In or Out of Afghanistan

One of the concerns I've had about the president's upcoming decision on his commanders' recommendation to further escalate the Afghanistan occupation is that if we expect him to offer a different course than his hawks proscribe, where (in his administration) will he get that contrary advice and support? The president has willingly surrounded himself with a majority of Bush holdovers in his military leadership who are predictably advocating following their orchestrated conflict in Afghanistan all the way through to some 'win' or success. The future they envision for the U.S. military in Afghanistan is a decades-long commitment with an indefinite end. It doesn't appear that any dissenting voices have made their way to the top of the debate in the White House and the Pentagon which would counsel a reverse in course and a hasty exit from the eight-year-plus occupation. Where is the support in the administration for the exit that progressives in his party argue for? This is a time where I deeply wish the president had given as much consideration to having a progressive representative in a visible, elevated role in his military leadership as he apparently did in choosing to retain a majority of conservatives from the last administration.

My most important concern, however, is with the president's own reflexive tendency to compromise. The early reports (believable, if not conclusive) are that he intends to split the difference between his own inclination to pursue 'al-Qaeda' in Pakistan and his commanders' advice to garrison the Afghan enclaves (ala Bush's last stand in Baghdad) while provoking the Taliban resistance in the south with the rest of the increased forces.

That course is intended to satisfy both ambitions, but my fear is that the sole decision to remain offensively engaged in Afghanistan will irrevocably commit the U.S. to an end-game which has eluded invaders of Afghanistan throughout history who have sought to transform the country with their military. The entire NATO enterprise is balanced on bribes and dubiously conquered territory with a widely disliked and disregarded government we've enabled into power - Karzai's corrupt regime expected to lead the country away from the objectionable influences of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This is the state of affairs which the military is busy assuring the president is 'necessary' to achieve his stated goals to 'dismantle and defeat' al-Qaeda in the country and the region.

It's no wonder why the militarized resistance in Afghanistan has been reported to be gaining power and influence, despite the efforts of the NATO forces. It won't matter to the rest of the country what form the central government we're feathering in Afghanistan takes on if it's influence is restricted to 'green-zoned' enclaves behind the protection of our military.

Gareth Porter reports today that the foreign troops' presence and activity in Afghanistan is dependent on exorbitant payments to warlords to facilitate their 'safe' movement around the country. When it's said that our forces are there defending the central government, it shouldn't be forgotten that American and NATO forces have played it fast and loose with opportunistic alliances with individuals and groups who almost certainly harbor elements which actively threaten that central authority.

Civilian officer Matthew Hoh, in his resignation letter, complained that our forces were defending a corrupt government against a Pashtun insurgency. That's much different from the description of the state of conflict the administration has defined as al-Qaeda-loving Taliban threatening the government we've enabled into power. It's no wonder the population is ambivalent about throwing their full support behind Karzai. With all of the money thrown around to these warlords and other regional leaders in Afghanistan, there's going to be an undue amount of influence they'll be able to wield in the provinces, quite independent and immune from any of the expectations we may demand from the central government.

It's a sure bet that our troops will eventually be fighting and dying at the hands of these insurgent groups that we're opportunistically giving aid and comfort to. Right now, the plan seems to be to create some sort of Potemkin state of 'stability' in Afghanistan with these payments (more included in the Defense bill the president just signed) to the warlords. The endurance of that purchased stability will depend on how long we can keep up the bribes and what happens when the payments stop.

It's just not credible to expect that our military forces can maintain and expand their operations in Afghanistan to some ideal end where our national security can't be defined as at-risk in some form by someone bent on winning something or other there. We could just as easily make up a definition of victory right now and proceed to leave. If not, any decision by the president to continue on in Afghanistan, in any form, will be an indefinite commitment which will certainly escalate the violence and instability before anyone will be able to manage to tamp all of that down.

Eugene Robinson argues in his column today that President Obama can't just split the difference in Afghanistan. He writes:



More to the point, I believe the president's intention is to string the Afghanistan occupation out to a point where he can find political consensus in Congress to withdraw, much like Bush and Iraq. It's instructive to observe how the president willingly embraced Bush's opportunistic agreement with the Iraqi government to leave the country (not until he was safely tucked away in Crawford). By accepting the premise and substance of Bush's autocratic agreement with the Iraqis, the president committed our troops another danger-filled wait for another round of meaningless Iraqi elections which were supposed to transform the enabled regime into a popular and influential item. To his credit, the president appears ready to declare victory for Bush's war of choice and eventually withdraw, but if you believe the U.S. has done anything more there than barely pull up it's pants to leave after it's brutal assault you haven't been paying attention.

If the president opts for that kind of eventual end to our grudging invasion of Afghanistan, he'll find that our military forces won't be regarded there as anything more than the self-interested occupiers that Iraq has been anxious to part with. As Mr. Robinson says, "It's time to raise or fold." In or out.

Then he'll have all the support he needs to get the hell out of there.

Bizarro World, you know.

We had more of an anti-war push when it was Bush at the head of the aggression. Dissenters will likely have to wait for things to disinigrate further before convincing more folks this is the same folly they protested under the last presidency.

. . . not a fan of the unrecs

It's not as if the Taliban enjoys the support of most Pashtuns. It is true, of course, that the little support the insurgency enjoys is from Pashtuns. Much of Karzai's support comes from Pashtuns as well.

...why hasn't the US and NATO been able to stamp it out with all the bombs and war stuff?

Will another 40,000 troops do any good?


I remember how "little support" the VC had in VietNam.


Out NOW.

No Military Objective + No Exit Strategy = Quagmire

One big problem is that NATO forces aren't trusted and cooperating with them is dangerous. You can't weed out insurgents without local support. There is one huge difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan: the vast majority of Afghans despise the insurgents. Do you really think Tajiks or Hazaras support the Taliban? Only Pashtuns support the Taliban. And judging by polls and voting data, most Pastuns don't want the Taliban to return to power. I do worry, though, that the Taliban may be gaining popularity among Pashtuns.

But Hoh is on the right track in labeling most of the violence as resistance fighting as opposed to the fight against 'al-Qaeda' that it's been presented as. These power struggles were going on for decades before we brought our troops into the mix and it's likely not something that the U.S. presence is going to end. All of the warlords the NATO forces are opportunistically courting favor with won't all end up on the same team. The regional power struggles will continue, along with the predictable resistant violence from the displaced Taliban.

and I really think Obama should quit saying that it's all about preventing another 911. It's also about having relatively stable allies in the region, and it should be about making life better for Afghans and Pakastanis. But the more I learn the more I am skeptical about the desirability of continuing to have a major presence in Afghanistan. I don't have as much information as Obama, though, and so I hope that he knows something that I don't that justifies the lost live and billions of dollars spent.

He came out of nowhere and captured the imagination of a nation, not because of what he advocated, but because of what he was: a viable candidate who wasn't George Bush or GOP, nor tainted by the slop poured on the Clintons by the Right Wing for 8 years. (Remember, the GOP wanted to run against Hillary- -and continued to do so, even when it became clear that her candidacy was going nowhere).

So his ideological and policy underpinnings were tentative and changeable, for sale to the highest bidder, if you will, as evidently is happening. There are no principles that Obama is not willing to sell out: Guantanamo, torture, rendition, habeas corpus, privacy, rule of law, traitors, war criminals, Iraq, Goldman Sachs, health care, as examples. I'm truly surprised he hasn't screwed over unions yet. But there's still time. And he did let GM and Chrysler do it by proxy, so I guess that's already covered.

As a result, Obama feels that he is walking in a combination quicksand/minefield. He feels compelled to turn to the Money, since it got him in, not the People, who can get him out if they get ticked off enough.

After all, Money can buy or steal elections without fuss or fear of reprisals. People can only vote as they are told, or declare a revolution, and either of those is much chancier than election fraud.

This isn't the country I was born and raised in. It's some other land, ruled by corporations.

when it serves their purposes.

Not surprising, as you say, because he's been a coalition type politician who mostly seeks consensus as he acts. Nothing sinister there, however disappointing. It just so happens that the center is where many of the bought and sold make camp. Some issues, however, will require the president to act outside of that consensus. I hope he recognizes that and has the political gumption to take it there.

There isn't any center when right and wrong are sorted out. This isn't remotely ambiguous, nor open to doubt.

During the campaign, Obama promised he would "renegotiate NAFTA". At the same time, he sent some reps to the Canada to reassure business interests that he had NO intentions of changing NAFTA, but was only saying that to gain support from LABOR.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/30-0


Labor's #1 Issue, Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), was dropped like a hot potato soon after Obama took office.
The White House is also quietly negotiating more "Free Trade" Treaties with Peru, Colombia (?), and Panama.

Obama has his sights set, not on the cost of a lost war, but on the next elections where he doesn't want to seen as losing another war.

It's all rather pathetic.

I believe this president hasn't shown any particular regard for influences inside or outside of his administration who might counsel a more progressive approach to these issues of military force and deployment. I think that has resulted in an imbalance of views and intentions in the majority of his own leadership which is producing the skewed consensus that's being presented as the 'center when it's clearly just a step down from the conservative advice of his holdover hosts in the Pentagon. It may well be that he expects this equation to move his initiatives through the legislature. I think it's a waste of his leadership skills to rest on such a pedestrian way of generating support and pushing his agenda, which is rhetorically progressive but ultimately compromised in enactment.

It is time, IMO, to abandon the idea that this president is going to do anything that he sees as a threat to his continued presidency. And, he will pursue whatever course he sees as advantageous to his political aspirations. As Howard Zinn said,


"It's a very delicate question," he mused. "Why? Well, it's not easy to talk about." Everyone wants to support Obama, he continued, or at least everyone in his circle. Everyone wants to love Obama. But let's face it: "His presidency doesn't measure up. I have to say that. But why? How? How come?" Militarism, he answered. Obama has kept the troops in Iraq. He's sent more troops to Afghanistan. "He's continued a military foreign policy."

Not to be a know-it-all, Zinn said ("though I do know it all," he joked), but those who expected great change from this president were fooling themselves. Look at history, he urged, invoking his mantra; Democrats are as aggressive as Republicans.

"They're all in this for war," he said. "That's what we call bipartisanship." Those surprised or disappointed are those who "exaggerated expectations, romanticized him, idealized him. Obama is a Democratic Party politician. I know that sounds demeaning. It is."

The emphasis is on "politician".

Eventually, the people will grow weary of endless and fruitless wars that cost them their children and money. And, the politicians will realize that they are in danger and act to end this charade much in the same way they finally ended Vietnam by cutting off the funding.

I dearly hope that by the end of his first term he comes to recognize that in his current position "compromise" is often a terrible strategy (for our country and the world), in that our corporate media generally sets the rules as to what is defined as "compromise".

. . . in my sense that this president has the most potential of any in recent history to act outside of that political consensus and forge an independent course? The opportunity in this decision for President Obama to surprise the establishment is glaring, in my view. I'm just not seeing where he'll get the support for that in his administration, much less without. But, he can lead. That's his best quality.

He could've been the real "Maverick"
Maybe he still can, but its not looking to 'hope'ful at the moment. I'm not sure even he realized what his potential can/could have been. He could have grabbed the opportunity while the press was still trying to put him in a box, and blown everyone away. Fiery speeches about the imperative of Single Payer (which in the past he says he was in favor of) early on in his term. The same goes for gitmo. Say you're going to close it and bring whatever prisoners you feel you need to keep locked up (another thread) back to the US maximum prisons. END OF STORY.

Don't stop there. Take a page from your predecessor. Continue hitting every day. Start prosecution against Torturers. Look into the past misuse of the AG office for political purposes. And when the GOP and the clowns at FAUX News and most likely the rest of the MSM are screaming, hit them again: start the process for publicly financed election campaigns. He could do this. A great speech on its need in order to eliminate "special interest" groups. He wouldn't have to make anything up. Just tell the truth in a passionate well written speech. Have the press scrambling to catch up with his latest shocking pronouncement.

If anyone could get away with this way of operating Obama could. BushCo. knew how to employ this strategy for evil. (they could make the MSM forget about one scandal by getting caught with another) Obama could be using it for good. There is a 'cult of personality' but it is dimming fast. Bill Clinton knew how to use it. Obama has even greater potential. Its a weapon he has yet to use, and the longer he shies away from using it, the less potent it will be, as the FAUX hounds nip little wounds in him every day.

First off, it is not what YOU or WE want, it should be what do THEY want, the Afgan people? What WE want is way down on the list as well it should be.....now then, let me add this:


"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan ... I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."
- Matthew Hoh, a former Marine captain with combat experience in Iraq, in a letter resigning his State Department Foreign Service post in Afghanistan. Afghans, he wrote, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are an unwelcome occupier backing a corrupt national government. (Source: The Washington Post)


Look at what Dick Cheney wants thinks, that the Obama Administration is “dithering" but many Afghans feel that a period of discernment is clearly called for in Afghanistan. We know what Cheney wants America to do -- he never dithered, even when there were no facts to support his case for more war. Dick Cheney always wants to fight. But Cheney’s foreign policy was an embarrassment for America, and a tragedy for the rest of the world, is that what YOU all want?

No, not to follow his advice is always a good first step of moral wisdom.

The people who know places like Afghanistan the best are neither the military nor the private contractors who increasingly dominate U.S. foreign policy in war-torn regions. Rather they are the NGOs doing relief and development work who have been there for years, have become quite indigenous, and are much more trusted by the people of the country than are the U.S. military or their mercenary friends.

This is how we need to approach this or the US will be like the Soviet Union and leave that country with it's tail between it's legs, same as in Vietnam......


Matthew, whom i quoted above, is 100% correct....

The conversation is much too narrow right now. It’s time for a deeper look and a whole new approach. Stupid people might call that dithering; smart people would call it discernment.

the black turban guys who want to take that country back to the 12th century. So unless WE want to control the drug trade ( which we can do but won't) the bad guys have unlimited resources to mount an insurrection...............forever. We need to get out.......... with the exception of certain special and intelligence forces. Getting out does not mean we allow another 9-11 to be created. We can prevent that from happening without having thousand of troops in harms way.