Afghanistan: Obama’s Iraq?
Future historians will inevitably link George W. Bush with Iraq, and probably not in a very flattering way. Will they do something similar with Barack Obama and Afghanistan?
Of course it is too soon to say. But as Afghanistan wavers towards, if not on the brink, of disaster, one can’t help but wonder what Obama’s future national security team will be thinking and recommending.
Despite all the U.S. has done in Afghanistan or tried to do things are far from good. A recent UNICEF report found that violations of children’s rights are increasing in Afghanistan with more attacks against schools, more children killed and more evidence of child sexual abuse.
On the one hand Obama pledged to withdraw forces from Iraq and increase them in Afghanistan. So he may be pleased that Marine Corps leaders are devising a plan to send more than 15,000 additional combat troops to Afghanistan to wage aggressive warfare against the Taliban that they expect could take years, assuming they receive approval from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David H. Petraeus.
That would be in addition to the more than 30,000 American troops, mostly from the Army, already in Afghanistan and the additional 30,000 troops from other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries and allies also there to combat the Taliban and other Islamist insurgent forces.
But finding more Marines to send won’t be easy unless there is a significant drawdown in Iraq, where they have been, west of Baghdad, since 2004. The Marines have about 22,000 there, assigned mostly to back up Iraqi security forces. So that might provide an additional incentive for Obama to make good on his pledge to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in 16 months.
On the other hand U.S. military officials have already started talking about how they can’t possibly meet that schedule, so Obama could face significant opposition to trying to redeploy troops quickly. Would he be willing to spend the political capital?
Sending more troops could be a replay of the significant international opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner said he has doubts about U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s plans. Kouchner said plans that increase troop numbers would only work “in precise areas with a precise task.” He said France thinks military power alone won’t stabilize the situation in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile Obama told President Hamid Karzai that he will provide more economic aid. But in these troubled economic times will Congress really authorize significant new amounts of economic aid?
Meanwhile success in Afghanistan is impossible without cooperation from Pakistan and military relations between the U.S. and Pakistan could be a lot better. In part this is because Pakistan’s young military officers don’t have the same relationship with their U.S. counterparts that their predecessors had. And continuing U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan’s border area with Afghanistan are not helping things.
Nothing if preordained and one hopes that Afghanistan will be better, not worse. Although we should note that the Global Trends 2025 assessment, released last week by the National Intelligence Council, said:
In 2025, Afghanistan may still evince significant patterns of tribal interaction and conflict. With the exception of the Taliban interlude, Afghanistan has not experienced strong central authority; centrifugal forces are likely to remain strong even if Kabul increases its sway.
…
Tribal and sectarian disputes probably will continue to arise, be fought out, and shift constantly in Afghanistan as the various players realign themselves. Outsiders will choose between making temporary alliances to destroy terrorist enemies, gain access to local resources, and advance other immediate interests or more ambitious—and costly—goals.
But what sticks in my mind the most is the interview the Los Angles Times conducted with retired Russian Lt. Gen. Ruslan Aushev, who served for five years in Afghanistan during the Soviet Union’s war there. Consider this excerpt:
At the height of the Soviet war, there were more than twice as many Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan as there are U.S. and allied soldiers in the country today. Do you believe the United States should increase the level of troops in Afghanistan?
You can expand your presence, but what will change? I think you need to do three things. First, create statehood. Set up a popular authority that would deal with corruption and social issues. Second, a combat-able armed force should be created in Afghanistan. And an economy should be created to help people. If you deploy 200,000 troops there, daytime is your time, you’re in command. At night, the Taliban comes and they are in command
The U.S. now finds itself propping up a relatively unpopular government against attacks from a radicalized Muslim population. This scenario is familiar to you. What advice would you give American commanders on the ground?
No matter what, you won’t get away from the Taliban. You need to talk with the Taliban, come to terms. The Taliban should be engaged by the organs of power, they should take part in negotiations. You should find common points with them.
So you think the U.S. should explore negotiations with the more moderate elements of the Taliban?
Of course they should. You understand, you are dealing with an idea. If an idea exists, you should sit down and think why, and what to do with it. That’s why the Soviet Union broke down, not because it was bombed out of existence, but because private ownership of means of production won the day, and it won over the idea of public ownership of means of production.
That sounds like a situation requiring someone willing to talk without preconditions to me. I wonder if Hillary Clinton is up for it?
Related posts: