Though the West Pointers didn't seem overly thrilled with President Obama's Afghanistan strategy speech (as MSNBC windbag Chris Matthews said, Obama was in the "enemy camp,") I thought Obama's speech was pretty good, up to a point. He committed 30,000 more troops to a counterinsurgency strategy to remove the Taliban from the portion of the country they control, in order to stop Al Qaeda from returning and gaining the safe haven they had there prior to the 9/11 attacks. Good. Up to 40% of Afghanistan is either under Taliban control or highly vulnerable, mainly the southeast and Pakistan border region. Obama went on to say the Afghan government needed to beef up it's security forces and take responsibility, because the USA wasn't going to stay in Afghanistan forever. Good. General McChrystal heartily endorses the plan, which we can call The Obama Surge. Good. Obama's strategy is an attempt to reverse years of floundering about as the Taliban presence increased in Afghanistan. Good.
Political opposition to The Obama Surge is split mainly along the usual lines. Conservatives support the Surge, but are wondering why Obama announced an Afghanistan exit date of July 2011 (18 months from now), signaling to the enemy how long they'll have to wait us out in order to succeed. Liberals, on the other hand, are mad about the whole idea of a surge, wishing instead that the USA would just pull all the troops out now, the consequences be damned. Liberals are saying that July 2011 date better be a firm date.
As usual with American wars, conservatives want America to be successful, and liberals want America to fail. For years, we've witnessed Democrats try to undermine the Iraq War. Now, after years of correctly saying Bush took his eye off the ball by going into Iraq, liberals are more than happy to undermine Afghanistan, thereby proving they were never serious about Afghanistan in the first place. So President Obama gets lots of credit here for attempting to live up to his campaign promise of succeeding in Afghanistan, in what Obama termed the "necessary war," and for not merely pandering to his liberal anti-war base. Obama said the July 2011 deadline until troop withdrawal begins was to signal to the Afghans that they had to step up and take responsibility, but it also throws a bone to his base. I think it's Obama's version of split-the-baby. Plus, Obama cabinet members are all saying that our withdrawal is dependent upon conditions on the ground, leaving themselves an out.
In any case, the Obama Surge is not going to be easy to execute, and it's going to be even harder to hold. The Afghanistan-Pakistan border is mountainous and treacherous terrain, and the border itself is little more than a line on a map. There's no border security. The Taliban and Al Qaeda cross back and forth as they wish, which has always been one of the big problems. We'll have the Pakistan army fighting the insurgents from the east, and the America-led NATO forces fighting the insurgents from the west. Both sides have to hold in order to be successful, and ultimately it will have to be the Afghanistan government forces that must hold from the west. They are not close to being able to do that now, with only 170,000 forces trying to manage a country of 30 million people in Afghanistan. A large number of those forces are corrupt, and the area of Afghanistan they'll have to hold is the biggest center of opium production in the world, giving a large incentive for criminal activity in an impoverished country.
Two weeks ago, the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, said, "We are determined that by the next five years, the Afghan forces are capable of taking the lead in ensuring security and stability across the country."
Five years ??? You better step up the pace, Karzai. Obama says you have 18 months.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
I don't think the date is written in stone . I think a date was necessary because it
became obvious to me Obama was not just talking to us but the world. A date means we have no attention to be occupiers. That is very important message to send to those over there. They dont want occupation. As for argument that Mccain gave I say BS – we already know what a NO date no time line , no exist strategy war got us – as in Iraq . They waged a insurgency getting recruiters to join their cause because they called us occupiers.
I think McCain's point was that we shouldn't be announcing exit dates until the battle is won. That's the way we did it in Iraq.
I also think we've made it clear in both Afghanistan and Iraq that we don't want to run their countries or be permanent occupiers. That isn't really new.
I'm just happy that Obama seems committed to seeing Afghanistan through, so the Taliban and Al Qaeda can't return there. That's why I didn't complain too much about his exit date, which, as you say, doesn't seem set in stone.
It would be better to withdraw now and then turn the whole country into one big caldera from offshore. To Hell with making them a modern democracy.
King, I don't get it ! George Bush defeated the Taliban…how could we still be fighting them?
I thought Charlie Wilson made them our friends?
Totally agree with you King. One should never broadcast their intent to the enemy, especially when it jeopardizes the welfare of our soldiers. And what's with the magic number of 18 months…………….start pulling troops and get the left on-board for the 2012 election? Both parties have a way with politicizing our soldiers, but the radical of the left seem to leave them in more vulnerable predicaments. Such is the case, when the anti-war base must be thrown a "bone".
I don't think these "surrender" dates will amount to much when Israel and Iran take center stage. Then we'll have a "block party" like no other.
The July 2011 date is just to appease the far left of the Dem party. It was a mistake, in the long run, because the day will get here much too soon and Obama will have to back down from it. As for the "block party" Alexander D mentioned, I think it will be a big one but won't last a long time. The Israelis will strike before they think it is too late to do so. All the Iranian show of missile abilities surely have them convinced that they can't wait too long. Of course, we don't know that Iran won't be ready for that party before Obama's "magic" get out date, either.
victory in afghanistan is as likely as elephants flying to the moon. but hey, don't let history and logic stand in the way of wasting taxpayer dollars.
terje, you have hit the nail on the head. That country is so corrupt and will sell it's soul to the highest bidder. Just like the heroin addicts that support them. The Taliban and al'kaida will always have places to go. We can pump all kinds of cash into that country and it won't matter. They have been at war for centuries. Why does America think it can change that?
"As usual with American wars, conservatives want America to be successful, and liberals want America to fail. For years, we've witnessed Democrats try to undermine the Iraq War. Now, after years of correctly saying Bush took his eye off the ball by going into Iraq, liberals are more than happy to undermine Afghanistan, thereby proving they were never serious about Afghanistan in the first place."
The U.S. military is carrying out a military operation against al-Qaeda. Iraq was never a war, instead it was regime change imposed by the Imperialist Empire. It interrupted our military operation against al-Qaeda. We are not at war in the conventional sense with anyone, not at all.
That said….when you say that liberals want America to fail, it makes you sound Unserious. How could it be that losing 4400 U.S. soldiers, costing us $1 trillion and my god, the cost to Iraq in lost lives and resources…could be translated into America being "successful"? Occupying Muslim lands with the U.S. military is the wrong way to go. Everyone knows that…..but because we are addicted to the military complex and, apparently, fear…we're paralyzed to do anything about it.
Vietnam was a mistake. Escalating in Vietnam was a mistake. Occupying Afghanistan is a mistake. Escalating an occupation of Afghanistan is also, in my opinion, a mistake.
Afaganistan has never been a functioning nation state and it wont be one in the forseeable future. To expect a land that is divided by family,vilage,tribe and ethnic groups to quickly into a sem-functioning nation state is a pipe dream. Developing it into a true nation cannot be done without developing a functioning economy and a federal functioning framework which aint going to happen. It is a society that is rooted in traditional practices and loyalities that are threatened by the introduction of "modern" society. It will be opposed by all parties that feel their power/influence and means of income are threatened.
We can blather on about benchmarks , ending corruption , and creating a force loyal to the nation state and declare the mission accomplished and move on but all that will have been accomplished is the loss of young American lives.
Obama knows this . His strategy is nothing more than attempting to gain some short term political capital at the expense of what is best for this country and its brave fighting men.
Rev,
If I'm unserious, please tell me which American wars liberals have supported in the last 50 years. I must have missed them.
Probably because every war we have gotten into in the last 50 years has had absolutely nothing to do with the protection of our own nation. The only time we have been attacked was September 11th, and I think just about everyone got behind the ensuing invasion, whether they be liberal or conservative.
So if by "liberal", you mean "logical", then I agree; most logical people did not support any of these other "wars."
Since WW2…not many. Kosovo, Iraq 1 (some Dem support), Iraq 2 (Dem support), Afghanistan (almost all the Dems).
Da Reason handled the rest.
Rev,
I said liberals, not Democrats. There's a difference.
I don't see liberals really favoring any of the wars you mentioned. On Iraq 2, you gotta be kidding me. On Afghanistan, it's mainly liberals who are against Obama now.
There were even liberal groups opposed to WWII.