Obama readies a foul pitch on Afghanistan
I’ve noticed that while David Plouffe and Mitch Stewart over at Organizing for America (the remnants of the Obama for President campaign) continue to send emails, I’ve yet to receive a written pep talk warming me up for Obama’s upcoming West Point speech where he is expected to announce significant troop level increases in Afghanistan.
If they’re smart, they’ll keep it that way. Because if the advance buzz on Obama’s announcement is accurate, come Wednesday morning, there’s a pretty good chance that Plouffe’s emails will be going directly to the spam file.
What is it about the White House drinking water that causes all rational thought to vanish when it comes to America’s irrepressible desire to spread The Empire into the heart of the ultimate empire killer?
I know… he told us during the campaign that we had been focusing on the wrong war and how our efforts should have been on Afghanistan. And, yes, he said he might send in another ten thousand soldiers (which he did a few months ago.)
But what I heard was an ‘anti-war’ president who would never do something as ridiculous as committing still another thirty-seven thousand of our troops to yet another war we cannot win.
How does this president not get this? The Afghans have the ultimate home field advantage when it comes to doing battle with teams far bigger and badder than their own. They know all too well that if history is any guide – and it always is despite America’s seeming inability to ever learn from it – when you take the game to their house, you’re going to go home with a big, fat loss on your record.
As Mark Kimmitt put it in his piece for Foreign Policy
Just look at Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar’s recent Eid speech. “We fought against the British invaders for 80 years,” he said. “Today we have strong determination, military training and effective weapons. Still more, we have preparedness for a long war.” In Osama bin Laden’s Sept. 11 message, he repeated his claim that his fighters will wear down the coalition in Afghanistan “like we exhausted the Soviet Union for 10 years until it collapsed.”
People like Mullah Omar and bin Laden understand that every empire that has ever set its sights on Afghanistan always wears out long before the defenders do. The only reason we’ve managed to last eight years in the place is because nobody was paying attention to the fact that we were even there. Had the public and the press been focused on the war in Afghanistan from the outset – rather than Iraq- we’ve have burned out on this baby ages ago.
There is simply no getting around the fact that no outsider eeks out a win when fighting on this particular piece of land. If the bright and able mind of Barack Obama can’t work out that he isn’t going to beat the odds that have whipped everyone from Alexander the Great to the British right on through to the Soviets, how can we possibly be shocked that guys like George Bush and Dick Cheney managed to screw it up so badly?
What Obama has managed to figure out is that this decision is pushing his progressive base well past their breaking point. To counter the inevitable outrage, he is expected to use the West Point speech to raise our hopes for an exit strategy. The expectation is that once we hear that he’s thinking about getting out, we won’t mind so much that he’s getting in so much deeper.
That strategy is not likely to work out so well.
No matter what the President’s plans may be for ultimate withdrawal, they will not erase the fact that he has caved to the generals and civilian militarists who specialize in getting into wars – not getting out of them. Not that we won’t get out one of these days. We will. And when we do, it will be just a matter of minutes before the Taliban and friends come scurrying back. At that moment, just like the Russians and the British before us, it will be like we had never even been there in the first place.
So, why are we doing this?
Obama’s decision may result in his taking his largest step yet towards becoming a one-term president. And for what? Will he have traded a second term in a valiant effort to achieve health care? The environment? A green infrastructure for Amerca?
No. Obama will go down for failing to heed a history lesson a first year high school student could have grasped.
What a waste.
Maybe if we could just change the drinking water in the White House. How do we feel about Perrier? Would that be …you know…too French?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Ah, this reminds me of September, when even MSNBC predicted Obama would use his joint address to Congress to make his supporters accept that there could be no public option, to fall in line behind their fearless leader.
What you don’t seem to acknowledge here is the dangers presented by Afghanistan at this juncture in history. The area is ripe to become an even worse haven of militancy, terrorism and hatred than when it was Al Qaeda’s preferred haven. Afghanistan could become a focal point for global terrorism.
As such, I don’t believe the responsibility for stabilizing Afghanistan is exclusively ours. If the rest of the world wants to be safe, they’d better get ready to roll up their sleeves. This administration didn’t start the war in Afghanistan but it damn well better finish it, and I don’t see it doing that without substantial international assistance.
A REAL coalition of the willing (sorry Palau!)
I don’t disagree that this area could (and to a very large extent already had) become ‘terrorism central’ – however that doesn’t mean that we have the recipe to solve it anymore than any other foreign presence ever has. While our presence there can keep the terrorists from gathering while we are present, we can’t stay forever- at least not if we remain committed to keeping forces in other parts of the world. Sooner or later we run out of money. And if we don’t stay forever, then the moment we leave, in the terrorists will come. In the meantime, the terrorists will move the party somewhere else and use wherever that place may be as their base. This is my problem with this.
In response to another comment. See in context »I also agree with you that if the other nations of the world would share the responsibility, this could have a very different outcome. But they don’t. Therefore, I’d be curious how you see this going if it is all left to the US as it has been and, I expect, will continue to be.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by rickungar, BrainChangingDIET. BrainChangingDIET said: Check it out! Obama readies a foul pitch on Afghanistan http://bit.ly/6sgys0 [...]
Mmph. Difficult but fair question.
I can’t see it going anywhere near the vicinity of well. I just can’t. Not without something politically unthinkable, such as widely accepted tax hikes. Or a draft.
As the U.S. cannot indefinitely sustain an effort in Afghanistan, and as our failure in Afghanistan would seriously destabilize an unstable world, logic suggests that other nations will in fact step up and help America with its desperate task, for self-preservation if nothing else.
But O Brother, it’s a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.
It is interesting. It seems so obvious that the world’s largest nations would see the benefit of policing Afghanistan together. Yet -they don’t.
In response to another comment. See in context »While there is room for debate on Afghan policy, this “graveyard of empires” nonsense needs to end.
Afghanistan and the ethnic groups which originated there were conquered by the Medes around 700 BCE who remained in control until the Persians conquered them (550BCE). Alexander the Greek conquered the Persians including their Afghan territories around 330 BCE and the area remained under Hellenistic rule for about 180 years.
The Kushan Empire evolved in and around the area (and probably should not be categorized as a conquest but certainly involves enough subjugation of diverse peoples to indicate that Afghanis can be subdued) and held sway for over 400 years. They were supplanted (in much of the area) by a Persian dynasty (Sassanian) who fell about 100-150 years later to a nomadic group known as “White Huns” but took it back again roughly a century later.
They lost Afghanistan again in the 7th century, falling to Arabic armies spreading the Islamic faith. While under Islamic rule, there were still additional conquests of Afghanistan by various factions (the Samanid, Ghaznavid, Ghorid, and Khwarezm empires essentially succeeded each other by force) all of which fell to the Mongol Horde around 1220. Genghis Khan’s death 7 years later led to along period of fragmentation and cultural backsliding in the area, setting the stage for Tamerlane’s conquest 150 years later,
That empire held together for about 2 centuries, fell to a conqueror who in turn fell to others about 10 years later. That marked the beginning of a long period of domination of the Afghan region by two rival empires (Mughal and Safavid) for about 250 years. At that time Nadir Shah (a Turkish conqueror) swept in, more or less establishing the beginnings of the Durrani/Afghan Empire which lasted just under a century.
The Empire fell into turmoil marked by civil and external wars which opened the door to the “Great Game.” While some simplistically consider the British goal of this era to have been the conquest of Afghan (and it probably was one of the possible outcomes under consideration), the primary objective was to have a buffer state between Russia and India. Ultimately, the British crushed the Afghan military and established a Khan who did what they wanted. They maintained control over Afghan foreign affairs for decades. While there were British military setbacks, the most notable occurred when the British had token forces in the area and the two nations were theoretically at peace.
Afghanistan has been subjugated to foreign powers repeatedly over its history. While I do not believe that term applies to our current efforts in that country, it is ridiculous to make claims about unconquered, empire-breaking Afghanistan. The defeat of the Soviets in the 80’s was certainly a significant feat of arms but the mujahedeen were openly supported by major nations and they were fighting a military force of dubious quality. Since the end of the Soviet Union, it has been confirmed that the predominantly conscripted Red Army was a shambles with poor training, rampant alcoholism, outdated and poorly maintained equipment, abusive and unqualified NCOs, and poor supply logistics, just to name a few of its shortcomings.
This is my offering as an amateur historian (I only have a BA in the field and do not practice it professionally) but you will find that respected professionals agree with this point.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/05/afghan_mythologies_99028.html
It is an interesting history lesson and appreciated. I most certainly am not a historian – amateur or otherwise.
In response to another comment. See in context »I do, however, believe the British see it a bit differently and consider Afghanistan as playing a significant role among the the decline and ultimate demise of the British Empire.
I also don’t know that I agree that it was the poor condition of the Soviet soldiers that led to their defeat. it was a war that was fought from the air without the Soviets controlling the scenario using helicopters and war planes. It was not until the Americans ponied up for anti-aircraft weaponry that the tide turned – but it did turn because the Afghans were not afraid to stand up to the Soviets and wouldn’t say die.
The Taliban know that we will, eventually leave. And when we do, the likelihood that we will have left behind an Afghan national force capable of holding off the Taliban until they are defeated is slim to none. I think what the Taliban have in common with the Afghans of history is the willingness to just keep fighting until they succeed. What we often cannot relate to is the notion that they have nothing else to do but to fight. Our soldiers want to come home to their lives, families, jobs, etc. For the Taliban,the fight is their life, family and job. Who wins in that scenario?
I also appreciate your thoughtful reply – your comments are valid in terms of the valor of the Afghan people during the Soviet invasion and the influence on the “Great Game” on the eventual decline of the British Empire.
However. I don’t think it is quite right to look at either factor as primary to the results. As you point out, outside support was necessary to offset the sir superiority of the USSR. As for the decline of the British Empire, thr factors that led to its release of its colonies were much more closely tied to WW2 and a multitude of political trends unrelated to Afghanistan.
That said, the main point was that, if military action is the right path in dealing with that part of the world, then it should not be influenced by an unwarranted image as an empire killer.
In response to another comment. See in context »When I said there was nothing patriotic about sending your sons and daughters to die for george bush in iraq, the right wing fanatics kicked me off of seahannity’s site for life….I imagine the leftwingers would do the same if I said there is nothing patriotic about sending your sons and daughters to die for Obama to stabilize the number one opium/heroin producer on earth, afghanistan…..
Obama is proving polticians come in ONLY one color: green(as in the color of money)
It’s one thing to fight an endless war when your country is flourishing and your people are employed, prosperous, and facing a bright future. But we’re not. We’re hurting back here and no one seems to care.
The NYT today has a sobering piece on food stamps: one in eight Americans is now using them. One in four children get their food via food stamps!.
Over 10% of American adults are actively looking for work, an additional 7% have given up or are working less hours than desired.
Our middle class is shrinking, our inner cities are a mess, poor kids face a miserable future, we imprison six times more of our population, per capita, than Canada. We need healthcare reform NOW and even that is in trouble in Congress.
The bottom line is, sending 37,000 more troops to Afghanistan is akin to starving your children to feed your drug habit, and someone needs to intervene. What an immense disappointment Barack has been…
exact;y right.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hello Rick,
I know exactly what happened to Mr. Obama. The generals and security advisers sat him down pointed out how strategic Afghanistan was, how it was right next to the oil rich states of the former Soviet Union, right next to Iran, right next to China, Pakistan, and very close to India and the whole of South-West Asia. He was told how we cannot “lose” Afghanistan to the terrorists, how they cannot control that strategic high ground. There is a reason it is called the “graveyard of empires”, it because empires have long seen its geopolitical significance. Why would everyone from Alexander the Great to George W. Bush want to conquer it? Unless you really like opium poppies there is not much else there. So after his talk with the “big boys” who explained “how it was” he made his decision.
How many people would be able to resist the geo-political math here? Who would have big enough brass gonads to say no the generals and experts? So long as the US has a strategic objective of maintaining hegemony in South West Asia, and so long as Mr. Obama seeks to get re-elected in three years, it is hard to see that he would make any other decision. It is exact same math that LBJ did in 1965. Of course other men, like Abraham Lincoln and FDR both overruled their generals and made strategic decisions contrary to their advice but, they were different men.
It is like a Greek tragedy, everyone can see the ending but no one can change the plot.
From Secretary-General of the UN’s Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/andersfoghrasmussen
“Dear friends, next week we will take important decisions on strategy and troops in Afghanistan. President Obama will make his announcement, followed by a NATO and ISAF foreign minister’s meeting. I’ve travelled and talked with political leaders in the Alliance and called on them to follow suit when the US sends more troops to Afghanistan. Solidarity has always been the strength of our Alliance. Anders”
From the House of Reps:
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Obey_Murtha_Larson_Call_for_War_Surtax_11.19.pdf
“WASHINGTON D.C. – Congressman Dave Obey (D-WI), the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Congressman John Larson (D-CT), the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, and eight other Democratic Members introduced legislation today that would end the practice of paying for the war in Afghanistan with borrowed money by imposing a war surtax beginning in 2011.”