Obama’s Afghanistan Dilemma; UPDATE: Once in 70 Days …
BY: NCViking
Several weeks ago, a report was released with a recommendation for what should be done in Afghanistan by General Stanley McChrystal. The report revealed an urgent need for increased troops and possible nation building in the troubled country.
McChrystal says emphatically: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”
But he repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.
He provides extensive new details about the Taliban insurgency, which he calls a muscular and sophisticated enemy that uses modern propaganda and systematically reaches into Afghanistan’s prisons to recruit members and even plan operations.
McChrystal’s assessment is one of several options the White House is considering. His plan could intensify a national debate in which leading Democratic lawmakers have expressed reluctance about committing more troops to an increasingly unpopular war. Obama said last week that he will not decide whether to send more troops until he has “absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be.”
The report is right. Without a strong, stable and functioning government with little corruption and homegrown security forces to maintain control, Afghanistan is doomed. There is really no way around it. This puts the President’s feet squarely to the fire, possibly disrupting his full court press on Health Care. Obama has always stated a belief that this was “the just war”, while on the other hand speaking out against war. Talk is one thing, but action is quite another. The administration has been indecisive up to this point, which is frustrating people in the military and the Pentagon.
At the White House, top Obama advisers insist the administration remains committed to its long-stated goal for the war in Afghanistan — disrupting al-Qaida and denying the terrorist organization safe haven on either side of the nation’s porous border with Pakistan.
But they remain unconvinced that sending many more U.S. troops to Afghanistan is the way to do it.
How are we going to succeed in Afghanistan without increasing troops? It’s not possible. So why is the Obama administration being indecisive on this subject and why was it hardly mentioned during his Sunday media blitz? These are good questions that are not being asked by the mainstream media. During his Sunday television interviews, Obama did not focus on saving Afghanistan at all and hardly mentioned the Taliban, the al Qaeda ally that wants to take Afghanistan back and gave safe-haven to training camps that directly tie to the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. Is the administration considering abandoning Afghanistan security in favor of just border attacks and drone strikes in Pakistan?
From the BBC:
He may have decided he admires Gen McChrystal’s thoroughbred and that it is worth hitching a buggy on the back. If so, he will find it tough to sell the general’s policy to a party and public reluctant to see more men and women sent to bolster an Afghan government accused of election fraud. It is my hunch that he has strategically adopted his current cautious, skeptical tone in order to better sell the policy further down the road. But it is only a hunch and it could be wrong.
The president could decide that Gen McChrystal’s [horse] does not deserve a cart and put it out to pasture. But then he would be faced with accusations of cutting and running and undermining the very man he appointed to come up with a fresh perspective.
After seeing this report, if he chooses the status quo or changes focus to strictly direct attacks on suspected al Qaeda targets, he would indeed be cutting and running. The only way to make sure troops come home and al Qaeda and the Taliban goes away is to eliminate the threat and help create a stable, secure region where it cannot be allowed to sprout again. Only then will we have victory.
UPDATE “Once in 70 days.”
Picked up this little tidbit from Michelle Malkin’s website: “Once in 70 days.” That’s how many times President Obama has talked to General Stanley McChrystal. Nice.
- Economic Crisis of Confidence - February 8th, 2010
- Cato Analysis and Fact Check of SOTU Speech - January 28th, 2010
- State of the Union Déjà vu? - January 26th, 2010
- Purple Predestination - January 25th, 2010
- Prince Composes New Vikings Fight Song (Oh Yes He Did!) - January 22nd, 2010
This is a well writen piece on the dilema that faces our President. I thought they already had a plan. Or at least that is what they made the public believe. The fact is that the head General on the ground has told the President what we need to do to win. That should be the end of discussion. It worries me that our President made a statement earlier saying that he doesn’t even like the word victory when speaking about Afghanistan. Well if we’re not there for Victory then we need to pull out, but all this political B.S. is getting in the way of what really matters and that is our troops on the ground. Before we know it this will turn into Vietnam. Or has it?
Actually, the war is un-winnable no matter how many troops you send in, for three very good reasons:
1) Afghan govt will never be corruption free
2) Afghan troops will never be strong against a determined foe
3) You can’t kill the Taliban: they will either meld back into the population, or they will flee to Pakistan
(btw: why didn’t Bush fix this before he left — if it was so easy? )
If all you are going to accomplish is simply kill more Taliban, then see (3) above. Soon you won’t find them.
I know. You guys just want to structure a sentence with cut-and-run if Obama doesn’t do what you prescribe — fool hardy as it might be.
What the US needs to do in Afghanistan is
A) rebuild it’s economy
B) test the Afghan gov’t constantly to make sure it has eliminated corruption. Arrest gov’t officials if the Afghan’s wont
C) provide education to both men and women, breaking their strict moral codes
D) provide very high pay to Afghan soldiers who achieve significant leadership and strategic objectives
It is only my transforming Afghanistan that you eliminate the Taliban. The education thing is very important long term.
This may all translate into more troops, or more troops in the short run. The question you should have asked is more troops to do what?
I don’t disagree with much that Mike says on this, but will add:
(1) Our government is NOT corruption free, or is any other world government. It is not possible to eliminate all corruption.
(2) Our troops, although the most powerful in the world, will never be able to completely repel a determined foe using asymmetrical tactics
(3) No one can completely wipe out a movement without killing and/or converting all.
We do not need to put in place a Jeffersonian Democracy or even a western-styled one. All we need to do is leave the country in better shape than it was when it was invaded. In that case, we could be “done”, but I think the goal is finish better than where we are.
If Obama leaves and the country collapses (because of his policy, not because the Congress cuts off his funds, like was done in Vietnam), then it is his failure to complete it. He can not leave something, even if he did not start it, and blame someone else for his actions. Stipulation: Bush had a successful war in Afghanistan and several years of set up, but then the wheels came off. Over all, his record is a mixed bag, so it is not either a failure or a success. Obama has a chance to do better.
I am not sure what the US can do to “rebuild” the Afghan economy. What was there before even the Taliban? It was agriculture (lots of opium) and herding. Not exactly much to rebuild… so remold might be a better thought. Would a tribal country be capable of coming together to become a technology based country? It would be tough to see happen.
I can see why Realists have elected to go with strongmen in the past. It allowed the stability that was needed so that the US could carry on with agendas that were manageable. Since we are also dealing with real people, it is difficult for a caring nation to throw whole populations under the bus. That is a huge failing of the Bush policy that everyone wants to be free… there are a ton of people who don’t want the majority of people to be free. Can we over come this huge hurdle?
Buying loyalty such as the miliary seems like a decent idea, except when it is not built upon strong moral charater, like most of those in our military forces, then you run into the most powerful and rich folks in your country are the ones with the guns, and naturally, they will want to supress the masses because power corrupts, and giving money to someone like that will make things bad. They could be really bad, but is it worse then what will happen if we don’t? I don’t know.
Needless to say, there is no silver bullet, and no easy answer. We have a responsibility to leave the country in better shape than it was when we invaded. The question is, when does that allow us to leave and claim victory?
Obama has always stated (in the campaign trail) that he wanted to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. He saw Afghanistan as the real problem for US security. I agree with him on this. I doubt he wants to get out.
I can agree with you (WCW) on your points. We are not 100% corruption free. We are both likely to agree that the corruption in Afghanistan is several deep, ingrained, systemic, and leads to mistrust of any central government.
As for Bush’s record in Afghanistan, any invading force has the initial advantage. It is once they are in place, and sitting ducks, that the real test starts. Look at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Nobody calls any phase of that a success. I would credit Bush with dislodging the Taliban gov’t and dismantling AQ training camps reasonable initial successes, but far from complete.
The US must rebuild the economy. It could pay money for crops it wants to support and it could build factories that produce certain goods: clothing, furniture, ore extraction.
A radical idea is for the US and Europe to actually buy opium at above market prices. It could choke supplies to Europe and inflate prices. It should then offer still higher prices for other crops.
Good discussion. We are mostly on the same page.
You might be right about Obama not wanting to get out, but he will be under tremendous pressure from his left flank to pull out, to reduce our footprint, or at the very least – not to increase the number of troops, if necessary. It will be a difficult choice, and all the decisions are wrong for one reason for another. He will get criticized either way. We do disagree about Afghanistan vs. Iraq, but that is a discussion for another post. In short, both were US security problems. Neither was more or less important, and they were signicantly different.
I don’t know how well the Afghan people, stained by constant war, bombarded with radical religious types (Taliban), and ingrained with the tribal nature can ever adapt to the modern world. It is like Adrian Peterson… you can’t necessarily stop them (from being who they are), you just have to hope to contain them (keep their focus local and their Taliban repressed).
Paying a subsidy for their non-opium crops might have a negative effect on world markets, but I have no expertise on that. The purchasing of Opium at higher amounts is interesting. Has it been tried anywhere else? Columbia?
I don’t think Obama cares about the left. He’s made this known for some time. Obama has a very good political calculus, and he knows that he can hold the center. That Obama is left is largely a position held by right talking heads. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton all moved to the center.
Paying higher prices would work only if you can control 80% of the market. The US could secure 95%+ in Afghanistan, but probably not in Columbia. It can interdict and/or bomb the competition.
America went through a very similar transformation between 1820 and 1850. I would say that America was rural, agrarian, and divided largely by religion. Most could not read/write, few could do basic arithmetic. You were trained for your profession and that was it. Certainly we were not tribal, but tribes are basically extended families, which America was. Almost no one wondered more than 30 miles from where they were born. You can probably bring objections to this description and I accept that broadly America could be described in these terms. We had democracy if you could trust the votes.
What transformed America, and what is likely to transform Afghanistan, is commerce. As some people become successful, others follow, learn, and emulate. Education will be necessary, and as people get education they see beyond their valley, their tribe, their ethnic group.
Afghanistan has some built in problems. Racism between competing tribes is systemic. Still, I think that this is the only way out of Afghanistan.
How appropriate an article
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/23/afghanistan.strategy/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
It says many of the things we said here. It does describe Obama’s strategic choices as placed “in a box.” It also emphasizes the economic development, etc…
I am sure whatever teh US does, whether under an R or a D administration will never be as bold as we’ve described.
Trackbacks
Should I Surge or Should I Go … | The Great Illuminator
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 32 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 14 hours, 57 minutes, 46 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags