On Wednesday, I noted that Obama's ongoing review of Afghanistan policy is more important than his decision to send 17,000 more troops, for the key issue is what will be the mission of those troops. The Bush administration had two alternating approaches regarding Afghanistan: neglect and megalomania. By megalomania, I mean its messianic advocacy of transforming Afghanistan into a modern, Western-luvin' democracy. It's easy to spout noble-sounding rhetoric about human rights and such, but setting unrealistic goals for remaking another nation is arrogant. When Bush and his crew weren't ignoring Afghanistan--which was much of the time (see my 2006 article on that--they were promoting a mission there that was a bridge too far.
It's time to get real.
The National Security Network, a liberal-leaning policy shop in Washington, this week put out a policy paper listing of principles that ought to guide any review of Afghanistan policy. They are indeed reality-based:
Domestic and Afghan constraints severely limit what we can achieve. Americans are justifiably reluctant to redouble efforts in Afghanistan. Afghan history as well as fatigue from the Iraq War and the economic downturn all argue against a US presence that is massive and unlimited in time or scope.
The scale of the challenge demands broad vision but modest objectives. Larger than Iraq, with a population close to 32 million, Afghanistan suffers from one of the world's lowest development levels, scant economic opportunity, crude infrastructure, and a dependence on the opium trade - interrelated problems that go beyond the near term issue of worsening security. Humanitarian and governance goals to which Afghans and many Americans rightly aspire will be better-served by a smaller-scale effort which can enable local, regional and non-governmental efforts than a massive one which cannot be sustained.
In other words, set modest goals that have a chance of being achieved. Yet that doesn't mean the job in Afghanistan is easy. The policy paper outlines plenty of heavy-lifting that has to be done: the United States and NATO must prevent Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan from being staging grounds for terrorist attacks against the West; must develop "Afghan state capacity" to prevent a resurgent Taliban from winning control of the country or parts of it; must work out a better balance between Kabul and provincial power sources (read: warlords); must reduce corruption in Afghanistan and foster greater citizen trust in the government; must enhance economic opportunities for the Afghan people; and must "break the stranglehold of the opium trade."
That's all? But NSN, which does not take a position on sending more troops, advocates recognizing the "limits of military power" in pursuing these objectives. It's pushing for a counter-insurgency strategy that relies less on military confrontation with the enemy and more on providing security that can allow development and the construction and growth of social institutions.
This is a sensible strategy. Afghanistan is not a war to be won. It is a helluva problem to be managed and slowly improved in a deliberate step-by-step manner. Obama appears to have throttled back--conceptually--on the "war" on terror. He might have do something similar regarding Afghanistan.
You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
""Afghanistan policy""
again, this report with photos was compiled by a doctor in afghanistan:
http://tinyurl.com/pbkyh
enjoy your handi-work america!
Posted by: as_if!
| February 19, 2009 12:44 PM
I fear even getting out of Afghanistan is not enough. What will stop the military from just moving to a new location for the ongoing non-stop war that feeds their power and wealth?
There is always Pakistan (or other 'stan)
Imagine how much it would help our economy to cut military spending? Such spending is and has been completely out of control for nearly 50 years now.
When will it stop?
Posted by: capt
| February 19, 2009 4:03 PM
Helicopters, Cover-ups and War Crimes
[...]
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) and others have alleged that the contract for 28 Marine One helicopters was awarded to the Italian firm Finmeccanica as a thank you for Italy's participation in the Iraq War. The evidence, however, indicates that the contract was more specifically a payoff to the Italian government for supplying the forged documents showing Saddam had obtained weapons grade uranium from Niger. President Bush famously used this fraudulent "yellowcake" intelligence to justify launching the war.
http://tinyurl.com/bfdroz
Posted by: capt
| February 19, 2009 4:08 PM
The U.S. war on Afghanistan is an unjust war of aggression-the supreme war crime. The Bush regime occupied Afghanistan and drove out the Taliban regime, not to bring democracy and liberation to the Afghan people, but to control Afghanistan and spread the U.S. empire, with the goal of permanent domination of the Middle East.
The "war on terror" begun after 9/11 by the U.S. was not just a campaign against the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden, but a broad, global war to keep the U.S. as the unchallenged global superpower. This is not a war to free people from warlords of Islamic fundamentalism, a movement the U.S. funded and armed, and ironically, spread, when it was aligned with the U.S. against the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
The war in Afghanistan is and will be fought the same way the war in Iraq is being fought. Most of the people killed are civilians, with the U.S. justifying collateral damage and collective punishment, secret prisons, denial of due process and torture. It is wrong, unjust, illegitimate and immoral. And it won't be otherwise, no matter who is president. There is no such thing as a "good" war on terror. The U.S. occupiers consider any large gathering of Afghans inherently hostile, hence the repeated bombings of wedding parties. Even the U.S. puppet Hamid Karzai is warning the U.S. to stop killing civilians...
Debra Sweet, Director,
The World Can't Wait
305 W. Broadway #185,
NY, NY 10013
866.973.4463
info@worldcantwait.org
Posted by: capt
| February 19, 2009 4:23 PM
"Just say no."
Posted by: David B. Benson
| February 19, 2009 6:59 PM
Post A Comment