Obama's War
A Democratic president inherits a war in Asia, in which American forces were defending a friendly government against an insurgency. In response to recommendations from US commanders on the scene, the president increases the number of American ground troops. Although vastly outgunned by the Americans and their local allies, the insurgents keep coming, and seem to have substantial support among the population. Liberal senators begin to question the war, some even totally oppose it.
Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam? Or Barack Obama in Afghanistan? Just a few years ago Iraq was labeled Bush's Vietnam; will Afghanistan be Obama's?
The war to drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, attacks was supported by an overwhelming number of Americans. The Taliban had permitted Al Qaida to operate numerous training camps in their country, and terrorists trained there had committed the 9/11 crimes. The US had been supporting a group of Afghan tribes known as the Northern Alliance against the Taliban for years, but after 9/11 the American military intervened directly against the Islamic fascists, and within weeks the Taliban had been driven from power. A new government under US ally Hamid Karzai of the Northern Alliance took office, and Taliban and Al Qaida members fled to caves along the Pakistani border.
Mission accomplished? I thought so, as did many Americans. We never did nab Osama bin Laden, but Afghans were at last free of Taliban Sharia (Muslim law) rule. But over the past eight years a strange thing happened: the Taliban have come back fighting, and the government in Kabul needs American troops (as well as money and weapons) to stop them.
What went wrong? ( I have never been anywhere Afghanistan, so my opinions are based on published reports, not personal knowledge. ) First, note that about 90% of the opium produced in the world comes from Afghanistan; it is the most profitable crop that local farmers can grow. The US and its allied government have been trying mightily to stamp out the opium trade, while it is no problem at all to the Taliban. Ironically, American heroin addicts are thus indirectly helping the Taliban to win over local farmers.
Next, consider that Afghanistan has no tradition of democracy. Before the Taliban, the country was ruled by a Soviet puppet regime, before that by a king, and before the monarchy it was ruled by the British. The prime forces in Afghan politics have been and still are: Sunni Islam, tribalism, and hostility to foreign armies. We Americans (and our British allies) view ourselves as liberators, and the Western-educated elite in Kabul concur, but to many Afghans in the villages we are just another foreign army of occupation. The Taliban, despite their cruelty and tyranny, and their oppression of women and girls, are Muslim Afghans, and we are not. Very few Americans in Afghanistan can even speak any one of their languages. How is your Pashto? Urdu?
Of course, the key to success is the local government, whose troops we are arming and training. Americans who have dealt with President Karzai, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have been disappointed with his leadership. Karzai is reported to be weak and ineffectual, especially in confronting internal corruption and the opium trade. His troops are said to need years more of American training, even though Taliban troops seem to be doing fine without any foreign training at all. If the Afghans really appreciate their new-found freedom, why are they not more effective in fighting for it themselves?
The trouble is that the downside of pulling out of Afghanistan is appalling. If the Taliban retake power, Al Qaida will be back training terrorists for missions all over the world. Worse yet, the Taliban forces in Pakistan will have a safe haven in Afghanistan from which to threaten Islamabad for years to come. If Afghanistan is the first domino to fall to the Taliban, Pakistan (armed with nuclear weapons) could be the second. The stakes in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) seem puny by comparison.
Although the war effort in Afghanistan is losing support in this country (1), Obama has little choice but to soldier on. According to one theory, his policy of appeasement of the Arabs in the Middle East (2) is driven in part by a desire to appeal to Muslims in Asian countries, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. If US casualties in the war increase, his popularity in America will decrease; but if he would pull out and the Taliban were to win, the consquences could be catastrophic.
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama pledged to transfer US military power from Iraq to the struggle in Afghanistan. So far, he has kept that promise, but the road ahead looks not only rocky, but mountainous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) According to a poll reported by The NY Times reported on September 25, 2009, the number of people who approve of Obama's handling of the Afghan war declined from 56% in April to only 44%.
(2)For example, Obama's speech to the UN General Assemby on September 22 declared Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegimate. However, in other parts of the same speech he urged Palestinians and other Arabs to stop inciting hatred and violence toward Israel.
Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam? Or Barack Obama in Afghanistan? Just a few years ago Iraq was labeled Bush's Vietnam; will Afghanistan be Obama's?
The war to drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, attacks was supported by an overwhelming number of Americans. The Taliban had permitted Al Qaida to operate numerous training camps in their country, and terrorists trained there had committed the 9/11 crimes. The US had been supporting a group of Afghan tribes known as the Northern Alliance against the Taliban for years, but after 9/11 the American military intervened directly against the Islamic fascists, and within weeks the Taliban had been driven from power. A new government under US ally Hamid Karzai of the Northern Alliance took office, and Taliban and Al Qaida members fled to caves along the Pakistani border.
Mission accomplished? I thought so, as did many Americans. We never did nab Osama bin Laden, but Afghans were at last free of Taliban Sharia (Muslim law) rule. But over the past eight years a strange thing happened: the Taliban have come back fighting, and the government in Kabul needs American troops (as well as money and weapons) to stop them.
What went wrong? ( I have never been anywhere Afghanistan, so my opinions are based on published reports, not personal knowledge. ) First, note that about 90% of the opium produced in the world comes from Afghanistan; it is the most profitable crop that local farmers can grow. The US and its allied government have been trying mightily to stamp out the opium trade, while it is no problem at all to the Taliban. Ironically, American heroin addicts are thus indirectly helping the Taliban to win over local farmers.
Next, consider that Afghanistan has no tradition of democracy. Before the Taliban, the country was ruled by a Soviet puppet regime, before that by a king, and before the monarchy it was ruled by the British. The prime forces in Afghan politics have been and still are: Sunni Islam, tribalism, and hostility to foreign armies. We Americans (and our British allies) view ourselves as liberators, and the Western-educated elite in Kabul concur, but to many Afghans in the villages we are just another foreign army of occupation. The Taliban, despite their cruelty and tyranny, and their oppression of women and girls, are Muslim Afghans, and we are not. Very few Americans in Afghanistan can even speak any one of their languages. How is your Pashto? Urdu?
Of course, the key to success is the local government, whose troops we are arming and training. Americans who have dealt with President Karzai, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have been disappointed with his leadership. Karzai is reported to be weak and ineffectual, especially in confronting internal corruption and the opium trade. His troops are said to need years more of American training, even though Taliban troops seem to be doing fine without any foreign training at all. If the Afghans really appreciate their new-found freedom, why are they not more effective in fighting for it themselves?
The trouble is that the downside of pulling out of Afghanistan is appalling. If the Taliban retake power, Al Qaida will be back training terrorists for missions all over the world. Worse yet, the Taliban forces in Pakistan will have a safe haven in Afghanistan from which to threaten Islamabad for years to come. If Afghanistan is the first domino to fall to the Taliban, Pakistan (armed with nuclear weapons) could be the second. The stakes in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) seem puny by comparison.
Although the war effort in Afghanistan is losing support in this country (1), Obama has little choice but to soldier on. According to one theory, his policy of appeasement of the Arabs in the Middle East (2) is driven in part by a desire to appeal to Muslims in Asian countries, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. If US casualties in the war increase, his popularity in America will decrease; but if he would pull out and the Taliban were to win, the consquences could be catastrophic.
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama pledged to transfer US military power from Iraq to the struggle in Afghanistan. So far, he has kept that promise, but the road ahead looks not only rocky, but mountainous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) According to a poll reported by The NY Times reported on September 25, 2009, the number of people who approve of Obama's handling of the Afghan war declined from 56% in April to only 44%.
(2)For example, Obama's speech to the UN General Assemby on September 22 declared Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegimate. However, in other parts of the same speech he urged Palestinians and other Arabs to stop inciting hatred and violence toward Israel.
Labels: Afghanistan, Obama
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 11:07 AM
1 comments
