Well, apparently the Obama administration is going to release its new strategy for “victory” in Afghanistan — though I doubt they’ll use that word — next week, but the AP put out a story on it today that says the new plan will rely on Pakistan to fight the havens and dumb down U.S. expectations:
The Obama administration is close to announcing a redrawn strategy for a war in Afghanistan that the president says the United States is not winning, focusing on enlisting Pakistan in the fight against extremism and trimming U.S. expectations for military victory, administration, defense and intelligence officials said.
Well, this is the beginning of the end folks. “Trimming expectations” and “enlisting Pakistan in the fight” are code words for “exit strategy.” We’ve been hearing the rumblings of this for weeks from Obama’s allies on the left, but make no mistake, they have no stomach for this war — or any other Bush-initiated conflict, for that matter — and will look for excuses to reduce our commitment to a country we owe much.
We’re seeing the demonization of Karzai by this administration along the same lines as the under cutting of Nori al Maliki in Iraq during the dark days of 2006. And the defeatist language has become the narrative for all coverage of the conflict:
The White House expects to announce new objectives for the flagging war as soon as next week that place an onus on next-door Pakistan to contain extremism, defense and administration officials said Thursday.
The New York Times had two opposing Op/Eds this morning, one from Leslie Gelb and another from Fred and Kim Kagan and Max Boot, who’ve been in Afghanistan for the last week on a battlefield tour.
Mr. Obama needs to consider another path. Our strategy in Afghanistan should emphasize what we do best (containing and deterring, and forging coalitions) and downgrade what we do worst (nation-building in open-ended wars). It should cut our growing costs and secure our interests by employing our power more creatively and practically. It must also permit us and this is critical to focus more American resources and influence on the far more dire situation in Pakistan.
Why is it that war opponents care only about “stability” and care nothing for the Afghans themselves?
The Taliban are no exception. While most of them want to drive America out, they have no inherent interest in exporting terrorism. As nasty as the Taliban are, Americas vital interests do not require their exclusion from power in Afghanistan, so long as they dont support international terrorists.
I can’t believe I’m hearing this. Oh, the Taliban aren’t so bad as long as they’re not giving haven to al Qaeda..? Tell that to the Afghans who lived in terror for more than a decade under Taliban’s Hobbesian rule and who will again be subject to their Wahabbist dogma if they’re given a substantial stake in Afghan government.
And I love this:
President Obama has to ring Afghanistan with a coalition of neighbors to show the Taliban they have no place to seek succor, even after an American departure. The group would include China, India, Russia, NATO allies, and yes, Iran. They all share a considerable interest in stemming the spread of Afghan drugs and Islamic extremism.
This is like Biden’s straw man “rapid reaction force” to be stationed in Kuwait if (when) all goes to Hell in a hand basket after a putative U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Yeah, right. We’ll ask Iran to jump in and keep Taliban jack-booters from shooting burkha-shedding women in the soccer stadium.
Kagan, on the other hand, who’s actually over there and talks to military leaders, Soldiers/Marines and Afghans themselves, wonders what all the defeatism is all about:
It is odd that the Afghans felt it necessary to reassure American visitors that all was far from lost. It reflected the fact that even in a country where electricity and running water are scarce, word of the defeatist hysteria now gripping some in the American political elite has spread.
And the Kagan2/Boot also says the idea that we can plink bad guys from Predators after a withdrawal is bunk:
There are many who claim that a large-scale commitment isnt necessary. Some say we have no interest in making Afghanistan a functioning state — all that matters is preventing Al Qaeda from re-establishing safe havens, and we can do that by killing terrorist leaders with precision air strikes or covert raids.
The key question for those who advocate pulling back is this: Where will we get the intelligence to direct the raids? If we have few troops on the ground, we will have to rely on intercepted communications. But seven years into the fight, the terrorists have learned a thing or two about keeping their communications secret. The only way to get the intelligence we need is from the residents, and they wont provide it unless our troops stay in their villages to provide protection from Taliban retribution.
I’ve been saying recently that the best way to counter extremism in the tribal areas in Pakistan is a robust Afghan army and police — including intelligence forces. They speak the language, the share cultural and ethnic ties but they do not share sympathies. Leaving them would weaken us. As the Kagan2/Boot piece states, it’s time to gird our loins and fight to the finish — there are no half measures.
If we abandon them, we will become blind to one of the most dangerous threats to our security, and also hand our most determined enemies an enormous propaganda victory their biggest since 9/11.
Make no mistake: there is hard, costly fighting ahead in Afghanistan. But the fight is worth pursuing, and the odds of success are much better than they were in Iraq when we launched the forlorn hope known as the surge.
And make no mistake, the Obama administration (with the help of a Pentagon that wants to get back in the business of combined arms training for Fulda Gap battles) is looking for an expedient way out, and they’ll take the Euro line of “there’s nothing more we can do here” and blame Karzai and Pakistan as we pull the plug.
[BREAK — BREAK: We have an exciting live podcast interview today with a close friend and colleague Morgan Till. He’s a producer for the PBS News Hour program and is on assignment in Afghanistan. We’ll talk to him live at 1200 EDT today about his reporting in the Korengal Valley, patrols outside Bagram, time with PRTs and hanging with Leathernecks near Kandahar. Please join us.]
– Christian
I had not the stomach to finish this article. I want to throw-up on the president and his administration. This dishonors our fallen. I feel the president should move to Japan and follow their tradition with respect to great dishonoring of one’s self.
Complaints about Karzai not doing what had to be done, are legendary. Reporters seem to say the Afgani people have the will for the fight(unlike some of the Iraqi’s), but the Karzai government is incompetent and causing Afghanis to lose faith in the system. I’ll read the link you mentioned and wait for the cast.
There was a disturbance in the force, as if three thousand voices cried out for justice.
Afghanistan will fail again if troops withdraw too soon. I was under the impression most Afghans had guns, so why are they having problems keeping out the Taliban? Maybe it’s because Pakistan is keeping them well-supplied?
Asking Pakistan to help us while they are probably supplying arms is just too much to ask for. Even if we put every Predator drone on the border we might not stop the flow of weapons into Afghanistan. What’s next, the MacNamara line? Need an Iron Curtain between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In some cases not sure how more troops will help unless they are parcelled out efficiently. Going to the decentralization model of pushing out smaller outposts to the front line may improve coverage and net us loyalty of the Afghans (who’s loyal to someone hiding behind an FSB anyways?). I think after decentralizing one still needs to control the space in between outposts, which is trickier than it sounds…send UAVs. Once they lose the night and we own the day the war is half-won.
You seem to think that reporting your opinions as opposed to the facts is reporting the news. Obama is doing a way better job with Afghanistan.
If it wasn’t for Bush going into Iraq on a lie Afghanistan most likely wouldn’t as bad a shape as it is right now.
Also wasn’t it Bush who relied on Pakistan to fight the War on Terror and got no where fast but still gave them a blank check?
I maybe a Democrat but I’m all for this war and you’ll that most Democrats are in support of this war,because unlike Iraq it’s a war worth fighting.
Please sir don’t lump all Democrats in with Code Pink.
can’t believe I’m hearing this. Oh, the Taliban aren’t so bad as long as they’re not giving haven to al Qaeda..? Tell that to the Afghans who lived in terror for more than a decade under Taliban’s Hobbesian rule and who will again be subject to their Wahabbist dogma if they’re given a substantial stake in Afghan government.
Christian, you make it sound like the Afghan people are united in their love for us and their hatred of the Taliban. We’re outsiders. For this reason alone tribes in A’stan have opposed us from the moment we showed up. If we’re so loved by all for our benevolent saving the day, why do we have the difficulties that we do there? And as far as saving the Afghans from the evil Taliban, that’s not why we invaded. We went in to attack AQ and gave ourselves the mission of democratizing A’stan, even though every foreign nation who’s ever tried has failed. If saving the Afghan people was the mission, why didn’t we do it sooner?
Is a strong pro-western A’stan in our interests? Of course. But let’s be realistic about what we can do. Do you really expect that we can stay for years until the country loves us more than their Paki neighbors (many of whom are family)? How long will that take? Is it even possible? Expecting Pakistan to do what we want is equally ridiculous. They’ve had a big hand in shaping Afghan politics forever, and they’re not going to stop or do what we want because we say pretty please. Your idea of making A’stan safe from the Taliban and AQ depends on both them and Pakistan seeing eye to eye on the issue and agreeing to a situation to our benefit. Getting the Afghanis to make a united decision on anything is a task beyond our means. If you think any of this is possible anytime in the next decade, you’d do well to sell beachfront property in Arizona.
As a retired military I can understand the desire to win. But at what cost? We can not win in Afghanistan with out more troops than we have there now. And I am not talking about a few thousand more troops.
I do not believe we and I mean our country has the will power to stay there for ever. And that is what we would have to do.
I beleive we have a better option and that is to provide training and other aid to Afghanistan and let them do the fighting. After all it is there country and not ours.
We need to go after those who are a threat to our country whare ever they are in the world and not spend a lot of time in occupation of a country. That is a no win policy. We do not have the troops to do that. We would end up occupying more countries than we have military force to do.
I suggest we and other countries have a fast action force to go in and take out those who would do us harm and get out.
We can provide the training and other assistance to those countries that request our support. Instead of occupation which if you think about it, is counterproductive.
Just think about how we would react to our country being occupied. We would would resist it.
we wouldn’t have to read this if the 100,000 troops sent to invade Iraq had gone towards Afghanistan instead.
USA is broke, and owes China BILLION$$$$$$$$$$$.
Read the Art of War. Don’t go round fighting wars if you can’t afford to.
Let me remind you who are so willing to say we are dishonoring our soliders by leaving the field of battle. It is not the military but our civilian leaders we serve. We left Vietnam when we were told to.
How long do you think we can stay in Afghanistan, forever? The American people will stand for that.
“I can’t believe I’m hearing this. Oh, the Taliban aren’t so bad as long as they’re not giving haven to al Qaeda..? Tell that to the Afghans who lived in terror for more than a decade under Taliban’s Hobbesian rule and who will again be subject to their Wahabbist dogma if they’re given a substantial stake in Afghan government.“
Since when is out America’s job to go around policing the world? If you’re reason for us being in Afghanistan is because they have a crazy ideological government, then I can list about 50 countries that we should actively go to war with also. Do you support that?
We’re not the world’s police force. We’re not the ideology-police. If people want freedom from oppression, they should do as our forefathers did and FIGHT FOR IT THEMSELVES.
And as other commenters have said: Had our previous president not sent 160,000 US soldiers off to Iraq, Afghanistan (the country which actually had something to do with 9/11) would have been won.
The AQ-Taliban conflict is such a nasty one that the only proper way to eradicate it would be to bomb with N/B/C all of southern Afghanistan, the Afghan-Pak border and large parts of western Pakistan, specially Waziristan. No matter what kind of protection all those rats could find in the mountains, less than 1% would survive. But also a hell lot of civilian (civilian?) would die… ahem
One thing that NEVERS seems to be brought up is how Afghanistan is completely surrounded by nations “hostile” to the U.S. & to NATO. That also includes Pakistan. In order to stabilize victory we need to (a) stabilize Pakistan & place U.S. & NATO troops into Western Pakistan,whether the Pakis like it or not.(b) we need to occupy the Central Asian States of Kasakhstan,Tajikistan,Uzbekistan,Kyrgyzstan,
Turkmenistan,Azerbaijan,& Armenia.In addition to that we need to occupy Moldova & the Ukraine,& we need to drive Russia out of Georgia.© we need to “stabilize” Turkey with a “secular” government more friendly to the U.S.(d) we need to take down Iran & neutralize Russian & Chinese influence in the region.
You can cry in your milk over Afghanistan if you want to,but unless you have generals with the balls of Patton during WWII & MacArthur during the Korean War(both sacked by weak kneed politicians,& Patton possibly assassinated) who are willing to EXPAND the war to secure logistical lines of supply,we are totally screwed when these hostile nations throw up a blockade to prevent troop movements to & from Afghanistan. I mean,who are the kool-ade drinkers who can’t see this?
“Why is it that war opponents care only about “stability” and care nothing for the Afghans themselves?“
1)
The evilness of Taliban was not considered as a reason for war. The reason for war was their prolonged hospitality for UBL who still claimed innocence at that time.
2)
Cost efficiency. The same costs of the war in Afghanistan could achieve much more good in other places of the world.
3)
Delivery. The armed forces don’t deliver. They don’t achieve anything else but temporary effects.
4)
The Afghans can fight for themselves, their warlords are sitting in background and will face the Taliban if we leave.
It’s even somehow funny. We’re fighting the Taliban, the second-worst arch enemies of the Iranian theocrats.
Can you define for me the conditions that constitute “victory”?
Max,
You’re delusional. Cite any well known Democrat who says anything about staying committed to the Afghans and the war there…
TB et al…
I have a strong personal affection for the Afghans because of my two embeds there. I’ve been all over and at the end of the day, I feel like we sort of owe Afghanistan the same attention we gave the Iraqis (and I think that attention is more deserved by the Afghans than the Iraqis). They definately like us more than the Paks, by far. Of course I can’t speak for ALL of them, but everywhere I went I never met the same kind of moral relativism that I did in Iraq. The Afghans I met (from jundi to elder) knew we were there to help them.
What is “victory?” Well, I’m sorry folks, but we broke it, we gotta fix it. The only way terrorism won’t return to Afghanistan is a functioning democracy with the rule of law. If that means we have to be there a while, then so be it. “Containing” terrorism with a “regional strategy” is a cop out from people who know damned good and well that no one else will step up to the plate other than us.
I’ll admit, I’m being ruled here by my emotions a bit. But at the end of the day, defeating the Taliban and keeping them from terrorizing the Afgan people BECAME the mission, bcs by default, they come back, so does AQ…
I’ll take the incoming salvos like “you seem to think reporting opinions instead of the facts is reporting the news” from Max and his ilk. But it’s a fact that the Obama admin isn’t serious about this war and if what we’re reporting turns out to be the case, he will lose it.
“The only way terrorism won’t return to Afghanistan is a functioning democracy with the rule of law.“
So they get your preferred form of government whether they like it or not — and face it, they don’t like it.
And there’s this small business of the opium crop…
The Afghans could certainly use some outside help. But it’s really hard to see occupying troops as part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
As for strengthening the Aghan army: you have to remember that they’re just another faction. Or several factions.
It’s all about the politics and history, and Obama seems to have a much better handle on this than the military.
I try to understand where Christian is coming from;he was there I wasn’t. The way I see it, we “at least” owe Afganistan the same quality of time and focus we gave Iraq.
We were attacked from Afganistan and the Taliban leadership are married to Alqueda, so we have to kill the Taliban leadership. The Pakistani military is married to terrorist’s to fight the Indian’s so we can’t depend on Pakistan too much either. We have to stay and fight, I just have not heard anyone in the military or adminstration say how yet, which is frustrating.
Christian I was referring to your common hard working Democrats. You base you opinions on the elected officials. I have many friends who Democrats as well as Republicans and all of them are united on defeating AQ and the Taliban.
They may differ on social and economic issues but when it comes to avenging the 9/11 attacks they are of one voice.
You sir need to remember that a lot of the stuff you’re accusing Obama of are things that Bush started.
Please sir base your reporting on facts and not a one sided opinion.
I did enjoy this debate and I hope to read more about the war there.
Christian you’re a very talented writer but I just would like to see more facts about whats actually going on there and less about how you think Obama is trying to cut and run. I do believe Obama wants to win this war but it’s going to take more than just firepower to win this war. It’s going to take winning the “Hearts and Minds” of the Afghans. You of all people should know that since you have been there and I haven’t.
“apparently the Obama administration is going to release its new strategy for “victory” in Afghanistan — though I doubt they’ll use that word“
No, we prefer the term “successful mission” over “endless struggle for some form of victory that calls for total subjecation of the enemy.” Much easier to sleep at night.
While you’re carping on the current administration, stretch your memory back to 2001, when Pres Bush had the Taliban leadership in the White House. That was when the idea of stretching an oil pipeline through their country was popular. And then please STFU about whether we ought to be dealing with the Taliban or not.
Liberals and Progressives, like Obama, aren’t anti-war — they’re just on the other side.
Obama’s recent treatment of Churchill shows us what he thinks of Western values — he thinks they are just so much racist, colonialist claptrap. Deep down he believes we were wrong to invade Afghanistan — he lied on the campaign trail so he could slam Iraq and not sound weak.
As with domestic politics, Obama campaigned as a centrist and is governing as his true self — a hard left ideologue who loathes America.
Obama’s gut instinct after 9/11 really was that America needed to reflect on why our policies cause so much hatred. He’s written of his admiration for the beauty of Islam and traditional, pre-modern societies– just as he’s written of his loathing of the modern American suburbs.
And do we all have to copy Obama now and pronounce Pakistan “Pock-e-stahn”. Does anything show more cultural weakness and timidity than the affectation of foreign pronunciations? Shall we demand the rest of the world pronounce Atlanta, Georgia with a southern drawl — or say “Brooklyn” with it’s proper regional accent.
I personally demand the world pronounce Wisconsin with the the nasal inflection of my ancestors!
I read this piece & I see innocuous statements interpreted in the worst possible way + reading an op-ed column as administration policy. This is far below the typical for this website. The fact is, no matter how much Christian or any other contributor may like the man, McCain lost big & is likely too old to get another chance.
“demonize Karzai”? Has anyone ever heard anything good about his administration?
Try using a little more impartiality Christian.…it suits you much better.
This is all about Pakistan. A stable, functioning Afghanistan can’t exist without a stable, functioning Pakistan, and as it is, even our most precise, velvet-gloved Predator strikes are infuriating the Pakistani people and radicalizing their military. If backing off in Afghanistan helps prevent an Islamicist coup in Pakistan, that’s what we have to do. Once the political situation in Pakistan is more stable, then we can work with our Pakistani allies to clear the Taliban out of Waziristan and work on re-building Afghanistan.
The problem with saying trust the Pakistan government to handle things is their weak and losing control of their own territory to extremists. The military also holds the real power in Pakistan and the intelligence service has ties with terrorists. I watched a good Frontline program on Afganistan on Frontline.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warbriefing/view/
Can anyone tell me who has ‘won’ in Afghanistan…ever? Not the British.….not the Russians.…..
Jim,
Pull your head out of Rush Limbaugh’s ass, please. Your brain has been addled by the excess narcotics floating around in there.
I realise that you have do as he tells you, him being the real leader of your party and movement, but could you at least have enough respect for yourself and us to not be so obvious about it?
This is Christian’s site and he can express any opinion he wants. I love how any criticism of Obama starts the whining and crying. Bush did this, Cheney did that.
The key point is this, Obama, after saying Iraq was lost, said over and over and over on the campaign trail the the “real” war on terror is in A’stan. Now JUST 50 DAYS into his administration he is looking for ways to get out.
The reason is simple, the quicker he gets out the more credible it is to say “Bush left it unworkable” the longer he stays the more it becomes “his” war.
He is a coward. Please read Michael Barone’s column about how Obama operates. It is childish “if it works I did it, if it doesn’t it is someone else’s fault” But what do you expect from such a lightweight who can’t even introduce a potential cabinet member without his TELEPROMPTER.
OK leftwing crazies have at me I criticised your god!!
very few people have the courage of our founding forefathers; our forefathers were also lucky that the british were thousands of miles away and have a relatively small land army. Even then, we needed the french to help us.
It’s not so easy to fight an enemy that’s just next door, that has fully infiltrated your society and is funded by saudi petrodollars and American defense aid.
The karzai gov’t is weak and corrupt b/c we were busy in Iraq building up the Iraqi gov’t. All we have to do is build the strength of the Afghan gov’t just like we did in Iraq, and the war will be won. As for the paks, they seem to be permanently enthralled with jihadism; simply throwing money at the problem or expecting them to “help us” without screwing us won’t work.
Obama is really taking a realpolitik approach to this — I’m surprised, it runs counter to not only his campaign rhetoric, but also to his party’s history of Wilsonian idealism.
What is the US objective in Afghanistan? A stable democracy? A client state of the US? A religious or ideological war? How do we know when we have ‘won’?
There is not a purely military solution, and after more than 7 years in Afghanistan it time to recognize that.
I could go on about what a silly diversion and waste of troops, resources, and time invading Iraq was, and how that weakened any effort in Afghanistan.
No one including the commanders on the ground think that there is a purely military solution in Afganistan, but before you can deal with an expanding insurgency in the country, you need to secure the area, which calls for an increased build up of troops, at least initially. We have to take care to realize that while we have been in Afganistan for years, troops have been undertaking an “economy of force operation”, with limited resources, which has allowed for ground that was gained to be lost. It’s probably going to take at least as long to get back to where we were and longer to get to where we are supposed to be.
Bobbymike you have added nothing useful to the debate. All you’ve done is shown that you’re ignorant and possibly racist.
Obama is not anybody’s God and to think such a thing is laughable. You really need to either put some useful into the debate or just be quiet.
I’m shocked. Is this really the USA talking?
It amazes me how words like ‘good taliban’,‘bad taliban’ are being bandied about. And the total shunning of responsibility, to leave the Afghan population at the mercy of thugs and murderers is baffling.And the talk of ‘victory’. My word!
’With great power comes great responsibility’. I wonder what that means.
The US was never going to win in Afghanistan, right from the start Bush, Cheny and Gates limited the footprint because everyone knows the US military isn’t up to the job.
All the chest beating about no half measures and rants about firepower just cover up the fact that it is so fat and lazy that it cant even beat an agrarian society with the population of Nepal.
Afghanistan has never been more than a collection of tribes. The country is the result of another failed nation building following WWI. The age of total war, or absolute victory ended in WWII and we have yet to successfully build a nation (Germany and Japan don’t count because they already obviously had infrastructure. It’s not our job, you can’t fight wars for other people, and this was never going to work.
They have no faith in their government and the Taliban is resurgent. We have a national crisis and are low on funds, there is no reason we should get in a quagmire and this thinking will only lead to a rehashing of Vet Nam. Russians, British, Arabs, have never been able to do what we are trying to do successfully, yet shoot an bombing with newer technology seems to have some of you fooled into believing we can override and entire culture. They have to want it and they don’t, so we can’t give it to them. This isn’t about our success, or who we think is bad, this is about their will to make their country work and it’s just not there.
This article isn’t about whats best for Afghanistan, which may be the silence of stabilization, but about our bruised ego’s. It’s over and if they want a new government, they will have to build it if it is to survive. EX: America.
Nooooo. Who will supply the intelligence sect’s with laundered money from narcotics smuggling if Afghanistan falls under China’s influence?
Afghanistan’s national motto should be:
“Afghanistan — toppling an empire every generation going back to when we first took to these here hills.