Recently, I was chatting with a buddy and we were discussing Obama and Afghanistan. As if Obama hasn’t had enough on his plate cleaning up the steaming pile of fecal matter that was the George W. Bush administration, now he has to give his attention to the long-drawn out conflict in Afghanistan that has resulted in negligible gains over the past eight years. Yes, at the on-set, the Taliban was routed, but we took our “eyes off the prize” for the sexier target of Iraq and Saddam’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, resulting in the Taliban reasserting itself and Afghanistan’s Western-supported government of Hamid Karzai on the verge of complete illegitimacy. (Of course, the U.S. military’s penchant for attacking wedding parties and blowing up civilians isn’t exactly winning any hearts and minds on our end.)
Although once considered “the good war”, for the most part Afghanistan is now all but forgotten, and due to its extended status, polls show the efforts in Afghanistan losing favor with a majority of the American public. So, what is President Obama to do? A decision in March to send in more U.S. troops was met with criticism from conservative pundits, which is really no surprise. Considering the celebratory antics thse Country Lasters recently reveled in last week regarding Chicago’s failed Olympic bid, these same conservatives must be furtively hoping for a rout of American troops in Afghanistan. At the same time, conservatives are also pushing Obama- who has referred to Afghanistan as a “war of necessity”- to follow the unpopular option of sending in troop levels of 40,000 troops, all but guaranteeing an increased American presence for at least three more years. Politically, I am wondering if the Republicans are pushing Obama to implement an unpopular Republican-favored policy, just so they could run against that in 2012: “He did something that we encouraged him to do! How can you support for a President who implements our unfavored policies?”
What would be the strategic purpose of sending in thousands of more troops? I think it would be best served if its reminded to the general public that this is not a war on Afghanistan- that country, after all, never declared war on the United States or attacked us. But don’t believe for a second that I’m trotting out the asinine talking point that this is a “war on terror”- as if a term describing an emotional state of fear could ever possibly be eradicated. Instead, the American public should be reminded that this is a war on al Qaida, who unquestionably attacked the United States on 9/11 and have increased terrorist attacks globally since that fateful day, including on the soil of our European allies in Spain and England. This nebulous group of terrorists knows no borders, and indeed they, along with their associates in the Taliban, have largely situated themselves in the rugged hinterlands that share a border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. As the Taliban have increasingly destabilized Afghanistan, they have also performed similar actions in Pakistan as well, as the offensive in the Swat valley this past year has proven. And an expanded presence of the Taliban or Al Qaida poses the greatest threat to Pakistan, a country that not only possesses the Bomb but has been politically unstable for over a decade.
Reuters reports that the Taliban is stating that the West has nothing to fear from them. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but haven’t we seen this story before? I wonder if they expect the United States to revert to form of a decade ago, when we were handing the Taliban millions of dollars for an oil pipeline while they were harboring Osama bin Laden, who topped the FBI’s Most Wanted list even back then. Perhaps they think we’re cover our eyes and stick fingers in our ears as they continue to give safe haven to terrorists, and perhaps successfully destabilize Pakistan, resulting in an Islamic fundamentalist government in power, with posession of a nuclear bomb.
Such a possible turn of events- and the fact that Pakistan will more than likely be ground zero for Obama’s foreign policy for the next four years- is the rationale why support is warranted for an increased troop presence to resist the Taliban and support the fledgling government in Afghanistan. (The corruption of the current Karzai administration is far preferable to the Taliban alternative, and could be mitigated with the right combination of carrot-and-stick approach from the United States and other allies.) Yes, I know, Afghanistan is where “empires go to die” as my buddy argued to me: Britain, the Soviets, etc. But let’s not forget that the Soviets didn’t just meet resistance by a group of goat herders. Indeed, the mujahdeen drove out the USSR with the use of sophisticated technology provided by none other than the US. For obvious reason, such a similar turn of events won’t be repeated.
And for those who consider I’m advocating a hopeless war with no end, I also want to be quite clear by stating that we will never be successful in Afghanistan without an attempt to install and support the tenets of civil society. Consider a recent presentation given by Craig Charney, Senior Adviser to the International Peace Institute and top pollster in Afghanistan, who recently gave a speech at the Truman Security Foundation on the theme of “Why Rig an Election You Can Win?” obviously referring to Karzai’s actions in the recent Afghani election. Charney cautioned that although a contemptible chracter, Karzai still enjoys approval of half of Afghanis, and that a majority of Afghanis support the US military presence (though the levels of support have fallen in recent years). Other stats shared by Charney in his lecture: two-thirds of Afghanis feel that they can speak their mind under the current administration, while just one percent feel the same way under the Taliban. While seventy-two percent of Afghanis feel that education has improved under Karzai, a minority believes that security has improved.
In short, under Karzai, Afghanistan has moved in a direction that is more favorable towards civil society, especially compared with the Taliban’s version of radical Islamic fundamentalism. However, civil society would be prevented from flourishing throughout Afghanistan without the commensurate military presence. As such, I have faith that the Obama adminsitration will make the necessary- if unpopular- military decisions to ensure a satisfactory conclusion after an eight-year long stalemate.
Afghanistan | Karzai | Obama | Taliban | troop levels
