Deep Doubts About Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Deep Doubts About Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy

Written By : John Hawkins

I believe that winning in Afghanistan is absolutely essential to America’s national security. Losing would give a huge propaganda victory to Al-Qaeda, could allow them to use that country as a base for terrorism again, and could destabilize Pakistan, which could lead to Al-Qaeda getting their hands on nuclear weapons — and all that is setting aside the fact that we’re there in the first place as a direct result of 9/11. If we don’t have the guts to stick it out and win after that attack, what message does it send to the world?

That being said, I have deep concerns about the situation we now find ourselves in. We have overly restrictive rules-of-engagement in place that are getting our troops killed. We have a weak, vacilliating President who’s clearly not committed to victory.

Moreover, I hate to say this, because Stanley McChrystal has forgotten more about warfare than someone like me will ever know, but I question the military strategy we’re using. These comments that McChrystal has made, trouble me a great deal:

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Wednesday that the Afghan government and its international partners should use the coming 18 months to convince the Taliban they can’t win and offer militants a way to quit the insurgency “with dignity.”

Gen. Stanley McChrystal made the call after President Barack Obama announced he was sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to the war-ravaged country. If conditions are right, Obama said American troops could begin leaving Afghanistan in 18 months.

So, suppose they decide to hunker down in caves and in Pakistani villages for 19 months and wait for America to quit “with dignity?” Then what?

There are so many questions right now, that we have no answer for:

* If Afghanistan hasn’t managed to build a competent military by now, why do we think they can do it in 18 months?

* Can we eradicate the guerrilla forces in that country AND in Pakistan in 18 months? History says “no.”

* If you’re an Afghan tribesman and you know the Americans will be gone in 18 months, but the Taliban will still be around, why would you genuinely cooperate with the Americans?

* Should we be going small and arming and paying off different tribes instead of going big and using foreign forces?

At this point, I have a lot of doubts about whether what we’re doing right now in Afghanistan is going to be successful — and they’re compounded by the nebbish we have in the White House — who cares little for victory and seems to make life and death decisions based on how the polls look.

I’m hopeful that Obama will show some spine or that our strategy will be more successful than it looks like it’s going to be today because there’s a lot riding on success in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it’s very uncertain whether our President’s strategy is going to produce victory. Were I a betting man, I’d have to say it looks more likely that these half measures will lead to defeat.

http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

That’s all true about Afghanistan and terrorism but… I’m not sure anyone knows what President Obama’s strategy is, other than “try to make people happy and get reelected.”
gayunemployedmexican

Our support for Musharraf and our attacks into Pakistan have done more to destabilize the country than anything else.
D-Vega

Stop investing in defeat. Why do you hate America?

Anyone could have predicted the right-wing would react this way.

Of course we need some of the enemy to give up and go home. The strategy worked in Iraq, didn’t it?

* If Afghanistan hasn’t managed to build a competent military by now, why do we think they can do it in 18 months?

We don’t. That’s a pipedream. The best we could hope for is killing some people, making some people switch sides, and leave the rest of it to the tribal warlords.

There’s no way you can have Pashtuns in their “military” occupying northern territories which have been under the control of certain warlord families for hundreds of years.

* Can we eradicate the guerrilla forces in that country AND in Pakistan in 18 months? History says “no.”

Nope, but that’s not what he’s promising.

* If you’re an Afghan tribesman and you know the Americans will be gone in 18 months, but the Taliban will still be around, why would you genuinely cooperate with the Americans?

Americans will not be gone in 18 months. And Obama never said we would be gone in 18 months.

* Should we going small and arming and paying off different tribes, instead of going big and using foreign forces?

That’s where I agree. Paying off people, especially in terms of buying the heroin is a surefire win. That is what’s driving this. You can’t tell poor Afghanis to support us while they starve. Let’s give them whatever they need to help us.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Our support for Musharraf and our attacks into Pakistan have done more to destabilize the country than anything else.

Do you have anything vaguely resembling proof of this?
gayunemployedmexican

Posted by mightysamurai
2009-12-02 17:41:23

Yes, Juan Cole’s Engaging the Muslim World is full of examples.

If you don’t pick up the book, look at the polling done in Pakistan about how they feel about U.S. foreign policy since 9/11 and especially since around 2004.

We supported an incredibly unpopular dictator who put the head of the supreme court under house arrest. We are now paying the price for this support.

While Pakistan was never a safe place, the Taliban has made inroads like never before in the past several years. They’re moving out of the N.W.F.P and Baluchistan and right into Karachi. That would have been unthinkable before our prescence in Afghanistan.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Yes, Juan Cole’s Engaging the Muslim World is full of examples.

Ah, of course. Another “book” you claim to have read. Is this the same book that supposedly proved a sinister conspiracy between Donald Rumsfeld and some beer company, or was that a different one?
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Anyone could have predicted the right-wing would react this way.

Yes, anyone could have predicted the right-wing would respond negatively to a poorly thought out military strategy that is highly unlikely to work. You’re a frikkin’ genius, D-Vega.
Mike_M

Eh. I’m tired of the negativity, especially when Obama is at least moving in the right direction. We do what we can on the ground while we’re there and leave on our own terms.

If Afghanistan can’t get their sh*t together after 8 years, they can just live with B-2 strikes across the country when the Taliban starts to act up.

Ditto for the warlords. Time to Khadaffi them. Don’t want to play along? Fine. 2000-pound bomb through your front door. You had your chance go legit while our troops were there.

The real message is that if this is what the terrorists get out of the least experienced and most pliant US President in history…wait until his Republican successor gets into office. Time to settle up now or it will be four years of Tora Bora come 2012.
Jack Schite

You’re willing to let US soldiers die to prevent a propaganda victory?

Dude, put your own life on the line if you’re going to use such twisted logic.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Posted by Jack Schite
2009-12-02 22:45:08

Ahh, the drive by dufus returns.
tblrk2006

So obama puts a budget figure on our national security and calls that a strategy? Yet he will spend countless trillions on socialized health care and pork projects for the next election.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

Yes, Juan Cole’s Engaging the Muslim World is full of examples.

…of which you are apparently unable to cite even one.
BIG

It still would have been nice if Obama could have slipped the word “victory” into his speech.
D-Vega

Yes, anyone could have predicted the right-wing would respond negatively to a poorly thought out military strategy that is highly unlikely to work.

Why do you think its a poorly thought out strategy that is highly unlikely to work? Why are you so invested in America failing? Oh, that’s right, its because you want Obama to fail.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

Vega: either you haven’t been reading, to see the careful explanations of how we believe giving a concrete pullout date is a bad idea… or you have and simply are pretending it didn’t happen because that’s more convenient for your worldview that anyone who dares disagree with President Obama is somehow a crank, a politically driven extremist, a racist, or an idiot.

Which is it? Which is better?
http://Kingfisher Kingfisher

Why do you think its a poorly thought out strategy that is highly unlikely to work? Why are you so invested in America failing? Oh, that’s right, its because you want Obama to fail.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-12-03 10:59:38

That would have to mean that you wanted Bush to fail for the past eight years because that’s what you’ve been bitching about the entire time.

Thank you for your admission.
Pingback: Just Because You're Paranoid » Why So Serious?