It's not enough for Obama's strategy in Afghanistan to work; it has to be worth it. | |
MATTHEW YGLESIAS A U.S. Army soldier patrols with Afghan soldiers in Wardak province, Afghanistan. (U.S. Army Photo/Sgt. Russell Gilchrest) (This is a cross post) Gen. David Petraeus took command in Afghanistan last week with President Barack Obama promising the nation that the change in leadership would not entail a change in strategy. In his remarks upon assuming command, Petraeus stated that "we are in this to win." This is about what one would expect of a commanding general, but just as Obama found it necessary to fire Petraeus' predecessor, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the national interest requires some deeper thinking about how many resources it makes sense to dedicate to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is, at the end of the day, an extremely poor and remote country. The U.S. military, seemingly sensitive to this point, recently launched a substantial information operation designed to convince people that the country is full of valuable natural resources like lithium. This, however, was largely old news and ignored the remote prospects for actually exploiting these resources. Of course the United States didn't invade Afghanistan in order to control precious metals. We did it for the pretty good reason that Osama bin Laden was operating openly there with the support of the country's de facto government. And had we succeeded in killing or capturing bin Laden back in the winter of 2001-2002, it strikes me as exceedingly unlikely that eight years later we'd have tens of thousands of American soldiers attempting to improve governance and resolve political instability in Afghanistan. That we failed back then, and that the distraction of Iraq prevented us from stabilizing the country when it might have been easier, doesn't change the fact that it's currently a strange mission we're undertaking. The main national-security rationale for our involvement in Afghanistan is the notion that Taliban-held territory could be a safe haven for terrorists. This is true but incomplete. Plenty of other places from Somalia to Yemen to Pakistan and beyond could play that role. Unfortunately, the world does not suffer from a shortage of malgoverned locations. Nor, for that matter, is it strictly necessary to find a piece of chaotic hinterland in order to commit acts of terrorism. The main plotting for September 11 was undertaken in Hamburg, Germany, where the level of governance and political stability outpaces anything we'll see from Afghanistan in several lifetimes. That's not to say we should be blithely unconcerned about the potential al-Qaeda threat from Afghanistan, but given that we're talking about a few hundred fighters, a massive counterinsurgency campaign waged by tens of thousands of American soldiers seems excessive. We should, though, take a hard look at what our decisions in Afghanistan truly cost. But the way we're currently funding the war hides trade-offs. A cryptic process masks what we're spending. Congress votes on war appropriations separately from the rest of the budget, and centrist senators don't demand offsets as the price of avoiding a filibuster. Consequently, expenditures escape political scrutiny and even rudimentary efforts at cost-benefit analysis. The problems with this are not merely budgetary. They actually cut to the core of national strategy. The process allows Congress and the administration to ignore a key question: How important is Afghanistan relative to other national priorities? Rather than quibbling over a precise time line for withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan, it would be better to debate the trajectory of overall spending. Then instead of mouthing platitudes about winning, the role of Petraeus and his staff would be making the best possible use of the resources they have. And the best way to open such a conversation, in specific terms, would be to force the Department of Defense to balance its overall budget and not treat war supplementals as monopoly money conjured up by Congress. Back in December 2009 my colleague at the Center for American Progress Larry Korb outlined a strategy to offset the cost of a troop surge in Afghanistan by cutting the baseline military budget. It was a useful exercise, and one through which the administration would do well to actually put the Joint Chiefs. Not merely because of the budgetary savings it would involve but because it would force the military leadership to consider more seriously what they really think matters. How much is Afghanistan worth and for how long? It's easy to talk about "interests" and "threats" in general terms but much harder to look at real trade-offs in specific terms. To get policy right in Afghanistan, we need more than a strategy that "works" or lets us "win"; we need one that's worth it. (Matthew Yglesias is a senior editor at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a former Prospect staff writer, and the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats). |
Was the "pretty good reason" for invading Afghanistan the belief that Osama bin Laden plotted the 9/11 attacks?
ReplyDeleteBut what evidence is there of bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11? The FBI apparently doesn't have enough evidence to charge him with it. And then there is bin Laden's own denial of involvement published by CNN on September 17, 2001. So, apart from some dubious audio and video tapes (made by Adam Gadahn, the grandson of an ADL board member, and found by Rita Katz, the daughter of a hanged Israeli spy), where's the evidence?
I suggest you check out Arnaud de Borchgrave's 2001 interview with fmr. DG ISI Hamid Gul for a more plausible scenario.
the writer very neatly eluded the name of other countries where a possible terror attack can emerge.........INDIA.
ReplyDeleteit takes the name of yemen, somalia , then bam......pakistan!
i appreciate his efforts to sell to us the idea that bin laden was the top priority for starting the war, and there isnt any hard evidence against him.
BUT..........he doesnt seem to be bothered by the ongoing manslaugter of afgans, many of them innocent civilians at the hands of the foreign invaders there in the form of US and NATO.
he seems to be more concerned with the "expenses" the war is causing them.
in the end it all comes down to the same thing.......how much can u get in return of waging a war on a country. be it in the form of minerals as he quoted were NOT the reason to start the war, OR any other form.
the idea behind the whole war is NOT bin laden,NOT minerals or energy reserves, NOT taliban, ............the ONLY reason for this war is the nuclear program of a leaderless nation, a nation whose unity has proved to be lethal in the past as well.
I do agree with the writer on the account when he says US needs to rethink her priories.And when he says that it strikes me as exceedingly unlikely that eight years later we'd have tens of thousands of American soldiers attempting to improve governance and resolve political instability in Afghanistan. That we failed back then, and that the distraction of Iraq prevented us from stabilizing the country when it might have been easier, doesn't change the fact that it's currently a strange mission we're undertaking.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Faisal's comment jumping to the name of PAKISTAN in regard to TERRORISM, is due to ISRAEL, an occupying force that has openly vowed that it will not tolerate any other country (in the Muslim world) to posess nuclear weapons or technology. Thus the only way to get even is to defame and light up the fires of terrorism now through Blackwater or XE's presence on Pakistani Soil, with the explicit knowledge of the "Sold to Devil" leaders of the country.
ReplyDeleteB. Syed
its not just Isreal, Bashir. its the "axis of evil" :-) with several other vultures gathered round to chew on the remains. the axis i refer to is US,ISRAEL,INDIA.
ReplyDeleteeach one of them have their own reasons to hate us or get benefits from disturbances here.
the voices heard over the western media about how a stable pakistan is in their interests, is just to fool the general public.
a stable pakistan has never been their priority. just like it wasnt in '71.
as regards as blackwater/xe worldwide's presence in pakistan, visas in the approximity of around 450 (what i heard) issued after much resistance from the ISI. in response, only one visa issued to the pakistani official. out of these 450 how many will be "marines"?? is anybody's guess.
on a side note.........they already have signed the agreement with blackwater for security in afganistan. obviously they wont be there to "hunt" bin laden.
The United State should not destroy herself economically as the cost on war is negatively impinging upon its domestic priorities such as improving the fast deterioraiting highway network, schools and dwindling social services to kill Osama. It is a bad bargain.
ReplyDeleteHow long this wild goose chase for Osama would continue until American turns bankrupt? America can do the job of finding their archenemy through a spy network and through informers around the world. In Afghanistan, it is Karzai government, which is American surrogate.
Therefore, even if troops are withdrawn, America can continue the proxy war by giving all support to this government. Is it necessary to keep the troops, get them killed, and suffer materially and economically? Counltess American families are passing through a trauma due to their dear ones killed or maimed in this futile war.
I see this very clearly:
ReplyDeleteUnited States HAS to get out of Afghanistan.
The question is not IF but WHEN .
They want a face saving.
QED.
Prior to deciding to go off to get one, take into account that you should examine as well as take into consideration your needs first.digital weight machine
ReplyDeleteSo in order to ensure that your load cell & torque sensors are as accurate as possible; you should be well aware of just what could affect that accuracy and put measures in place to prevent those occurrences from happening. yük hücresi
ReplyDeleteThis is because it has been designed to cover as many applications as possible giving it a broader user base and therefore making it less expensive. scales for weighing
ReplyDelete