Going into the ninth year of a ridiculous military occupation in Afghanistan, one would think the United States would find a way to exit gracefully and admit that its experiment in puppet government implantation failed. One would think after electing a hope & change candidate that there would be some new and fresh thinking on how to bring some decency into American foreign policy. But now, President Obama tonight promised us much more of the same, with a faint, revocable “exit” plan.
He was right to say “The status quo is not sustainable.” But his solution will make things worse.
So the great and fresh thinking we hoped for one year ago as the election results came in have dissolved into an order of an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
The dovish president is tripling the force he inherited. When he became president last January, there were roughly 34,000 troops on the ground; there now are 71,000 (plus 74,000 contractors, as Jeremy Scahill tweeted). And with this bright and original plan, there will be more than 100,000 American soldiers (plus more contractors probably). In exchange, we get a promise to begin bringing units home in 18 months.
The speech came after a three-month review of the war. The commanding general, Stanley McChrystal, requested as many as 40,000 more troops. Without them, he warned, the U.S. risked failure. With them, the risk is the same. While the probability is less, there are going to be much higher chances more Afghans are killed and this unnecessary war is prolonged.
To be fair, Obama never disavowed the Afghanistan invasion; he was more critical of the occupation of Iraq. They were equally criminal in my eyes, as many innocent people died for the abstraction of American national security. I cannot see collective punishment as justified. Yet Obama continues the murderous logic of “our security is at stake.” Trampling the security of other nations simply does not help.
Obama justifies it as a war against “the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida.” What a Bushian turn-of-phrase (though the t-word has been excised).
He added, “It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak,” the president said.
No, we were attacked from American airports. The Afghan army did not invade the United States; the key training, as I recall was in American flight schools.
To justify attacking a country for what could have been schemed from anywhere — and was in fact plotted in numerous places — is illogical. If he wants to argue Afghanistan would be a safe haven for Al-Qaeda, this can happen anywhere at anytime and will likely not be undone by pursuing the kinds of policies that give such ghastly groups their fuel — rampant militaristic domination. I know the United States as the inertia of war and occupation behind it, but pursuing more of the same will only cause more problems, not fix them.
The most despicable and militant quarters of the Taliban are the only ones who will gain.
Obama thinks his plan will break the Taliban’s momentum. He cannot. They are there, they are of the place, they are the product of a place and history; and the Americans cannot undue this context, they are only going to give birth to future Taliban.
The United States should privilege the stability and security of Afghanistan, a country that needs it the most, and negotiate an honorable exit based on a coalition that can actually secure and rule the country, rather than gamble more soldiers in a bet on a corrupt and failing state apparatus. Let Afghanistan form a state, let it bein the community nations and than use conventional means to control it. Sure this is not the ideal for anyone, but it is the inevitable outcome anyways. So, why kill so many innocent people to reach the inevitable?
Free Afghanistan.
Related posts:
- Afghanistan Needs a Karl Rove: The Plan to Bushize Karzai
- Hampshire College divests from Israeli occupation
- America’s Other Imperial Project: My Appeasement Manifesto
- US Afghan Strike so Bloody, Karzai Begs for Mercy; Pakistan Joins the Act.
- American Irrationality in Afghanistan
Dont forget Hamburg. The attacks were planned at US flight schools and in Hamburg.
Posted by jawad | December 2, 2009, 5:59 amThe military action in Afghanistan is not "ridiculous" as you say. There is no need to admit failure and surrender to the Taliban. You will go down on the wrong side of history. Let us remember in the future that you wrote, "But his solution will make things worse."
Obama's own hand-picked General, given the task of adjusting the strategy in Afghanistan for success, came back and reported that reinforcements were needed to complete the job.
this unnecessary war is prolonged – Obviously you were in favor of a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan conspiring with Al Qaeda. Obama never disavowed the Afghanistan invasion – No, it was the "good war" to point to while criticizing everything about the Iraq War, which is gradually succeeding thanks to Bush's surge and the brilliant leadership of Gen. David Petraeus.
No, we were attacked from American airports
test
Having acquired U.S. visas in Saudi Arabia, the muscle hijackers returned to Afghanistan for special training in late 2000 to early 2001.The training reportedly was conducted at the al Matar complex by Abu Turab al Jordani, one of only a handful of al Qaeda operatives who, according to KSM, was aware of the full details of the planned planes operation. Abu Turab taught the operatives how to conduct hijackings, disarm air marshals, and handle explosives. He also trained them in bodybuilding and provided them with a few basic English words and phrases.
According to KSM, Abu Turab had the trainees butcher a sheep and a camel with a knife to prepare to use knives during the hijackings.
After training in Afghanistan, the operatives went to a safehouse maintained by KSM in Karachi and stayed there temporarily before being deployed to the United States via the UAE.
Woops, there goes your whole theory Will. The facts do not agree with you.
Posted by eagle007blogger | December 2, 2009, 7:12 amI wouldn't bother arguing with Will on this one. If he thinks the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was not only unjustified but "criminal" (as he said) then he's a lost cause. To use one of the Bushisms Will is so fond of: He is with the terrorists.
Posted by programmer craig | December 2, 2009, 3:55 pmWow, he actually is with the terrorists! Look at this quote:
I think we have to deal with the forces that emerge there as they are, not as we wish them to be, as being from the ground-up, and as being preferable to the failed state status the US is creating. They will be enemies for some time, but they will control the country and will slowly reform over the years.
Posted by eagle007blogger | December 3, 2009, 7:25 pmThat training can be done anywhere. What is so special about Afghanistan that killing so many people will prevent this from happening again?
It is very obvious that the Soviet invasion and the use of the mujahadeen as a proxy for the United States, which strengthened the least conciliatory (most extreme) wing, set up a political vacuum in Afghanistan and led to a civil war. The US turned its back on the country as the Taliban took root. Once it was formed, the US did not engage it as a nation; it ignored it despite the league of development problems. That gave way to a political vacuum, which the Taliban tried to fill. Instead of trying to work with the regime to handover Al-Qaeda after 9/11, the US took the broad-stroke approach and invaded a month after September 11. This PROVED to fail as the culprits disappeared and now there is an even bigger power vacuum in Afghanistan than there was before the Taliban took over in the mid-1990s. This should make you wonder what will arise when Americans leave?
If you think it will be a new golden Karzai or neo-liberal dynasty, you are living in fantasy land.
It is incredible how idealistic an naive you people are. You actually think the Taliban and their ilk will driven away. This is a doomed venture, and you are gleefully marching forward to another embarrassing end. And none of youarmchair generals pay the price: young American soldiers and Afghans do.
I am so surprised that Americans learned nothing from Vietnam. And Obama is following the LBJ model.
I know you all feel great waving the flag, but it is time to start thinking.
I think we have to deal with the forces that emerge there as they are, not as we wish them to be, as being from the ground-up, and as being preferable to the failed state status the US is creating. They will be enemies for some time, but they will control the country and will slowly reform over the years. We should have started this 15 years ago, and we'd have the Afghanistan we'd like to see now, instead of this ridiculous morass idiotic Americans cheered on in the ego-driven blood-lust days after 9/11.
Will
Posted by KABOBfestWill | December 2, 2009, 4:57 pmAfghanistan was the base from which Al Qaeda planned its attacks on the U.S. Not any more. And it must not be allowed to deteriorate into another terrorist-haven.
Instead of trying to work with the regime to handover Al-Qaeda after 9/11
After 911 don't you remember when the U.S. demanded the handover of Osama Bin Laden, and the Taliban refused, and they started playing games?
This should make you wonder what will arise when Americans leave?
The enemy must be fought off long enough for Afghanistan's forces to step up to the job of maintaining security. Stabilizing the country is what is happening right now. You seem to delight in every set-back for some reason… you are convinced of failure and provide every reason to oppose success.
I am so surprised that Americans learned nothing from Vietnam
Afghanistan is not Viet Nam.
I think we have to deal with the forces that emerge there as they are, not as we wish them to be, as being from the ground-up, and as being preferable to the failed state status the US is creating.
So you are saying that the Taliban should be excepted, the way they are, not as we wish them to be. Because they are emerging from the ground up… and the Taliban are preferable to the state being created now. So a Taliban govt is preferable. That explains a lot.
You have forgotten about the forces emerging from the ground up that oppose the Taliban, such as the Northern Alliance which helped the U.S. defeat the Taliban. You have forgotten that the Afghan people were happy to see the oppressive Taliban go… no they aren't happy with things now, who would be, but the goal is clear and the way forward is evident. Karzai is not so good, but there will be another election… which you do not want. Why would you want the people to be oppressed by radical Islamists again? Why would you wish that on anyone?
You insult America and Americans, while trying to make rational arguments in favor of the enemy.
No Will, the Taliban and radicals will never control the country. The Taliban is not preferable to the democracy taking shape there. This is not a "doomed venture" and your terrorists are not going to win. You will have gone down on the wrong side of history, you have shown yourself to have sided with the forces of evil.
Posted by eagle007blogger | December 3, 2009, 7:16 pmThe most despicable and militant quarters of the Taliban are the only ones who will gain.
Yeap they will gain a one-way ticket to get their 72 raisins.
Obama thinks his plan will break the Taliban’s momentum. He cannot
Your heroes are going to lose Will, they already are, and in Pakistan as well.
The United States should privilege the stability and security of Afghanistan – That is what the U.S. is doing. – negotiate an honorable exit based on a coalition that can actually secure and rule the country – That is exactly what they are doing! Hello? Where have you been?
Let Afghanistan form a state – They have. Or do you mean retreat and let the Taliban take it over?
let it bein the community nations and than [then] use conventional means to control it Stay tuned Will, that's the plan. – Free Afghanistan: from the Taliban and Al Qaeda. "Freedom isn't free."
Posted by eagle007blogger | December 2, 2009, 7:24 amWill, are you still in college? Your arguments are exceptionally shallow and your assumptions are baseless. Get a clue.
Posted by indy | December 2, 2009, 1:54 pmExplain. Why are they shallow? What are my assumptions? Why are they baseless?
Yes, I am still in college.
Posted by KABOBfestWill | December 2, 2009, 4:57 pmI am very impressed with your work; now that you say you're still in college, doubly impressed.
Posted by hanoum | December 3, 2009, 3:04 amHere's the deal: the Military Industrial Complex (as President Eisenhower warned us) must be fed with the blood our young people and hard earned tax dollars of the fewer and fewer income earners of the USA. All other "arguments" for war are smoke and mirrors.
Posted by hanoum | December 3, 2009, 3:08 amCan you provide a link or source for the artwork accompanying this article?
Posted by Ismail | December 3, 2009, 1:05 pmOPERATION: COBRA'S ANGER has begun
Posted by Youmans | December 4, 2009, 6:08 pmAmerica's European allies will send an estimated 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan next year "with more to come," NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced Friday.
Posted by MV-22 Osprey | December 4, 2009, 6:11 pmDoes anyone agree with WILL on this? …that the Taliban and associated cohorts should be running Afghanistan and are preferable to the democracy there?
Posted by pro taliban | December 7, 2009, 9:28 pm