The latest rhetoric on Afghanistan
The Obama administration’s top leaders on Afghanistan have been awfully sensitive these days about their stalled efforts there. Michele Flournoy, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy wrote a letter to the Washington Post this morning disputing an editorial that suggested the U.S. effort there wasn’t clear. It is, she wrote; the United States wants to dismantle, disrupt and defeat al Qaida. She also testified last week that overall things are headed in the right direction there. U.S. Central Command commander Gen. David Petraeus went to great pains last week to assure a dubious Senate Armed Services committee that while things look bad, in a few months there could be a marked improvement. And last week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called the narrative on Afghanistan “too negative.” He went on to say that the talk about Afghanistan felt like déjà vu to him when many were pessimistic about Iraq in 2007, just right violence dropped.
It feels like déjà vu to me as well. It reminds of when I lived in Iraq and the situation was collapsing around me. I would read comments from top military leaders out of both Washington and Baghdad and ask myself, “Are we talking about the same Iraq?” "Reports of violence are exaggerated," they told us as we buried friends and awoke daily to the sound of nearby car bombs; "the media is misinformed," officials barricaded inside the Green Zone told us as we lived amongst Iraqis; "things will get better soon," they said as the situation deteriorated around us on a daily basis. Back then, domestic politics defined the rhetoric, not the reality on the ground. But those comments had a long-term impact as well. They delayed leaders having a serious, candid and thoughtful discussion about how to improve the situation.
I fear the same is happening again What does the end state look like? Does the United States care or is it just aiming to kill al Qaida? If it is the latter, should the military be in Afghanistan or in al Qaida's new safe havens in places like Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and throughout Europe? Will troops leave in masses around the July 2011 deadline and Vice President Biden promised or slower as Petraeus suggested? Assuring a successful outcome in Afghanistan begins with an honest appraisal of the situation there. Delusions of otherwise cost the United States creditability – and the lives of her troops.
The White House has sold the war in Afghanistan on that 'disrupt and dismantle AQ' line since 9/11. What is left out, and what the military gets left holding the bag to execute, IS this massive COIN effort we're attempting right now.
I mean we're barely out of the decade and already we've forgotten what the baseline requirements are for conducting a successful CT whack-a-mole strategy, the principle being long-term, persistent access to the target area. That means lots of troops living amongst the population until they feel safe enough to talk to us. At the end of the day it means nation building, and it will help guarantee our nation's long-term security for decades to come if we're willing to make some tough choices.
The White House has simply been afraid of bringing this up because it's political suicide. No one wants to hear we're going to be there in massive numbers until 2020 if we want even a chance of breaking even on all of this.
The only other alternative is to simply walk away. There's no halfassing it. But walking away comes with significant consequences, not the least of which is the inspirational victory we would hand our enemy. Then there's the other message to all our potential allies that we can't be trusted to stick around when the going gets a little tough. Wow, so much for principles!
Anyways, for those convinced our gov't is all jacked up, why do you so easily believe what they tell you??? Do your homework and figure out what the real experts (not freaking politicians) tell you it takes to run a "successful" CT strategy. It can't be firing blindly into someone else' backyard, i.e. 'denied territory'.
Posted by: Erik | June 26, 2010 at 10:45 PM
I keep hearing the president saying we need to fight back against al qaida's "momentum" which sounds to me like they have the upper hand. Not sure what to believe now.
Posted by: Detective P.I | June 25, 2010 at 09:09 PM
This sounds like the official comments of U.S. gov't during Vn. war and in the last weeks before fall of Saigon in April, 1975 (I was there to the end). Also in Sri Lanka in 1983 after events that signaled beginning of civil war with Tamil Tigers, I drafted detailed report to Washington, based on field trips and inputs from all our American foreign aid project officers (and my 20 years experience in 3rd world countries), that gave depressing & pessimistic impact of aftermath of riots & violence on economy & our foreign aid program. A young US Embassy foreign service economist who had been in Colombo only weeks gutted the overall summary/conclusions at beginning of telegram to totally change the message before it was released - and without even checking with me re accuracy! My predictions were right & that civil war that started in 1983 finally ended in 2009! Just another example of "head in the sand" mentality of people in gov't. (retired from Agency for Int'l Development w/nearly 30 years in 3rd world countries)
Posted by: Ralph Singleton | June 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM
At this stage, al Qaida should put out a press release saying "OK, we're disrupted, now go home". Followed by "OK you win, we'll change our name". That's what the US wants, right?
Posted by: ciaran | June 23, 2010 at 04:18 AM