"Dreams from His Predecessor" Obama's Afghanistan strategy

[billyoc]

echoes all the same Bush mistakes -- and more.

President Barack Obama's sobering speech on Afghanistan and Pakistan has been well, if cautiously, received by commentators so far. The president promised to up the ante in the war on terror's most neglected theater. The policy aims for the same kind of drastic turnaround that pulled Iraq back from the edge. But amid all of the commentary on the depth and wisdom of the new proposed strategy, it is important to consider some facts and recent history from the ground that should elicit caution and concern for the would-be optimists.

Obama's speech devoted much more time and space to Pakistan than to Afghanistan, presumably because that is where al Qaeda is operating and planning its next round of attacks against the United States. However, the United States is not putting any troops on the ground in Pakistan. The U.S. military will continue to rely on drones, even though their use has led to politically damaging civilian casualties and very little in the way of top al Qaeda leader "kills." Obama spoke of the $1.5 billion proposed in aid each year over the next five years as if such pittances will enable the Pakistani government to more seriously assist in the fight against extremists. That amount is certainly not more than Bush spent on Pakistan; it may even be less, as funding during the previous administration averaged $1.6 billion per year. Comments that Obama is now "fully resourcing" the war in South Asia are completely ungrounded.

But the biggest flaw in Obama's strategy for Pakistan is not funding; it is the complete misportrayal of Pakistani politics. Obama denies a fundamental and inescapable choice that he will have to face: the trade-off between Pakistani "democracy" and Pakistani government cooperation in fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda. Pakistani government action against al Qaeda and the Taliban is and will remain inherently unpopular with a significant proportion of the population. If this or any Pakistani government takes serious action against al Qaeda or the Taliban, it will be doing so in the face of significant domestic opposition. It would be difficult enough for a pro-American autocrat with robust financial and military backing to do what the United States is asking. It is a fantasy to think that a democratic government -- one that is dependent on popular support -- could ever move decisively against the militants. And certainly, $1.5 billion a year is not enough to motivate either type of regime toward much of anything.
Click Here!

Moreover, no Pakistani government will be able to stop its security services from cultivating Islamist militants, including the Taliban, until Pakistan's long-standing differences with India over Kashmir and other issues are politically resolved. Pakistan's support for Islamist militants compensates for what the country's political and military leaders uniformly see as a lack of strategic depth vis-à-vis India. Inconveniently, Obama defined the portfolio of his special envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke, to exclude India-Pakistan dynamics.

...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4783

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. One thing is for sure, it'll be interesting to see how this works out.

[fujiyama]

2. You may find it "interesting"

but unfortunately a lot of people will inevitably die in the process.

[billyoc]

4. The interesting part will be the overwhelming liberal support for the killing.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. People will inevitably die in any process there.

[billyoc]

3. I can't wait to see the Cruise Missile Liberals show their true colors.

Again.

[Political Heretic]

9. Are you against all military action?

Pacifist or just believe our involvement in the middle east is bullshit?

Just curious... I came into this saying Obama is wrong on Afghanistan. I still believe that but after my initial attention to his proposal I think maybe this might not be as bad as I had imagined....

[billyoc]

10. In general I'm against military action, Iraq and Afghanistan in particular.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

18. Was it wrong to declare war on Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor?

I understand the aversion to war here and more or less agree with it. However, there comes a time when you have to defend yourself.

[mix]

16. liberal drones

nt

[jefferson_dem]

6. Ya. The President is carrying out his campaign promise to refocus US national security efforts...

including a pivot away from the Iraq boondoggle and toward al Qaeda in Afghanistan - Pakistan.

That must mean he's exactly like Booosh. Were you expecting a "Department of Peace"?

[MadHound]

7. Yep, getting us involved in another quagmire that we can't win

At least not militarily. All we can do in Afghanistan is the same thing others have done when trying to conquer the area, waste lives and money on a campaign we can't win.

The War on Terror is not, primarily, a military war. It is a war of ideas, competing with Al Qaeda and others for the hearts and minds of the local populace. By continuing to kill people, kill innocents, and destroy the countryside, all we're doing is driving more and more people into the arms of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

We've been through this sort of scenario before, and lost badly. That was in Vietnam. Hopefully we would have learned out lesson from that fuck up, but apparently not, and we're going to waste our military, waste lives, our reputation and our fortune on another mistake of epic proportions.

[EmilyAnne]

15. He didn't get us in a quagmire. We were already there. There is no good way to get out of it

because it is a quagmire. Either way, we are screwed because the situation, to begin with, was screwed.
I don't know what an immediate withdrawal of US forces would look like.
Have you seen any discussion of that?
I would like to read some ideas or predictions about that, what would happen in the "vacuum," where the country is today as far as infrastructure and the ability to have elections and uphold their decisions, etc.
My cousin is there and I want him home, but I don't know what that would do to the region or to Afghanistan and I just don't think its right to leave a disaster that we created.

[MadHound]

17. It doesn't matter how long we stay there, nor what we do there,

As long as we are carrying out military operations in the area, we will continue to make the area over as a disaster area. Much like Vietnam, our very military presence is contributing to the problem, and we will never win. We will simply continue to throw lives and money down a rathole until we are forced out in some form or another. With Vietnam it was the public outcry that finally brought us home. In Afghanistan, if we continue, it could be utter economic ruin that brings us home.

But no matter what we do, we're not going to win this one, so it is better to pull out now and save ourselves the cost of men and money. Instead, we need to address this War of Ideas via diplomatic and humanitarian means, which are cheaper and more effective.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Pakistan seems a bit different to me than Vietnam

And I say Pakistan because I think this is really about Pakistan and not Afghanistan at this point.

As I recall in South Vietnam they wanted to hold elections and we stopped them from doing it for fear that they would choose to unite with the North under communist rule. In Pakistan they have already held elections and a secular government won legitimately. The problem is that the unelected Taliban are now trying to overthrow that government.

In Vietnam, the people never really wanted us there. In Pakistan they are pretty damn reluctant about us being there, but they also don't want the Taliban to come to power. So there is at least some common goal. And that's probably why we're fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan rather than Pakistan. The people in Pakistan can't be pissed at us if we're doing all of the fighting on somebody else's soil.

[MadHound]

22. Contrary to what you think, Pakistani people actually embrace the Taliban

They see the Taliban as part of a bulwark against India and the leaders in the fight for Kashmir. And the Pakistani people are pretty damn pissed about our ongoing drone attacks in their country. Their elected government is weak and increasingly unpopular. Thus, to come anywhere close to solving this problem, we would have to intervene in the India/Pakistan conflict, provide lots of humanitarian aid, stop attacking Pakistani people on their own soil, all so we can can deal with the even more complex problems in Afghanistan.

Can you say quagmire?

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Why would a people who elect a secular government embrace the Taliban?

I will say that it is indeed a fragmented nation and I'm sure that they have their sympathizers. But I doubt that the vast majority want these people in power even if they do see them as an ally in the Kashmir conflict.

And frankly I wonder if maybe we should intervene in the Kashmir conflict. It's a drain on both India and Pakistan and would be best if it were resolved ASAP.

[MadHound]

27. Like I said, the people of Pakistan see the Taliban as their bulwark against India

Especially in the Kashmir conflict. I've read this before, quite recently, though I can't remember where, and then had it confirmed this morning by a piece on NPR.

As far intervention in the Kashmir conflict, only in a diplomatic manner, certainly not militarily.

This is just another example of how confused and convoluted matters in that area are, and why we shouldn't be involved militarily in that area.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. I agree that diplomacy is the best option for Kashmir, and I think it is essential

But I still am not convinced that using a limited military force to buy Pakistan's government some time to get their feet wet, isn't a bad idea.

4,000 troops is an "escalation" but that will hardly bring troop levels to the amount that they were in Afghanistan or Vietnam for that matter. I really don't think Obama is really going to get us into an endless high casualty war. If anything, he knows that's a sure-fire bet to lose re-election.

I think we're going in to see if we can make the situation a bit better for Pakistan than it is now and then get the fuck out as soon as we do.

[MadHound]

29. Four thousand is just the tip of the iceberg,

Seventeen thousand troops are supposed to deploy to Afghanistan this year, with an additional seventeen thousand next year.

Sorry, but that's starting to get into quagmire numbers there, especially since this administration has already stated that we're not getting out of Afghanistan before 2012.

We can't win this war, and our military presence is only going to make matters worse. Bring the troops home now, and deal with this mess in a diplomatic matter.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. I have read about 17 thousand this year, nothing about 17 thousand next year

[billyoc]

11. No, I was expecting an escalation of the Afghanistan War and a new one in Pakistan.

I just like to remind all my friends what they were promised.

War without end.

[Political Heretic]

8. I found Obama's announced strategy to be much more complex and nuanced that I expected

Let that be a lesson to me - it was foolish not to assume he would deliver something nuanced, complicated and fully engaged. I guess the fact that I disagree with the administration on its handling of the economic crisis so strongly has made me forget....

ANYWAY,

I'm still reading, listening and thinking about it all.... its certainly not as bad as I feared (speaking as someone who felt Obama was wrong on Afghanistan clear back before I voted for him.)

I'm not sure how many saw Rachel Maddow's analysis but I found it to be very interesting and thought provoking. At this point I'm actually not ready to say what I think about the plan overall.

[billyoc]

12. He certainly didn't pull a fast one with his military plans, he announced them a year ago.

I just don't want to have Americans there.

[Political Heretic]

13. Yeah but a year ago it sounded like combat focus and a military only victory

This plan is non-combat focused and includes money for infrastructure, schools, roads as well as the involvement of the state department and not just the pentagon.

Meh... I still thing the basic premise for being there is wrong. Should bring troops home.

[Terri S]

31. No, it has never been about a military only victory

From "The War We Need To Win" - delivered 8/1/07

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military -- it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

<snip>

We do need to stand for democracy. And I will. But democracy is about more than a ballot box. America must show -- through deeds as well as words -- that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope.

As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say -- as Secretary Rumsfeld did -- "Freedom is untidy." I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy.

I will double our annual investments to meet these challenges to $50 billion by 2012. And I will support a $2 billion Global Education Fund to counter the radical madrasas -- often funded by money from within Saudi Arabia -- that have filled young minds with messages of hate. We must work for a world where every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy. And as we lead we will ask for more from our friends in Europe and Asia as well -- more support for our diplomacy, more support for multilateral peacekeeping, and more support to rebuild societies ravaged by conflict.

You can read the whole speech here : Link


This was speech that got him in such hot water about saying he'd go after al Queda in Pakistan if the Musharraf refused to. The line was taken completely out of context and the totality of the speech pretty much ignored.

[obiwan]

14. I like Obama, but this is Vietnam all over again.

[billyoc]

19. There'll be no pesky reporters running around shooting their mouths off this time, though.

[jenmito]

32. Vietnam, like Iraq, was based on a lie. Going after those who attacked us on 9/11 is not Vietnam

all over again.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. The author forgets to mention that the majority of the Pakistani people do not like the Taliban

But it is also true that they do not like those drone bombings because they do indeed result in civilian deaths. I do not think there is a choice between Pakistani democracy and fighting the Taliban, I think they are directly correlated. Chances are that Pakistan's government is giving Obama their blessing secretly even if publicly they might denounce him.

As for Afghanistan, I think it's a way of opening up another front on the Taliban to get them to let up in Pakistan to give the new Pakistani government enough time to gain some strength.

[MadHound]

24. Umm, I think you had better recheck that statement

From what I've read and heard, the Pakistani people see the Taliban as allies in their conflict with India over Kashmir.

[Boomerang Diddle]

23. Send Paul Krugman in to fix it!

Or we are all doomed, doomed I tell ya!

[cwcwmack]

26. absolutely... nt.