military mission in Afghanistan in ways which obscure whatever diplomatic goals and achievements that are planned. It shouldn't be ignored that there have already been scores and scores of reconstruction projects, agriculture assistance, economic development and humanitarian aid initiatives - both in Iraq and Afghanistan - which haven't translated into an inoculation against the inevitable backlash against the devastation caused by our grudging, military missions.

President Obama has yet to explain how his new round of military action is going to be any more effective in the fight against 'al-Qaeda' and the Taliban 'extremists' than the last 7 years of arbitrary, collateral attacks on the Afghan and Pakistani population. The president's commanders 'on the ground' are predicting a 5 to 10 year conflict, though. Determined to correct the mistakes of the last administration, he'll have to make the entire military enterprise his own. How we respond to the president's ambitious effort will determine our own franchise in all of that.

Who's up for some nation-building militarism behind the sacrifices of our nation's defenders in Afghanistan? My eyes and ears may be fooling me, but I'd swear the Democratic party just gave over.

Insightful.

:D welcome

Because I couldn't find it.

We support him unquestionably in that, we (as Democrats) own it as well. It looks to me like the majority of our party has already acquiesced to a mission which is very much like Bush's nation-building effort, albeit an escalated effort. The folly appears to me to be in the expectation that some new 'success' can be achieved by the escalation. Correct or not, those in our party who are prepared to unquestioningly follow the president in the escalation of the Afghanistan enterprise are entering unaccustomed territory.

(for shitsakes, it isn't a term paper :P)

Bush was so tied to the Iraq War that he would not leave Iraq else he would lose face. Obama is willing to withdraw thousands of soldiers from Iraq. His advisors must have convinced him that there was a realistic goal to be achieved, so he is increasing forces in Afghanistan.

Thanks for answering my question, btw.

Foreign intervention into Afghanistan always is. You'll see.
Not convinced? Ask the Russians.

If he withdraws, he owns the chaos that ensues.

If he withdraws, and Mullah Omar and OBL take over, he owns that result.

If he leaves insufficient troop numbers, and they get their asses kicked by the Taliban, he owns that too.

Governing means responsibility and accountability.

or a deescalation

. . . with zero Americans in that contingent.

That may seem like short-sightedness on the part of the last administration unless you consider that the heart of our involvement in the country - outside of our defense of the new government in Kabul - was the 'hunt' for bin-Laden and associates. Because of the bungling of that effort (and, as a consequence of Bush's interference in Iraq), the fugitive suspects were not only allowed 7 years of safe have in Pakistan, but an ongoing recruiting example in the presence and occupation of Iraq (and eventually Afghanistan) fueled and fostered even more individuals inclined to violent expressions of liberty and self-determination to align and identify with folks pledged to drive the U.S. (and now NATO) from their homeland.

It's that counterproductive effect of our military presence that Obama and his military leaders are talking about when they say that 'military means alone' will not defeat al-Qaeda.

It's that counterproductive effect that threatens to obscure the necessary diplomatic efforts to reduce the influence of these resistant forces in the region. With all of that in mind, the next job of the administration will be to get our European allies to make commitments of their own to lessen our dominate role in Afghanistan's outcome. The goal is to lessen our footprint in the effort to pacify the Afghan resistance. The increase is an acknowledgment of a failure in that regard.

That does not mean it should happen next week.

. . . which leads to that.

I'm not convinced we have that plan in place, or, that their military actions won't inevitably obscure the diplomatic efforts which the president and his military leadership agree is key to that ultimate withdrawal.

Eyes open.

There are broad indications as to what it is, but he needs to do things like consult with allies and other regional counterparts.

Lots of legwork to be done before a plan can be announced.

while supporting Afghanistan and Pakistan economically may be the best way to promote democracy and prosperity and respect for human rights in those nations which would also be a tremendous benefit for our nation. For the most part, Afghans and Pakastanis despise the Taliban and most Afghans want our military help in minimizing the Taliban's influence in Afghanistan. I am very open to hearing evidence that continuing to fight or adding troops won't work, but I haven't seen much yet (which is not to say that I've seen much evidence that it will work either).

:shrug:

That'd be interesting.

nt

Obama’s War: US Involvement in Afghanistan, Past, Present & Future


President Obama is speaking before a joint session of Congress Tuesday night in what is being described as the first State of the Union address of his presidency. While the economy is expected to dominate the agenda, Obama will also talk about his top foreign policy initiative: the war in Afghanistan. Last week, Obama ordered an additional 17,000 US combat troops to Afghanistan. The new deployments will begin in May and increase the US occupation force to 55,000. Today, we spend the hour looking at US involvement in Afghanistan with five guests: Anand Gopal, Afghanistan correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor; Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan’s Untold Story; Gilles Dorronsoro, visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and documentary filmmaker Kathleen Foster.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/23/obamas_war_us_involvement_in_afghanistan

"We will capture or KILL bin Laden..."
Makes me sick hearing the word "kill" coming from him....I think of his little girls.
He could say 'bring to justice'...or the like. It's the only thing that makes me cringe.
He can do better than that......Nothing to lose but more lives.

peace~

Obama is a huge disappointment.

This country is bankrupting itself, morally, economically, and spiritually, trying to retain an empire that is falling apart.

And, still, the politicians and generals erect bogeymen to frighten the citizenry and send the military machine into unwinnable wars with no purpose.

How long will it be before we hear "Peace with Honor" and "The Light at the End of the Tunnel"? We're already hearing the new version of "Falling Dominoes" with allusions to Pakistan, India, and Iran.

But now, at least, we'll be able to see the bodies coming home to buried after dying for nothing.

I think Obama's troop escalation and robust efforts for humanitarian aid and in diplomacy (including negotiation) gives him political cover for a future deescalation. (is that even a word?) Now that he's shown he's tough and has made some military gains and gotten a bit of respect for it, he can push for an end to the war and use Richard Holbrooke as the lead negotiator in a sort of Dayton Accords like summit that should lead to some kind of solution, that few will be totally happy with but should create a tacit peace.

Two big problems:

How many U.S. troops and other international forces will still be left behind in a "peacekeeping" role. Or in a "residual" capacity? Any left behind will surely take casaulties at some point.

Also, in a tacit peace, just how fractious will the parties still be? Will the be sure to erupt at some point? The Dayton solution worked out fairly well and everyone expected worse, so we'll see, but it could be that these groups will end up fighting for an even longer time. But it also could be that they really are tired of war, and they all have shown that they want to come to the table. Will that last? I don't know, but Holbrooke is good at this sort of thing, he may be a hawk, but he's also a pushy diplomat and a tough arbitrator.

. . . you're correct in predicting a diplomatic push from the administration, Bill

The difficulty for Holbrooke is that he has to push the Pakistanis to do more to confront what Pres. Obama sees as a threat from their border region, and at the same time, look for some dominate figure in the Taliban resistance (outside of some one closely linked to al-Qaeda) who can be pressured or influenced by Russia or China (Clinton's turf) to talk folks there into resisting aligning with or supporting the violent elements.

It was advantageous in Iraq to have Sadr and his Iranian moderating influence which counseled him to put aside violence and, instead, stake out political turf and wait the Americans out. It's not clear whether there's a parallel in Afghanistan to influence the bulk of the disparate factions there away from the aggravating and destabilizing violence.

And, who knows what's going to happen with the allies and the diplomacy . . .

A toned-down variant of the Taliban is eventually going to rule Afghanistan, at least for a number of years. In that same regard a somewhat hard-line Iran-friendly Shia regime is eventually going to rule from Baghdad south in Iraq. The only questions America has to answer is for how long, and at at what cost, do we want to delay the inevitable. Like much of our non-Iraq Imperial military folly, a solid 2/3 of Americans support this Afghanistan business, and therefore co-own the bloody consequences. That includes Obama and many on DU.

However awful the Taliban might be. There are lots of problems in the world that cannot be resolved by military means. This is just one of many. The U.S. cannot force China out of Tibet or change the cultural customs of East Africa by military force - and it cannot impose a new social order on Afghanistan or Pakistan by military force. That would simply be impossible and would bring nothing but grief on the people we were supposedly trying to help as well as on ourselves.

What is most probably an achievable goal is to establish a diplomatic solution that assures that Afghanistan will not be a place where Al Qaida can plan attacks against the United States. This is most probably an achievable goal.

To a large degree the Taliban reflects Pashtun ethno-nationalism and Pashtun resistance to foreign dominance. "Keeping pressure on the Taliban" by military attacks means killing Pastuns, a military escalation means increased killing of Pastuns, killing members of the largest and most dominant ethnic group within Afghanistan and one of the large ethnic groups within Pakistan. The death of every Pashtun means new sworn enemies of tribes and vast webs of tribal alliances for generations to come.

It is quite plausible that an agreement can be reached that assure Afghanistan is not a base for Al Qaida. It is entirely possible by opening up trade and communication with whoever emerges in Afghanistan, the U.S. can influences positive changes over time.

The alternative is permanent war. The alternative is draining U.S. soldiers and resources into an endless quagmire of endless tribal resistance that will never stop, ever! The alternative is increased resentment which will only strengthen the reactionary fundamentalist Islamist forces and the weakening of liberal influences throughout the region and certainly destabilizing Pakistan and threatening the viability of the nuclear-armed Pakistani state.

about creating more Pashtun enemies by killing Pashtuns. If the hearts and minds of Pashtuns are lost, the game is over. But roughly 40% of Afghans are Pashtuns and many of them support military efforts against the Taliban. Your suggestion that there is no military solution in Afghanistan is not at issue. Obama is well-aware of the fact that the solution, if there is one, is partly political, partly military and partly economic. And by "solution" I don't mean completely eradicating the insurgency. Reducing it to a manageable problem, or just containing it, may be the best that can be done, but that would seem to be a lot better than the alternative. Do you think the solution is to take no military action against the insurgents? Most of the people of Afghanistan want military aid. Military help is essential to containing the Taliban, gradually reducing their influence (by way of clear and hold operations), and providing the necessary security for economic aid to be effective--or so proponents of military aid argue. I'm squartely on the fence on this one.

I suspect it varies tribally and geographically.

One aspect that is frequently not understood in the Western world, is that many people who might align with the Taliban are not aligned out of ideological or even religious considerations. Their alignments are essentially tribal alignments. Of course this would not only be true of the Taliban it would be true of those who support the Kabul government or factions within the Kabul government as well.

Some of these alignments with the Taliban are for purely local, regional and tribal concerns and are probably considerably negotiable.

One strength the Taliban has is that they frequently can rightfully claim to have brought law and order where there was none in their absence. It is a reality in the human condition that almost anywhere people will give a great deal in exchange for the simple ability to walk down the street without being robbed or assaulted. The Taliban have frequently delivered at least on this.

One way or another, stability in the region will require negotiations which would likely include power sharing with elements who are currently supporting the Taliban if not the Taliban itself. I don't think there would be any choice on such a matter. As you said if we end up losing the Pastuns as a whole, the conflict then becomes completely hopeless.

As I heard the security expert Aaron David Miller say on Al Jazeera the other day, that we must accept that there is only one issue that is truly an issue of American national interest. That is assuring that Afghanistan does not become a place where Al Qaida will plan attacks against the United States. I suspect that that is an achievable goal which might even be achievable through negotiations. The danger of this turning into an intractable and unwinnable conflict are simply too real.

I'm trying to sort through these issues. As for measuring popular opinion in Afghanistan, there have been polls, and there are plenty of educated guesses around. I think no one really doubts that, as you suggest, popular opinion varies greatly by region and ethnic group. The Taliban insurgency will find most of its support among Pashtuns and virtually no support from Tajiks or Hazaras.
As for where our national interests lie, I do think we have a clear national interest in preventing Pakistan from going to hell, but it's not clear to me what strategy in Afghanistan would have the best consequences in Pakistan.

I have trouble believing that President Obama would be so naive as to imagine that Afghanistan can be resolved militarily.

He tends to be a pragmatist and a realist and to listen to pragmatist and realist. In his recent PBS interview with Jim Lehrer he essentially acknowledged that the U.S. doesn't currently have a policy in Afghanistan and they will be reviewing everything and making decisions over the next coming months.

It will be interesting to see how the policy develops.




--------------------------

. . . this is happening:

PESHAWAR, Pakistan | Unmanned aircraft have begun targeting Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, a shift in strategy by the Obama administration that may reflect efforts to pre-empt a Taliban spring offensive against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military avoided hitting Mr. Mehsud's forces in 2007 and 2008, during the Bush administration, when the Taliban leader waged a campaign of suicide bombings inside Pakistan and humiliated the Pakistani army in his tribal stronghold near the Afghan border.

However, Mr. Mehsud (allegedly) formed an alliance last month with two other Taliban commanders in North and South Waziristan . . .

Sarfaraz Khan, a professor at the University of Peshawar, traced the new U.S. aggressiveness to the Taliban alliance.

"In order to stop unifying Taliban groups from launching massive attacks against NATO and in particular newly arriving U.S. troops in Afghanistan, such attacks have become indispensable on Americans' part," he said.

After Sunday's attack, local tribesmen (reportedly) told The Times that they expect Mr. Mehsud to retaliate by targeting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/04/us-takes-fight-to-taliban-leader