Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMissing from the Afghan 'Surge': A Congressional Debate
A key fact about the recent history of Iraq is absolutely critical to the nascent debate about Afghanistan: there was more to the Iraq "surge" than sending additional troops, so if folks are going to justify sending more troops to Afghanistan on the grounds that sending more troops "worked" in Iraq, we should be talking about the other elements of US policy in Iraq that changed after November 2006, not just about more troops.
Analysts say elements of the real policy changes that took place in Iraq - changing the troops' mission from offense to defense, increasing support for indigenous forces, and stepping up diplomacy within the nation and among its neighbors - could be very relevant for Afghanistan, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. They say the mission of troops should shift from hunting insurgents to protecting civilians, and focus money on Afghan rather than US troops. "You can get 70 Afghan soldiers for the price of one American soldier deployed to Afghanistan," noted one analyst. Empowering local leaders may require political reforms - such as allowing governors to be elected locally instead of appointed by Kabul, which would require reform of the Afghan Constitution.
In particular, regarding "stepping up diplomacy within the nation," the US made deals in Iraq with insurgent groups that led to a dramatic reduction in violence.
So if you want to "replicate the success of the surge in Iraq" in Afghanistan, it seems pretty clear that you are going to have to come to some arrangements with some armed groups that are currently considered "Taliban." If you're not talking to Taliban, you're not replicating the Iraq surge.
But another key element is missing with regard to Afghanistan that was present in 2006-7 with regard to Iraq: public and Congressional debate. An escalating sequence of political events, including the Lamont Senate campaign, the recapture of the Congress by a Democratic majority, the Congressional fight in the spring 2007 over a timetable for withdrawal - all sent a clear message to the Bush Administration, the US military, the Iraqi government and parliament, and Iraqi society generally that time was running out for the US occupation, and that was a key cause of the change in policies. Even Defense Secretary Gates, while opposing a timetable for withdrawal, acknowledged that Congressional pressure was helpful in bringing about change in Iraq.
This public and Congressional pressure is missing today. President Obama has ordered more troops to Afghanistan. But while Obama Administration officials have made suggestions in the direction of other elements - working to get the assistance of Iran and other neighbors, working with elements of the Taliban - the actual change we've seen so far in Afghanistan is: more troops.
If there were more pressure, the Obama Administration would be moving more quickly to put these other elements in place. If there were a public and Congressional debate about an exit strategy, about a timetable for withdrawal, about blocking the Pentagon from building permanent military bases in Afghanistan, real change in US policy towards Afghanistan would be happening faster.
Robert Greenwald's Brave New Foundation is working to spark that debate. They've produced a 10 minute "mini-documentary" questioning the wisdom of sending more troops in support of the same failed policy. Help spread the word by watching and sharing the video:
8 Comments so far
Show AllThe author seems to believe that there is credibility to the claim that the surge in Iraq worked. The fact is, much of the reduction in violence began to happen BEFORE the surge- as a result of the Shia driving out the Sunnis from their homes and many completely out of the country. For Obama to say that the military accomplished its mission of going into Iraq to remove Saddam's regime and to institute democratic reforms is a lie, at the very least; a lie he accused Bush of, after Bush was called on the WMD lie. Until and unless the USA can formally admit to its ulterior motives nothing will change- in fact, things will get much worse. The Iraqis and most of the world know well that the main reason we went into Iraq was OIL. Had Iraq not had any, it would be left to rot like so many third world countries the US has no national interest in. The Obama well knows that the CIA sowed the seeds for Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, and that the US propped up religious fanatics to bog Russia down into a Vietnam conflict that would cripple it. Even so, he appears to be headed into that same crippling situation. Honesty, President Obama- PLEASE! Not perpetuation of crap like: we succeeded in saving Iraq, and we're going to save Afghanistan in the same way. Ah, but honesty has its price, doesn't it. Were we to admit that we lied, then we might be held liable for reparations. No, better to pretend we're the saviors. Less potential for an international tribunal.
Attention, Lyndon Baines Obama. That light at the end of the tunnel is the bullet train bearing down on you at 200 mph.
what does zionist mean? is that a "tolerance" term? And we have been told that we need to support Obama. That is all of us, not just the rightwing.
The trick is to tell Zionist Israel that the free lunch is over...
Then with the largest peace offensive in history the US sets up peace talks with the leaders of any terrorist group that is a threat.
Once this is done the "war on terrorism" will become a discussion and debate for the world to find a better way to plan for the future.
We are all living on the same spaceship but acting like we are on different planets.
I've said it before - Congress started this mess and Congress has to get us out.
The President will not withdraw troops from the fight against our enemies al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That would be political suicide, which trumps any consideration of national priorities.
Victory is impossible, as I've repeated endlessly, because Congress enacted legislation that called for 'preventing future terrorism' to be our goal. Nobody has even explained what that means, and it's been over seven years.
If Congress could take a few moments off from their program to give all our children's money away, perhaps they could deliberate about something of importance, like ending the madness that they set into motion. After all, most of those who got us here are still in office.
let's not forget who obama campaigned for in CT when lamont threatened the senator from tel aviv.
A. Legalize drugs and Afghan poppy farming ceases to be a problem. Apply our freedom of religion principle to Afghanistan, and the Taliban cease to be a problem. End the occupation, withdraw, and terrorism ceases to be a problem. Catch Bin Laden with a police action later and revenge is ours.
B. But who is going to defend our oil company pipelines? The Zionists won't like it if we leave. If we don't have a war somewhere, how are the war-profiteers going to profit?
Choose A or B.
Hello America, are you listening?
There is no military solution possible. The more troops we send the more will resist us, the more of them we kill the more of them will shoot back. Is this what we want for our nation or for theirs?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell