Obama made a terrible decision re Afghanistan

Posted on Wed, Dec. 2, 2009

I'm so disappointed. I thought Obama was too smart to make such a mistake. People are making decisions based on their lack of knowledge about the history of this area.

BBB

No more deaths for a mistake
The Afghanistan war no longer serves any purpose of ours. Why are we escalating it?
By Ivan Elan, director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute

Sounding a bit like John Kerry during the 2004 campaign, President Obama plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan before he de-escalates it. The administration should have abandoned the feckless nation-building strategy of the Bush years and refocused on the main mission: neutralizing al-Qaeda while avoiding instability in nuclear-armed Pakistan.

The attempt to bring about what likely will be only temporary stability in Afghanistan by increasing U.S. forces there is not a long-term solution, just as it probably won't provide a lasting solution in Iraq.

The Taliban control 70 percent of Afghanistan, mostly outside the cities. They seem to have learned a lesson from their ouster and don't appear to be sheltering al-Qaeda camps. Securing the cities, which is at the heart of the new strategy, seems to have little bearing on counterterrorism efforts.

The war is a no-win situation for the president. Signaling that the U.S. commitment will eventually wind down to mollify the American public will only embolden the Taliban to outwait us - just as the North Vietnamese once did.

In fact, when President Lyndon B. Johnson escalated that failed war, he had several advantages Obama lacks: a strong economy to pay for it, public support, and a credible South Vietnamese army to do much of the heavy lifting.

Creating capable Afghan security forces will take much longer than the five years Afghan President Hamid Karzai set as a timetable. Karzai is a seriously flawed "partner," and our "ally" Pakistan is unlikely to crack down on the Taliban sanctuaries within its borders, because it wants a pro-Pakistan Taliban government in Afghanistan when we leave to counter India's influence in the region.

Obama should have recalled what Kerry said after he returned from Vietnam: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Even in the best scenario, the Taliban will never be eradicated from Afghanistan, and likely will become part of its government. The United States should accept that and withdraw before we squander any more lives and money.

Any Taliban-influenced or -run government will not necessarily shelter al-Qaeda. People learn from traumatic experiences - as the Germans and Japanese did after World War II - and the U.S. invasion should leave the Taliban more reluctant to harbor al-Qaeda again.

Such a course is made easier by the fact that the Taliban's primary interest is getting America out of Afghanistan and getting itself back into power. In contrast, al-Qaeda's interest is in global jihad, which is being fueled by the occupation of Afghanistan.

Any Taliban-related Afghan government will need the support of Pakistan, which can be influenced by the United States. If the Pakistanis cooperate and pressure a Taliban government not to shelter al-Qaeda, America could offer Pakistan what it most wants: mediation to bring India back to discontinued bilateral talks.

If Pakistan fails to rein in a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, the United States could threaten to realign with India - a nightmare for the Pakistanis.

The current nation-building quagmire of Afghanistan is just fomenting more militancy and does not need to be escalated. Deep down, Obama knows it. Rather than squandering more blood and treasure, the president should have concentrated on neutralizing al-Qaeda and dissuading the inevitable Taliban government from harboring the group.