War is Obama's undoing...

[rlogan]

I had hope for Obama, but during the election saw his irrational stance regarding an accelleration of war in Afghanistan while "sort of" opposing Bush in Iraq.

If you are paying attention, Afghanistan was a wrong principle in the first place - overthrowing the Taliban instead of zeroing in on Bin Laden. We've retained that stupid objective and Obama, in his "new" plan for Afghanistan has... more troops and no benchmarks.

But in addition, Pakistan is falling apart and we're sort of on the side of the government but sort of against them too since they are funding the militants we are supposedly fighting. But we are funding them too - bribing them to use their roads to fight a war we should not be fighting in the first place. We are our enemy's main source of funding.

War has extended into Pakistan, at any rate, and we are told without yet more build-up we'll fail there too, in our objectives that have no specific benchmarks in the first place. But they stem from the original stupid premise of overthrowing the Taliban, since tye would not "hand over" Bin Laden.

Well we have been there for the better part of a decade now and we have not handed Bin Laden over to ourselves, and furthermore he's in Pakistan where that government will not do so either. Neither government had that capacity, and nor do we.

Unless Obama decides to end this whole self-perpetuating "war on extremism" (war on whoever fights our army where we send it to occupy) he is facing a pretty dire set of circumstances for his presidency.

Our economy is crumbling at the same time his generals are saying we need major troop escalations - he's actually considering 70,000 more! - in order to achieve... nothing that can be articulated coherently.

We will fail in land wars in Asia for the same reasons everyone else in history has. Obama had a chance to start his presidency by ending the whole debacle, but unfortunately it looks to me that he actually has the possibility of extending us even deeper into the mess than Bush did. We'll still be occupying Iraq, but losing a much bigger war than Bush fought in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

[sohy]

I worry about that too. I'm so tired of seeing so much money and human resources being thrown away pver hopeless causes.

[David B]

Yeah it's pretty clear why Afghanistan was a bad idea in the first place.

As was building the Taliban to fight the Russians in the first place.

But to play devil's advocate for a moment.

Say we just got out. What then?

The disadvantages of the past and present policy there are obvious.

But what, if any, are the disadvantages of not continuing the present policy? For the Afghans, for the region as a whole, for America (and Britain, who have been with them all the way), for the world as a whole?


David

[Harry Bosch]

Yeah it's pretty clear why Afghanistan was a bad idea in the first place.

As was building the Taliban to fight the Russians in the first place.

But to play devil's advocate for a moment.

Say we just got out. What then?
The disadvantages of the past and present policy there are obvious.

But what, if any, are the disadvantages of not continuing the present policy? For the Afghans, for the region as a whole, for America (and Britain, who have been with them all the way), for the world as a whole?


David The Taliban would take over and install on of the most brutal anti-woman, anti-science, and anti human rights regimes in history.

[Free Thinkr]

It's a tough issue, IMO. First of all, it's arguable that we have a responsibility there. Secondly, there's the matter of political feasibility. I don't know that a complete withdrawal is politically possible.

[PostMortem]

The Taliban would take over and install on of the most brutal anti-woman, anti-science, and anti human rights regimes in history.

Heck, the current Afghan government is trying hard to 'out Taliban the Taliban':

"Ottawa complains to Afghan ambassador over rape law" (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/612522)
Canadian officials called in Afghanistan's ambassador to express "deep concern" with a law that would make it illegal for Shiite women to refuse to have sex with their husbands.

The proposed law would allegedly forbid Shiite women to leave their homes without permission of their husbands or gain custody of their children.

:mad:

[sohy]

What about Pakistan and the nukes? How does that fit into the picture and reason for this escalation? Does anyone really think we can change things over there? Is this the start of some huge world war over there? If we're going to spend all this money, I'd like to see us get out of a few of the countries that we've been in for decades. Where does it end? When do we collapse under the strain?

Sometimes I think Obama has way too much self confidence or is listening way too much to the wrong people.

[rlogan]

Say we just got out. What then?



We don't have the right, nor the ability to govern them. The costs of that hubris are that we have created generations of jihadists against us while changing nothing much except making the area around Kabul a seat of financial corruption.

The do-gooders are so blind to all the innocents we have killed, the innocent people we've imprisoned by paying bribes to anyone who will point a finger at a neighbor. The heros we have made out of extremists. Because there is nothing more heroic than the nationalist ousting the foreign occupier.

So "what then" is that our killing of innocents stops. Our lavishing of money directly to our own enemy stops. The resources we spent can now be used to fight cancer and heart disease and provide better health care etc etc.

And those are things that we actually can do.

The question seems to also invoke the mission creep that is so insideous. Remember that it was the aftermath of 9/11 that got us there - not some fuzzy-headed notion about promoting democracy or whatever.

If you had to debate that up front: "Let's invade country XYZ to forcibly institute a government..." You would obviously be arguing for a war crime. That is why something like Iraq or Afghanistan is attended with "national defense" as a first principle instead.

Once you are there this bigotry seems to be automatic though - how can country XYZ be expected to govern without us? All of the propositions are not how people can and do generally succeed on their own, but these ridiculous assertions it would be genocide and chaos without our infinite wisdom and gentle hand.

Afghanistan was not a threat in the first place. It was our occupation of Saudi Arabia, our wars on behalf of Israel, etc. that gave rise to Al Qaeda. Ending that whole world-domination paradigm is how you minimize threats like that. Take people's attentions off the foreign occupier and onto their neighbor's goats encroaching on their garden.

[premjan]

The problem with this place is that the Muslims in e.g. Pakistan need to be motivated to kick the Taliban's out of at least Pakistan. It is more of a motivational task at hand. Defeating the Taliban without dumping a nuke on them is a thankless task.

[rlogan]

What about Pakistan and the nukes? How does that fit into the picture and reason for this escalation? Does anyone really think we can change things over there? Is this the start of some huge world war over there? If we're going to spend all this money, I'd like to see us get out of a few of the countries that we've been in for decades. Where does it end? When do we collapse under the strain?

Sometimes I think Obama has way too much self confidence or is listening way too much to the wrong people.

Well, he ran under a formula many think a requirement - absolute fealty to Israel, and a blustering "tough on terror" posturing that was somehow different from Bush. Some empty rhetoric about change and hope.

I wondered if, once in office, he would see the escalation into Pakistan was a trap that would doom his legacy. I thought he might be smart enough that he would deduce the problem is not escalating the stupidity of Afghanistan into Pakistan, but instead to reverse the original bad decision.

But it would have required that he reverse his election promise to escalate Afghanistan. The best time to do that is now. Not two years from now or more when it will look like a defeat instead of a change in administrations.

[sohy]

[QUOTE=rlogan] I wondered if, once in office, he would see the escalation into Pakistan was a trap that would doom his legacy. I thought he might be smart enough that he would deduce the problem is not escalating the stupidity of Afghanistan into Pakistan, but instead to reverse the original bad decision.

I guess I was hoping for that too. I pretty much agree with your other points. I have tried to be open minded and understand Obama's reasoning but for the life of me, I can't. I fear that the guy is allowing his military advisers too much influence.

It's very discouraging to see us escalating over there.

[premjan]

Hopefully he is at least not stupid enough to keep it up if it becomes bad politics to do so.

[sohy]

Hopefully he is at least not stupid enough to keep it up if it becomes bad politics to do so.

I read yesterday, possibly in the NYTimes, that everyone involved is looking for a exit strategy, and the escalation will be very short lived. This was supposed to be something leaked from an insider. I hope this turns out to be the case.

[premjan]

This is my feeling too - he was looking for an agreement with moderate Taliban earlier.

[4321lynx]

What about Pakistan and the nukes? How does that fit into the picture and reason for this escalation? Does anyone really think we can change things over there? Is this the start of some huge world war over there? If we're going to spend all this money, I'd like to see us get out of a few of the countries that we've been in for decades. Where does it end? When do we collapse under the strain?

Sometimes I think Obama has way too much self confidence or is listening way too much to the wrong people.

Well, he ran under a formula many think a requirement - absolute fealty to Israel, and a blustering "tough on terror" posturing that was somehow different from Bush. Some empty rhetoric about change and hope.

I wondered if, once in office, he would see the escalation into Pakistan was a trap that would doom his legacy. I thought he might be smart enough that he would deduce the problem is not escalating the stupidity of Afghanistan into Pakistan, but instead to reverse the original bad decision.

But it would have required that he reverse his election promise to escalate Afghanistan. The best time to do that is now. Not two years from now or more when it will look like a defeat instead of a change in administrations.


The stupidity was the Cheney/Bush attack on Iraq, at Israel's bidding, before finishing Afghanistan. You had to go after alqaeda after 9/11, & the Taliban were sheltering them. After all they fought the Russians together, with US help.

Now the Taliban are "resurgent" ie at the moment they are winning. They were allowed to grow in strength & numbers & to spread into the always friendly tribal areas of Pakistan. You have to back the Paki govt or take away their nukes, can't allow those to fall into Taliban's hands or they will give them to al qaeda. Big problem as Pakistan looks ready for a Civil War. It, rather than Iran or North Korea is the danger point.

[rlogan]

You had to go after alqaeda after 9/11, & the Taliban were sheltering them.

The Taleban couldn't have handed Bin Laden over if they wanted to.

Under the exact same logic, we were sheltering Bin Laden ourselves after we occupied Afghanistan. We really need to end this illogical rationale that it was OK to overthrow the Taleban because they did not hand over Bin Laden.

It is what still drives this stupid war. Here is a very timely piece:

http://original.antiwar.com/solomon/2009/04/06/af-pak-escalation-may-be-democrats-undoing/


A report from the Carnegie Endowment began this year with the stark conclusion that “the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency’s momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban.”


The point of this article too is that the war will be Obama's undoing.

Over the weekend, the Sunday Times of London reported that U.S. drone attacks along the Afghan-Pakistani border on Saturday killed “foreign militants” and “women and children” – while Pakistani officials asserted that “American drone attacks on the border … are causing a massive humanitarian emergency.” The newspaper says that “as many as 1 million people have fled their homes in the Tribal Areas to escape attacks by the unmanned spy planes as well as bombings by the Pakistani army.”

This is standard catastrophic impact of a counterinsurgency war. In short, as former Kennedy administration official William Polk spells out in his recent book Violent Politics, the key elements are in place for the U.S. war in Afghanistan to fail on its own terms while heightening the death and misery on a large scale.

Afghanistan and Pakistan will be a huge disaster for Obama if he continues escalation. After this escalation fails, and produces a humanitarian disaster of catastrophic proportions - at the same time Iraq remains occupied and our economy continues to falter...

can't be good.

[Schneibster]

I don't think anyone in Europe really wants to see Afghanistan fall to the Taliban. But I think the big problem is across the border in Pakistan. And I don't think it's any accident that both the Taliban and al Qaeda are now operating there. It's where the nukes are.

The Pakistanis have a hard choice to make, and it's coming soon. When they start talking about "trust," watch out. That's the time to hold their feet to the fire. And they are (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/asia/08pstan.html?hp). Right now. If we walk away, we're fucked, and a bunch of other people along with us. They'll never respect us again in this lifetime.

This is hard. But that's how it is out there.

[rlogan]

I don't think anyone in Europe really wants to see Afghanistan fall to the Taliban. But I think the big problem is across the border in Pakistan. And I don't think it's any accident that both the Taliban and al Qaeda are now operating there. It's where the nukes are.

The Pakistanis have a hard choice to make, and it's coming soon. When they start talking about "trust," watch out. That's the time to hold their feet to the fire. And they are (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/asia/08pstan.html?hp). Right now. If we walk away, we're fucked, and a bunch of other people along with us. They'll never respect us again in this lifetime.

This is hard. But that's how it is out there.

Hi Schneibster. I respectfully submit your post demonstrates exactly what the problem is.

You have extremely vague ideas. "If we walk away we're fucked".

What does this mean in concrete terms? I see exaxtly what we are doing there:

- creating our own enemy (see article: troop presence is Taleban/Al Qaeda recruiting bonanza)

- funding our own enemy (payments to use roads, etc)

- Killing countless innocents

- Creating refugee crisis

- Bankrupting ourselves


And so you support all of these things, defacto, by just vague handwaving about how we need to "do something" or "we're fucked"


Why do you support all of these things?

And no, if you actually read the article you would see that Europe is not diving into this like the USA is. It is increasingly becoming a USA "alone" affair as the article points out)

[premjan]

By all accounts, Swat is doing OK since the Taliban incursion there, although there was one flogging of a girl seen in public with an unrelated male, before the agreement was signed with the Pakistan government on instituting sharia courts. The severe hardline Taliban is an Afghan phenomenon whereas the Pakistani Pashtun may also call themselves Taliban but are somewhat softened by the fact that hardline Islam is not popular in Pakistan. Our best bet is in letting the Afghan Taliban savage Pakistani society to the extent that they actually develop some spine and self-identity and initiate a backlash against their barbaric Islamic brothers. If the worm turns then Afghanistan will stabilize in a short time, because Pakistan with political will = severe Taliban flushed out of Pakistan.

[HinduWoman]

Premjan, TV channels in India just now broadcast statements by the Taliban. The Taliban says they refuse to abide by the agreement they signed with Pakistan.

Let us see what happens.

[sohy]

I realize that the situation is dire in Pakistan and it's not so great in Afghanistan. I just don't see how our being there is going to change things. Both of these countries are extremely corrupt and we can't reliably trust anyone that we are trying to support. We don't seem to have much support from the citizens of those two countries either. This is especially true of Pakistan.

I've read accounts of American soldiers saying that if we stay in the area for 100 years, it will quickly revert back to what it was after we leave. History gives us lots of evidence for that belief.

We don't have much support from other countries in this little endeavor, and our presence continues to be used as an effective recruiting tool for extremists. This escalation seems like very flawed policy to me. If we get out soon and something productive results, I'll be happy to admit I was wrong. I'm sick and tired of the US trying to police the world, especially without support from our allies.

[Barefoot Bree]

Amen, sistah!!!

I've never really understood why we're involved in the Middle East. Oh, I know the history, and I know the arguments, but they never really made a compelling case to me. All we are really accomplishing in the final analysis is stirring shit up and making the next generation of enemies.

[boneyard bill]

Yeah it's pretty clear why Afghanistan was a bad idea in the first place.

As was building the Taliban to fight the Russians in the first place.

But to play devil's advocate for a moment.

Say we just got out. What then?

The disadvantages of the past and present policy there are obvious.

But what, if any, are the disadvantages of not continuing the present policy? For the Afghans, for the region as a whole, for America (and Britain, who have been with them all the way), for the world as a whole?


David

The essential problem is that we can leave now and put up with the embarrassment and disgrace of another failed conflict, or we wait until we are forced out and face the embarrassment and disgrace not only of defeat, but of ignominious defeat. The Taliban can only be defeated by an Afghan government. We cannot do it. To defeat the Taliban, we must engage in nation-building. To build an Afghan nation, we must first engage in counter-insurgency warfare. What does that take? What resources are needed?

If you consult the US Army's own counter-insurgency manual (written under the supervision of General David Petreas), we need a soldier for approximately every 50 civilians in a counter-insurgency situation. Afghanistan's population is roughly 32 million. That means we need 640,000 troops to conduct counter-insurgency warfare. The Afghan army is somwhere in the area of 70,000 troops and there about 35,000 from NATO. So we still need about 535,000 troops. That's roughly the size of the entire US Army including cooks and dishwashers. It's about what we had in Vietnam at the peak of our commitment there.

And that's just for starters. It doesn't even count the economic aid, the civilian infrastructure, etc. Nor does it even guarantee victory. That's just the minimum requirement.

It simply isn't going to happen. We cannot afford the manpower and we can't afford the expense.

Better to leave voluntarily than stay and get our ass kicked.

[boneyard bill]

What about Pakistan and the nukes? How does that fit into the picture and reason for this escalation? Does anyone really think we can change things over there? Is this the start of some huge world war over there? If we're going to spend all this money, I'd like to see us get out of a few of the countries that we've been in for decades. Where does it end? When do we collapse under the strain?

Sometimes I think Obama has way too much self confidence or is listening way too much to the wrong people.

Well, he ran under a formula many think a requirement - absolute fealty to Israel, and a blustering "tough on terror" posturing that was somehow different from Bush. Some empty rhetoric about change and hope.

I wondered if, once in office, he would see the escalation into Pakistan was a trap that would doom his legacy. I thought he might be smart enough that he would deduce the problem is not escalating the stupidity of Afghanistan into Pakistan, but instead to reverse the original bad decision.

But it would have required that he reverse his election promise to escalate Afghanistan. The best time to do that is now. Not two years from now or more when it will look like a defeat instead of a change in administrations.

I had no hope that Obama would renege on his promise to escalate in Afghanistan, but I still hold out some hope that it's merely a delaying tactic. Even before he took office there was talk of some negotiations between Karzai, the Saudi government, and the Taliban about some form of negotiated settlement.

There are indications that Obama is taking a serious interest in these negotiations. He could be looking for a face-saving way out of there. But I see this as a risky strategy. If the negotiations fail, he has dug himself in deeper. If he changes course quickly, he can pull out and still blame the failure on Bush. But if stays and escalates even more, even with the hope of a negotiation, it will be tough to withdraw if he can't get an agreement.

But he possibility also remains that the really doesn't have any plans for Afghanistan that don't simply amount to "staying the course."

[boneyard bill]

I don't think anyone in Europe really wants to see Afghanistan fall to the Taliban. But I think the big problem is across the border in Pakistan. And I don't think it's any accident that both the Taliban and al Qaeda are now operating there. It's where the nukes are.

The Pakistanis have a hard choice to make, and it's coming soon. When they start talking about "trust," watch out. That's the time to hold their feet to the fire. And they are (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/asia/08pstan.html?hp). Right now. If we walk away, we're fucked, and a bunch of other people along with us. They'll never respect us again in this lifetime.

This is hard. But that's how it is out there.

You lose a lot more respect when you are kicked out than when you withdraw voluntarily. It's called "cutting your losses."

It's easy to say "win at any cost" when you've never added up the cost. Let's put some numbers on it. As I pointed out in another post, our own counter-insurgency doctrine would require a commitment of over 500,000 of our own ground troops as well as tens of billions of dollars in aid to the Afghan government. Even then, the time frame for victory would probably be a decade or more.

Not only would the American people be unwilling to support such a commitment, the American economy would be unable to sustain it.

We should get out now and negotiate later.

[premjan]

You can keep the US economic commitment on par but somewhat greater than what the Taliban is able to raise. That forces more efficient use of funds and prevents overspending and still ought to yield a positive result. I think Pakistan needs to come to terms with its own rather feudalistic social structure which is one reason that the Taliban despite their outrageous thuggery are actually able to win people to their side.