I understand the need for the U.S. to remain in Afghanistan, namely to prevent Taliban and Al Qaeda thugs from terrorizing the populace and using the country as a base to launch attacks against America and our allies, most notably nuclear armed Pakistan, but President Obama’s strategy of a short-term, massive escalation to end the Afghan war seems disingenuous at best.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no pacifist. I supported President Bush and our mission in Iraq, even during the worst of times however, I am concerned that the Obama surge strategy, a clone of the Iraq one that he endlessly criticized as a candidate, is fundamentally flawed for a very simple reason: Afghanistan is not Iraq.
Iraq has a well educated populace, existing transportation, electrical, water, sewer and communications infrastructure, and proven capability for self government. Afghanistan on the other hand has almost no infrastructure, a poorly educated population, and is ruled by warlords strait out of the Middle Ages.
The notion that Afghans will be capable of maintaining an effective army and police force without substantial U.S. assistance anytime soon is absurd.
Rather than insisting a short-term surge with a scheduled departure date set for 2011 will be sufficient, Obama should be preparing the U.S. to remain engaged in Afghanistan for years to come.
Only a long term commitment will be able to transform an almost primitive nation into a functional society. In that context I would think a smaller, more flexible military footprint that limits our troop’s exposure while still taking the fight to the Taliban, would be more effective.
In other words, exactly what we have been doing for the past 8 years.
The limited military strategy as designed by President Bush has accomplished quite a lot. According to Gen. Petraeus 7 million school children now attend school, compared to 1 million when the Taliban were in control. Cell phones, once unheard of, are commonplace and the internet is right around the corner … all done with less than 30,000 troops.
By massively escalating the conflict, Obama has raised expectations among the American people creating a situation that if the surge were to fail, many Americans, especially liberals, will be clamoring for our exit, which would be the worst possible outcome for the Afghan people.
Beware of Generals Bearing Gifts
President Obama reminded the nation a couple of weeks ago that the military must remain under civilian control. This is true however, a President should be mindful that the military, which I certainly do support, does have a way of generating its own momentum. Considering the success we have had in Iraq over the past couple of years and in Afghanistan over the past 8, the generals may be under the mistaken impression that there is no task too great for our armed forces.
But sometimes there are problems that even a million soldiers can’t solve.
Without a President capable of knowing when to place a check on military ambition, things can quickly spin out of control. There are numerous examples of this in our nation’s history: Bay of Pigs and Sudan come to mind. Our soldiers are trained to fight wars and kill bad guys, not figure out how long it will take to establish a functional Afghan government.
Former Gen. McChrystal aide, Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, doesn’t sound optimistic about Obama’s plan. "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win. This is going to end in an argument.”
Sen. John McCain also questioned Obama’s handling of the conflict. In his opinion the war “has not gone as well as we had hoped… I’m all for dates of withdrawal, but that’s after the strategy succeeds, not before.”
RNC Chairman Michael Steele Does Have a Point
RNC Chairman Michael Steele said this week “this was a war of Obama’s choosing.” While he has taken a lot flack in the conservative community for this statement, I can see where he is coming from. He isn’t implying that Obama is responsible for starting the war, we all remember 9/11 and understand the need for our presence in Afghanistan, but Steele is reminding the nation that the current escalation and attempt to seize direct control over thousands of square miles of mountainous territory is solely the decision of President Obama.
As explained in the Washington Examiner, “The first seven years of the war were not his doing. But the decision to leave or stay in Afghanistan is his to make.”
Obama has already made an attempt to evade personal responsibility for his own surge strategy when he said a couple of weeks ago “War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a Private, or General or a President.” The latest fight hasn’t even started yet and our President is already preparing the American people to blame anyone, but himself, if things go badly.
There is certainly precedent to back up Steele’s comment that “the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan,” which is probably why President Bush did not pursue this option following 9/11. Instead Bush called for a limited, but effective military presence that relied on air power and small scale engagements to disrupt and uproot Al Qaeda and Taliban forces, a strategy that has been proven successful.
With or without the surge, I have no doubt we will bring freedom and prosperity to the Afghan people. However, considering things were going well when we had only 30,000 troops there, sending an additional 100,000 halfway around the world for 12 to 18 months to fight a war we were already winning, and in the absence of a genuine crisis, just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
