Afghanistan I

Image via Wikipedia

US involvement in Afghanistan recently passed its eighth anniversary. As President Obama has said, this was not a war of choice for the US. The question is, what has it become and where is the US going.

Briefly, in 2001 when the US invasion began, the goal was to destroy safe havens for terrorists which were under the protection of the ruling Taliban. The Taliban were targeted too since their rule had facilitated al Qaida training camps and they refused to turn over Osama bin Laden claiming he was a guest. The Bush administration publicly made the mission one of destroying the Taliban and capturing or killing bin Laden. Neither goal, obviously was met while the mission drifted until the Bush administration clearly abandoned the search for the man behind the death of 3,000 American, British, Iranian, French and other nationalities at the World Trade Center.

The Taliban collapsed outwardly rather quickly, being unable to challenge US and US supported troops in the field. Having utter control in the air, the US and its Afghan allies rapidly rolled up territory and simply drove into Kabul. What happened next was a series of misplaced priorities and actions.

First, US strategy relied on high altitude bombing which resulted in high civilian casualty counts. Not the way to win over the population to the cause. Small scale anti-terrorist operations may have been more effective and resulted in fewer civilian deaths while offering a better chance of capturing or killing the most wanted criminal - up to that point - for the US. The Bush administration then handed over power to the military warlords and Islamisists who had support the US campaign.

Even when Karzai came to power and tried to curb the power of the warlords, the US continued its support because of the perceived necessity of using them to root out al Qaida and Taliban elements. Unfortunately as well, the US did not seek to internationalize the effort by asking for European - and especially troops from Muslim countries - to join as part of a coalition at that time.

Without an effort to build security beyond Kabul, the stage was set for a Taliban resurgence - which began three years ago as the effects of the war of choice in Iraq sucked down US troops, attention and treasury. By 2005 the US poured in half a trillion dollars into Iraq and during the previous two years slashed reconstruction aid to the Karzai government by 30%. By 2005, even the aid provided was not going to the Afghan people (and those of us in the development business know exactly how US foreign aid operates). Action Aid estimated at the time that only 14% of all aid goes to real development project. I know some of the people who were in Afghanistan - the 50% of development aid funding that went to these dubiously qualified consultants to be spent on questionable US products was a joke. At that time Karzai was justified in his harsh criticism of all foreign aid - and especially that from the US. Karzai was fiercely critical of the Bush policies even in 2005. Indeed, the US spent more on bombing Afghanistan than rebuilding it.

The failures that were self-evident in 2005 and widely discussed, except as is ever the case to ardent supporters of Bush and Cheney and the neo-con leadership, were largely the result of the diversion of resources to Iraq. An Afghanistan policy review took place in 2005 and progress there was widely praised by the Bush administration. Yet, the Afghanistan operation remained an unfinished effort, faded from the ever vigilant US media. The focus in Afghanistan was completely lost after the Tora Bora operation that failed to capture or kill the primary target of the US, Osama bin Laden. Then, specialized elements of the US Army assigned to track him down were withdrawn in 2002 for the preparations against Iraq.

The Obama administration has said that it has completed its deliberations on a policy direction for the US in Afghanistan which will also determine the number of "surge" troops demanded by General McChrystal. Where and how the US directs its efforts at this point is critical. This administration needs to get it right and not follow the knee jerk crazies in the Republican Limbaugh Party - who, by the way, don't serve in any capacity in Afghanistan but who are very willing and eager to watch other peoples' children die.

The next post will discuss some myths that prevail about Afghanistan and posit a way forward - if the administration does not make the post moot. I will also review the larger picture of the changed foreign policy strategy of the Obama administration and the effect on Afghanistan, Central Asia and Iran.

Well Put

I think the vision is perfect and reflects the general deep, ingrained ingorance of the right wing leadership and its followers in the US:

Reactionaries playing checkers - Prez playing chess.

Credit for the phrase where it is due. However, the remainder of the post is a little light - particularly the world government meme. Ignore it. The phrase is worth it.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Good.

And I am very happy that the Republican Party has finally found its natural allies who were equally critical of the award to the President: Hamas, the Taliban and Iran.

Question of the Day - USAID

Why hasn't the President Obama nominated someone to run USAID yet? Yes, there is a lot on the plate just now, including trying to ignore treasonous, poisonous and insane remarks from lunatic Republican Congresscritters, developing strategies for Iran and Afghanistan and passing a health care bill that does not reward the insurance companies by allowing them to continue to rape consumers in a non-market economy structure.

But, there is something to be said for getting the easy stuff out of the way in a hurry. And selecting someone to run with USAID - actually quite important - is the easy stuff.

The Netanyahu Speech

Given the reaction from the EU and President Obama, Netanyahu squirmed out of a difficult corner in which he had to concede something following the demands put on him recently. The concession was his abandonment - nuance aside - of his and his supporter's opposition to the two-state solution. When President Obama referred to this as a "good first step", I disagree with Josh Marshall where he feels that this is "doubly naive":

Most reactions in the US press are treating this as a major move by Netanyahu, endorsing the idea of a Palestinian state. But that seems doubly naive a) since that's been the premise of US policy for almost 20 years as well as a goal accepted by several Israeli governments and b) because Netanyahu's conditions amounted to deal breakers.

Yes, it has been the premise of US foreign policy for 20 years and yes again - Netanyahu's conditions are deal breakers. However, the position taken by the Netanyahu government is a major change for him. To that extent, the acceptance of a two-state solution is a good first step. I have serious doubts that the two state solution would work, but this is the policy that is being pushed, and pushed hard.

I think it is important to remember that President Obama has changed the game vis a vis Israel with his demand for an end to settlements - something Netanyahu has yet to address adequately. Netanyahu is in a terrible political position at home if he wants to retain power. He cannot ignore the US without blowing apart his coalition. If President Obama keeps the pressure on Netanyahu obtaining a stream of concessions (like dismantling of ad-hoc settlements illegal under Israeli law and by force if necessary)then there is a chance that a Netanyahu government will reach a deal with the Palestinians where a Labor government simply could not. This is a "Nixon goes to China" scenario and probably the only one that has a chance of working.

The Palestinian reaction was predictable and they have many points in their favor. The conditionalities put forward in the speach are clearly unacceptable. They strip away rights that define a "state". The Netanyahu government needs to walk those conditions back. Having said that, the Palestinians need to accept reality: 1) recognize Israel and 2) accept a compromise on repatriation. This is really not too much to ask. Without either, no deal and no peace.

President Obama in Cairo

Just watched President Obama's address in Cairo. Impressive, particularly in its outreach attempt displaying a deep understanding of Muslim history and its cultural and scientific contributions while during the same period in time Europe was backward, illiterate, intolerant, dirty and fighting baronial wars over scraps of land and peasants. The distinction, of course, between the grand age of Islam, with it broad tolerance, promotion of education and philosophy, massive strides in science, and its current status was obvious.

This may be a game changing speech. It was direct and tough to all - including the Israeli's. He put both the Arabs and Israeli's at the same level. Comparing the status of Palestinians to American slavery was brilliant.

The warning to Iran was also clear.

Great speech. Nice for the US to finally have a literate, intelligent leader - better than anyone in Europe.