EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
We Must Get Out of Afghanistan
Obama's rethink is one of the best things that has happened since he gained office
If you're in a hole stop digging. Denis Healey's admonition to politicians has been so often quoted that it's become almost a cliché. But it's nonetheless true for all that. And nowhere is it more so than in Afghanistan.
The successive delays in the announcement of President Obama's much vaunted statement of US policy towards the Afghan venture has been treated as yet another example of the fumbling that has become something of a feature of the new administration, in foreign policy as much as home economics. It shouldn't be. Obama's reconsideration of his approach to Afghanistan, together with his policy towards Pakistan, is one of the best things that has happened since he gained office.
Obama came in committed to ramping up the US military effort there as the counterbalance to his determination to get the US troops out of Iraq. Afghanistan was the one area of policy where the new President was prepared to follow his predecessor. How far Obama genuinely believed this vision of a battle-to-the-death may be doubted. Since then he's steadily retreated from that stance on taking office and listening to the advice of his new Special Envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke, as well as the urgings of the generals and the hesitations of the State Department.
The turn-around in the White House approach has been truly astonishing. Where once the talk had been all about a General Petraeus-dictated surge that would see expanded US forces seize the strategic high ground, now all the talk is of the need to rebalance programmes from the military to civil assistance. In place of the accusations of sloth and even cowardice among America's allies, now the talk is less of demanding more troops from Europe than more help with policing, transport and energy.
Instead of talking of the battle in Afghanistan, Holbrooke has returned from his first trip announcing that the US now recognised that the situation in that country could not be divorced from the deteriorating conditions in next door Pakistan. Where initially the Taliban had been rolled up with al-Qa'ida in a ball called the "enemy", in the last few weeks there has been open discussion of negotiating with so-called "moderate" Taliban.
Most astonishing of all, President Obama, having declared "no, the US is not winning the war", has even been brave enough to speak out the dreaded "e" word, saying that the US had to consider an exit strategy among its objectives.
What accounts for this change of tack by the US administration - and has certainly caused Richard Holbrooke to tell some harsh truths in the Oval office after his recent visit - is the gradual dawning of the realisation in the White House that Afghanistan is a real mess and quite possibly one that has no solution as far as the West is concerned.
It's easy for General Petraeus and his supporters in Washington to talk of the Iraqi example and to argue that, with one more push, the war can be won. But Afghanistan isn't Iraq. There the US was eventually able to use the Shia-Sunni divides and the growing unpopularity of al-Qa'ida's civilian atrocities to split the Sunni tribal leaders from the foreign terror groups, persuade them to join the fight on the US side and to convince the Shia radicals that a cease-fire was in their interests. The government of Prime Minister al-Maliki proved, somewhat unexpectedly, to have more guts and power than they'd given it credit it for.
In Afghanistan, in contrast, the US forces did not win a clear victory. Rather they, and in particular the air force, enabled the Northern Alliance to march into the Taliban-controlled cities as conquerors, and for the war lords to claim local control as their reward. President Karzai has never been more than a figurehead. That was the reason he was accepted by all parties in the first place.
The geography of the country obviates central control and favours the guerrilla fighter. The presence of a foreign "occupying" force makes it an easy challenge for the unemployed youth. The conjunction of an anti-drugs policy intended to root out poppy growing with a military exercise aimed at wiping out insurgents has fatally sullied both aims. Add to that a porous border which allows the rebels to rearm, regroup and run away and you have all the classic conditions of a war that is basically unwinnable.
Talk to most British military and they know this. Speak to ministers and politicians in this country and they are in total denial. Speak now to officials and experts in Washington, in contrast, and the truth is at last being debated out loud. The difficulty is how to get out of the quagmire.
Almost everything that the allies are doing is making things worse. The more you talk of beefing up Nato, the more it appears as a Western, white force intent on suppressing an indigenous population and the worse the division within what was once the world's greatest military alliance open up. The more you use drones and air strikes to hit across the border, the greater the local resentment. Try to put backbone into Karzai by insisting that he appoint a strong Prime Minister of your choice - as Washington is now - and you simply unbalance further the confused politics of a fractioned country. Put pressure on the Pakistan government to take control of its tribal areas and you only tag the new president there with the sobriquet of the lapdog of overweening America.
Ultimately there is no future in Afghanistan other than the exit door, any more than there is a chance for the politics of Pakistan or Afghanistan to develop other than through a Western declaration of non-interference. Whether US politics would accept such a step at the moment is doubtful. Listen to Holbrooke and you hear all the old empty talk of forcing the government of Kabul and Islamabad to exercise more central control and calling the Taliban "outriders for al-Qa'ida" as if they were one and the same thing (which they aren't).
All one can say as the world awaits the US President's Afghan plan, before the meeting of interested parties called by Mrs Clinton in the Hague on Monday and the Nato summit in a fortnight's time, is that Obama seems ready to stop digging. And that, at least, is a start.
- 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...
21 Comments so far
Show AllI fail to understand how the author can laud Obama for claiming that he has an exit strategy in Afghanistan and also believing that Obama is "ready to stop digging" when Obama is still planning to send 17,000 American soldiers into that war-torn country. If Obama is truly serious about seeking peace in that country, he should immediately call a halt to all military action with special emphasis upon making sure that no more bombs will be dropped upon Afghans. Obama should realize that until ALL U.S. troops are withdrawn from that country there will continue to be resistance against the American empire [as the Vietnamese successfully did against the Americans].
Yesterdays Afghanistan article stated 17,000 plus 17,000 more USA stormtroopers are headed to Afghanistan Plus thousands more of demented contractors to guard the robokiller stormtroopers.
Why is occupying forces in "parenthesis" does that indicate they are really only a mirage?
This article needs to go one step further and explain what should have been a police action against Al Qaeda morphed into a War against Taliban and now has morphed into a War against 30 million PUSHTUNS in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Also I suggest readers put their efforts into preventing intensification of conflicts, as in Afghanistan, instead being distracted by what will be the exact timetable for drawdown of stormtroopers in Iraq.
I believe the USA/Afghan women's advocate, who is living and working in Kandahar, is correct when she states the USA needs to Negotiate with the Radical Taliban because they are the ones leading the oppossition to the invaders.
It's great to hope for change in Obama's Afghan orientation, but haven't we been down this road that leads to Disappointment before? In this case, there are contra-indications that Obama's intentions will lead to something way less than any expectation of a reasonable exit strategy. Jim Hightower describes a "triple surge" prospect that would put more troops in the country in more widely dispersed locations, more civilian "development" specialists to work on the country's physical and political infrastructure, more private security forces hired to protect the U.S. boots and suits in the country. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/25 The only exit strategy that might be divined out of this is that these forces would leave the country when it is "stabilized," which this country has never been in the Western sense of the term.
As to those "development" guys, they seem to be the "hearts and minds" prong of the occupation, making the locals grateful to the U.S. for bringing improvements in their "miserable" life styles. Brian Cloughley, who was an Australian soldier in Viet Nam, described a similar effort in that country, where the occupying forces would build small wind mills and other much-needed local facilities; but they did not exercise the military tactic of "take and hold" and tended to move on after the "taking" of a village. When they moved on, the Viet Cong moved in to destroy the wind mills and/or threaten local people with the fate of collaborators if they used them (just like Iraqi insurgents are still targeting people who become police officers for the Iraqi government). http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley03232009.html Absent a "take and hold" policy, which would require an immense surge of troops to do that holding (and private security forces to protect them), there is nothing that looks anything like a workable exit strategy, as the country will never to "stabilized."
The so called fact that Afghanistan has never been stable is pure anti-Afghan propaganda. I was there for six months and it was peaceful, tolerant and stable with kind generous people. Read history.
This whole Western attitude that we can decide the fate of other Nations is totally Immoral.
The Afghans are who should control the fate of their nation.
There is nothing to consider except the best way to leave.
And when has it become pro forma that the robokiller stormtroopers need third party mercenaries to protect them.
Glenn Ford, your basic views and mine on this subject are identical. When you ask me to "read history" about whether Afghanistan has ever been "stable," I would ask you in turn to read my lips (the words I used) that A. has never been stable in the "Western sense of the word." In other words, A. has not been a stable "democracy" which is "stable" precisely because it, like the U.S., U.K. and other western "democracies," has a single corporate dominating ruling class that insures stability from one political administration to the next because the major parties and the mainstream media for public opinion are all dominated by that class. A. hasn't had this and no doubt its "peaceful" nature is related to the "misfortune" that it's nation has not yet been built on that toxic model: but give the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations (CBO, it's all one administration) just a little more time to "stabilize" that country in the western sense: there're gittin' there pardner.
When he was campaigning for the presidency against Goldwater in 1964, Lyndon Baines George Wanker Bush Johnson said (re Vietnam) he would not send American boys 10,000 miles from home to fight a fight Asian boys should be doing for themselves. Those are almost his exact words. Well, we know how that turned out. Obama is involving us now in the same game of jive imperialist three card monte that Johnson did then. His appointments of Wall Street Mafiosos Geithner, Summers and Gensler has already given away his approach to nearly everything else. In this country, at least, it is true that history is a nightmare from which we're trying to awake.
the " wars " are based on lies, for christ's sake. lies proved lies a billion times, yet these ken dolls go through these paces as if we don't know better. WE ARE NOT FOOLED, YOU ELITE SCUM.
I think there is good reason to believe President Obama may be reviewing his Afghan/Pakistan policy with one eye upon soon announcing an exit strategy (as Adrian Hamilton's article suggests).
The historic analogy between Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam quagmire is apt. Although Obama often talks about transcending the old partisan divisions of the 60's, he does read his history. He is smart enough not to go the way of one-term LBJ.
"Ultimately there is no future in Afghanistan other than the exit door..... Whether US politics would accept such a step at the moment is doubtful."
Sure, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Rush Limbaugh, and the whole right wing crowd will throw a shit fit, calling it appeasement of terrorism and a stab in the back of the troops. But the political response to these predictable attacks should be that Bush's own generals, Bush's own intelligence experts, and Bush's own former Secretary of Defense all now agree that the situation in Bush's botched Afghanistan operation has deteriorated to the point that it is beyond hopeless.
In my opinion, that's how Obama should step up to the plate and order a US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan as well as from Iraq. Simply tell the American people the truth. A lot of people might be surprised. It just might be that "US politics" has matured to the point that such candor from the president would be applauded, not only from the left but also from the broad, red-white-and-blue middle of the electorate.
After all, both Iraq and Afghanistan were George W. Bush's wars. The Bush regime messed them both up - Afghanistan in particular, by invading and simultaneously occupying Iraq.
Time to face reality, cut America's losses, and do the right thing. Let the Republicans bellow all they want. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were primarily the product of the GOP's right wing militarist ideology anyway. And besides, we can simply no longer afford to stay.
Bill from Saginaw
Sioux Rose
BILL: I'm not sure about US sensibilities having matured, BUT if Obama had the "meeting with Jesus" moment you're defining and ALSO mentioned in a telecast address to the nation all the $ he intended to save in NO LONGER pursuing the current wars of empire and resource-conquest (or confiscation), a lot more advocates would emerge overnight!
"Fellow countrymen and women, the hour has come to bring back our troops from overseas. These costly wars have helped to bankrupt our nation, and have taught our young the useless skill of killing in lieu of skills far worthier and more suitable to a global village. I will commit the savings, these in the billions, to rebuilding our nation's schools, bridges, train tracks, and other key infrastructure, and in the process initiate a "Back to Work" program of benefit to all citizens."
That's MY dream...
As this video by Robert Greenwald points out, sending even more troops into Afghanistan is sheer folly. As one of the speakers observes, the Afghans may be considered the best fighters in the world in resisting invaders who wish to occupy their country. Unless the United States under Barack Obama is committed to stupidly sending in 250,000 troops into Afghanistan, then the United States will join the other countries into the graveyard that has subsumed so many other foreign troops.
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/troop_full.php
I do not know why the link did not light up. I will make another attempt. If it is not successful, I would like to urge those who are interested to go to Rethink afghanistan.com where they can view part one of the trailer.
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/
This column is out of date. As of the latest news flash, Obama has decided to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan. He isn't rethinking anything.
The people of Afghanistan have been handing invaders and would be conquerors
their collective heads on a plate since well before Alexander the Great.
B.O. would do well to read history.
Going into Afganistan had nothing to do with al-Qaida. That is why al-Qaida was allowed (even helped) to escape. If the U.S.A. had crushed al-Qaida they would not have had an excuse to stay. The U.S.A. went into Afganistan and then Iraq to establish a decisive military control over the area which contains so much oil and natural gas. While Afganistan itself does not have fossil fuels the surrounding area does. And Afganistan would be needed for pipelines to carry oil and gas westward. The U.S.A. needs Afganistan more than ever since plans to establish Iraq as a huge military base appear to have been unsuccessful. Access to supplies of oil and gas are of vital national security interest to the U.S.A.
You've certainly got the right idea, but take a look at the map. The Caspian basin (area around the Caspian Sea, just northwest of Afghanistan) is number 2 behind Saudi Arabia in oil and gas reserves. US companies want to go EAST and SOUTH through Afghanistan with some of that oil and gas for the emerging markets of Pakistan, Indian, etc.
Also, if we could have succeeded in occupying successfully both Iraq and Afghanistan, look which country is conveniently sandwiched between those two! America's public enemy number one.
And look at all the countries that border Afghanistan--several former USSR republics, China, Pakistan, etc., etc.
This article is incredibly simplistic and poorly written. There is nothing the least bit surprising about Obama's 'change of heart' about Afghanistan. Anybody with the least bit of awareness about geopolitics and world history knows that Afghanistan cannot be occupied. And bet the farm that Obama knows that much better than most.
In the campaign, nothing could be more obvious to Obama (and anybody with a modicum of understanding of US politics) that he could not become president by being against the OCCUPATION (Iraq and Afghanistan are both US allies, so no WARs there) of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He would have been vulnerable to attacks that he didn't have what it takes to 'protect Amerca'. He came out strongly against Iraq in 2003, so to become president, he had to do some saber-rattling about Afghanistan (that way too many foolish Amercans think is the 'good war').
As soon as he won the job, he started backpeddling--the most obvious, intelligent thing to do. He's been backpeddling ever since, telling us that it can't be a military victory alone (Duh!, not going to happen anyway) and that we needed to focus on rebuilding, etc.
NATO generals, European officials, even our own Pentagone higher-ups have been saying for the past year, at least, that the situation is bad, deteriorating, and that there's no hope of a 'military victory'. But what on earth would be a 'victory' in an occupied country? Killing all 40 million or so Pashtun, out of which came the Taliban? (There are approx. 25 mil. in Pakistan, and 13 mil. in Afghanistan; they're a tightly-knit people, and we're fighting them all...not a chance of 'beating' them.)
The reality over there is so obvious that even Canada's little Bushie (Stephen Harper), a total war-mongering "we-will-defeat-them" type until 6 months ago, now admits 'victory' is not possible.
The disentanglement will not be easy. We've stepped into a nasty hornets' nest and racheted up the nastiness by several quantum bumps. Whatever we leave behind is going to go "Boom", and former oil company lackey and present puppet president Karzai is not going to survive very long. We put into power some of the nastiest drug-dealing warlords on the planet, who are filthy rich in the midst of such devastating poverty and suffering. (Remember that the Taliban had totally wiped out the opium cultivation.) The newly emboldened, enriched warlords are not going to give up their cozy positions without a hell of a fight. What a mess.
And all for Cheney's pipelines and geopolitical positioning in relation to energy supply and distribution...mostly.
I'll believe it when I see it! I am not willing to take anything President Obama says on blind faith unless I see the action corresponding with what he says - despite Obama's apparent charisma. The truth is that it is very hard for the USA to surrender. Look how long it took the USA to surrender in Vietnam. This reluctance to surrender is unfortunate because it truly is in the USA's interest to do such even though it would be politically unpopular. If Obama can convince the USA citizens that surrendering the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is the best decision and explain why that is (such as too expensive, not enough troops to do the job, unfamiliarity with the terrain, language and social structure etc..), he may earn the repect of his colleagues and the international community. Obama just needs to be upfront about whatever decisions he makes.
Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan. The only way to stop it is at the congressional level, by putting pressure on our senators and representatives to vote against the next war funding supplemental.
For some history on the Oregon delegations' previous votes, see:
http://tinyurl.com/warfunding.
It's time to FOCUS.
Let him Escalate all he wants....
in the end the US forces are going to go the route of all imperial forces -- OUT OF THERE -- and it won't be dictated BY the invaders but by the natives.
as Patrick Buchanan said:
"WE SHOULD GET OUT OF THIS BUSINESS OF EMPIRE...AND GET OUT OF THOSE LANDS.....BEFORE THEY KICK US OUT".
as of today -- the Pakistani Taliban who now control MOST of Pakistan..
and Afghani Taliban who already control most of Afghanistan..
proved the predictions of history:
what NATIVES HATE MOST -- are FOREIGN interferences in their internal affairs -- and WILL unite and set aside their differences (as the pakis and afghani Taliban have) -
to face a COMMON "enemy" -- the foreign INTRUDER trying to dictate to them what their society is supposed to be.
===========
The New York Times
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By
March 27, 2009
Pakistani and Afghan Taliban Unify in Face of U.S. Influx
By CARLOTTA GALL
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — After agreeing to bury their differences and unite forces, Taliban leaders based in Pakistan have closed ranks with their Afghan comrades to ready a new offensive in Afghanistan as the United States prepares to send 17,000 more troops there this year.
In interviews, several Taliban fighters based in the border region said preparations for the anticipated influx of American troops were already being made. A number of new, younger commanders have been preparing to step up a campaign of roadside bombings and suicide attacks to greet the Americans, the fighters said.
The refortified alliance was forged after the reclusive Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, sent emissaries to persuade Pakistani Taliban leaders to join forces and turn their attention to Afghanistan, Pakistani officials and Taliban members said.
The overture by Mullah Omar is an indication that with the prospect of an American buildup, the Taliban feel the need to strengthen their own forces in Afghanistan and to redirect their Pakistani allies toward blunting the new American push.
The Pakistani Taliban, an offspring of the Afghan Taliban, are led by veterans of the fighting in Afghanistan who come from the border regions. They have always supported the fight against foreign forces in Afghanistan by supplying fighters, training and logistical aid.
But in recent years the Pakistani Taliban have concentrated on battling the Pakistani government, extending a domain that has not only threatened Pakistan but has also provided an essential rear base for the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.
At the same time, American officials told The New York Times this week that Pakistan’s military intelligence agency continued to offer money, supplies and guidance to the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan as a proxy to help shape a friendly government there once American forces leave.
The new Taliban alliance has raised concern in Afghanistan, where NATO generals warn that the conflict will worsen this year. It has also generated anxiety in Pakistan, where officials fear that a united Taliban will be more dangerous, even if focused on Afghanistan, and draw more attacks inside Pakistan from United States drone aircraft.
“This may bring some respite for us from militants’ attacks, but what it may entail in terms of national security could be far more serious,” said one senior Pakistani official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not permitted to talk to news organizations. “This would mean more attacks inside our tribal areas, something we have been arguing against with the Americans.”
The Pakistani Taliban is dominated by three powerful commanders — Baitullah Mehsud, Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulavi Nazir — based in North and South Waziristan, the hub of insurgent activity in Pakistan’s tribal border regions, who have often clashed among themselves.
Mullah Omar dispatched a six-member team to Waziristan in late December and early January, several Taliban fighters said in interviews in Dera Ismail Khan, a town in North-West Frontier Province that is not far from South Waziristan. The Afghan Taliban delegation urged the Pakistani Taliban leaders to settle their internal differences, scale down their activities in Pakistan and help counter the planned increase of American forces in Afghanistan, the fighters said.
The three Pakistani Taliban leaders agreed. In February, they formed a united council, or shura, called the Council of United Mujahedeen. In a printed statement the leaders vowed to put aside their disputes and focus on fighting American-led forces in Afghanistan.
A spokesman for the Afghan Taliban, Zabiullah Mujahid, denied that the meetings ever took place or that any emissaries were sent by Mullah Omar. The Afghan Taliban routinely disavow any presence in Pakistan or connection to the Pakistani Taliban to emphasize that their movement is indigenous to Afghanistan. “We don’t like to be involved with them, as we have rejected all affiliation with Pakistani Taliban fighters,” Mr. Mujahid said. “We have sympathy for them as Muslims, but beside that, there is nothing else between us.”
Several Pakistani officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not permitted to talk to news organizations, confirmed the meetings. But they said that the overture might have been inspired by Sirajuddin Haqqani, an Afghan Taliban leader who swears allegiance to Mullah Omar but is largely independent in his operations.
Mr. Haqqani, and his father Jalaluddin Haqqani, the most powerful figures in Waziristan, are closely linked to Al Qaeda and to Pakistani intelligence, American officials say. From their base in North Waziristan, they have directed groups of fighters into eastern Afghanistan and increasingly in complex attacks on the Afghan capital, Kabul.
The Taliban fighters said the Afghan Taliban delegation was led by Mullah Abdullah Zakir, a commander from Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, whose real name is reported to be Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul.
A front-line commander during the Taliban government, Mullah Zakir was captured in 2001 in northern Afghanistan and was detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, until his release in 2007, Afghan Taliban members contacted by telephone said.
The Pakistani fighters described Mullah Zakir as an impressive speaker and a trainer, and one said he was particularly energetic in working to unite the different Taliban groups. Beyond bolstering Taliban forces in Afghanistan, both the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban leaders had other reasons to unite, Pakistani officials said.
One motivation may have been to shift the focus of hostilities to Afghanistan in hopes of improving their own security in Waziristan, where more than 30 drone strikes in recent months have been directed at both Mr. Mehsud and Mr. Nazir. Two senior commanders of the Haqqani network have been killed.
The Pakistani Taliban leaders also rely on Mr. Haqqani and their affiliation with the Afghan mujahedeen for legitimacy, as well as the money and influence it brings.
In their written statement, decorated with crossed swords, the three Pakistani Taliban leaders reaffirmed their allegiance to Mullah Omar, as well as the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.
The mujahedeen should unite as the “enemies” have united behind the leadership of President Obama, it said. “The mujahedeen should put aside their own differences for the sake of God, God’s happiness, for the strength of religion, and to bring dishonor on the infidels.” The Taliban fighters interviewed said that the top commanders removed a number of older commanders and appointed younger commanders who were good fighters to prepare for operations in Afghanistan in the coming weeks.
In confident spirits, the Taliban fighters predicted that 2009 was going to be a “very bloody” year.
Ismail Khan contributed reporting from Peshawar, Pakistan; Pir Zubair Shah from Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan; and Taimoor Shah from Kandahar, Afghanistan.
*
Now that President Obama has finally "unveiled" his Afghanistan plan, will Adrian Hamilton please explain to all of us about the "astonishing turn-around" that was said to be in the offing? Inquiring minds want to know.