What were they thinking?
In his recent speech Pres. Obama announced that he will increase US forces in Afghanistan by close to 50%. He justified that decision by reminding us that in 2001 “Al Quaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan.” To be sure, but has he not heard that the Al Quaeda leadership has long since decamped to Pakistan? There are about 100 Al Quaeda left and we are increasing our military to 100,000 men and women in order to keep them from launching more terrorist attacks. 1000 Allied soldiers for every Al Quaeda? They must be supermen, to be sure.
It makes no sense.
But here is the real puzzle: Pres. Obama is very intelligent; so is his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Their advisers are equally able. They went through a three-month, extremely careful discussion before they adopted the current plan. On more than one occasion the President and his advisers spent 11 hours in meetings to discuss this decision. Why then have they made this incomprehensible decision?
One explanation offered for the President's decision has, once again, to do with oil. Large reserves of oil have been discovered north of Afghanistan, at the edges of the Caspian Sea, in Turkmenistan and Khazakstan. The only existing pipeline for this oil goes through Russia giving Russia control over the flow of oil. That is totally unacceptable. Since 1995 there have been plans to build a pipe line through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some people think the rush to pacify Afghanistan has little to do with the war on terrorism but, in reality, serves this pipeline project.
Sending more troops to Afghanistan to make it safe for an oil pipeline makes about as much sense as pacifying Afghanistan in order to make the US less vulnerable to Al Qaeda in neighboring Pakistan. For many years to come Afghanistan is going to be a dangerous terrain for oil pipelines.
A second explanation of the escalation bases it on considerations of domestic US politics. Some recent work on the history of the Vietnam war argues that Lyndon Johnson's reluctance to give up on that war was mostly motivated by domestic policy considerations. When, in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party took power in China a great hue and cry was started by right wing politicians about the government “losing” China. The State Department, they claimed, was riddled with communists. That story only died at the end of the red scare that Sen.Joe McCarthy orchestrated in the early 1950s. From this perspective, President Lyndon Johnson perhasps continued the Vietnam war, against the advice of his staff, because he was afraid the right-wing would attack him and the Democratic Party for “losing” Vietnam.
Similar considerations could be moving Pres. Obama. Perhaps he does not want to appear weak in the face of terrorist threats or indigenous insurgency in Afghanistan. Christian Parenti stated this view very bluntly: “The real purpose of these 30,000 soldiers is to make Obama look tough as he heads toward the next US presidential election.” Once again domestic political considerations would be playing an important role. But that, of course, does not justify the escalation. We would not want one American or Afghani to be harmed for the sake of protecting Democratic politicians from attacks by right wing Republicans.
A third explanation points to the President's conception of America's role in the world.
In 2007, then candidate Obama spoke about American leadership, how in the past America “led and lifted” the world and promised to renew that leadership. When, very recently, now Pres. Obama left for China he repeated his views about American leadership of the world. This idea may well be behind this escalation of the Afghan war.
The war begun eight years ago to destroy the Taliban and bring peace to Afghanistan has, so far, failed. The Taliban are gaining in strength; the devastation of the country is worse than ever. Does a leader give up when projects seem to fail? Failure is not a word in the leader's vocabulary; he does not accept defeat. Instead he goes back into the fray, redoubles his efforts and, as Obama keeps saying about Afghanistan, “finishes the job.” As leaders of the world, we Americans must finish the job we started – whatever the cost. According to the account of the deliberations in the New York Times “The more he [President Obama] learned about the consequences of failure, and the more he narrowed the mission, the more he gravitated toward a robust if temporary buildup.” Gen. McCrystal warned of “mission failure” and the President responded with the decision to escalate. When Vice-President Biden asked whether the Taliban were a threat to the US, the President responded: “I just want to say right now, I want to take off the table that we’re leaving Afghanistan.” Withdrawal was never an option. Leaders always emerge as winners.
That image of ourselves as World Leaders-- more than any of the other motives discussed – seem to encourage the President and his advisors to escalate the Afghan war. But this explanation also fails. It does not justify sending one more soldier to Afghanistan.
Fortunate in inhabiting a fertile country with a population enriched generation after generation by enterprising and talented members of other peoples, the United States has become a very rich country. It has become, for that reason, a very powerful country. But being powerful is not the same as being a leader. The powerful are often bullies and we have frequently used our power to try to impose our will on other nations. The Korean War was costly for us and the Koreans. But Korea is still divided. We fought the Vietnam war in order to prevent the world from going communist. We lost that war but all the dire predictions about Asia going Communist turned out to be false. President Reagan invaded Grenada – a country he probably could not find on the map. The elder Bush bombed Panama City killing 1000 civilians. The younger Bush did untold harm to Iraq and to Afghanistan. We have not acted a leaders but as thugs and bullies. If President Obama wants to restore genuine leadership, he has to restrain the military and its inclination to solve all problems with bombs and bullets. He has to withdraw from Afghanistan as he is withdrawing from Iraq.
Escalating the war in Afghanistan will cause untold harm to people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will cause untold harm to our nation by perpetuating our role as world bully.
Showing posts with label Taliban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taliban. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Who is the Enemy in Afghanistan?
Who is the enemy in Afghanistan?
Matthew Hoh fought in Iraq in 2004- 2005 and again in 2006 - 2007 both as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps and as a civilian employee of the US government. He is a hero and a patriot. During the last six months he worked in Afghanistan as a foreign service officer. When he resigned his job last week, he stated that the war in Afghanistan, in his view, served no purpose. Human lives, by no means only American, and huge amounts of money were being wasted on a misguided undertaking.
From where we are in the US, it is difficult to say whether Hoh's doubts about the Afghan war are correct. But the questions he raises are critical. Whatever President Obama and his advisors decide about that war, Hoh's questions must be answered if our government chooses to continue that war in any form.
We attacked Afghanistan in 2001 because Obama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, was said to be hiding out in Afghanistan. The Taliban, then in power in Afghanistan, refused to surrender him to us. US and NATO troops destroyed their government. While no one knows where bin Laden is, the most common opinion is that he is now living in Pakistan. Fighting in Afghanistan will not bring us any closer to capturing him.
Hoh insists that, moreover, Al Quaeda has training camps in Sudan, in Yemen, in the former Yugoslavia, and in Europe. The 9/11 attack was hatched in Hamburg, Germany. The war in Afghanistan will only marginally weaken Al Quaeda. Afghanistan plays a minor role in the continued existence of Al Quaeda.
Who is the enemy in Afghanistan? It is often said to be the Taliban--religious fanatics whose political outlook is the opposite of ours: they despise democracy and seek to establish a theocratic state. (They regard the separation of Church and State, practiced by us, as evil). They do not believe in equality for women, or in individual liberty (the freedom to run one's life as one chooses--as long as others are not harmed by one's choices). Our ways are abhorrent to the Taliban; their ways are anathema to us.
But says Hoh, is that a reason for continuing that war? Surely an excellent question.
What is more, Hoh thinks, the insurgency we are fighting is not primarily led by the Taliban, by the Islamist movement that wants to establish a theocratic state in Afghanistan. The energy for the bloody fighting against US and NATO troops comes from sheer nationalism. When George Washington and the American Patriots fought the British, they fought a nationalist war. Their goal was to have Americans govern themselves and to force the British out of any positions of power in the colonies. The enemy in Afghanistan, according to Hoh, are similar nationalist movements. But they differ from the Patriots in the US in that they are not defending the independence of the entire country, but often of a small area, one particular valley, the home of a particular tribe.
Afghanistan, in the opinion of Hoh and of many other observers, is not one country, but a collection of very local populations focused on their locality, their own language and traditions. All of this is held together by a corrupt and ineffective government in the largest city Kabul. But Afghanis think of themselves not as citizens of the country, Afghanistan, but as citizens of the specific place where they were born that their families inhabit, and where they have been for generations. No common language, tradition, and family connections link all Afghanis to each other. Their identity is connected to their locality, not to the country as a whole.
These very local groups want to be left alone to run their collective lives as they have for a long time. The longer US troops remain in the area, the more we will inflame this nationalist resistance. The Russian invasion faltered for the same reasons--all the tanks and guns of a superior army were powerless in the face of the local loyalties of Afghan tribesmen.
These local Afghan tribes are no threat to the safety of the US. They want to be left alone. If we do that, that will be the end of their interest in us.
Does Hoh assess the Afghani situation correctly? Has he understood some fundamental truths about Afghanistan? Most likely there will be sharp differences of opinion among people who know Afghanistan at first hand. These questions have no answers that all the experts accept.
But Hoh does raise the key question in Afghanistan: who is the enemy? It seems extremely plausible that in Afghanistan Al Quaeda is not the enemy. Are the Taliban the enemy? Why are we fighting them in 2009? Are the enemies very local tribesmen defending their desire to be left alone? Who is the enemy?
President Obama and his advisors must give us a clear and persuasive answer to the question of who the enemy is. Once the enemy is identified, we must be told why that enemy is worth fighting. Unless there are answers to those two questions, we should should tell all Americans in Afghanistan--military and civilian--to get on the next plane home.
It is pointless to fight a war if you do not know whom you are fighting.
Matthew Hoh fought in Iraq in 2004- 2005 and again in 2006 - 2007 both as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps and as a civilian employee of the US government. He is a hero and a patriot. During the last six months he worked in Afghanistan as a foreign service officer. When he resigned his job last week, he stated that the war in Afghanistan, in his view, served no purpose. Human lives, by no means only American, and huge amounts of money were being wasted on a misguided undertaking.
From where we are in the US, it is difficult to say whether Hoh's doubts about the Afghan war are correct. But the questions he raises are critical. Whatever President Obama and his advisors decide about that war, Hoh's questions must be answered if our government chooses to continue that war in any form.
We attacked Afghanistan in 2001 because Obama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, was said to be hiding out in Afghanistan. The Taliban, then in power in Afghanistan, refused to surrender him to us. US and NATO troops destroyed their government. While no one knows where bin Laden is, the most common opinion is that he is now living in Pakistan. Fighting in Afghanistan will not bring us any closer to capturing him.
Hoh insists that, moreover, Al Quaeda has training camps in Sudan, in Yemen, in the former Yugoslavia, and in Europe. The 9/11 attack was hatched in Hamburg, Germany. The war in Afghanistan will only marginally weaken Al Quaeda. Afghanistan plays a minor role in the continued existence of Al Quaeda.
Who is the enemy in Afghanistan? It is often said to be the Taliban--religious fanatics whose political outlook is the opposite of ours: they despise democracy and seek to establish a theocratic state. (They regard the separation of Church and State, practiced by us, as evil). They do not believe in equality for women, or in individual liberty (the freedom to run one's life as one chooses--as long as others are not harmed by one's choices). Our ways are abhorrent to the Taliban; their ways are anathema to us.
But says Hoh, is that a reason for continuing that war? Surely an excellent question.
What is more, Hoh thinks, the insurgency we are fighting is not primarily led by the Taliban, by the Islamist movement that wants to establish a theocratic state in Afghanistan. The energy for the bloody fighting against US and NATO troops comes from sheer nationalism. When George Washington and the American Patriots fought the British, they fought a nationalist war. Their goal was to have Americans govern themselves and to force the British out of any positions of power in the colonies. The enemy in Afghanistan, according to Hoh, are similar nationalist movements. But they differ from the Patriots in the US in that they are not defending the independence of the entire country, but often of a small area, one particular valley, the home of a particular tribe.
Afghanistan, in the opinion of Hoh and of many other observers, is not one country, but a collection of very local populations focused on their locality, their own language and traditions. All of this is held together by a corrupt and ineffective government in the largest city Kabul. But Afghanis think of themselves not as citizens of the country, Afghanistan, but as citizens of the specific place where they were born that their families inhabit, and where they have been for generations. No common language, tradition, and family connections link all Afghanis to each other. Their identity is connected to their locality, not to the country as a whole.
These very local groups want to be left alone to run their collective lives as they have for a long time. The longer US troops remain in the area, the more we will inflame this nationalist resistance. The Russian invasion faltered for the same reasons--all the tanks and guns of a superior army were powerless in the face of the local loyalties of Afghan tribesmen.
These local Afghan tribes are no threat to the safety of the US. They want to be left alone. If we do that, that will be the end of their interest in us.
Does Hoh assess the Afghani situation correctly? Has he understood some fundamental truths about Afghanistan? Most likely there will be sharp differences of opinion among people who know Afghanistan at first hand. These questions have no answers that all the experts accept.
But Hoh does raise the key question in Afghanistan: who is the enemy? It seems extremely plausible that in Afghanistan Al Quaeda is not the enemy. Are the Taliban the enemy? Why are we fighting them in 2009? Are the enemies very local tribesmen defending their desire to be left alone? Who is the enemy?
President Obama and his advisors must give us a clear and persuasive answer to the question of who the enemy is. Once the enemy is identified, we must be told why that enemy is worth fighting. Unless there are answers to those two questions, we should should tell all Americans in Afghanistan--military and civilian--to get on the next plane home.
It is pointless to fight a war if you do not know whom you are fighting.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Who is the enemy?
This morning's Boston Globe reports that an intelligence expert in Washington DC denies that the enemy in Afghanistan are the Taliban ”ninety percent [of the enemy] is a tribal, localized insurgency... ten percent are hard-core ideologues fighting for the Taliban.” The 90% “use the threat of force to further their own economic interests – extorting payments from people shipping goods through the mountains...” According to this expert ninety percent of the people we are fighting in Afghanistan are nationalist bandits.
That is utterly astonishing. It shows what a strange war it is we are fighting in Afghanistan. The wars I have known are between different countries. One identifies which side someone is on by their uniform or the markings on their vehicle. The object is control over territory; the method is killing. But this war in Afghanistan is very different. We do not know who the enemy is. We are not very sure why we are fighting them, or they us.
Is this expert telling us that we have been shooting at the wrong people, or is he telling us that the people we were shooting at were not who we thought they were? We thought we were fighting religious fanatics, but it now turns out that they are bandits who do not like Americans and other foreigners.
If this expert is correct, the solution to the Afghanistan puzzle is very simple. They are shooting at us because they want us to go away. We do not want to be there in the first place so why not leave and avoid further unpleasantness?
But, you say, what about Al Qaeda? And that is, of course, the key question. The Taliban are of no interest to us. The central question is whether we need to remain in Afghanistan in order to increase our safety against further terrorist attacks? One-way of increasing our safety is through law enforcement agencies that find persons who appear to be plotting to bomb something. An example is the young man recently arrested in Denver after long surveillance by the FBI. Other examples are arrests made in Britain in recent years. I have not seen any evidence that the war in Afghanistan enhances the ability of law enforcement to protect us against potential bombers. What is more, if we left Afghanistan, we would have a lot more money to do careful surveillance.
Al Quaeda appears to be a shadowy network of desperadoes much like organized crime. There are international networks of drug dealers, of traffickers in women, young girls and boys. There are international traffickers in body parts. They kidnap children and adults in the Third World, take out their cornea or kidney and sell those and then release their victims. No believes that military attacks on the Taliban or on other nationalist insurgencies are helpful in stopping this trafficking. Mexico is currently using its military in its struggle with drug cartels, but only to take the place of corrupt or under manned police forces. In addition, the Mexican military has so far not made a dent in the international drug traffic. If Al Quaeda is really like an international crime network, we stop fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and leave.
One thing is clear: if Pres. Obama decides to keep our troops in Afghanistan he must provide to us with reasons that remaining there is essential in order to neutralize international terrorism. There is no point in continuing to shoot at people and to be shot at by them, as long as we do not know who these people are. If all they want is for us to leave, let's by all means do that.
This morning's Boston Globe reports that an intelligence expert in Washington DC denies that the enemy in Afghanistan are the Taliban ”ninety percent [of the enemy] is a tribal, localized insurgency... ten percent are hard-core ideologues fighting for the Taliban.” The 90% “use the threat of force to further their own economic interests – extorting payments from people shipping goods through the mountains...” According to this expert ninety percent of the people we are fighting in Afghanistan are nationalist bandits.
That is utterly astonishing. It shows what a strange war it is we are fighting in Afghanistan. The wars I have known are between different countries. One identifies which side someone is on by their uniform or the markings on their vehicle. The object is control over territory; the method is killing. But this war in Afghanistan is very different. We do not know who the enemy is. We are not very sure why we are fighting them, or they us.
Is this expert telling us that we have been shooting at the wrong people, or is he telling us that the people we were shooting at were not who we thought they were? We thought we were fighting religious fanatics, but it now turns out that they are bandits who do not like Americans and other foreigners.
If this expert is correct, the solution to the Afghanistan puzzle is very simple. They are shooting at us because they want us to go away. We do not want to be there in the first place so why not leave and avoid further unpleasantness?
But, you say, what about Al Qaeda? And that is, of course, the key question. The Taliban are of no interest to us. The central question is whether we need to remain in Afghanistan in order to increase our safety against further terrorist attacks? One-way of increasing our safety is through law enforcement agencies that find persons who appear to be plotting to bomb something. An example is the young man recently arrested in Denver after long surveillance by the FBI. Other examples are arrests made in Britain in recent years. I have not seen any evidence that the war in Afghanistan enhances the ability of law enforcement to protect us against potential bombers. What is more, if we left Afghanistan, we would have a lot more money to do careful surveillance.
Al Quaeda appears to be a shadowy network of desperadoes much like organized crime. There are international networks of drug dealers, of traffickers in women, young girls and boys. There are international traffickers in body parts. They kidnap children and adults in the Third World, take out their cornea or kidney and sell those and then release their victims. No believes that military attacks on the Taliban or on other nationalist insurgencies are helpful in stopping this trafficking. Mexico is currently using its military in its struggle with drug cartels, but only to take the place of corrupt or under manned police forces. In addition, the Mexican military has so far not made a dent in the international drug traffic. If Al Quaeda is really like an international crime network, we stop fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and leave.
One thing is clear: if Pres. Obama decides to keep our troops in Afghanistan he must provide to us with reasons that remaining there is essential in order to neutralize international terrorism. There is no point in continuing to shoot at people and to be shot at by them, as long as we do not know who these people are. If all they want is for us to leave, let's by all means do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)