Will Afghanistan Become Obama's War?

One of the eerier reports on the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan appeared recently in the New York Times. Journalist John Burns visited the Russian ambassador in Kabul, Zamir N. Kabulov, who, back in the 1980s, when the Russians were the Americans in Afghanistan, and the Americans were launching the jihad that would eventually wend its way to the 9/11 attacks… well, you get the idea…

In any case, Kabulov was, in the years of the Soviet occupation, a KGB agent in the same city and, in the 1990s, an adviser to a UN peacekeeping envoy during the Afghan civil war that followed. "They've already repeated all of our mistakes," he told Burns, speaking of the American/NATO effort in the country. "Now," he added, "they're making mistakes of their own, ones for which we do not own the copyright." His list of Soviet-style American mistakes included: underestimating "the resistance," an over-reliance on air power, a failure to understand the Afghan "irritative allergy" to foreign occupation, "and thinking that because they swept into Kabul easily, the occupation would be untroubled." Of present occupiers who have stopped by to catch his sorry tale, Kabulov concludes world-wearily, "They listen, but they do not hear."

The question is: Does this experience really have to be repeated to the bitter end -- in the case of the Soviets, a calamitous defeat and retreat from Afghanistan, followed by years of civil war in that wrecked country, and finally the rise of the Pakistani-backed Taliban? The answer is: perhaps. There is no question that the advisers President Obama will be listening to are already exploring more complex strategies in Afghanistan, including possible negotiations with "reconcilable elements" of the Taliban. But these all remain military-plus strategies at whose heart lies the kind of troop surge that candidate Obama called for so vehemently -- and, given the fate of the previous 2007 U.S./NATO "surge" in Afghanistan, this, too, has failure written all over it.

If you want a glimmer of hope when it comes to the spreading Afghan War--American missile-armed drones have been attacking across the Pakistani border regularly in recent months--consider that Barack Obama has made ex-CIA official Bruce Reidel a key advisor on the deteriorating Pakistani situation. And Reidel recently reviewed startlingly favorably Tariq Ali's must-read, hard-hitting new book on Pakistan (and so Afghanistan and so American policy), The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power for the Washington Post. ("My employers of the past three decades, the CIA and the Brookings Institution, get their share of blame," Reidel wrote. "So do both of the current presidential candidates…")

Ali believes that there could be a grand, brokered regional solution to the Afghan War, essentially a military-minus strategy. In his most recent piece, "Operation Enduring Disaster," he wrote:

"Over the last two years, the U.S./NATO occupation of that country has run into serious military problems. Given a severe global economic crisis and the election of a new American president--a man separated in style, intellect, and temperament from his predecessor -- the possibility of a serious discussion about an exit strategy from the Afghan disaster hovers on the horizon. The predicament the U.S. and its allies find themselves in is not an inescapable one, but a change in policy, if it is to matter, cannot be of the cosmetic variety."

Let's hope Reidel and others are willing to listen to non-surge options; otherwise Afghanistan will certainly become "Obama's war," and -- for anyone old enough to remember -- haven't we been through that before?

Comments (15)

1. Always amazing that the "memory hole" neo-cons forget that IRAN was helping us in Afghanistan, because they didn't like Al Qaeda or the Taliban anymore than anybody else.

   Maybe we need to seek out their help again?

   Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 10:43am

2. Obama is going to inherit two wars...Iraq and Afghanistan, it is a mighty task for him. The only saving grace he is a man who thinks more about diplomacy than "war" as being the only answer, which is a good thing. Iran could be a good "friend" so to speak in Afghanistan, as mentioned above they don't like Al Qaeda/Taliban either. So, I think any negotiations would be a good thing with Iran.. we don't need to be enemies with everybody, alliances can be formed through talks.

   Posted by Caj at 11/17/2008 @ 10:57am

3. US supply line threatened by Pakistan truck halt

   By RIAZ KHAN and FISNIK ABRASHI – 21 hours ago

   PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistan temporarily barred oil tankers and container trucks from a key passageway to Afghanistan, threatening a critical supply route for U.S. and NATO troops on Sunday and raising more fears about security in the militant-plagued border region.

   <<>><<>>

   it's been re-opened.

   but for how long?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 11:00am

4. AQ supply lines- hundreds of miles

   "coalition" forces supply lines- thousands of miles.

   Reason #4 for not getting involved in a land war is Asia. Especially when the Plan is to draw the war out for generations.

   Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2008 @ 11:58am

5. you got that right, crabs:

   Afghan article says US Bin-Ladin hunt phoney

   The USG Open Source Center translates an article from the Persian Afghan press alleging that French troops were at one point close to capturing Usamah Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, but that American forces stopped them from doing so. It says that a forthcoming French documentary containing interviews with the French soldiers provides proof for the allegation. The argument is that the Bush administration needed Bin Ladin to be at large in order to justify its military expansionism.

   AFGHAN ARTICLE SAYS US BIN-LADIN HUNT PHONEY

   Hasht-e-Sobh Friday, October 3, 2008 Document Type: OSC Translated Text

   http://juancole.com/

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/17/2008 @ 12:49pm

6. Any word on ferreting out the many outside funders of training camps in Afghanistan employed by AQ around the time of 9/11? The Arab Emirates & Saudi Arabia officially withdrew support of the Taliban some time ago, but the heart of its ideology is shared. Always, when it gets down to money & resources, the West is focused on "the big picture"(say business as usual), not conflicts with "allies". Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia may have won his libel lawsuit against a German magazine, but did he fund the AQ training camps or not? The real war should be against the moneyed thugs EVERYWHERE who perpetuate these conflicts. Take the profit out of war & it will be decreased exponentially.

   Posted by Sorelish at 11/17/2008 @ 12:54pm

7. Maybe we need to seek out their help again?

   Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 10:43am | ignore this person | warn this person

   That is going to take some fancy footwork....but it is an excellent idea. How will Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel view this for instance? Whether our other allies like it or not, ultimately, Iran is likely to play a part in both Iraq and Afghanistan "stabilizations."

   Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2008 @ 12:59pm

8. Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2008 @ 12:59pm

   And as has been noted so often, instead of diminishing the power of Iran with the invasion of Iraq, the neo-cons have enhanced it....and now WE need THEM.

   Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 2:40pm

9. And as has been noted so often, instead of diminishing the power of Iran with the invasion of Iraq, the neo-cons have enhanced it....and now WE need THEM.

   Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   I wonder if this outcome was even contemplated in their strategic policy manuals....lol? The Black Swan? Nope....common sense.

   The neocon strategists are juggling too many balls. Now it looks like they are going to have to drop a ball or two.

   Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2008 @ 2:48pm

10. The war in Afghanistan is lost. And with AIPAC tool, Obama, as president, you can bet that nothing more than dream-like reveries of his pulling off some kind of diplomatic triumph will be the outcome if Iran continues to be faced with him raging and screaming at the top of his lungs that he'll do just everything, EVERYTHING, in his power to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon. Afghanistan is already "Obama's War" and its about to become more so guided as he is likely to be in this area by Rahm Emanuel, Dennis Ross & Company. The answer in Afghanistan is no different than has been all along in Iraq: An immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/17/2008 @ 3:00pm

11. Posted by john lowell at 11/17/2008 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    An image to contemplate.....

    Excerpt from:

    President-elect Obama, McCain vow to work closely By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer 10 mins ago

    'Obama and McCain sat together for a brief picture-taking session with reporters, along with Rahm Emanuel, Obama's incoming White House chief of staff, and South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, McCain's close friend. Obama and McCain were heard briefly discussing football, and Obama cracked that "the national press is tame compared to the Chicago press."

    When asked if he planned to help the Obama administration, McCain replied, "Obviously."'

    Wonder why Joe Lieberman wasn't there.....lol?

    Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2008 @ 4:09pm

12. Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2008 @ 4:09pm

    "Wonder why Joe Lieberman wasn't there.....lol?"

    Who needs Lieberman when you've got McCain, Emanuel, and Lindsay Graham in the same room. :-)

    More of the same stary-eyed genre, "bringing people together", I presume? There was a movie about a pig back in the early 1990s that inspired much the same feel-good ca-ca. This clown is all about airy impressions and superficialities. He'll need a heck of a lot more than these simple minded, "bipartisan" charades to get us past what we face in the Middle East at the moment, and that if he even wants to get us past them, which is something I'd seriously question. Ask yourself, if you were Emanuel, and knowing where Emanuel's coming from, would you be encouraging Obama to disengage from the Middle East? I'd doubt it.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/17/2008 @ 5:09pm

13. Posted by john lowell at 11/17/2008 @ 5:09pm

    B-b-b-but...

    Obama said things were gonna be different!

    LOL

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/17/2008 @ 10:49pm

14. My question to Obama, the outgoing Bush Administration and the Pentagon is simply this-Since when does the U.S. have to take on GLOBAL TERRORISM without any help from the other Countries that have been terrorized? I realize that the Bush-Cheney Administration's biggest failure in Iraq was telling its Allies to get lost as the Iraqi Pie belonged to us-even to the extent of mocking the French President for being upset that his Contract with Sadaam would not be honored by the U.S. occupation. I realize that every World Leader that was allied with us in the Invasion of Iraq has been replaced by their respective Countries BUT that does not change the fact that Global Terrorism is Global-My suggestion is to change our committment to Military Action on a Large Scale and try diplomacy and counter intelligence!

    Posted by RITEON at 11/18/2008 @ 06:31am

15. Tom Engelhardt asks:

    <<< Will Afghanistan Become Obama's War? >>>

    IT ALREADY IS.

    Obama (and the Left) has since 2002 wanted the US military focused on Afghanistan, not Iraq. That is one of the few positions he has stuck with consistently.

    Initially the point was not to seem wimpy in opposing Iraq. He was no pacifist. He wanted to avenge 9/11, it was just that the real place to make a stand, the central front against terror, was Afghanistan, not Iraq. The idea was to save Saddam's neck.

    Now he is stuck with that commitment.

    The problem is not that the US is making the mistakes the Soviets made. In 2002 a few battalions of Special Forces and some Daisy Cutters destroyed the Taliban within a month, something a Soviet army of 120,000 failed at in ten years of trying.

    We can drive the Taliban back into their holes again. But then what? They are sure to come back up as soon as we leave, or just ease off. Is this to be an endless war?

    The real question is, why fight there at all? That Obama and the Left wanted a diversion from Iraq is not good enough. If we are to spill our blood and treasure anywhere, there must be something in it for us. What is it in Afghanistan, what are our national interests there, what do we gain with a victory?

    Whether al Qaeda operates out of Afghanistan or Pakistan, the Sudan or Somalia, etc., does not make the US any more or less safe. Our sympathy for the Afghan people is no more than for the people in Darfur, the Congo, Zimbabwe, etc.

    Our national interests were served in breaking Saddam's neck and introducing a democratic Iraq into that region. That was worth our blood and treasure.

    Obama must give us an American reason to be in Afghanistan, and if he can't we must pull out.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/18/2008 @ 5:51pm