"You can only turn the struggle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban over to the Afghans if you change the way that Afghans live and think, and this is not going to happen. The tribal and Sunni/Shiite conflicts which have persisted for centuries, will continue for many years to come. The U.S. mission cannot and should not be to 'pacify' Afghanistan or to enlighten Afghanis as to the merits of democracy.
Moreover, a 'surge' type operation is not destined to succeed for any meaningful duration of time. Al Qaeda can go dormant as long as it takes and move to more hospitable climes until a better time for them arises. This is the slippery nature of terror organizations, which makes them so difficult to locate and combat.
What then need be the objective? Simple: Kill Osama bin Laden. No need for a costly footprint that will bleed America dry. You do require ongoing intelligence and the readiness to strike lightning blows when opportunities arise."
Indeed, Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan, patterned after Bush's surge in Iraq, has proven a costly, bloody bungle.
In her New York Times op-ed "Heart of Darkness" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/opinion/dowd-heart-of-darkness.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), Maureen Dowd finally gets around to addressing this fiasco, but where is the mention of Obama's responsibility? Her sole reference to Obama:
"But most of the politicians seemed resigned to the fact that President Obama is resigned to settling for a very small footprint and enough troops to keep terrorists from using Afghanistan as a base to attack the U.S. or our allies.
The White House seems ready to forget eliminating the poppy trade and expanding education for girls. We’re not going to turn our desolate protectorate into a modern Athens and there’s not going to be any victory strut on an aircraft carrier."
Sorry, Maureen, but as much as Obama is to be praised for ordering the courageous operation to assassinate bin Laden, he must also shoulder the blame for the pointless loss of life stemming from his decision to expand America's ground war in Afghanistan.
Dowd concludes:
"The epitaph of our Sisyphean decade of two agonizing wars was written last year by then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates: 'Any future defense secretary who advises the president to send a big American land army into Asia, or into the Middle East or Africa, should have his head examined.'"
Sorry again, Maureen. Responsibility for wading deeper into the Afghan morass rests with the president and not with a defense secretary or any other advisor. Obama took his sweet time studying all the various alternatives before ordering escalation, notwithstanding his 2008 campaign pledges, and must take responsibility for this egregious error.
Afghanistan is Obama's war.
Exactly so.
ReplyDeleteObama pulled the troops out of Iraq and vastly increased the US investment in Afghanistan. It was his decision and for this he is responsible. All his cohorts of opinion-makers will not be able to alter that fact.
Again, he felt that he would be able to make a difference.
Setting aside his rhetorical skills and focusing on his actual achievements one cannot but conclude that he has acheived very little besides being given a Nobel Peace prize for... what?
For being the first sort-of black president (that would be very patronizing of the Norwegians).... for the hope that he might do something? (who awards such prizes for hope –unless the sort of hope the Nobel committee pray for is very thin on the ground).... for promising "change"? See where that left Egypt, Tunisia and Syria.
A lame duck nevertheless has some sort of a leg to stand on.