Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Nothing But Bad Policy Options for Obama in Afghanistan

By Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com. Posted November 4, 2009.


Can we avoid an approach to Afghanistan where impending disaster is seen as an invitation to make things even worse?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In the worst of times, my father always used to say, "A good gambler cuts his losses." It's a formulation imprinted on my brain forever. That no-nonsense piece of advice still seems reasonable to me, but it doesn't apply to American war policy. Our leaders evidently never saw a war to which the word "more" didn't apply. Hence the Afghan War, where impending disaster is just an invitation to fuel the flames of an already roaring fire.

Here's a partial rundown of news from that devolving conflict: In the last week, Nuristan, a province on the Pakistani border, essentially fell to the Taliban after the U.S. withdrew its forces from four key bases. Similarly in Khost, another eastern province bordering Pakistan where U.S. forces once registered much-publicized gains (and which Richard Holbrooke, now President Obama's special envoy to the region, termed "an American success story"), the Taliban is largely in control. It is, according to Yochi Dreazen and Anand Gopal of the Wall Street Journal, now "one of the most dangerous provinces" in the country. Similarly, the Taliban insurgency, once largely restricted to the Pashtun south, has recently spread fiercely to the west and north. At the same time, neighboring Pakistan is an increasingly destabilized country amid war in its tribal borderlands, a terror campaign spreading throughout the country, escalating American drone attacks, and increasingly testy relations between American officials and the Pakistani government and military.

Meanwhile, the U.S. command in Afghanistan is considering a strategy that involves pulling back from the countryside and focusing on protecting more heavily populated areas (which might be called, with the first U.S. Afghan War of the 1980s in mind, the Soviet strategy). The underpopulated parts of the countryside would then undoubtedly be left to Hellfire missile-armed American drone aircraft. In the last week, three U.S. helicopters -- the only practical way to get around a mountainous country with a crude, heavily mined system of roads -- went down under questionable circumstances (another potential sign of an impending Soviet-style disaster). Across the country, Taliban attacks are up; deadly roadside bombs or IEDs are fast on the rise (a 350% jump since 2007); U.S. deaths are at a record high and the numbers of wounded are rising rapidly; European allies are ever less willing to send more troops; and Taliban raids in the capital, Kabul, are on the increase. All this despite a theoretical 12-1 edge U.S., NATO, and Afghan troops have over the Taliban insurgents and their allies.

In addition, our nation-building "partner," the hopeless Afghan President Hamid Karzai -- known in better times as "the mayor of Kabul" for his government's lack of reach -- was the "winner" in an election in which, it seemed, more ballot boxes were stuffed than voters arrived at the polls. In its wake, and in the name of having an effective "democratic" partner in Afghanistan, the foreigners stepped in: Senator John Kerry, Richard Holbrooke, and other envoys appeared in Kabul or made telephone calls to whisper sweet somethings in ears and twist arms. The result was a second round of voting slated for November 7th and likely only to compound the initial injury. No matter the result -- and Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai's opponent, has already withdrawn in protest from the runoff -- the winner will, once again, be the Taliban. (And let's not forget the recent New York Times revelation that the President's alleged drug-kingpin brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, whom American officials regularly and piously denounce, is, in fact, a long-term paid agent of the CIA and its literal landlord in the southern city of Kandahar. If you were a Taliban propagandist, you couldn't make this stuff up.)


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: obama, afghanistan

Tom Engelhardt, editor of Tomdispatch.com, is co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The End of Victory Culture.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Here is a good policy option for President Obama
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Nov 7, 2009 12:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Step 1) Get my cousins, my friends and my countrymen (and women) the fuck out of Afghanistan.

Step 2) Use your gift of speechcraft to explain why that is such a great idea to the American people.

Step 3) Rinse and repeat for Iraq.

Step 4) Go about the business of getting our national shit together.

Step 5) Peace and prosperity!

Step 6) Re-election. Hell, I'd even vote for you over Ron Paul this round!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama is Fully On Board the Imperial Project ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 7, 2009 12:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And all the facts won't deter him from the Afghanistan Project.

The encirclement of Russia, the route to Central Asia, the squeezing of Iran, the buffer to China and the domination of Pakistan won't be reconsidered ... They are indispensable for the imposition of Full Spectrum Dominance on Asia ...

The fact that victory will never come to pass in Afghanistan means little, we are not there to win but to occupy the real estate with strategic military force.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama is the lickspittle of the military-industrial complex
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 7, 2009 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The murderous aggression against the Afghan people was based on lies, lies, and lies and nothing but lies. We are there for opium and oil pipe line routes and resources. The Taliban received $43 million prior to 9-11 from the State Department for their successes in erradicating Opium...This put them at odds with the Anglo-American drug cartel--Bush and the rest of the dung eating dogs and royal spawn around Lizzie...the sons and heirs of the East India Company. (note from Tarpley that the Skull and Bones gang is financed by a trust filled by Americans...Boston Brahmen...whose shipping interests were cut in on the lucrative Opium Trade carried on by the 'Company'.)

The odious swine at the helm of government in Washington are completely in thrall to these interests. Obama is their dog.

FLASH: Sources at Fort Hood reported to Mike Rivero that two privates were seeing Hasan on a professional basis for refusing deployment. Other soldiers were sent to persuade them to deploy...a fight erupted. Hasan was sent in as a mediator, shooting started and the 12 people died--one of the two soldiers was the one arrested on the golf course. Hasan was made the goat to spin the event into a anti-Moslem PR event and away from a rebellion in the ranks...This according to unconfirmed reports from inside sources to Mike Rivero who is broadcasting from whatreallyhappened.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bring our troops home from Afghanistan
Posted by: greenferret on Nov 7, 2009 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Obama will soon decide whether to send as many as 60,000 additional U.S. soldiers to the war in Afghanistan.

Let's urge Obama to live up to his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Tell him to withdraw troops from Afghanistan -- not send more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only rational choice
Posted by: badkitty on Nov 7, 2009 1:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only rational choice, in the best interests of everyone, except weapons manufacturers, is to withdraw from Aghanistan (and Iraq) immediately. Anyone who remembered their history (apparently no one in the Bush Administration and few Democrats) would never have approved funding for either of these illegal wars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's how to leave Afghanistan beginning now
Posted by: nerin on Nov 7, 2009 4:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's assume that Kerry wakes up tomorrow and remembers his anti-Vietnam reasoning and persuades our Nobel Peace winner that we need to get out NOW. And the President agrees (returning to reality).

And the two work out this plan. They bribe the bribable elected head of Afghanistan to declare that for the sake of his country he demands the the Nato forces completely vacate within 6 months. Then the President says we can't go against the leader of the country and we begin to pack up and within 6 months we're gone.

And the world cheers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The cost
Posted by: Hans B on Nov 7, 2009 4:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The high cost of the Afghan war is more a product of the permanent rip-off of which the Pentagon is the willing victim, than of necessity. Where was it I read of the Pentagon paying 400 $ per gallon of gasoline? Supposedly because of local conditions. Wanna bet the local taxi drivers don't pay 400 $?

I don't know exactly how much other Nato members pay, but I'd guess five times less per soldier. France for example budgets 852 million euros, or about a billion US$, for its overseas operations involving more than 10,000 military personnel. That's less than a hundred grand per soldier. France has 2,600 men and women under arms in Afghanistan, so even if they are responsible for most of the overseas military budget, that still would amount to approx. 200,000 US$ per soldier - a sixth of what the US pays.

On a related note, I don't think the number of boots on the ground is all that important. It depends on what they do. Even in the absence of soldiers, the US can be plenty aggressive. In fact it might be better to have a soldier there where he'll actually see the Afghan villager he's supposed to kill, rather than in Kansas staring at a screen and pushing lethal buttons as if it were a computer game.

My personal opinion is that this is the time to dither. So much bad news is coming out of there, that everyone is in panic mode - whether they want to escalate or withdraw. If I were Obama I'd do the opposite, bunker down, give instructions to prevent all civilian deaths even if that means letting targets escape, keep Nato soldiers out of harm's way, and wait a Friedman unit or two for the dust to settle. A panic-driven retreat is as destructive as a panic-driven attack.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ironic how the US forces are backing away from Pakistani border
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com on Nov 8, 2009 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the Pakistani military is advancing toward the NWF areas to engage the Taliban fighters the Americans are moving away from the border areas of Afghanistan. Is it because the US isn't really interested in defeating the Taliban but is keenly interested in capturing the Pakistani nukes and completion of the Uzbek oil/gas pipeline through Afghanistan and into the Indian Ocean?

This is a two pronged approach as America with pressure from the Israelis and encouragement from India is trying to capture the Pakistani nukes and for this reason they are actually aiding the Taliban and will eventually cut deals with them to build the pipeline and destroy Pakistan simultaneously. Americans are plying with fire here and the likelihood of actually achieving these goals is rather dim mainly because the US military is weak and incompetent and increasingly so.
Afghans are known for their resilience against their foreign invaders and the American military are viewed as unwelcome brutal invaders.

Mr. Obama will do good if he can reverse course and instead of fighting the Afghans chooses to ally them by pulling the American military completely out of Afghanistan and instead investing heavily in re-building of that nation much like the US did in post WWII Germany and Japan.

Afghans are fully capable of governing and defending themselves if only left alone. The US would offer financial and military assistance to the Afghans and encourage peace and coexistence with the carrot approach.

Pakistan has been a sore spot left over from the British India days and is naturally divisible half to India and half to Afghanistan. Pakistan's nuclear bombs can be dismantled by Israeli/American experts with the aid of the Afghans and the Indians hopefully w/o a shot fired. By following this script the US can enable the Afghans to build their long neglected nation, and complete the pipeline plan with cooperation with the American companies sharing the proceeds in a fair and equitable manner. Is that ever possible?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop hurting the economy of Afghanistan and America's friend, Karzai!
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 8, 2009 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America has to change its cruel drug laws to allow entry into the US, Afghani opium products. Karzai and the drug lords of Afghanistan are America's special friends, now that we have helped rebuild opium production, we need to help them expand their customer base.

Be patriotic! Give your children a chance to experience these wonderful Afghani products in the schools and in your churches to encourage experimentation..."Don't Say "No" To Afghan Hope"...Build a better tomorrow for the workers of this land where heartless barbarians tried to eradicate God's Poppy Plant!

And! If your children are lucky enough to take part in the "Afghan Experience"...let's make it easy for them to bring home a water pipe or bong for that special someone at home with several pounds of duty-free to help provide a much needed attitude adjustment to obtain that state of obliviousness needed for a successful and happy life in the States. Its the very, very, very least we can do for our soldiers... You do support the troops, don't you?

This is a 'win-win' propostion...Afghans and American elites make money and Americans can move even further from any sense of reality that might still be lingering in the Age of Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Russia's Vietnam now ours again.
Posted by: maxsmart on Nov 11, 2009 5:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A CIA war authorized by Carter-Brzezinski on 07/03/79 is just a CIA op gone wild for 30 years. There is no win solution and for the US the game is always to win simply for winnings sake. It is impossible to be sanctimonious because this means we were not hit by an unprovoked attack on 9/11. We received retaliation for supporting terrorists in Afghanistan even though the retaliation was by the terrorists we supported. It matters little to the Afghans caught in the middle of Russia and the US's next Vietnam.

There is only one solution, to parachute rich Texan millionaire busybodies in to fix the problem for us, and perhaps a few Congressmen, there will be plenty of CIA agents in the giant new Pakistan Embassy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Waking up
Posted by: mistery509 on Nov 12, 2009 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally after all these years and so many young people killed, USA is waking up.

Other countries were there and pulled out. What a waste of money and lives!

All this for NOTHING.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement