photocredit: The US Army (flickr)
Let’s say you’re visiting Earth from another planet. You have no reliable information on what’s been going on in 2009. You read a hastily written and vague brief titled “America in 1,000 words.” Near the end, it mentions that there is a major war afoot, one the “wimpy Democrats are like really, really against” (I told you it was hastily written). When you are about to find out where this war is located, it smudged–fax machines will do that to you. But you read your Cliffnotes on America up until 2006, so you figure, “Duh. Iraq!”
Silly alien.
One reason the Democratic Congress has approval numbers that are not that much better than the Republicans had in 2006, is their flippancy. The war they (eventually) feverishly opposed was Iraq, but this year it became Afghanistan. What was consider the “good war” of the two is now the newest version of “our Vietnam.” Afghanistan is not Vietnam, but Democrats are giving that argument some credence, and thereby making themselves look weaker by presenting it. Maybe the “wimpy” label was not so far off.
Democrats feverishly opposed Iraq because they could feverishly support Afghanistan. It was good, just, worthy of sacrificing some of our best men and women, and worthy of the surmounting monetary cost. But now that Iraq is looking pretty stable, they need a new straw man. Enter the new Vietnam.
The war in Afghanistan is definitely not popular, with over 45% of Americans preferring to remove troops from the battlefield. Democrats might have switched their tone because of this. It’s unpopular, so lets boo the ugly prom date. But their party leader, President Obama, may once again go against the wishes of their progressive ambitions.
Afghanistan is torn, tattered, and in shaky condition after a sham election and pervasive violence that torments Afghans and their neighbors. President Hamid Karzai is unpopular amongst his people, and unreliable amongst White House officials. He vows to fight corruption just a few weeks after he blatantly committed electoral fraud and strong-arming. The insurgency within Afghanistan does not only target American soldiers, but Afghan civilians, Pakistan, and often collaborates with the Taliban to bring them back to power. In a word, it’s broken. This is why Obama knows he cannot see this war through a Vietnam lens.
The war in Afghanistan is more about the numbers than Vietnam ever was. Nixon and Kissinger thought they could win Vietnam by just overpowering the Vietcong with agent orange and carpet bombing, with more troops, more power, and less restraint. It failed, mainly because the enemy was not a single entity. The entire country was, in one way or another, supporting the insurgents. The only way to win in Vietnam would have been to obliterate the country or win each of their hearts. Both are pretty hard and expensive to do.
It is not a matter of whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, but how many and why. The country’s administration is incompetent at best, corrupt at worst, so why send more Americans there to lose their lives and prop their illegitimate institutions? What good is a promise to improve things, if it comes from Karzai? And if things are going to get better, won’t sending more Americans deflate the urgency Afghan security forces and politicians have to make themselves the keepers of their country’s security? If we lose Afghanistan, will Pakistan soon follow?
According to WH advisers, Obama is asking these questions, and becoming increasingly frustrated with the Afghan government. He is taking his time to weigh all of the proposed plans (some call for 10k more troops, some 30k, some none, some suggest pulling out completely). He may be doing this to check the country’s temperature: how much power will Karzai have once he starts trying to crack down on violence and government, earnestly or not? A month from now, will things be better, worse, or altogether different?
Obama will put more boots on the ground–begrudgingly. It must be done, because Afghanistan can be won. Insurgents are not fighting united with the Afghan people, but beside them and sometimes against them. Civilians fear the insurgents, but possibly fear the void an American pullout would create even more. How many more troops American will send to the land that defeated the USSR and Alexander the Great will depend on how confident they are a reliable ally is on the other end. That, Mr. Karzai, is where you come in.
You might want to check these out, too:
Tags: afghanistan · hamid karzai · War1 Comment
After reading that NY times article, one thing that struck me as odd was the lack of mention of Al-Qaeda. Improving security forces in Afghanistan is certainly the key for our exit strategy, as well as for the future of the country. However, the strategy fails to outline any plans to eliminate al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Though it is true that the Taliban is much more present in Afghanistan it’s very possible that Al-Qaeda could lay low for years until we feel comfortable enough to withdraw forces.
On another note, I’m disapointed that the president has been delaying a decision on sending additional reinforcements since August. General McChrystal’s request was not a suggestion, but a warning of possible defeat if we do not deploy troops quickly. Sending more of our people into harms way is obviously not an easy decision, but with the 60,000+ troops already there it is our duty to protect them by supplying as many reinforcements as possible. Taking a few months to “mull” things over seems counterproductive.