President Obama flinched. Last night, he announced his decision to begin rapidly unwinding his Afghan surge. Of the 30,000 additional troops committed, Obama wants 10,000 out by the end of this year and the rest out by the end of next summer. This risks giving back to the Taliban all that’s been won over the last year with blood, sweat, and tears.
Advertisement
The dominant prism through which the Afghan war is viewed in our political debate is futility. If that were the correct way to look at it, our troops would have arrived in the south of Afghanistan and foundered in the “graveyard of empires.” Instead, they routed the Taliban from its strongholds in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, where it had come to expect no serious challenge. A front-page New York Times article reported how the Taliban had been reduced to tiny bands and how it had failed so far to regain its footing despite desperately trying to fight back. The boys in the Quetta Shura must be delighted at the opening President Obama is handing them.
Last night, the president couched the drawdown in terms of the successes we’ve had, most spectacularly the killing of Osama bin Laden. But this is almost a non sequitur. The surge forces weren’t sent into the south to kill or capture bin Laden. As we proved, that could be done with a handful of Navy SEALs making a raid into Pakistan. The surge forces have been seeking to beat back the Taliban to keep it and its al-Qaeda allies from taking over the south, then hold the territory, and eventually hand it over to Afghan forces as their proficiency and numbers increased. The goal of the United States and NATO was to complete this mission by the end of 2014.
President Obama’s decision could render all of this moot as he opts for a “half-Biden.” The vice president had advocated a counterterrorism mission rather than a war of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan — i.e., drone strikes and the like, rather than boots on the ground to hold territory. He lost the initial debate, but Obama is now siding with him, although very belatedly. Many of our troops have already died gaining ground in Afghanistan, and 70,000 will remain there even after the withdrawal of the surge forces. This still represents a counterinsurgency footprint in Afghanistan, but one that may not be large enough to succeed.
Perhaps 10,000 troops doesn’t sound like a lot. But our troops are already stretched thin in the south, and that is before they have even attempted to pacify the east, where the extremely dangerous Haqqani network is dominant. There aren’t troops to spare, unless we abandon areas we’ve recently captured. And removing all the surge forces by the end of next summer — in other words, before the end of the next fighting season — means that the Taliban may need only to bide its time for about year, and that the Haqqani network may never get its reckoning.
There’s a reason Gen. David Petraeus opposed this kind of drawdown and that, apparently, no general supported it. When Pres. George W. Bush went over the heads of some of his brass to order the surge in Iraq, at least some other generals thought it made sense. It’s Obama’s prerogative as commander-in-chief to make whatever strategic judgment he deems appropriate, but the lack of military support for this decision highlights its essentially political nature. Obama’s party long ago backed off “the good war,” and the public has grown weary of all our wars.
Perhaps we’ll get lucky, and the Taliban and al-Qaeda have been so hurt that they’ll never come back. Or perhaps the Afghan forces — which have made strides over the last year — will be able to hold what we’ve taken. But we also may be headed toward a downward spiral. If our enemies have a resurgence in Afghanistan, it will embolden those forces in Pakistan that have always argued we have no staying power and that it therefore makes sense to support extremist proxies to influence Afghanistan’s ultimate fate. Our allies on the ground will be discouraged, and fence-sitters will flip to the other side. We may be able to maintain a counterterrorism campaign in the near term, but if the Afghan government senses we are losing and don’t care whether the country sinks back into chaos, it will become even less cooperative.
That government is a mess and — to one extent or another — always will be. Afghanistan is a poor, tribal society. We should have no great expectations for it. The question is whether it is fated to be ruled by (or at least provide safe haven to) the Taliban and other extremists. President Obama just made it more likely the answer to that question will be “yes.”
He is despicable. Doesn't listen to Secty. Gates. Doesn't attend to grieving families at home unless it's a photo op. Will 'wash his hands' of the blood already shed. And for what? Political maneuvers. Sound like anybody else we've all hear of? This is one morally bankrupt ruler--just like pontius pilot.
Unfortunately, the big fight is ahead of us---China. I'm afraid our military will be cut back as we did after Vietnam. We will be either too impotent to respond when they hit Taiwan and our forward operating bases in Japan or the pacifist elements will dominate our government. Either way we will be forced to leave the Pacific and turn it over to Chinese dominance.
What a shame Obama, unlike Bush, will not be held accountable to actually achieve his objectives from his previous decision to deploy additional troops, before pulling those troops away.
So, the ONLY point to deploying them in the first place -- placing them in harm's way in a theater of war -- was for appearances:
Make it look like he cares about the outcome in Afghanistan by bolstering troop levels, and then make it look like angelic wisdom to diminish troop levels back to their original number.
No where in the calculus of this policy flux is there any consideration to actually achieving anything.
That renders Obama's surge completely derelict, to deploy additional troops into the most dangerous war theater on the globe with nary a thought to their achieving anything for being there.
The risk of their lives and our treasure was utterly wasted.
That's not budgetary austerity. That's feckless disregard for leadership.
And how awkward for the President of the United States -- the single most successful republic in human record -- to refer to our need for "nation building here at home".
No, see, regardless of how much disrespect and lack of reverence he has for our nation's founding generation, OUR NATION DOESN'T NEED "BUILDING".
It needs restoration from his "fundamental transformation" project that chokes our liberties and diminishes our opportunities.
Excellent point on holding O accountable for his decision to increase troops and then withdraw them. What was the reason for the surge? Apparently that reason isn't important anymore.
Political motivation has won out over conviction, of which he has plenty of the former and none of the latter. He is down in the polls and needs to draw support from the anti-war crowd. Finger-in-the-wind decision making process.
Apparently the hard-won lesson of Vietnam is lost on this younger generation. That lesson is: If your not in all the way then get out.
Afghanistan is a country barely emerged from the stone age. Despite the existence of a national government, the reality is that it is ruled by tribal warlords each with their own little kingdom. These groups have been fighting each other, killing each other, and jockeying for advantage for thousands of years.
There are only two viable paths to take:
1. An American presence in huge overwhelming numbers for many decades for the purpose of keeping order so that some form of modern society can form, and we stay there until it has firmly taken root.
2. Get the hell out now. If you are not willing to commit to option 1 then you are wasting American lives.
I hate to say it but we did Afgan all wrong. All we should have done in 2001 and 2002 is Special Ops and bombing. There was no nation to build. Once we killed all we could find, leave. Then when anyone stick's there head up, live fire exercises. Otherwise leave them to the stone age where they belong
Obama is campaigning. This is a political move to appease the anti-war left and bring in the moderates who can't be bothered to understand the consequences, let alone find Afghanistan on a map.
The overtly political nature of this decision and it's timetable is shameful.
If we have accomplished all the objectives in Afghanistan that we can reasonably hope to accomplish there, then we should leave at the end of this fighting season with our heads held high.
If there is more yet to do, then we should stay, with maximum force levels, until the war is thoroughly won.
Splitting the difference can serve no conceivable military purpose. It's pure politics played with the lives of our soldiers.
If to keep the little we have won after 10 years we need to stay another 10 years then it is time to pack up and come back home. This war should continue from Langley with joysticks and intelligence on the ground.
No longer is there winning in Afghanistan, that happened in 2001 and 2002. Not now. We can double down on the blood and treasure we've expended so far and what will we have? We'll have Afghanistan; a backward, ignorant and tribal country. We will never build a democracy that respects life and liberty in Afghanistan no matter how we "invest."
What we can still achieve in Afghanistan is open to debate. Our forces didn't attempt an elimination of the Taliban or its al-Qaeda affiliates, but rather a "frontal victory:" pushing back the borders of Taliban-controlled territory. Thus, the Taliban has remained intact and ready for a resurgence -- a resurgence that, should current trends continue, is virtually guaranteed.
It's not too late, militarily speaking, for a campaign of elimination, but Americans have become so war weary after nearly ten years that it might be too late politically. Alongside that, where would Barack Hussein Obama find the political will required for such a decisive stroke? Wal-Mart?
I agree with you. Afghanistan is a BIG loser. I believe America was right in decimating the Taliban, and the Al Qaeda elements -they hit us, we hit back, hard. But this "nation-building" philosophy cannot work in a country that has no concept of democracy, no infrastructure to begin with, and no real resource development (other than a lucrative drug trade).
The creation of a democratic republic, takes patriots from within. Many American lives were lost, before we won our independence, but the seeds of America were not only forged on the battlefield. They were discussed, debated, and argued over by educated thinkers. Ideas of western-style democracy were a product of western philosophy, history, and education. We had a solid foundation going all the way back to the Laws of Moses, and ancient Greece. Afghanis must realize democracy's merit on their own accord. America's bank-rolling of their infrastructure, army, and government, IS a loser. We are wasting lives and money for what?
Obama's failure to let his generals actually "fight" the war the way it should be fought- to win- was his first mistake. His second is walking a middle ground. He's dancing between, not seemingly retreating, and placating his base, that wants a complete pull-out; and meanwhile, more American boys are dying over there.
There's no easy solution here.
1) Pulling out is tantamount to an admission we made a mistake. We failed at assuming we could build a democracy in a nation that has no understanding of the concept.
2) Staying indefinitely, until some kind of functioning, free society emerges, will continue to cost America lives, time and money.
3) Fighting till every last Al Qaeda and Taliban militant is dead, or utterly realizes the futility of striking America again, will require lives, time and money. It would also require a strong constitution, most Americans do not have, to do what is necessary to achieve victory- meaning no limited rules of engagement, no Miranda rights for terrorist, and that sometimes, civilians will die.
Since obviously the latter 2 options seem highly unlikely, if not totally improbable, I'm leaning toward the first. America needs a much higher standard for going to war. Nation-building should die here, now, and forever, as a concept in the minds of the American people.
I don't really give a rat's rear end what KIND of government Afghanistan has, or how deeply rooted in the stone age their society is, as long as it can repel al Queada and the Taliban in our absence.
Any "nation building" is therefore necessarily limited to insuring that their security forces are sufficient to enable us to withdraw without jeopardizing our security.
We heard this same bi-polar straw argument on Iraq, too.
"Apparently the hard-won lesson of Vietnam is lost on this younger generation."
Let's untwist that pretzel a tad.
WON? Hard-WON? That word choice is utterly amoral.
No. Rather, the hard-LOST lesson of Vietnam is lost on the EXACT SAME GENERATION that lost THAT WAR also.
If you are convinced victory is impossible, then get out of the way and let those who can best effectuate it succeed.
A self-defeating withdrawal -- to insure the failure of a worthwhile campaign to protect our interests -- proves just how costly and deadly it is that the Baby Boom generation can't defecate their brains free from their bowels to save their lives.
Or to protect ours, moreover.
Any generation to spawn such a clueless lot surely cannot be the "greatest".
The reason Afghanistan has drawn out for 10+ years is because U.S. foreign policy refuses to acknowledge the conclusive proof that Iran and Pakistan are and have been direct sponsors of the Taliban and Al Qaeda since the beginning.
Political correctness on both sides of the isle does not allow for these two 800 lb. elephants in the room to be addressed.
And so it continues, our politicians maneuver for political advantage, as our sons and daughters continue to die needlessly for a war our government doesn't support and believes was a waste of time.
Totally disagree with the editorial. To its authors, I would ask: What evidence would you accept as showing that the costs of our involvement outweigh the benefits?
Every time I read pieces like this one, I come away thinking that supporters of the Afghanistan war cannot be dissuaded from their position no matter what the facts are. If things are going well, then we need to stay to finish the job. If things are going badly, then we must stay.
What have we gotten from all of our time, effort, and resources in Afghanistan? When is enough enough?
@ccbiggs------and i bet money you are not joking...your comprehension of the freedoms you take for grated and herewith continue to opine re "costs" is beyond discouraging. You should touch base with the poster whose "tween" aged daughter articulated what you do not comprehend. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE...
