Obama Knows the Afghanistan Surge Won't Work

by: Josh Nelson

Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 23:38

I mentioned Get Afghanistan Right in quick hits yesterday but this is an effort that deserves more attention. The Washington Post sub-headline - "Obama sees troops as buying time, not turning tide" - offers a damning glimpse into the reasoning behind the Afghanistan surge. The fact that the administration still hasn't decided what the troops will be doing once they get there is just frightening. Sadly, many of the people arguing for escalation don't offer much in the way of solutions either.

It is clear that we can not afford to blindly continue George W. Bush's non-strategy:

"We have no strategic plan. We never had one," a senior U.S. military commander said of the Bush years.

But we also deserve more than a public relations strategy:

Obama's first order of business, he said, will be to "explain to the American people what the mission is" in Afghanistan.

Gregg Levine has some questions the proponents of escalation should probably take a crack at answering:

What are the goals of US involvement?

What is the main objective of the military strategy

What would "victory" look like, and what allows US troops to leave?

How will we pay for an escalation in Afghanistan?

What diplomatic and non-military aid initiatives will the US pursue in the immediate future?

What role does Pakistan (and other surrounding nations) play in this conflict and its solution?

What kind of permanent presence in Afghanistan does the Obama Administration envision, and how does that benefit America and the region?

What is the plan for de-escalating the US military presence?

Josh Nelson :: Obama Knows the Afghanistan Surge Won't Work

Fortunately, Get Afghanistan Right, and a dialogue about transitioning to sustainable policies in Afghanistan, are quickly building momentum. This is evidenced by the excellent coverage the project received on Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC Tuesday night.

And so in eight pages of the "Washington Post," we have a relatively fresh and political foreign policy issue here. This is an issue. What to do in Afghanistan? Contrary to common wisdom here, contrary to what a lot of folks believe, there isn't actually a consensus anymore that more troops are going to be the answer.
A case in point, a new Web site launched this week by a group of progressive writers and activists urging President-elect Obama to "GetAfghanistanRight.com" by rethinking plans for a military escalation.

Tags: (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Obama Knows the Afghanistan Surge Won't Work | 3 comments

"Will we need a "Plan B" ?" (0.00 / 0)

it's very clear that Obama doesn't care that our soldiers will die "buying time", and that spending even more billions "buying time" harms us even more.

Great piece on this from Stephen Walt --

... Add all this together, and it's easy to see why the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Bantz Craddock, said last week that the United States and NATO will have to keep a large force in Afghanistan for "at least ten years," and maintain a presence there for "decades." But Craddock's implicit recommendation should not be accepted uncritically: saying the United States should stay there for "decades" begs the question of whether it is in our interest to commit lots of blood and treasure toward the creation of a unified Afghan state. ...

-- Will we need a "Plan B" in Afghanistan? -- http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/...

by: amberglow @ Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 23:16:44 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

100 years in Iraq = Bad (4.00 / 2)

"decades" in Afghanistan = Good

??

"It sounds wrong...
...but its right."

by: SpitBall @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 10:17:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Some good reasons for more troops in Afghanistan (0.00 / 0)

From Barnett Rubin in Foreign Affairs:

"Some additional troops in Afghanistan could protect local populations while the police and the administration develop. They also might enable U.S. and NATO forces to reduce or eliminate their reliance on the use of air strikes, which cause civilian casualties that recruit fighters and supporters to the insurgency."

But the big political hurdle for the Obama administration in regard to Afghanistan is to break out of the "war on terror" frame and realize that the Taliban is more so a social movement that needs to be incorporated into the longterm view of Afghanistan. Again Rubin:

"The goal of the next U.S. president must be to put aside the past, Washington's keenness for 'victory' as the solution to all problems, and the United States' reluctance to involve competitors, opponents, or enemies in diplomacy. A successful initiative will require exploratory talks and an evolving road map."

by: jeffbinnc @ Thu Jan 15, 2009 at 07:35:32 AM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Obama Knows the Afghanistan Surge Won't Work | 3 comments