A Fresh Approach in Afghanistan: An End to War?

Left out of the options under consideration in "Obama's war" is the
only one with any chance of success. Despite assurances to the contrary
in Washington and a major policy speech in London, one need not quibble
with the obvious fact that the situation is deteriorating beyond repair
in Afghanistan. Although international media is more concerned with
what that means politically for United States President Barack Obama
and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, little attention is given to
the browbeaten and war-weary people of that country.

One should
know that public support for the war has greatly diminished, when
conservative commentators like The Washington Post columnist George
Will write: "US forces should be substantially reduced to serve a
comprehensively revised policy. America should do only what can be done
from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes
and small, potent Special Forces units."

Okay, so his narrative
is still ultimately violent, but the fact remains that the war mood is
changing. After all, Will's 1 September article was entitled, "Time to
Get Out of Afghanistan."

Dan Senor and Peter Wehner responded
with a peculiar diatribe in the New York Times, accusing Will of
allowing his party allegiance to influence his views on the war. The
two authors, senior fellows at major US think tanks, offered a bloody
rationale wrapped in deceptive wording. They argued that historically
Democrats opposed Republican wars and Republicans have done the same,
and that must change. It was implied that pretty much every major war
in recent decades was a war that served US national security interests;
therefore, "Republicans should resist the reflex that all opposition
parties have, which is to oppose the stands of a president of the other
party because he is a member of the other party." In other words, yes
to war, whether by Democrats or Republicans.

The intellectual
wrangling, of course, is not happening in a vacuum; it almost never
does. Indeed, there is much politicking going on; intense deliberation
in Washington, political debates in London; defensive French
statements, and more. It seems that the war in Afghanistan is reaching
a decisive point, militarily in Afghanistan itself, and politically in
major Western capitals.

But why the sudden hoopla over Afghanistan? For after all, the bloody war has been grinding on for eight long years.

The
Taliban and various groups opposing the Kabul government and their
Western benefactors are gaining ground, not just in the southern and
eastern parts of Afghanistan. Daring Taliban attacks are now taking
place in the north as well, long seen as peaceful, thus requiring
little attention. On 26 August a roadside bomb hit the car of the chief
of the provincial Justice Department in the northern Kunduz province,
killing him, and sending shock waves through Kabul. The bloody message
was meant to echo as a political one: no one is safe, nowhere is safe.
Another attack was reported in the province of Laghman, in the east,
where 22 people, mostly civilians were killed. Among the dead were four
Afghan officials including the deputy chief of the National Directorate
of Security, Abdullah Laghmani. The irony is too obvious to state.

In
Washington, London and Paris politicians wish us to believe that they
are not unnerved by all of this. They exaggerated the significance of
the recent Afghani elections, attempting to once again underscore that
the "crucial" elections placed Afghanistan on a crossroads. Crossroads?
What does that even mean, in any practical terms? George Will, although
selective in his logic, was honest enough to mention that President
Hamid Karzai's "vice-presidential running mate is a drug trafficker."
Even US officials admit that the government they've created following
the war is corrupt, to say the least.

Richard Holbrooke, among
other foreign envoys "responsible for Afghanistan", told reporters in
Paris on 2 September that US officials have no preference among the
candidates, nor are they particularly interested in runoff elections,
but they wished to see a government that appoints "more efficient, less
corrupt ministers". It behooves those "responsible for Afghanistan" to
remember that inefficiency and corruption were the outcome of the very
policies they have so eagerly adopted in the country. No sympathy for
Karzai here, but it's unfair to point the finger at a feeble leader
whenever a Western strategy fumbles, as it has repeatedly.

Speaking
of strategies, what is the plan ahead? French Foreign Minister Bernard
Kouchner promised that foreign troops will stay put in Afghanistan
unless the country's security was ensured, reported Xinhua. In
practical terms, this means never, for how could security ever visit
that region as long as the strategy is hostage to two equally
destructive narratives -- the Senor/Wehner troop surges vs Will's
"offshore" strategy?

Hubris aside, Washington and London are
facing some difficult political and military decisions ahead. Top
officials in both capitals are using grim and somber language. US
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, responding to a call by the top US
general in Afghanistan for a fresh approach to the conflict, is
considering yet another troop increase as part of Obama's new Afghan
strategy.

The sense of urgency was invited by the detailed
report of the newly appointed General Stanley McChrystal, who maintains
that "success" was still possible, but a change of strategy is needed.
The report resulted in intense deliberation in Washington, highlighted
by grim press conferences involving the Pentagon's heavyweights,
including Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
over what to do about "Obama's war".

Speaking at the Pentagon,
Gates equivocated: "I don't believe that the war is slipping through
the administration's fingers. I absolutely do not think it is time to
get out of Afghanistan (but there remains) limited time for us to show
that this approach is working."

The details of the new Obama
strategy are still not very clear, but the commitment to the war is
still unquestionable, as expressed in a "major" 4 September speech by
Prime Minister Gordon Brown. "When the security of our country is at
stake we cannot walk away," said Brown, according to the BBC.

As
Brown was solemnly speaking about British security, NATO air strikes on
a pair of fuel tankers killed up to 90 people, according to Afghan
authorities.

Indeed, the situation in Afghanistan requires a fresh approach, although not the one George Will had in mind.