The American Spectator : Inside the Obama Afghan Policy

Text Size

At Large

Inside the Obama Afghan Policy

By George H. Wittman on 10.1.10 @ 6:07AM

You'd think Barack Obama would get along splendidly with Hamid Karzai.

When in doubt journalists covering the Afghan conflict fall back on the old "corrupt Karzai government" line. This then is followed by a quote from an assistant secretary of something that suggests that the U.S. government agrees with the information while maintaining the right to withdraw such remarks at a later date. Huh?

It's all very familiar and quite convenient for the White House. In spite of President Obama's well-recognized desire to encourage friendly relations with every Muslim leader he meets, he has treated Hamid Karzai like the proverbial "red-headed stepchild." How is it possible that a former Chicago community organizer, close friend of people like Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and a good political acquaintance of ex-Gov. Blagojevich, can be so upset over nearly overt corruption?

Actually Hamid Karzai should be Barack Obama's favorite type of guy. Karzai is the well-educated son of a major Pushtun political leader gunned down by that Taliban gang in 1999. Hamid "the Smooth" comes from a powerful family with property in the middle of the lush poppy-growing area of Kandahar and elsewhere. His half-brother learned his basic business skills running a restaurant on the north side of Chicago. How difficult is it for Barack Obama to understand the Karzai family?

The ambitious former general, now ambassador Karl Eikenberry found the man he is supposed to be impressing in Afghanistan with the good will of the U.S. to be "bipolar" and vulnerable to a regular intake of "meds." Somehow that doesn't seem to be the best public posture for the chief American diplomat in Kabul. That Eikenberry had been in a self-developed and one-sided feud with the former ISAF chief, General Stanley McChrystal, for the affections of Obama is indicative of the dysfunctional nature of the administration's direction of its Afghan political and military affairs.

General McChrystal was clearly wrong to allow his staffers to shoot off their mouths about the Washington administration--but they told the truth. The problem is that the truth isn't going to change. Gen. David Petraeus is stuck with the same situation and his only choice is to focus on challenging the Taliban while keeping President Karzai involved and interested enough to present a paternal face to the Afghan people. This is hardly the first time the U.S. has had to work with corrupt allies.

Petraeus knows the traditional corruption in the Karzai government acts as a convenient excuse for a White House that clearly refuses to take responsibility for its own inability to handle the broader national security aspects of the Afghan conflict. The consistent leaking of classified intelligence information to favored journalists creates a continuing behind-the-scenes battle fought between Obama representatives and the combat military.

For the Obama presidency Afghanistan was supposed to be "the good war." Now, less than two years after his election, the president's political advisers have changed their collective mind and urged their risk-averse boss to "bug out" of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. The White House-demanded policy has been to press forward with the war on the Taliban while at the same time avoid killing civilians, even if it means allowing insurgents to escape. Such a restriction has inhibited combat effectiveness and endangered our troops.

Somehow this policy, first overseen loyally but reluctantly by the dynamic warrior general, Stan McChrystal, is supposed also to be pursued now by the equally dynamic diplomat general, Dave Petraeus. This nice sounding but totally ineffectual war-fighting concept will not work any better under Petraeus than it did under McChrystal -- nor will it ever against a dedicated and resourceful foe.

The offensive launched this week in Kandahar Province is Petraeus's chance to secure that area. The Obama-urged strategy is to strike a hard -- but collateral damage avoiding -- blow against the Taliban forcing them into a defensive negotiating position. This was the original plan unsuccessfully pursued in Marjah last spring as the defeated Taliban simply returned covertly among the populace. This time the Afghan Army is supposed to enforce post-combat pacification. At least that's the theory.

The recent elections showed how effective Taliban persuasion can be. Small minorities of eligible voters turned out -- and their votes were scarred by illegal counting, attacks on polling stations and general voter intimidation. Meanwhile in some population centers, such as Paktia, a reported turnout of 111.37% indicated glaring fraud. A fearful electorate whose true voice is impossible to hear cannot build a democracy. And an American administration that seeks only to pretend it's fighting a war is not one that encourages local people to endanger their lives by voting.

Barack Obama is not a fighter. At best he is a negotiator -- except in this case the really hardcore Taliban see no point in negotiating. The Americans will leave anyhow. The American president has said so. The published timetable puts July 2011 as the start date -- conditions based. Defense Secretary Gates has announced he will be leaving about the same time. "Conditions based" is strictly political cover.

The departure of at least part of the American/NATO force has to be expected by Karzai. Quixotic or not, Hamid Karzai is smart enough to realize he has to make a deal with the Taliban or "get out of Dodge." Obama is already counting on the withdrawal of U.S. combat operations by next summer to kick off his reelection campaign. Hamid Karzai knows that, too. He is feverishly attempting to line up cooperative Taliban offering a semblance of security and a veneer of victory.

The only question left unanswered is whether General Petraeus will continue to go along with this plan for the next nine months. If he does, he will be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. If he doesn't, someone will want him as a presidential candidate.

About the Author

George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (20) | Leave a comment

Booger| 10.1.10 @ 6:34AM

From the Desk of President B. Hussein Obama:

Dear General Betrayus,

Okay David, just had to slip that one in. Just so you know there's no hard feelings over that old newspaper ad, you know. Believe me, you and the troops really do have my full support. One-hundred percent full support, you've got it all right. Says so right here on the teleprompter.
At any rate, let's get down to business. What is it with this business about killing some more guys over the border in Pakistan? How many times do I have to tell you, I want this kept small, local and quiet? I've heard quite enough about how the "enemy" (I really HATE that word) runs over the border. Well, General, that's what you want them to do. Then they're not a problem any more. And no, I have no idea what Cambodia has to do with this discussion. Where the h*** is Cambodia anyway, somewhere over by Mongolia?
Please do not EVER deign to lecture me about "lessons from Viet Nam" ever again. Let me explain the real lessons of Viet Nam to you. You got your butt kicked, which is pretty much what an imperialist nation like this had coming, and after you were gone the people there were a lot better off. I know this is true, I see it on CNN all the time.
Look, we both have to make the best of a bad situation here, okay? You know just as well as I do that crazy cowboy W. started this whole mess. I expect you to keep a lid on things until I can get through this November. If you can't get that done, I'll get somebody else. Not like it would be the first time. While you're at it, quit complaining about supply lines for the troops. You can good and well make do with what you've got and be grateful for it. From what I hear a lot of those Taliban guys have less than you do, and look how well they're doing.
At any rate, I just wanted to touch base and let you know you have my full, undivided support. Now don't screw anything up before the election.

Your President for Life,

B. Hussein Obama

TR| 10.1.10 @ 11:15AM

Another great satirical post, Booger. It would be even funnier if it didn't ring so potentially accurate.

Mike W| 10.1.10 @ 12:00PM

Letter from George W. Bush to Commander-Afghanistan forces n 2004

Sorry that I am neglecting your lousy little war in Afghanistan. See, I have pointlessly got us into another a war against a country that posed no threat to us and had nothing to do with 9/11. I realize that my half ass effort in Afghanistan will make the Taliban stronger but, see, I said that Iraq had nuculear weapons so I had to attack.

Best of luck on your activities. And Osama Bin Laden is not one of my priorities now either.

George W. Bush

Booger| 10.1.10 @ 12:28PM

Would you consent to submit a date at which you will deign to stop blaming Obama's policy decisions on Bush, or any other predecessor? If not, what was the point of your voting for Obama in 2008? Sounds like buyers remorse (or maybe a scorned woman) to me.

Cordially,

Booger

Alan Brooks| 10.1.10 @ 8:51PM

As Rush says, you can only bomb Ashcanistan UP to the Stone Age.

Tim*| 10.1.10 @ 9:09PM

Afghanistani's ain't worried about it ObamaBoy Brooks .
Field Marshall Obama doesn't know whether to wind his ass or scratch his watch .

Alan Brooks| 10.1.10 @ 9:20PM

At least he is not a greenhorn like you, Timmie.
As with the people who own AS, Obama has been around; unlike you, Obama has experience.
You wouldn't even be able to make it as a community organizer, Timmie-- you would break your piggie bank to make up the postage deficit.

Tim*| 10.1.10 @ 9:40PM

Yeah Right ObamaBoy Brooks !

Obama's been around Billy Ayers , The Reverend Jeremiah Wright , The Alinskiites , ACORN , SEIU .......

Now , go feed the pigeons in the park .

Alan Brooks| 10.1.10 @ 11:08PM

"Obama's been around Billy Ayers , The Reverend Jeremiah Wright , The Alinskiites , ACORN , SEIU"

Everyone knows that--
and you prefer the KKK and StormFront.

Tim*| 10.2.10 @ 1:17AM

ObamaBoy Brooks Plays The Nazi Card.

Ya gotta do better than that ObamaBoy .

Alan Brooks| 10.3.10 @ 7:07PM

If you were not so uneducated, you would know today's KKK and StormFront are white supremacists--not Nazis.

Ret. Marine| 10.1.10 @ 7:20AM

obamas Bin Ly'n is no fighter, and not a very intelligent war thinker either. Anyone who knows a little something about the Afghanistan population knows first off that over 9/10 of the population could not tell you what electricity is, what a politician is, what a truth is, or what a patriot means. Their culture requires trades and deals, ethical of not, that's just the way they have always done business.
The tribe you belong to is everything. That's the bottom line, nothing else is of concern to them. With over 9/10th of the population illiterate, no running water, plumbing, electricity or anything resembling modern life, pick an item, they have no love for the modern world, nor do they trust anything outside of the tribe.
On thing is sure, McCrystal was a smart warrior, he was simply following command concerns, the ROE was design through the orders of the supposed commander-n-idiot, the way a good General would. But this does not make him an idiot, rather smart if one thinks of it, he did not like being forced into a no win situation, this is abamas Bin Ly'n strategy. He does not want this Country to win, he does not want us there and he is only trying to appease his base regardless of what his forked tongue says on any given day.
Of more concern than the tit-tat between the idiot-n-thief, obamas Bin Ly'n, and the make up bull shale of the media between half truth and half lies, ly the troops caught in the middle, be more concerned of them, they will one day come back and tell of the half-ass ed decision making process we witnessed by his hand, obamas Bin Ly'n, they will be the first ones to join in on the fight to save our country from all these political whores, the lying media and the far fringed lunatics. We must never forget those who have fought, died, and suffered in our stead. Pray the adults return to govern our way of life. We have no desire or need for rulers. obamas Bin Ly'n makes this point everyday. Semper Fi.

Alan Brooks| 10.1.10 @ 8:59PM

"Would you consent to submit a date at which you will deign to stop blaming Obama's policy decisions on Bush"

How about when Bush's obfuscatory memoir, Decision Point, is released next month; two years after Bob Dole the Second lost the election.

Michael Tomlinson| 10.1.10 @ 10:54AM

One thing is clear, the vagina in the Oval Office's strategy for defeat in Afghanistan is right on course. Thanks to Bob Woodward the veil is off the burqa and the appeaser of Islamic imperialism has been unmasked as an enemy of the US, it's military and national security. Time for a golf game.

Alan Brooks| 10.1.10 @ 9:01PM

"the vagina in the Oval Office's"'

Then we take it you wont vote for Palin when she runs for POTUS?

Tim*| 10.1.10 @ 10:03PM

Come to think of it Brooks , by your ass backwards logic , he couldn't vote for You .

Alan Brooks| 10.3.10 @ 7:11PM

Well there you go-- we basically agree, for once. I'm as much of a you-know-what (the 'c' word) as Palin.
Difference is: I admit it; she wont.

Mike W| 10.1.10 @ 11:53AM

All of the heroes posting here that are ready to spend every last one of my tax dollars to fight a pointless conflict in Afghanistan. Get the hell out of there and give me a tax cut.

Goofy Obama might make one correct decision when he pulls us troops out of both hell holes -Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, he should be grateful for both wars, especially Iraq. It is one of the main reasons that he won in 2008 and also why the Democrats won in 2006.

What a shame.

Ret. Marine| 10.2.10 @ 12:44PM

O.K. lib talker. "Pointless" please remind me of that when your running from the jihadist in your city or when you look at your grandchildren and knowing you could have made a difference for their safety all because someone spent your tax dollars, what?, you're probably one of those people who does not carry a tool to protect yourself and others from harm or possibly death. And another "pointless" example, I guess in your mind no others have a right to live without being subjected to the adherents of violence over a religion of pieces huh, Am I to understand that you don't believe others have a right to live through their efforts without someone threatening to cut their heads off just because they think differently, geez man you are a piece of work.

Audrey| 10.1.10 @ 10:33PM

Genghis Khan won in Afghanistan by murdering all his enemies, and their families, piled their bones into pyramids; then ran away as fast as he could with anything he could carry.

That's how you win in Afghanistan.

But that's never going to happen, so best save the tax payer a fortune and the lives of innocent young military men and women, declare victory and return home into the embrace of those who appreciate and love them.