-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 17 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Border Security Games
April 19, 2013 | 26 comments
A Further Perspective
Victory and Defeat in Afghanistan
The Taliban have to like their chances now.
There have been many characterizations of “victory” with respect to the Afghan conflict, but none of them appears capable of being put into effect. Perhaps the reason for this is that Afghanistan is a country defined by no other purpose than to be the site of constant disagreement.
There is no central order — nor has there ever been — demanding peace. There is no single Afghan language. There is no ethnic unity. There is no modern economic dynamism other than the country’s role as a trading crossroads — and today in monetary terms that primarily means varying forms of drug production, processing, and distribution. The arable land is about ten percent and that which is cultivated is a little more than half of that. Afghanistan’s economy is predominantly subsistence level, and has been for centuries. From the Afghans’ point of view, the closest thing to victory would be just to be allowed to go about their lives with minimal interference.
President Hamid Karzai, the urbane, multilingual, pretend leader of the nation, has essentially said: “Train and equip our indigenous security forces; provide a continuing fund for reconstruction and development; declare victory, if you wish, then leave. Afghanistan will handle the rest. But please do it quickly because we really need to have all you foreigners out of here.”
The response from Washington has been: “We can’t leave until al Qaeda can’t reestablish itself in your country and we know the Taliban can not take over the country; the drug trade is eliminated or at least controlled; and the nation can be drawn together in mutual security.” In other words, the country known as Afghanistan must be reborn as a peaceful, self-sustaining entity. Of course there is little chance of that happening unless the history of the nation since the early 1800s is ignored.
Out of an approximate population of 30 million, of which about 12% live in Kabul and its environs, there are hundreds of tribes, sub-tribes, and families divided among seven principal ethnic groups. As an example, the largest ethnic group, the Pashtun, include some 60 tribes and 400 sub-tribes. The overriding allegiance of all Afghans is to their family/clan structure. This is not a base for a modern cohesive national structure unless a dominant leader arises who can bring the disparate elements together. Anyone with that ambition usually is restricted by his own ethnicity or else ends up assassinated by a rival group. This calculus is the basis for continuing internal competition and combat between and among the various partisan elements. The Taliban originally came to power in that environment.
Purportedly, General David Petraeus had submitted several options for withdrawal to the White House. President Obama also had recommendations from his own political advisors. It is certain that Gen. Petraeus would have loaded his options to provide ample military cover for withdrawal. Nonetheless he knew that Obama also would weigh his own political advantages in making a decision. This does not make for the best possible military strategic situation to evolve, but guarantees that troops would be withdrawn in a manner that satisfies White House re-election politics.
A mantle of pseudo-military science has been placed over the issue of withdrawal from Afghanistan. The terms counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism have become the shorthand for differing types of continuing involvement of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. One concept, counter-insurgency, takes more military forces than the other. But the other attacks this theme of “pacification” by limiting action to political/military target-specific operations. Field-experienced observers know that one actually does not exclude the other. In any case when the self-serving rhetoric is stripped away, the actual result is that troops are being removed before a definitive result has been obtained.
It is well understood that before that final phase is reached, military action must give way to a political solution. This can happen only after the various Taliban fighting groups have reached a level of attrition that they are forced to withdraw to regroup. It has been clearly indicated that General Petraeus believes this can be accomplished within the next year — even with the announced force reduction. That means in one form or another the numerous factions and commands of those fighting under the Taliban umbrella must be incorporated into any political solution during that time period.
This factor has been known for a long time. And it has been known for just as long that there would be no formal “defeat” of a Taliban “army” in the field. Any “victory” over the Taliban will come from its incorporation, but not dominance, in a new Afghan political system based on tribal agreement. Unfortunately, this is more of an aspiration than a strategic plan.
Obama is now in full obfuscation mode as he struggles with the domestic political problem of attempting to run for reelection while at the same time justifying his espousal of what he termed “the real war.” That war he effectually now seeks to end by bringing the Taliban into a “unity” government in Kabul. In other words, he would seek to turn a defeat into a victory simply by altering the characterization of the original aim.
The entire concept of truly defeating the Taliban has been based on denying these forces a sanctuary in Pakistan. This strategy has evolved as politically and militarily impossible — certainly in the current time frame. What President Obama’s intention now appears to be is to turn Afghanistan over to Pakistan as their problem. And how, Mr. President, do you think the increasingly influential pro-Taliban political forces in Pakistan will deal with that?
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 (58) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/23/victory-and-defeat-in-afghanis
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Public Nuisances
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Kitty| 6.23.11 @ 6:37AM
Sean Delonas said it best in his cartoon: http://www.nypost.com/opinion/.....232011.jpg
lydia | 6.23.11 @ 10:17AM
All President Bush was doing was cleaning up another Democrat mess. Like the one Republicans will have to clean up in 2013.
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
SpiralArchitect| 6.23.11 @ 1:55PM
Spam. A dish best served fried.
KyMouse| 6.23.11 @ 2:58PM
So Andromeda, are ya hop'in' to int'eract with Per'se'us or with the sea m'ons'ter?
Smirking Weasel| 6.23.11 @ 3:16PM
If Sean was really concerned about this he'd demand the simple common sense solution of banning Muslims from entering the US and telling those now here that they've got 30 days to pack up and get out or publically renounce their vile philosophy-with death, including by vigilanteism,
as penalty for backsliding.
Alan Brooks| 6.23.11 @ 6:47PM
at this rate, Ashcanistan will be a nation hundreds of years from now.
Alan Brooks| 6.23.11 @ 10:07PM
Afghanistan= Somalia with a 'government'.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.23.11 @ 7:11AM
Kitty great cartoon thanks for the post. I've set it as the background for my computer.
President George W. Bush understood the first duty of the Commander-in-Chief is to defend the US and when we go to war WIN. For Barack Obama war (like the “good war” in Afghanistan) and the military are political footballs to kick around for one's political benefit. That radical difference in philosophies, the former rooted in the “can do” American spirit and the latter the anti-Americanism of post-Vietnam despondency is why we won in Iraq (Bush) and seem destined to lose in Afghanistan (Obama).
Here are a few points in Obama’s distraught "strategy" of negotiating with the Taliban (i.e., surrendering) as reported in the international press and affirmed by sources in Generalissimo Obama’s camp.
1) Not requiring they renounce their ties to al-Qaeda before we negotiate with them.
2) U.S. negotiators no longer require preconditions of Taliban fighters we negotiate with—like that they halt the killing of innocent civilians and our troops or break with al-Qaeda, the Telegraph of London reported.
3) U.S. negotiators and their British counterparts aren’t even requiring that the Taliban embrace the Afghan constitution.
4) They are aiming to turn control of the county at least partly over to the Taliban in a “shared power” deal, essentially throwing the Afghan people to the wolves.
There is a strategy to win and it was based on the 2014 timeline announced earlier by Obama. Now Obama and the war "weary" public find that tiresome (why is the public “weary” what have they done to be “weary of). Thus, the deaths of our warriors, prior to last night’s dissembling and until we leave Afghanistan in ignominy, will have been not only in vain, but a f**king waste. That should please the left and their kindred spirits in paleo-conservative and libertarian circles.
Purpleguy| 6.23.11 @ 7:13AM
GW Bush went in to WIN? Guess he flubbed that too. He couldn't even get Osama - a 6'5" Arab in a country of munchkins ... idiot
Nick| 6.23.11 @ 12:06PM
Purplegasbag,
Tell your girlfriend, Lydia, to stop trolling here for johns!
W| 6.23.11 @ 8:55PM
Purp, so you would profile all tall arabs and shoot them? That is brilliant, you should send your resume to obama, the job of CIA is vacant. You have the credentials, apply, go for it.
W| 6.23.11 @ 8:56PM
CIA chief is vacant, in case you are confused
Purpleguy| 6.23.11 @ 7:15AM
Oh, and how much more should we "waste" ? What can we possibly achieve? it's their country and if they are stupid enough to allow the Taliban or Al Qaeda to rule, should we be there forever ... ? Ridiculous when our people are suffering.
W| 6.23.11 @ 8:22AM
Purp,You need a new playbook here, your comments are old and nonsensical. You think the height or weight of a terrorrist determines if he will be caught?
I agree with you that we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan. Your guy, obama, lied to you and your liberal lefty friends when he promised to immediately close Gitmo, and immediately leave Afghan and Iraq. You should direct your comments to obama.
Notary Sojac| 6.23.11 @ 10:09AM
Taking almost twice as long to fight a war against the Afghani tribes as it did to defeat Germany and Japan - and leaving office with the war unwon - is not my idea of what a President who believes that "when we go to war we should WIN" does.
Remember that Obama is not the first president to refer to Islam as "a religion of peace".
Purpleguy| 6.23.11 @ 7:12AM
So, we should just keep spending, spending, spending in a place we don't give a s* about, don't have any interests in, and aren't wanted there? Obama got Osama, let's leave now.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.23.11 @ 7:55AM
Please purpleguy spare us your ignorance. We won in Iraq. As for the Pakis they aren't "munchkins." As an Obama apologist I would think you would find that type of boorish and racist talk unacceptable. Some are duplicitous fundamentalist Muslims and/or easily bought, but to demean them as you have is offensive.
Who is suffering? The American military wants to win and the troops are willing to pay the price for victory. Of course, there has been a growing sense Obama was going to pull the rug out and morale has plummeted (under President Bush this was never seen). As a leftist I know you don't understand that type of spirit or patriotism, but it is the way this finest generation of American warriors thinks.
Before precipitously cutting and running in Afghanistan, where we are making significant gains towards achieving Obama’s early goal of success by 2014, let’s end our involvement in the Libyan civil war. There is no need for this jingoistic endeavor. Maybe Obama and Democrats should listen to the BS they’ve spewed for the last decade, because once in a blue moon they say something if used in the right context that is rationale – “It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war.”
As far as saving money let’s repeal Obamacare and save not only trillions of dollars, but an excellent healthcare system. We can come up with positive reforms that will not only maintain the quality of care, but actually bend the cost cover down. We could also end the State Department’s throwing foreign aid away on country’s we owe money to. That would be smart. How about not giving tens of millions of dollars in bonuses to the Democrats bankrupting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? We could shut down the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and sell off the assets if money is an issue. There are lot of ways of saving money without pulling a Clinton and setting our country up for another major Muslim attack.
Jeremy| 6.23.11 @ 12:50PM
I love how you neocons will run around lamenting government programs as bureaucratic, stupid and inefficient with exception for the military. As if the military is not a bureaucratic, stupid and inefficient government program? The military too, is funded by stealing money from citizens and redistributing it, just like any other government program. It would be nice if you neocons could at least admit this much. Even the left realizes this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06......html?_r=1 .
Drunken Sailor| 6.23.11 @ 2:21PM
"The military too, is funded by stealing money from citizens and redistributing it"
Wow! Your ignorance becomes you.
Smirking Weasel| 6.23.11 @ 3:20PM
And your beer bong exposes you. The various and sundry Hessians and simple bureaucrats that make up our 'military' are government employees
like all others and deserve no more respect, nor no less abuse, than the DMV counter worker, the teacher's assistant or the park service employee.
Maddox| 6.23.11 @ 10:14AM
Obama is spending, spending, spending, spending, spending, spending, spending, and spending in a place he doesn't give a s* about here. I'm not sure what he does give a s* about other than himself.
This public surrender is a political ploy to prop up his campaign and more American lives will be lost because of it. Is that price ok with you as long as your sick ideology and hatred for Bush are confirmed even if we have to suffer the consequences later?
Tammy| 6.23.11 @ 5:39PM
Purpleguy: you're a fool. No interest in Afghanistan? Take a look at a map! Iran is sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan. When it comes time to deal with the Mullahs in Iran, our interests in Afghanistand and Iraq will become crystal clear for the georgraphy illiterate among us. Wouldn't surprise me if the Bush Administration was making these same calculations.....
Michael Tomlinson| 6.24.11 @ 12:44AM
Tammy you're obviously smarter and tougher than these "Obama men." You've got the Maggie Thatcher toughnesses.
Louis Jenkins| 6.23.11 @ 8:32AM
We can wave the flag all we want to, but let's face it, the troops are bound to leave sometime in the near or distant future. The Taliban does the soft shoe routine until that day, moves back in, and claims victory over the "satanistic hordes." Could things be done better, yes. Bomb the place into a glass parking lot. So much has been expended, only to begin leaving for the real world. The US forces did a splendid job and just like South Vietnam we weren't defeated, we had the rug pulled out from under us which was bound to happen.
patrick| 6.23.11 @ 9:02AM
Michael, President Bush got it wrong, the first duty of of the president is not to "defend" the US. Go back and look at the oath he and every other government official takes. What does it say. To uphold and defend what THE CONSTITUTION class. And he and his admininstration didn't do that. In the name of defending the country, they threw the Constitution under the bus with secret prisons abroad, torturing detainees, many of them guilty of nothing, the misnamed Patriot Act which was anything but "patriotic". We ended up in bed with countries whose human rights records were horrible, all in the name of a global war on "terror" that had no Constitutional authorization and that the Founders would never have approved of. They continued the push to forcibly bring "democracy" to other countries even though there was no Constitutional authority for that and the concept behind it, that "democracies" act "nice" and don't fight wars was pure nonsense from the beginning. (Two of the world's great democracies, Great Britain and France behaved horribly in the colonies they held by brute force.) What we saw last night is hopefully the beginning of the end of the American Empire. It's time that this ill conceived experiment which has threatened the safety and freedom of Americans at home comes to an end.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.23.11 @ 9:58AM
Patrick President Bush not only defended the Constitution, but upheld it. You actually need to spend some time studying American history and stop letting Eric Holder, the ACLU and MoveOn.org tell you what to think.
No one was tortured in a secret prison much less an American citizen (the actual people the Constitution was created for). People can disagree about the Patriot Act, but the legislation was lawfully passed by bipartisan majorities in the US Congress and thus legal and Constitutional. If you don't like it adjudicate it in the Supreme Court and have the law struck down or work hard to elect enough people who agree with you to Congress and have it repealed that’s the American way. Just saying something is unconstitutional doesn’t make it so.
You may have missed it, but a bipartisan majority of Congress authorized the President to act in Afghanistan and Iraq. Interestingly, in Iraq President Bush was merely implementing the Clinton policy of regime – a policy overwhelmingly supported by Democrats until it became politically expedient to undermine our country and war effort for political gain.
I really believe you’re thinking of Barack Obama who declared war on Libya by fiat without Congressional consent and have just confused him with President Bush. I’m not sure if you noticed, but the US Constitution doesn’t authorize an American President to take the nation to war on the shabby pretext of an Arab League communiqué and some UN mumbo jumbo.
I can understand if you think Obama is violating the Constitution and may have committed and impeachable offense, but trying to paint President Bush as the same type of megalomaniac as Barack Obama is ridiculous.
"We ended up in bed with countries whose human rights records were horrible, all in the name of a global war on 'terror. . .'" What countries are you referring to – Morocco, Egypt, some country in the Balkans or Eastern Europe? I think if you will educate yourself you will find we were allies with Morocco long before President Bush entered the White House. Egypt became our ally after Camp David. You might want to vent your spleen on the defender of dictators Jimmy Carter for that one. We’ve had embassies in Eastern Europe even when they were oppressed by the communist Soviet Union. Thanks to President Ronald Reagan, who stood up to Democrat apologists and well-wishers of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe is now free of their oppressors and we have embassies in these democratic countries.
Again I think you’re confusing President Bush with Barack Obama. It was Barack Obama who embraced Venezuelan strong man Hugo Chavez (a friend of Jimmy Carter’s). In 2009 it was Barrack Obama in the name of his failed policy of engagement that defended the barbaric Iranian theocracy and stolen presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as legitimate; the same Barack Obama who lauded Kaddafi and hailed the bloodthirsty Assad of Syria as a “reformer” and showed his support for him by sending an ambassador to his dictatorship. Let’s not forget he was so impressed by the despot running China that he wished he had his kind of power.
Patrick it seems like you keep confusing President Bush with Barack Obama or some other Democrat who lived in the White House.
What we saw last night was a failed, pathetic and disingenuous occupant of the White House trying to pacify his radically anti-American base and save his floundering reelection bid. We also witnessed the surrender of Afghanistan to the Taliban and the foundation being laid for a resurgent Islamic imperialism/jihad. Not surprising considering he is being advised by Hillary Clinton whose husband is guilty of neglecting his duties to not only to defend and uphold the Constitution, but defend the US homeland. A dereliction of duty that led to numerous terrorists attacks on the US and its interests around the world.
All President Bush was doing was cleaning up another Democrat mess. Like the one Republicans will have to clean up in 2013.
JimmyT| 6.23.11 @ 11:34AM
@Michael--Thank you for a well thought out argument. Patrick is obviously a left-wing nutroot. But, if it were my call, I would have ALL the ground troops out of there tomorrow and just leave special ops in country to ferret out alQueda/taliban camps. Between satellite/in country observers, the warship in the Arabian Sea could strike any camps set up and destroy them. Granted, Pakistan would have to allow fly overs, but, I think they could be persuaded.
JimmyT| 6.23.11 @ 11:41AM
P.S. Our mission in Afghanistan is complete. Terrorist are disorganized and Osama is dead. It's not a matter of "winning the war". We had no "war" with Afghanistan. AND. purpleguy/patrick---did you ever hear the saying, "it is better to say nothing and be thought stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"? Just saying!
davelnaf| 6.23.11 @ 11:50AM
The reason for going to Afghanistan was to prevent Al Qaeda’s resurgence there. We did that. Our reason for staying and making sure they didn’t come back while we looked for OBL was nation-building. Nation building made some sense in Iraq; it doesn’t make any in Afghanistan. The people there are some of the poorest human material on the planet and much of the country is a wasteland to begin with. If you have spent any time there these facts pop out at you above all others. It’s time to make a deal with the Taliban (if possible), declare victory and leave.
davelnaf| 6.23.11 @ 11:50AM
The reason for going to Afghanistan was to prevent Al Qaeda’s resurgence there. We did that. Our reason for staying and making sure they didn’t come back while we looked for OBL was nation-building. Nation building made some sense in Iraq; it doesn’t make any in Afghanistan. The people there are some of the poorest human material on the planet and much of the country is a wasteland to begin with. If you have spent any time there these facts pop out at you above all others. It’s time to make a deal with the Taliban (if possible), declare victory and leave.
cicero| 6.23.11 @ 12:15PM
Okay folks, lets not confuse history with politics. We can argue all day long about who had the purer motives, Bush or Obama, but we err if we don't admit that we cannot achieve the Americanization of Afghanistan. The stated purpose of going into both A and I was to retaliate for the 9/11 attcks, and to punish those who were responsible for the deed. Somehow that morphed into nation building.
Iraq and Afghanistan are different both culturally and economically. However, both are seriously divided: Iraq, religiously (Sunni/Shia); Afghanistan, tribally. That has been so since long before we got there, and will be so long after we leave.
A more sane response would, maybe, have been to go into both countries, seize the leaders and their minions, kill them, and go home. That is called an object lesson, and a warning to their successors not to do that again. That seems to be how we started. Then, someone got the bright idea that we had to make them just like us. Maybe they didn't want to be just like us. So, we decided to rebuild all of their houses, schools, hospitals, roads, and to reequip and train the armies that we just destroyed. Not much of an object lesson there.
bob| 6.23.11 @ 2:13PM
cicero: It is an object lesson we taught the world with the marshall plan, lose to America and you will win in the end. Honestly if you want to rebuild afghan infrastructure but don't have the money and don't want to be owned by the IMF for thr the rest of time what do you do ? Start a war with America, lose and let them "nation build" you back to a modern infrastructure. It may seem cynical to couch these wars in this way but the results speak for themselves.
mom| 6.23.11 @ 2:09PM
The Taliban was never a threat to the US, Afghanistan is not and was never a threat to the US. If Bush had only wanted to get Osama Bin Laden, he could have had him extradited from Afghanistan in his 2001 negotiations. So, obviously, Bush and/or his handlers DIDN'T want to get Osama Bin Ladin, we know that Clinton didn't want to get him either and now Obama has ensured that no one will ever get a hold of Osama.
Drunken Sailor| 6.23.11 @ 2:26PM
LOL. You kill me, first the left screams, "Why did we got to war in Iraq? Al-quaeda is in Afghanistan." Now you complain that he went to Afghanistan and claim the Taliban there had nothing to do with it. Talk about Cognitive dissonance! It must be a required trait to be a liberal.
mom| 6.23.11 @ 9:02PM
It is sad that you assume from my post that I am a "liberal". Labeling people who you don't agree with or understand is a symptom of cognitive dissonance.
I am actually so conservative that I believe both wars were a complete and total waste of taxpayer money and that Osama Bin Ladin should have been extradited and tried as a criminal. Yes, use police actions for criminals, that is a conservative viewpoint. Spend trillions and leave a wide swath of destruction, that is a liberal viewpoint. Anyone who believes that either war was justified is clearly a big government liberal or is in on the racket.
Drunken Sailor| 6.24.11 @ 11:32AM
"that Osama Bin Ladin should have been extradited and tried as a criminal:
That is the liberal talking point. American criminals get the benifit of our justice system and Constitution. Not foreign terrorist. This is a unconventional war and you do not try combatants in a civilian court. Would you also put all the Taliban fighters in court and try them? I don't assume you are a liberal, I know you are by your actions and words. And of course your moderate case of Chronic BDS.
mom| 6.24.11 @ 5:15PM
Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic and all Nazi collaborators were captured and tried. It is called rule of law, something conservatives promote and believe in.
bob| 6.23.11 @ 2:16PM
I and a friend argued that the proper response to 9/11 was the total annihilation of Kabul from the air. either conventionally or atomically. Why fight a ground war in the one place that no foreign power has ever prevailed?
Mark Davis| 6.23.11 @ 3:03PM
So killing a bunch of women and children that don't even know where New York is will make you feel better? Sounds insane to me.
Mike| 6.23.11 @ 2:53PM
Mike| 6.23.11 @ 9:23AM
Interesting article, Mr. Wittman.
Like others, you struggle to explain how any Afghan leader who attempts to create a "modern cohesive national structure," and risks being assassinated for the effort, is going to provide the leadership necessary to help the United States achieve "a definitive result" (however that is defined) before we leave. Somehow, I don't think Karzi is the man. I don't think he is even interested.
You leave unaddressed the issue concerning Karzai's demand that we continue to provide funds for "reconstruction and development" in Afghanistan while we ignore the same needs in our own country because of our financial problems.
It is difficult keep up with who our enemies in Afghanistan are - al Qaeda (which has metastasized to other countries), the Taliban (must be "incorporated into any political solution" or truly defeated - which is it?), Pakistan's ISI? Perhaps its the inability of our two political parties to work together to craft a coherent foreign policy.
You accuse President Obama of seeking "to turn defeat into victory simply by altering the characterization of the original aim," yet in your very first sentence you admit that there have been "many characterizations of victory with respect to the Afghan conflict, none of them appears capable of being put into effect."
While not intended to be, this article is a stinging rebuke of any who continue to harbor neo-con fantasies and an indictment of the Bush administration that led us into this quagmire.
Mark Davis| 6.23.11 @ 3:00PM
You say: "The overriding allegiance of all Afghans is to their family/clan structure. This is not a base for a modern cohesive national structure unless a dominant leader arises who can bring the disparate elements together."
Oh no, people who are loyal to their family first before the state! This can't be, these infidels must learn to submit fully to a democratic-corporate-state, I'm sorry, a "modern cohesive national structure", so they can be taxed, regulated and controlled by central planners, especially a central bank. If not, then they deserve to have a US backed puppet-dictator force them to obey. And the US should send troops there to make this happen no matter how many troops, how much money or how many years it takes.
What arrogance. I have a hard time telling neo-cons from Wilsonian "make-the-world-safe-for-democracy" Democrats.
Former Marine| 6.23.11 @ 3:37PM
Finally, someone posts some common sense. Amen!!
Edo| 6.23.11 @ 5:34PM
I'll second that -- Well said Mark Davis!
Mike| 6.23.11 @ 5:47PM
Mark,
Sounds like you would be happier in Afghanistan than in the "democratic-corporate-state" United States where you are "taxed, regulated and controlled by central planners, especially a central bank." Let me know if you need help packing.
mom| 6.23.11 @ 9:09PM
Wow, any mention of the hubris involved with bureaucratic nation-building and off you go to the faraway provinces, no doubt to break some rocks!
Oldefarte| 6.23.11 @ 3:17PM
The sole reason why the Republicans were defeated in 2010 [and this community-organizer was allowed to inappropriately take over the presidency] was due to the war in the middle east. Citizens and voters of this country are simply sick and tired of seeing their young military members having to fight a disguised enemy over there for no apparent national interests. The appropriate response to 9/11 would have been numerous B-52's loaded with atomic bombs and the unloading of same within the deserts of the middle east as a warning. Typically [as with Viet Nam] our politically correct political leaders decide to fight a restricted conflict which is ultimately unwinnable. We've more than proved our point, so bring home the troops and let those radicals down there wallow in their animal existences!!!!!!!!!
Mike| 6.23.11 @ 5:54PM
C'mon Oldfarte,
You, and everyone else on AmSpec, were castigating Obama for his anti-war stand during the campaign. Conservatives were advocating vociferously for the surge, not for bringing the troops home.
That being said, thank you for essentially admitting that Bush and the neo-cons gave us a second quagmire.
Dixie Pixie| 6.23.11 @ 5:22PM
Has anyone considered that the problem with the Afghan War is that its purpose is to scam the American public.
The standard definition of military victory is when a foreign government is overthrown and replaced with a more agreeable government.
That was done at the 2002 Loya Jirga, so at point the Afghan War was “Won”.
So why are we still fighting a war we won years ago.
The military brass can't be that stupid!
If one considers the Afghan War to be a scam then the war starts to make sense when you considers who benefits.
Does anyone realize that the Karzai government has been playing us for fools for years.
Mike| 6.23.11 @ 6:06PM
Dixie Pixie.
Scam.
Can you say neo-con? Good. Now, can you say Halliburton? Excellent. Finally, can you say Xie, formerly known as Blackwater?
See, it's easy to define scam.
sunglasses | 6.23.11 @ 10:24PM
Why fight a ground war in the one place that no foreign power has ever prevailed?
Michael Tomlinson| 6.24.11 @ 2:57AM
I know there a lot of myths about Afghanistan defeating empires, but that is just not true. The British did lose one army, but if you knew the history the British in Afghanistan they accomplished their goal of keeping Afghanistan out of the Russia sphere of influence. Alexander the Great successfully conquered the country with the descendants of his troops being associated by some with the Nuristani. The Mongols successfully conquered and incorporated Afghanistan into their empire. The Muslims did too.
The British lost an Army, but not their goal. One could say the collapse of the Soviet Union began with their defeat in Afghanistan, but that fails to give Ronald Reagan the credit he deserves for winning the Cold War that in today’s dollars would have cost ten to a hundred times what we’ve spent in OIF and OEF.
weddingdresses | 6.24.11 @ 2:03AM
C'mon Oldfarte,
You, and everyone else on AmSpec, were castigating Obama for his anti-war stand during the campaign. Conservatives were advocating vociferously for the surge, not for bringing the troops home.
That being said, thank you for essentially admitting that Bush and the neo-cons gave us a second quagmire.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.24.11 @ 2:58AM
If it is a quagmire it is one of Obama's failed policies as we see with our economy. Obama is the guy who can do nothing right.
Shedworld| 6.24.11 @ 5:51AM
Profound, knowledgable, and reality-based articles like this is why American Spectator is among my favorite sites to visit to view opinion. Thank you.
gary siebel| 6.24.11 @ 4:08PM
Turns out the drones are the modern equivalent of B-52's, use of which forced the North Vietnamese to the conference table. The same is happening to the Taliban, who are being forced to reconsider their situation.
A key difference between our Afghan exit and Vietnam exit is the lack of prolonged forewarning of the impending exit that occurred in Nam. Afghni's will have plenty of time to prepare, which may or may not make a difference.
We should still get Zawahiri before we go.
michael| 6.25.11 @ 10:53AM
We all congratulated ourselves when the CIA enabled the Taliban to drive the USSR out of Afghanistan, proving that a small, “righteous” force could defeat an empire!!!!. Well, that principle did not go unnoticed, and perhaps somebody is, at this very moment, supplying the Taliban to keep us tied down.
Whoda thunk: the same righteous brothers are now defeating OUR empire. Apparently, it could happen to the USSR because it was the “Evil” Empire, whereas it couldn’t conceivably happen to us, because the USA is the Empire of Light, Truth, Justice and the American Way–and if you won't accept our moral right to impose that on your "nation", we will blow you up with a drone.
We keep making the same mistake: using our military to project force when we have no reason to. The military always tell us that they are The Most Powerful, Best Equipped & Best Trained, and that given enough time, men and materiel, they will give us victory. Truly, they are hell on wheels in a blitzkrieg, but when locked down by an “insurgency” there never seems to be enough time, men or materiel. “Just gimme more time!” is the mantra of the generals. Just like Vietnam, where the commanding general could always “see light at the end of thre tunnel”, and we killed 58,000 of our own soldiers and wounded countless others–for what?
Since World War I, almost without exception, every war of aggression has resulted in defeat of the aggressor, or at best a stalemate. The US has been on the losing side more than once, always for the same reason: unneccessary force in pursuit of an unworthy cause.
There has never been a more unworthy cause than "nation-building" in Afghanistan, but Iraq is the first runner up in the beauty contest. Now, why don't we start the same process in Libya, and after we get Libya squared away, how's about Syria? Then, when we finally have all these Islamic true believers on our side, it will be time to kick some major tail in Iran.
lisseursGHD | 6.26.11 @ 11:57PM
Bienvenue chez notre ghd france,ghd lisseurs professionnels fourlisseur en ligne où vous offre des stylers ghd variés, fers à lisser de bonne qualité et à prix fous-économisez jusqu'à 54%! Commandez maintenant.