1
1
o Another difficulty with this strategy is that since terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda lack formal structure and function as loosely affiliated groups and individuals who have diverse grievances with a common enemy, it is not at all clear what “mission accomplished” would look like.
o Even should we determine some criteria for proclaiming that al Qaeda has been defeated and disrupted, there is no guarantee that all our troops will be withdrawn from the region. Obama mentions that it is integral to our mission not only to rid Afghanistan and Pakistan of al Qaeda, but to ensure that it be prevented from returning to either country in the future.
That requires, therefore, in President Obama’s view, three important additional goals beyond defeating and disrupting al Qaeda.
o First, it entails the defeat of the Taliban whose leadership, Obama is certain, would provide sanctuary and support for al Qaeda terrorists should they regain power. Obama is clear that the Taliban “must be met with force, and they must be defeated” and has noted that it will be the mission of the 17,000 troops already ordered to deploy to Afghanistan to “take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east . . . and go after insurgents along the border.” Here Obama is clearly establishing an additional combat mission for our troops and one intended primarily to destroy the Taliban not al Qaeda. Further, the additional 4,000 troops he will deploy this spring, therefore, will not “shift the emphasis” away from these combat missions, but merely augment the mission, already underway, to train the Afghan military and police;
o Second, Obama believes that preventing al Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the future requires that their governments achieve the stability necessary to prevent a “slide back into chaos.” This entails an elimination of corruption and the establishment of an effective and honest western style democratic government which serves its people and supports the “basic human rights of all Afghans – including women and girls.” Obama’s strategy in the region, therefore, now entails a requirement for “nation building;
o Third, our mission in the region, will also necessitate that we defeat/eliminate the stridently independent and very conservative Pashtun tribesmen (the dominant ethnic community in Afghanistan totaling some forty million people in Pakistan and Afghanistan) who will fiercely resist the imposition of a western style democracy.
So here we have it, the Obama Administration’s strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. A mission whose purpose and goals, upon analysis, are not as focused as he would have us believe requiring:
o the disruption and dismantling of al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan;
o the defeat of the Taliban;
o the creation of an honest, western style democratic government that respects the civil rights of all its citizens; and
o the suppression of the inevitable “insurgency” waged by the Pashtuns.
In reality, this is a truly bold and challenging mission, especially with an economy bordering on collapse and a military depleted and in disarray from fighting a multi front campaign for more than seven years.
Some Cause for Hope?
Perhaps, I am being overly pessimistic and critical ignoring the fact that there is something encouraging here as well. Clearly, what is different under this new Administration is not its identification of the “enemy,” or its use of the rhetoric of fear to characterize the threat as grave and immanent, or its propensity to wage war around the world, but in its flexibility and expressed willingness to make changes where necessary. Obama does indicate that he “will not blindly stay the course . . . and review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress toward accomplishing our goals” (italics mine). Upon analysis, however, this language is not encouraging as what is implied here is only that should progress not be forthcoming, he will be prepared to re-evaluate and make appropriate tactical (tool) changes. There is no indication, however, should “benchmarks” not be achieved or progress made, that we will admit that the effort, though noble, is impossible or beyond what we are willing/able to endure/pay in lives and treasure. Obama does not mention the possibility of withdrawing our troops and equipment and just go home.
Conclusion
In light of President Obama’s recognition and acceptance that “the road ahead will be long” and difficult, the following questions remain to be answered. Just how long will we endure failure, should we not be successful. With our economy in crisis, just how much treasure are we prepared to squander in pursuit of our goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Just how many lives are we prepared to sacrifice. Though I hope I am wrong, given the history of unrest and resistance in Afghanistan, the complexity of the problems in the region, the variegated and confused goals to be achieved, I fear that our efforts, like those of the Soviet Union and the British before us, will ultimately prove unsuccessful and that President Obama, finding himself embroiled in an unwinnable war, with too much invested in treasure, lives, and reputation, to just pick up and walk away will share the fate of another Liberal Democratic President whose dreams for a “Great Society” had to be abandoned because of his decisions to become embroiled in quagmire.
1 | 2
