Email List
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Don't Escalate in Afghanistan
resident Barack Obama has wisely ordered an internal review of the administration's options in Afghanistan before proceeding with the current plan to send 30,000 more troops, which would nearly double the 32,000 fighting there. For the sake of the country, his presidency and the peace and stability of South Asia, Obama should take US-led military escalation off the table. Instead he should focus on devising a regional strategy to stabilize Afghanistan and strengthen Pakistan. Escalating the occupation of Afghanistan would bleed us of the resources we need for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift with our European allies and negate the positive effects of withdrawing from Iraq on our image in the Muslim world. Escalation would have all these negative consequences without securing a better future for the Afghan people or increasing US security.
There's no denying that the situation has deteriorated over the past few years; the Taliban now threaten to take over large parts of Afghanistan. But more US forces will not bring stability. We are losing the war not because we have had too few troops but because our presence has turned the Afghan people against us, swelling the ranks of the Taliban.
Any good will the US military once enjoyed has long since been destroyed by airstrikes that have killed civilians. Human Rights Watch reports that at least 321 Afghan civilians died in NATO or US air raids in 2007. According to the UN, many more were killed the following year. Sending more troops will not win back the hearts and minds of their loved ones. The conspicuous corruption of the Karzai government has also taken a toll. The United States is now viewed as propping up an unpopular regime that New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins describes as seeming "to exist for little more than the enrichment of those who run it," and "contributing to the collapse of public confidence...and to the resurgence of the Taliban."
Adding 30,000 troops might be enough to keep the government from falling in the short term, but it will not be nearly enough to wage the kind of counterinsurgency some Obama advisers advocate. For that, some military experts estimate, we may need as many as 600,000. But even a force one-quarter that size would be an immense burden on the US economy, given our debt from the financial crisis. It would almost certainly mean the postponement, if not the end, of Obama's proposals for universal healthcare and a green economy.
It is doubtful that even a major counterinsurgency could succeed. Indeed, it may only engender more resistance and encourage support for the Taliban in Pakistan to stop what would be seen as the advancement of US and Indian interests. If we learned anything from the British and the Soviets, it is that Afghans fiercely resist outside powers and that some in Pakistan are eager to prevent outsiders from controlling its neighbor, especially if those outsiders have good relations with India. Afghanistan is called "the burial ground of empires" for good reason.
In recent Congressional testimony Defense Secretary Robert Gates seemed to rule out the more ambitious goal of stabilizing Afghanistan, suggesting instead the narrower goal of preventing it from being a launching pad for terrorism. But he acknowledged even that would require more troops. Gates did not explain why he would commit more troops to keep Afghanistan from being a terrorist haven when Al Qaeda already operates freely in parts of Pakistan and when the Taliban and Islamist terror groups have sanctuaries in Pakistan's tribal areas. Indeed, the effect of military operations in Afghanistan has been to push Islamists across the border into the tribal areas and Pakistan's North West Frontier Province.
The key to defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist protectors lies with the Pakistani government and its ability to control its remote territories. But there's the rub: major groups within Pakistan's military and intelligence services are reluctant to act against Pakistan's extremists for fear it would help the United States and India gain control over Afghanistan. Thus military escalation would likely counter our efforts to get Pakistan's government to secure its territory against Al Qaeda. Worse, expanding the war may only deepen divisions in Pakistan and further weaken its fragile democratic government. Even if US escalation achieves the limited goal of denying Al Qaeda a presence in Afghanistan, it could lead to the destabilization of Pakistan, with devastating implications for regional and international security. As Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel and professor of history and international relations at Boston University, recently wrote, "To risk the stability of that nuclear-armed state in the vain hope of salvaging Afghanistan would be a terrible mistake."
By any measure, the disintegration of nuclear Pakistan would pose a much greater threat to our national security than would the continued presence of Al Qaeda in remote border areas. In fact, the value of Afghanistan and Pakistan as Al Qaeda safe havens is greatly exaggerated. Pakistan's tribal areas are of limited use in training extremists to blend into US society or learn how to fly airplanes or make explosives (most of the planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in Germany and Florida, not Afghanistan). Nor is this remote, isolated area a good location for directing a terror campaign, recruiting members or threatening global commerce. That is why Al Qaeda is a decentralized network whose leaders in Pakistan can offer little more than moral support and encouragement. American safety thus depends not on eliminating these faraway safe havens but on common-sense counterterrorist and security measures--intelligence cooperation, police work, border control and the occasional surgical use of special forces to disrupt imminent terrorist attacks.
Instead of more troops, we need a regional diplomatic strategy aimed at replacing the US-led NATO occupation with a multinational coalition that would bring about a power-sharing arrangement and new governing structure. This would include more moderate elements of the Taliban who reject Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and would help enforce a halt to the violence. Such a plan would have a better chance of isolating Al Qaeda in Pakistan and giving that country's government the space it needs to take on extremists.
It won't be easy for an international coalition to stabilize Afghanistan, but it will have a better chance if it has few US fingerprints. Therefore, Obama should make clear that this regional strategy envisions withdrawing troops and reconstituting the mission under UN, not NATO, auspices. We may associate Afghanistan with 9/11, but actually it now poses a regional problem, not a US security threat. It is inextricably tied to the geopolitics of Central and South Asia; its problems must be solved by the region's powers, albeit with our diplomatic and financial contributions to development and reconstruction. Progress in stabilizing Afghanistan depends on progress on Pakistani-Indian relations. It also depends on constructive involvement by Iran, which has an interest in tamping down the narcotics trade and in preventing a return of the Taliban. China and Russia have interests in Afghanistan, too, and can contribute to its reconstruction.
Including these regional powers in a multinational coalition and providing it with diplomatic support will not be easy. But it is a task more worthy of President Obama's pledge to make the United States a respected world leader again than sending more young men and women to die in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan, which would make this Obama's war. The decision he makes in the coming weeks about Afghanistan will tell us a lot about whether his presidency will succeed in restoring America or will fall victim to a futile war in a distant land.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
30 Comments so far
Show AllArticle is exactly correct.
This article assumes that the US wants peace in Afghanistan.
Hoa binh
since 9:29 ------- Good point. I often thought the USA might have promoted the sectarian violence in Iraq.
That would most likely have been the mission of John Negroponte, former death-squad overlord in Central America.
Progress in stabilizing Afghanistan depends on progress on Pakistani-Indian relations. It also depends on constructive involvement by Iran, which has an interest in tamping down the narcotics trade and in preventing a return of the Taliban. China and Russia have interests in Afghanistan, too, and can contribute to its reconstruction.
Tariq Ali made the same point recently, but the rub lies in the complete inability of the likes of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton to consider that regional players--and the almost totally ignored Afghan public--might have legitimate aspirations of their own that don't exactly jibe with "strategic visions" hammered out in Washington, DC. It's the same story as in Vietnam, only with a new generation of the "best and the brightest" ready to flaunt their hubris.
UsamaK
It's the Taliban theology, Stupid! Unless the Taliban are re-educated / re-programmed by the Saudis, the ones who educated and programmed them in the first place during the 1980s, nothing will work, not war, not development, not negotiations.
Why can't the CommonDreams or other editors see a workable idea argued in these articles (click on the links below)?
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/5842
http://dawn.com/weekly/encounter/encounter3.htm
Uasmak --------- A greater good would be done by doing the same for the USA population and leaders.
" Some military experts estimate that we may need as many as 600,000 troops". Russia had around 500,000 troops in Afghanistan and after 12 years could not defeat these people. It has been called Russia's Viet nam. So I guess it will become America's Viet nam next!
We keep assuming that Afghanistan is a country or nation that resembles a western democracy. Afghanistan is not, and has never been, a nation state.
We should view Afghanistan as a conferation of war lords, whoe allegience to a central government changes according to their economic and political needs.
Some groups will have certain views towards drugs. Some groups will have centain view towards women. Some will have a certain view or or relationship wih the Taliban. We need to identify the interest of the 25 largest "tribal" groups and work with these groups to gain a rough concensus government.
The concensus may not be popular with western democracies. it may not be popular with the coalition military. It may not do enough to promote the rights of women or preserve individual freedoms (ie Bill of Rights).
It will, however, reflect the views of the prople who control Afghanistan and who have developed their own models of concensus and cooperation over the past several years. Just as we do not want to adopt the Afghan system in the west, they do not want to adopt the western system in Afghanistan.
Good points. Those points remind us of the elites' unspoken motives - to expand their influence/control worldwide. We progressives are now demanding that all motives behind institutional actions be exposed. Scrutinizing the motives of public officials is not something the elites want us to do. They prefer that we allow those motives to swim around under the surface like sharks, hidden from view.
Good points. Those points remind us of the elites' unspoken motives - to expand their influence/control worldwide. We progressives are now demanding that all motives behind institutional actions be exposed. Scrutinizing the motives of public officials is not something the elites want us to do. They prefer that we allow those motives to swim around under the surface like sharks, hidden from view.
With such motives "on the table", the public will be eager for civic engagement. We will tune in to CPAN to watch the officials try to defend themselves from accusations regarding their motives. The result will be open government, and a public expectation to know, understand and ultimately bear responsibility for public policies. Right now we're only slaves to the machine, hardly even spectators.
duckswace 12:45 ---- Do not be fooled; Afghanistan was and is a nation state ask any Afghan. It had a UN seat, currency, constitution, international recognition, central government. And in many ways, pre Soviet invasion, it was a more peaceful and tolerant place than the USA.
This article is good but does not get to the core of the problem.
Under what authority is the US military fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban? (in Afghanistan and elsewhere, worldwide).
It is the authority given to the President to use the military against those deemed responsible for 9/11, a military effort known as the 'war on terror'. Public Law 107-40 started this madness, the most execrable piece of Congressional crap since the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
The US government and military are waging this insane and unwinnable war whose goal is 'preventing future terrorism', even as the US public continues to ignore or misunderstand it as best they can (by calling Afghanistan a 'war', for instance, rather than a campaign in the larger, global conflict). Mr. Obama calls Afghanistan the central front in the war on terror.
Don't expect Mr. Obama to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. He won't even stop the escalation, only try to make it more palatable to US hoi polloi (BHO, the new LBJ!). This is because he is a political animal like all the rest and he will not endanger his political life by withdrawing from a war that hasn't been lost yet.
America will not surrender its authority in Afghanistan and take part in serious international cooperative rebuilding efforts of Afghanistan as long as it remains mired in its deranged war to prevent future terrorism by al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
How to stop this? Congress must end the authority of the President to use the military. Congress must rescind Public Law 107-40. The American people must get them to do so. I humbly suggest that we strive to make this the number one topic for the elections of 2010.
For the sake of the country, his presidency and the peace and stability of South Asia, Obama should take US-led military escalation off the table. Instead he should focus on devising a regional strategy to stabilize Afghanistan and strengthen Pakistan.
That's a pipe dream as much as visions of "victory" and "democracy" in Iraq. Some messes cannot be "cleaned up". But I imagine that the Clintons and the Holbrookes are already acting like the criminals of the Bush regime, looking at themselves in the mirror, cultivating a withering sneer and practicing their tough talk while holding large caliber pistols in both hands.
But just like LBJ, Mr. Obama is stuck in a war that can't be won. Just like LBJ, he will do 'more of the same' in order not to make things worse while he is in power (he will fail, just like LBJ).
- for the sake of his presidency - Yes, I agree, but this applies only to his future stature. Right now he is a politician who will not open himself up to Rethuglican epithets as the guy who endangered America by letting the terrorists get away.
Furthermore, always remember locust's law - nobody gives up power voluntarily.
Commander-in-Chief Obama has the Constitutional authority to use the US military (against al-Qaeda and the Taliban) and he will not give that power up. It must be taken from him.
BTW, I enjoy your posts. Thank you. Your sarcasm is thoroughly warranted and eminently enjoyable.
locust,
Mordechai is a guilty pleasure for many of us, myself included; his "sarcasm is thoroughly warranted and eminently enjoyable."
Mordechai's "personal health care plan" from a post last summer is sarcastic, funny, and memorable! We should all be so lucky as to have a canine with such perception! The rest of us have some lousy, expensive catastrophic "health care plan".
Always look forward to seeing Mordechai's sarcastic, caustic, humorous posts.
Yeah, Shibilikov is a true CD asset. But I don't see how you can call him sarcastic.
it's really unbelievable that the Nation accepts the premise that there is a 'war on terror.' the u.s. is in afghanistan for the same reason it's in iraq: establishing control over oil & natural gas, strategic positions vis a vis russia/china, etc.
and since when are we 'withdrawing from iraq'? and where does 'healthcare for all' come from? w/tom daschle supposed to be at the helm?
we'll see how the Nation & co. does w/this 'pressuring obama' thing.
What we or Obama wants is not important. The MIC wants war and war it gets.
War is the most profitable of industries. No congressional, environmental, legal, economic, humanitarian oversight, more money than you want, no labor standards, no quality standards, a government and public fully committed to your success, few if any taxes, fear and respect from conservatives in other countries, other country's resources and if you're a big enough oligopoly, you can keep the cash rolling in for 100 years.
Notice that the editors at "The Nation" don't want to have their names attached to the article.
The USA does not want peace, but only stability and control around the oil and gas pipelines (yet to be built) which will bring product to Pakistan Indian from Central Asia.
Who does the editors at The Nation think they are fooling?
Methinks they are shills for the ruling elite or clueless.
When editorials are unsigned, it indicates that this is the position of the editors, not the opinion of one or two individuals on the editorial staff.
"Escalating the occupation of Afghanistan would bleed us of the resources we need for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift with our European allies and negate the positive effects of withdrawing from Iraq on our image in the Muslim world."
The Nation editors are apparently resigned to submission to the elite establishment. They promoted the elite's selection of candidates for high office. Now they complain about the inevitable results. If The Nation had instead promoted the people's candidates for high office then its dissent would be meaningful. Apparently, The Nation's editors haven't learned anything about human nature. They should know that the people have an inherent tendency to compare actions with words to discover sincerity. Or maybe The Nation expects the people to join it in the insincerity, delusion and submission, and support the elites in their suppression of the people's better interests. No way. The Nation editors own the problem. They can start to correct their mistake by admitting to it.
It will be interesting to see who "The Nation" endorses in 2012 after Obama's escalated the violence in Afghanistan. Nothing but a crummy surrender-to-Democrats-only magazine anyway. I ain't paying for all that apologist bullshit of theirs !
We can call it a war, military occupation, counter-insurgency operation, indigenous pacification, Glorious Crusade to Send Souls to Heaven, or whatever the heck else. American soldiers are killing people minding their own business in their own country and homes. Some of them are killing American soldiers in return. That is the reality (practically) none of our politicians want to change.
There's no debate in Washington about ending it, only how to continue it. If peace was our goal we'd be withdrawing now.
Regime change or not, we are still a rogue nation.
http://davedubya.com
On March 21 thousands of people will join the March on the Pentagon in opposition to the occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. You can visit http://www.PentagonMarch.org to learn more about the march, and to get involved.
NATION: Don't do what we voted for and endorsed.
And you're point is?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
"Don't Escalate in Afghanistan"? Nice wish, but ...; it's a wish.
In the following article we can see The Nation's wish get ... clobbered, say, and strongly so; but also can see much reason to put some real push behind such wishes.
We learn considerable detail on the serious build-up of Taliban, and allied militant, forces.
We also learn about NATO commander, U.S. Gen. John Craddock blowing the U.S. horn for widening free-fire zones, including against non-combatant Afghans, in this phony, or rather majorly hypocritical, U.S. call to strike against opium dealers, and I suppose that it also means or includes poppy producers.
We additionally, and generously detailed is this part, learn that why I just used the reference of "rather majorly hypocritical" is definitely no over-statement and
is based in realty, one that reaches globally, from U.S. operations in Asia to South America, during the 1980s and since. We learn that what the U.S. really does with all of its so-called war on drugs is NOT at all a war on drugs, but a protection racket, to protect international drug trafficking (profits) for its profitable criminal allies to profit from. "Scratch my (or our) back(s) and I (or we) will scratch yours too"! You know about that paradigm, right?!
"America's New Asian Quagmire: Graveyard of Empires", Feb 7 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12194
For "Don't Escalate in Afghanistan" to work, The People of the U.S.A. are going to have to put a LOT of energy in the pushing or pressing for this outcome. We need this to be the outcome, but we or rather the world has also needed good, positive, constructive, ... outcomes before, many times too, and how many times were these successfully achieved or obtained? NONE, or virtually none. PUSH, then; ane if pushing doesn't work, then shove; while if that also fails, then ... pray and fervently so (?).
Let's hope that the Obama administration will well distinguish itself from past fascism in the U.S. and which the following essay excerpt provides a strong illustration or account of. The excerpt is from Wade Frazier's extensive and/or comprehensive essay, 'The Business of War', though from what also seems to be a book by him, 'The Art of War'; or maybe they're the same essay and referred to with these two titles. Anyway, the excerpt strongly illustrates the real nature of the U.S. govt, military, and its ruling elites or ruling coalition, oligarchy (whatever) of elites during the 1930s; only, it's an example of much more U.S. history than that era alone, I believe.
"The Business of War (an excerpt about Smedley Butler):
Excerpt from 'The Art of War' by Wade Frazier", originally drafted in 1999 and updated or revised since
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/butler-by_frazier.html
The end of that page provides a link to Frazier's 'The Art of War' and the webpage loads saying 'locked' and it doesn't seem available at his website, but his essay 'The Business of War' is.
http://www.ahealedplanet.net
Following is one of COAT's (Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade) main pages on U.S. fascism, while I believe one or more other of their pages on fascism in the U.S.A. is or are available through links in the homepage.
"Wall Street's Plot to Seize the White House:
Facing the Corporate Roots of American Fascism"
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/53-index.html
I believe that that type of U.S.A. is not over yet, so a lot of pressure needs to be applied by The People in order to try to help Obama to not also be or become one of the many fascists of the U.S.A. For the kind of changes he campaigned on, he will definitely need to distinguish his presidency from much of U.S. history.
The war in Afghanistan is the same as the drug war in Colombia...
And wall street is used to launder all the drug money of the crime syndicates...
Kosovo was established as a nationstate to facilitate the heroin pipeline from the Hindu kush into Europe...
In much the same way that noriega was propped up by the CIA for the distribution networks for the cocaine trade...
The Taliban had to be removed from power once they started to eradicate the poppy fields and defied the pipeline project...
Noriega had to be removed when he started pocketing too much of the cocaine trade, and refused to have the SOA in Panama...
Once the medellin cartel in Colombia was dismantled, replaced by the international syndicate who GHWBush and Uribe are a part of...
The USA was able to launch Plan Colombia, which gives billions to military contractors to "fight" the war on drugs...
"American safety thus depends not on eliminating these faraway safe havens but on common-sense counterterrorist and security measures--intelligence cooperation, police work, border control and the occasional surgical use of special forces to disrupt imminent terrorist attacks"
The 'surgical use of special forces' is as much a myth as the ticking-time-bomb-so-we-have-no-choice-but-to-torture scenario.