via Obama Must Get Afghanistan Right. 01/08/09
posted in The Nation by Katrina Vanden Hueval, Nation Editor
President-elect Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, he argued for the need “to end the mindset that took us into” that war. So it’s troubling that he ramped up his rhetoric during the campaign about exiting Iraq in order to focus on what he calls the “central front in the war on terror”–Afghanistan. His plan now calls for an escalation of 20,000 to 30,000 additional American troops over the next year–nearly doubling the current 32,000.
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman criticized the Dems’ position on Afghanistan as ill-conceived “bumper sticker politics.” Too many of the leading Dems have become part of a poorly reasoned bipartisan consensus that threatens to entrap the US in another costly occupation–a war that New York Times columnist Bob Herbert describes as “more than seven years old and which long ago turned into a quagmire.” It currently costs the Pentagon $2 billion per month to support the US troops in Afghanistan. An escalation would drain resources that are vital to President-elect Obama’s goals for an economic recovery, health care, and social justice at home, while impeding other critical international initiatives such as the Middle East Peace process and a regional diplomacy in South Asia.
This is all well and good, but what’s the verdict here? Is this article and new website just a call to leave Afghanistan with justifications, or is this a well thought through conclusion to a long problem?
Sure, there are many downsides to the conflict in Afghanistan such as civilian casualties, Taliban resurgence due to anti Americanism, and the huge toll it is taking on our troops and treasure and when you include the path to peace part, the reasons for leaving get even bigger. This is war if you haven’t noticed and there is bound to be an anti-war backlash. To many there is no good reason to be there at all besides a worn out meme of capturing Bin Laden.
There are strategic reasons to oppose a military escalation and occupation. On national security grounds, a US occupation would be counterproductive to the stated goal of defeating Al Qaeda. The moment for action against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was immediately after 9/11. Now, Al Qaeda operates out of Pakistan, and the key to reining it in lies with a democratic Pakistani government.
Why escalate the conflict? There was a secret agenda back in 2001 to going there – the natural gas pipeline. I know, that sounds all tin-foil-haty and conspiratory but the fact that it is there and may be the only thing we have to show for all this money and effort lends some sort of credence to the story. Is there any national interest to protect in Afghanistan besides the pipeline and tired sense of justice capturing Bin Laden?
Maybe Obama saw the political stance of “the right war” as being a way to hook some independents.
I think that the idea of this being the “right” war is wearing thin and that those who wish to scrap it in favor of humanitarian, indirect military aid, and arm-twisting Pakistan to act instead of direct military engagement may have the right ideas.
Follow me on Twitter!
