I don't watch much televised news -- there's just not a lot of
content per unit of time and I get bored too quickly -- but I did happen to catch
a report on President Obama's whirlwind trip to Afghanistan yesterday. (As a sign of my indifference to the major
networks, I couldn't even tell you which channel I was watching). But I did see a film clip of the president giving a speech to the troops at Bagram air base, where he thanked
them for their efforts, said the country was grateful, and told the troops "the American
armed services does not quit, we keep at it, we persevere, and together with
our partners we will prevail."
As always, Obama looked comfortable and sounded good. And it's possible that he meant every
word of his pep talk. But I kept
wondering what he meant by "prevail?" What is his definition of victory? Is it the surrender and capture of Mullah Omar and the Quetta Shura, or
the military defeat of the Taliban itself? Is victory defined as the establishment of a unified Afghan central
government (something that hasn't existed for decades) in command of native security
forces that can take over the battle themselves, with little or no foreign
support? If special representative
Richard Holbrooke thinks we'll "know success when we see it," what exactly are
we looking for?"
Here's how Obama defined the strategy in his remarks:
Our broad mission is clear: We are going to disrupt and dismantle,
defeat and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies. That is our mission. And
to accomplish that goal, our objectives here in Afghanistan are also clear:
We're going to deny al Qaeda safe haven. We're going to reverse the Taliban's
momentum. We're going to strengthen the capacity of Afghan security forces and
the Afghan government so that they can begin taking responsibility and gain
confidence of the Afghan people.
And our strategy includes a military effort that takes the fight to
the Taliban while creating the conditions for greater security and a transition
to the Afghans; but also a civilian effort that improves the daily lives of the
Afghan people, and combats corruption; and a partnership with Pakistan and its
people, because we can't uproot extremists and advance security and opportunity
unless we succeed on both sides of the border. Most of you understand that."
If that's what the President really thinks, we are going to
be there for a long, long time. So I found
myself hoping (perhaps naively) that this was all a bit of
blue-smoke-and-mirrors, and that he's actually planning to follow the same
script in Afghanistan that Bush followed in Iraq. It won't be identical in every detail, but the basic logic
would be similar. Here's how it
goes:
First, announce an escalation of the U.S. effort (aka a
"surge"), but set a rough deadline for it and quietly put new emphasis on
"political reconciliation." (Done). Next, bombard the media with lots of
evidence of progress, such as Taliban "strongholds" seized, al Qaeda leaders
killed or captured, Taliban leaders arrested in Pakistan, etc., so that people
think the surge is working. (Now underway). Third, arrange a diplomatic settlement that requires the
phased withdrawal of U.S./ISAF troops, even if their departure is on a rather
lengthy timetable. The Iraqi
equivalent was the Status of Forces agreement negotiated by the Bush
administration in the fall of 2008; in Afghanistan, it would probably entail
some sort of negotiation between the Karzai government, the Taliban, and
various other warlords (whether by a loya
jirga) or some other device (Maybe
underway too?). Finally, start
removing the "surged" forces more-or-less on schedule-and ahead of the 2012
election cycle-so that you can claim to have avoided the quagmire that critics
warned about back in 2009 (Remains to be seen).
I have no idea if this is what Obama or his team are
actually planning -- or maybe just hoping for -- but at this stage it is offers the
best chance of avoiding an open-ended commitment there. Part of the trick is to keep sounding
resolute and determined even while you're (quietly) looking for an exit, and as
someone who remains unconvinced that the Afghan campaign is worth the costs,
I'll continue to hope that this is what is really going on.
Read More
(11)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE