@msolga,
Since Obama has announced the date of our troops' departure we have no alternative but to do what we can in the time left to prepare the Afghan forces for the intensified war they will surely be forced to fight after we leave.
That seems an impossible task and will result in further American casualties so I'm in favor of pulling out right now. That won't happen though.
"Victory" in Iraq and Afghanistan would entail one of two scenarios:
1) The obliteration of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the obliteration of Al Qaeda and sectarian extremists in Iraq. The chances for such victories were blown while Bush was President and there was never even a remote chance that Obama would attempt what Bush did not do.
2) Leaving the Afghan army and government in a position to resist and defeat the Taliban after we leave, and the Iraqi army and government in a position to resist and defeat extremist insurgents.
Clearly, neither scenario will be achieved in either nation.
Whether you agree with it or not, the goal of the Iraqi war was not simply to eliminate Saddam's WMD stockpiles and capabilities. If it was, once Saddam was crushed and the Bush administration was forced to acknowledge there were no WMDs, the troops would have been pulled out and victory in the sense of ridding the world of a brutal tyrant could have been declared.
Many folks on the left use the term neo-con as if they have some idea of what it means. If they did, they would realize that an essential element of the neo-con strategy for Iraq was to establish an Islamic democracy in the Middle East. The execution of that strategy was bungled from the first days after the fighting between Iraqi and US military forces ceased.
The reason for invading Afghanistan was not to kill Osama bin Laden (although clearly that was an important and also bungled goal). The reasons were:
1) To kill and capture as many al-Qaeda terrorists as possible and drive those who survived from their established bases
2) To thoroughly disrupt and degrade al-Qaeda's ability to wage war on the US
3) To punish the Taliban who defied our demands to turn over bin-Laden and send a message to any other government that chose to aide our terrorist enemies
4) To bring bin-Laden to justice.
The neo-cons expanded the mission to establish a democracy in Afghanistan which was a mistake and which was also bungled.
It was a mistake because even if establishing a democracy in that medieval nation was possible, it was of little strategic importance. I'm sympathetic to the idea that if we send our military into a country we should, after accomplishing our immediate goals, leave it in better shape or on a better path than it was before we invaded. For the neo-cons, this meant leaving a democratic government. Even if they had been more competent in the attempt to achieve that goal, the chances of success were never good. When the US government anointed Kharzai the chances shrank further.
While there was a strategic reason to establish a democracy in Iraq, there wasn't in Afghanistan.
Once the Taliban was driven from power and al-Qaeda's organization driven into mountain caves, we should have withdrawn with the warning that we would be back if it appeared Afghanistan was starting to become a terrorist haven once more.
Once we embarked on a course of nation building in Afghanistan we were committed to finish the job. Obviously we will not.
It's ironic that it is the effort to dress up war as a noble effort whenever it must be employed that leads to overly expansive goals and ultimately greater casualties.
The US was seriously attacked on 9/11. We had every right and every reason to invade Afghanistan and accomplish the goals I outlined above, but because we are living with the positive residue of the Marshall Plan and the negative residue of Vietnam, our leaders often feel we are obligated to append reconstruction to our destruction.
The most successful wars waged by the US in the last 50 years were the first Gulf War and the Bosnian War. We went in, achieved our military goals and got out, with a remarkably low casualty rate. Any attempt at influencing the two situations in a manner other than warfare proved to be ineffectual and even damaging.
The lesson we should learn from the Iraqi war is that we are not capable of carrying out such a grand strategy, without a whole lot more warfare, and I don't think any power is or ever was able to do so.
The Marshall Plan was successful, in part, because our enemies were so totally vanquished. There was never any real fear of German and Japanese insurgents. They were both utterly defeated and ecstatic to have their conquerors treat them in such a way. The enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq have not been utterly defeated, and by telling them when we plan to leave we have assured that they will hang on.
If we are not willing to level a nation so that it has no choice but to embrace rebuilding, we should put away all thoughts of nation building and grand geopolitical strategies.
Now I have a few questions for you:
If Obama never intended to pursue the definition of victory that I (and many others) have proposed, and, which he professed to agree with, should he not have just pulled the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as he gained office?
What was his justification for leaving our troops in both countries?
If he came to the conclusion that "victory" was not possible and that our troops needed to come home before any more died or were injured, why did he give a speech which strongly suggested "victory" had been achieved, and why do we still have troops in Afghanistan?
It may be a meaningless distinction to the families who have lost loved ones or the soldiers who have been sorely wounded, but I think that if I were in their shoes I would prefer to think that my leader always believed victory was possible rather than callously playing politics so he could be re-elected.
