Afghanistan – Page 6

Obama’s Afghanistan policy: Different but still the same

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

There is not a lot to like about President Barack Obama’s newly announced Afghanistan strategy.

First, there will be more troops and advisers. So, war remains the answer in Afghanistan, even if the Obama administration is bulking up diplomatic efforts.

Second, there is the rhetoric — which Rachel Maddow last night showed was similar, sometimes word for word, to the language used by President George W. Bush.

It is true that the strategy is a break from the Bush administration’s, but it is a falsehood to say that the war in Afghanistan was not one of choice as we are hearing from some. Afghanistan may have been the home to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but a full-out war was not necessarily something that had to follow 9/11. A narrower approach was still possible back in October 2001, one that could have resembled a police raid on a drug-manufacturing house — a coordinated effort that would not have resulted in the kind of indiscriminate actions that have poisoned our relationship with the region and now appears to imperil Pakistan.

Tom Hayden is correct:

The Obama plan instead will accelerate any plans Al Qaeda commanders have for attacking targets in the United States or Europe. The alternative for Al Qaeda is to risk complete destruction, an American objective that has not been achieved for eight years. A terrorist attack need not be planned or set in motion from a cave in Waziristan. The cadre could already be underground in Washington or London. The real alternative for President Obama should be to maintain a deterrent posture while immediately accelerating diplomacy to meet legitimate Muslim goals, from a Palestinian state to genuine progress on Kashmir.

Or as another Nation writer, editor Kristina Vanden Heuvel, said not too long ago,

Escalating the occupation will bleed us of the resources needed for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift with our European allies and negate our improved image in the Muslim world prompted by our withdrawal from Iraq. Escalation will not increase US security or secure a better future for the Afghan people–indeed, more troops will certainly mean more dead civilians.

We need a much greater break with Bush policy than what President Obama is offering.

Tuesday Poetry Podcast: Aftermath

Today’s poetry podcast is of a poem I wrote in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, focusing on the beginnings of our now endless-seeming war in Afghanistan.

The other lost war

A few weeks ago, I heard from a friend who called me out for being critical of the war in Afghanistan. He asked: How did you conclude the war in Afghanistan is an abysmal failure?

My answer was to send him this story from the New York Times, which raised serious questions about the effectiveness of our mission in Afghanistan.

Then I read this column today in The Baltimore Sun by Thomas Schaller, which essentially calls the Afghanistan war a failure on a par with Iraq. Schaller opens by describing the situation on the ground– in language that sounds an awful lot like the situation on the ground in Mesapotamia.

If we have not already lost this war, surely we are barreling headlong toward defeat.

Americans, of course, would have preferred that things turned out differently. We supported the invasion because something needed to be done. Initially, President Bush’s decision to send in our troops was very popular. And, as is his wont, Mr. Bush continues to avoid any defeatist talk, reinforcing his belief that anything other than unvarnished optimism wouldn’t be presidential.

At a White House press conference this year, in fact, the president stated unambiguously that America’s goal should be “to help the people of that country to defeat the terrorists and establish a stable, moderate and democratic state that respects the rights of its citizens, governs its territory effectively, and is a reliable ally in this war against extremists and terrorists.”

But that’s just not happening, and Mr. Bush simply refuses to come to terms with realities that prevent the goals from succeeding. These realities cannot be wished or ignored away.

For starters, we know that violence and bloodshed are daily features of the lives of our troops and the people whose land we occupy. The fatality rates for American soldiers since January 2005 are twice what they were before that. Nonfatal injury rates have also skyrocketed.

Meanwhile, other injuries – of the type that have nothing to do with violence and everything to do with the suffering of daily tragedies, large and small – are undermining our ability to win the “hearts and minds” war. We exacerbate existing local tensions when we fail to meet civilians’ basic needs; we turn potential friends into enemies. If electricity is unavailable for all but a few hours each day and clean water is scarce, who has the time or inclination to ponder concepts such as freedom and democracy?

Worse, many innocents are living on the run, refugees either inside their country or abroad. That’s why there’s so much violence in border areas, where arriving terrorists are spoiling for a fight and traumatized families heading in the opposite direction try to avoid further victimization. Naturally, al-Qaida continues to stir the pot.

As Peter Bergen reports in “War on Error,” a recent, aptly titled New Republic piece, lethal violence is ramping up. “In 2006, IED attacks doubled, assaults on international forces tripled, and suicide bombings quintupled,” he writes. “And 2007 is shaping up to be even worse, with suicide bombings up 69 percent from last year.” The bloodthirsty operatives of al-Qaida, warns Mr. Bergen, are growing stronger and bolder.

Sounds like Baghdad in the summer, right? It’s not. It is Afghanistan, the good war, the first front in the battle against Islamo-fascism and international terrorism. Apparently, things are not going quite so well these days:

The sad, embarrassing fact is that six years after the United States and its coalition allies arrived in Afghanistan, that country remains chaotic and unstable. This despite the fact that one of the main reasons we went there in the first place was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks; he remains at large.

As Mr. Bergen notes, Afghanistan is half again the size of Iraq and more populous, and yet we spend a pittance there compared with the tens of billions we dump monthly into Iraq. Would this resource imbalance have been different if the former were sitting atop huge oil reserves?

Afghanistan, as he says, is lost.

lost in the sense of failure but also in the sense of being forgotten. Even if by some miracle the situation in Iraq turned around 180 degrees during President Bush’s remaining 15 months, our self-described “war president” would still leave office having lost one far-more-winnable war.

And don’t bet on things turning around in Iraq, not in any meaningful way. So what will be the Bush legacy? Two lost wars? A mangling of America’s reputation abroad?

Take your pick.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.