Saturday, December 6, 2008

Cut and Run in Afghanistan?

Cernig, writing at the terrorist-enabling left-wing blog, Newshoggers, seeks to deligitimize the continuing U.S. and multinational presence in Afghanistan:

The US military is building a new barracks for an expected 20,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. Various luminaries are calling for new strategies there, ones that recognise the military reality that force alone cannot "win" in Afghanistan and the geopolitical reality that no efforts at all can "win" if Pakistan is opposed to them. Turkey is mediating between Pakistan and Afghanistan in an attempt to acheive reconcilliation between the two sometime-rivals and the incoming Obama administration plans a new aid and training program to attempt to reverse the inexorable decline of what used to be an Afghan success story.

But all may be missing an important point -
the war in Afghanistan should be over, and the mandate for a US and allied presence there has lost its rationale. Doug Saunders, writing in Canada's Globe and Mail on Friday, noted that the Western presence in Afghanistan is authorised under Chapter VII of the UN Charter ....

Our soldiers are authorized to oust the Taliban, but only insofar as those “Taliban” are the ones who are going to allow al-Qaeda to operate again.

And, as several analysts have pointed out, the presence of Western forces in Afghanistan, along with the karzai government's rampant corruption and inefficiency, are what now drives Taliban militancy in Afghanistan. Western forces have become more a part of the problem than a solution ....

We've already seen too many times the negative consequences of "mission creep", not least of which is the undermining of international law and of UN mandates themselves, if they can be stretched like taffy to cover eventualities they were never intended to. If there's a new mission, it needs a new authorisation and a clearly defined set of objectives. If there isn't, then it's time to bring everyone home.
This essay is among a number of related artices found on the antiwar left that have sought to portray a military response to Mumbai, which would require a large-scale deployment along the Afghan-Pakistan border to root out terror sanctuaries there, as a "Bush- Cheney" plot of extremist right-wing propaganda to prop up the American military-war complex, for an endless campaign of neo-imperialist aggression on the periphery and the shredding of the Constitution at home.

All this talk at Newshoggers on Afghanistan about "new strategies" and that "force alone" will not work is hogwash.

On Mumbai, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
has urged the government of Pakistan to act decisively in responding to the massacre:

She said: “There is urgency in getting to the bottom of it; there is urgency in bringing the perpetrators to justice; and there is urgency for using the information to disrupt and prevent further attacks.”

Sources privy to the meetings said Pakistan had expressed its readiness to work jointly with India in investigating the incident, but had wanted such a cooperation to be comprehensive and also addressed its own concerns.

However, Rice was reportedly not ready to listen to Pakistan’’s grievances about India’’s interference in Balochistan, the role of Indian consulates along the Afghan border in promoting instability in Pakistan and other such issues. Instead, she told Pakistani leaders that she would like to discuss only the issue at hand.

The "issue at hand" is the out-of-control militants who have a free-hand in the tribal areas, and until Islamabad moves to dismantle the terror cells, other regional efforts of Afghan security and Indo-Pakistion diplomacy and trade cooperation will take a backseat.

The role of Afghanistan is integral to all of this. A collapse of the Afghan regime will restore the regional balance of power to where it was prior to September, 2001. The U.S. is right to seek a build-up of basing capabilities, which will facilitate the shift toward revamped COIN operations for the Afghan state. This will not be, of course, an exclusive military operation. As was true under the Petraeus surge in Iraq, a multipronged approach of
miltary tactics combined with inter-factional outreach and cooperation, will provide the basis for a victory over the extremists.

The threat in South Asia is not al Qaeda - the key actors of interest for antiwar opponents - but the follow-on terrorists operating on
the same ideology of Islamist extremism, and to deny this threat by arguing that the "war is over" is ignorant and irresponsible. It is a policy of cut-and-run, the very same strategy of defeat that the antiwar left pushed to abandon Iraq to the forces of world darkness over the last few years.

26 comments:

  1. Couldn't agree more. We cannot just leave Afghanistan. What needs to be done and I see as being a probability is, with Petraeus in charge he can fashion a COIN strategy to root out insurgent elements as he did so successfully in Iraq. I feel the left seeing as how Iraq may well be coming to a successful conclusion in the coming years want to abandon all military operations. This, hopefully, will not be allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Does Obama have any principals that he will truly stand up for ? When the left wing demands to abandon Afghanistan gets more and more hysterical, when huge demonstrations take place outside the White House to abandon Afghanistan, then what will be Obama's reaction? Will his inexperience allow him to be whipsawed by the public reaction to immediate events ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. They don't get it, Professor ... without the establishment of rights-respecting governance across all of Afghanistan and Pakistan, there will be no peace.

    This mission needs to creep -- not to an application of the Powell Doctrine (See USSR vs. mujihadeen, circa 1980), but a resolute effort to transform both nations in the way Iraq is being transformed as we speak.

    As I said on another thread, the impediments to this are (1) a government in Pakistan that is more interested in proving they aren't America's puppet than they are in interdicting terror, (2) an Afghan government that is weighed down with ethnic tensions and an inherently-weak economy (and a little of that desire to show they aren't a puppet, either), and (3) a multinational coalition that includes some of those that stretched out the Balkans conflict, with their affinity for the lying-in-formal-wear of diplomacy over effective action.

    To overcome this, free people may need to act a little "imperialistically", unless both Pakistan and the Karzai government get REAL serious about their priorities.

    The Western aversion to "imperialistic" action ... encouraged and nurtured by those who think they have just regained power after the years of "oppression" under "McBushitlerchipyburton" ... is a primary impediment to the establishment of peace in the world ...

    ... for without the establishment of governance that will respect and protect life and liberty in dysfunctional nations like Afghanistan and Pakistan, peace is just an illusion ...

    ... but wherever such governance is established, as we have seen time and again, from 1940's Germany to Iraq today, sustainable peace is a reality.

    When the critics realize that, they will change their view ... if they are intellectually honest, as opposed to merely imposing their irresponsible worldview upon us willy-nilly.

    (And yes, I do repeat myself ... I have to, because the anti-war Left has so poisoned the wells of intellect in my lifetime, many upon many need a taste of objective truth to counter the conventional wisdom of weakness and dependence coming out of those wells).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Phillipe, thank you for your kind comments about the US, but I would like to point out that when you speak of Obama, you're talking about a man with a long history of accomplishing absolutely nothing. Even the community he so famously "organized", the South Side of Chicago, is more dangerous today than Baghdad. That is not only not an accomplishment, it would seem he actually made things there worse, given that a legitimate war zone safer.

    No one will be more pleasantly surprised than I if the man actually pulls off some seriously good accomplishments. But he's never done anything before, so we have nothing to compare past performance to.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Even the community he so famously "organized", the South Side of Chicago, is more dangerous today than Baghdad. "

    REally? Is there some basis to this argument or did you pull that out of your hat?
    Give us mediocre minds some details, we would be happy to induldge.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah. What a shame.

    In spite of being more fickle than any girl, with the attention span of only twice as long as whatever she's hit with - Great Satan continues to confound critics and undermine critique on her will power, fire power and staying power as she annihilates conventional fakebelieve concepts like 'statue of limitations' in geopolitical terms.

    Essentially - like RAND Corp pointed out recently, Afghanistan is probably about as good as it's going to get unless Pakistan's No Go zones are magically xformed into kill zones.

    Admiral Mullen recently taught that Afghanistan, those precious Federally unAdministered Tribal Areas and Pakistan are "...inextricably linked in a common insurgency that crosses the border between them."

    Land of the Pure is now the declared battleground in this struggle by militants and their creepy ISI spymasters to strike first against American allies and interests before Great Satan's war machine - led by Surging General Petraeus - completes CENTCOM's prep to storm the sanctuaries of al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Norm:

    Actually, I don't think Obama will abandon Afghanistan, but the antiwar left will.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "... And yes, I do repeat myself ... I have to, because the anti-war Left has so poisoned the wells of intellect in my lifetime, many upon many need a taste of objective truth to counter the conventional wisdom of weakness and dependence coming out of those wells ... "

    That's why we fight them, Rich. All of this talk of cut and run is a disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mamapajamas: I'm not so confident, like you, that Obama will do the right thing. I can only be reassured by his cabinent picks, etc., especially Robert Gates, who will not abandon the Afghan people to the terrorists.

    ReplyDelete
  10. " ... Land of the Pure is now the declared battleground in this struggle by militants and their creepy ISI spymasters to strike first against American allies and interests before Great Satan's war machine - led by Surging General Petraeus - completes CENTCOM's prep to storm the sanctuaries of al-Qaeda in Pakistan ... "

    Awesome comments, Courtney!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Afghanistan is a perfect example of how wrong you all, left and right, can be. The average Afghan doesn't care if we are there or not. To think any power can transform that nation onto a peace loving society is nothing but foolishness. You may as well try and conquer all the anthills in your backyard.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Truth 101: That frankly is an exceedingly mindless comment. This is a serious post about multilateral action in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and the international community, and you're talking about anthills?

    Respond to the argument in the post, if you're going to respond. Otherwise, please go somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  13. truth101, it's only about power in the military sense to the degree needed to provide the breathing space to harness another, far more robust type of power ... the power of human nature.

    The desire to live free and pursue happiness is universal, as our founding citizens stated in the Declaration of Independence. It only needs the breathing space provided by the respect and protection of those unalienable rights. When people choose to respect those rights, and act to establish a government that does so, they quickly lose interest in using terror to further their agenda.

    Again I say, take a look at where the terrorism is coming from ... it is coming from nations that have either imposed theocratic/authoritarian/totalitarian alternatives to rights-respecting governance, or from those whose enforcement of respect for those rights is so weak or inept that they are unable (or unwilling) to interdict non-governmental entities who attempt to impose totalitarian rule upon parts of their nation.

    Your comment could have just as easily been about post-WWII Germany, or Japan, or Cold War-era Eastern Europe ... or Iraq today.

    And it would be just as wrong ... for all those nations are no longer a threat to peace, because their people now live free and pursue happiness, and therefore have no interest in jihad or its sectarian or secular equivalents ... and their governments maintain respect for that activity, to the point they have imposed checks-and-balances upon themselves that preclude their hijacking by even an elected leader to satiate his/her whims.

    That is observed history ... history that is ignored in the conventional wisdom you just related.

    Conventional wisdom that has kept people in misery, and threatened the peace, far longer than necessary.

    Without freedom, and the respect for it, peace is just an illusion.

    With freedom, protected by respect for it on the part of citizen and government alike, peace is a reality.

    Yet some persist in assigning a sickening moral equivalence between dictator and democrat, and have done so for decades ... granting them equal respect with regards to international standing and sovereignty.

    That has to end, if we are going to have sustainable peace.

    Free people around the world need to have the testicular fortitude to take on and DEFEAT -- as in, render them incapable of imposing their will upon ANYONE -- those who embrace a totalitarian worldview to the degree they engage in/materially support terrorism, inside or outside their borders.

    Had more people had that fortitude and wisdom, we could have handled Iraq in a much more "multilateral" way than the highly-multilateral coalition we put together ... and Afghanistan would be further down the road to sustainable peace.

    Frankly, our "unilateralism" is not a defect of the Bush Administration or any other ... it is a defect of those rights-respecting nations who did not have enough confidence in the principles they supposedly embraced to become rights-respecting, to stand with us and ACT.

    Even a cowboy prefers to ride with a posse ... but he will go it alone if the need arises.

    And with regards to Saddam, the need had arisen ... years ago.

    Conventional wisdom, overrode true wisdom ... and blinded too many to that need.

    For those who have eyes to see, let them see ... freedom, and the peace it brings.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

    Check the death stats for the South Side against the death stats for Baghdad. Since we're only talking about the South Side section of Chicago, that's a similar population size to Baghdad.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "death stats"? Deaths as a result of what? Cardiac arrest? AIDS? car crashes? violence?

    Mamapyjamas, if you're giong to make random statements that you claim are factual, perhaps you should link to the sources that you used.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "testicular fortitude to take on and DEFEAT ....."

    Rich, I suppose that would explain the penchance for aggression that seem to pervade the people that think like you. I suggest not letting your "testicular fortitude" dellude your mind into thinking that peace can somehow be sprout from the end of a gun barrel.

    Infact, there' sa reason why European/western civilization has been infested with the most devastating wars. I suggest you stop thinking with your testes and use your head for a change, many have solved a lot problems this way. Trust them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Actually, anon, peace has sprouted from gun barrels ... when the guns have been turned against totalitarian thugs to prevent them from turning their guns upon us or others.

    History validates this.

    It is you who are deluded.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And as for trusting those you trust ... we did so for most of my lifetime.

    Only when our leaders stopped listening to them, did we make significant progress with regards to peace in the world.

    This delusion that we can negotiate with ANYONE, even when their own actions have shown they do not respect life and liberty at all ... and even to the point we consider the founding truths of this nation and modern civilization negotiable ... has worked against peace ...

    ... for without freedom, and the respect for it, peace is just an illusion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rich, granted there are obvious exceptions, but since when did exceptions make the rule? How many conflicts have been successfully solved at the end of a gun barrel, a part from say one or two unanimous exceptions?

    Rich, with all due respect, since when was America assigned as the moral police of the world? Based on its history of self-interested interventions in conflict, America probably has little credibility to behave as the moral police of the world.

    Infact, lets consider the Afghanistan case shall we? What was America doing in Afghanistan just a few decades ago? Wheren't they arm in arm with the Taliban terrorists, battling the crazy commie boogeyman that probably had you and your neocon buddies walking around with panties in knots?

    Come on, its time you dig the bones out of your own closet before you start trying to be the moral police of the world.

    If youa sk me, Terrorism is another excuse (as was the commie-boogeymen of the past), for America to protect and control its own vested interests in lucrative regions.

    Modern terrorism, as despicable as it may be, is rooted behind an idealogy that has complexities. Some of which may be legitimate grievances against the west and also many of which are rightfully twisted and beyond comprehension. The root cause of the idealogy must be understood and dealt with, if there is to be a long term permanant solution to this form of terrorism.

    I suppose for some, its only natural to want to talk tough, with fancy phrases like "testicular fortitude" but this will only reap short term rewards for yourself and for your country.

    ReplyDelete
  20. C.S.: You're full of it. If a cartoon is published critical of Mohammed, the world breaks out into Muslim riots. If Jews at a mission in India are systematically targeted for the most heinous murders imaginable, it's business as usual. This is not a "root cause" issue. This is a Islamic evil issue.

    Stop with your moral equivalence, and worse. You have not and cannot win this argument. Indeed, you are part of the problem as you enable the forces array against civilizations of right and decency.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I most certainly understand why you want me to go away Professor Douglas. I don't need other right wing propagandists and mind numbingly long posts to get my point accross.

    To follow up,when Afghans rise up against extremists that strive to dominate them through a perverse interpretation of their religion, then our Country could make a case for intervening. I don't remember any Iraqis other than the greaseball Chalabi wanting our Country to invade Iraq. We've been in both countries several years now. Iran holds more influence in Iraq than we do. Nobody knows who has any influence in Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I don't need other right wing propagandists and mind numbingly long posts to get my point accross."

    It's surprising that you keep coming back for my "mind numbing" essays.

    Be gone if things are so bad around here. You certainly haven't raised the quality of debate.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The reality of your mind numbing long essays and cuts and pastes Professor, is that you spend most of your time searching the web for any right wing propaganda that gives validation to your deluded right wing beliefs. The real validation here is your wanting me and other pragmatic progressives to go away so your little bubble of right wing conservative foolishness isn't burst. I was going into retirement after the Obama victory. But keeping blind right wing fools from thinking they can spew their nonsense over the web with impunity is too much fun to resist. I thank you for the validation Professor Douglas.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "But keeping blind right wing fools from thinking they can spew their nonsense over the web with impunity is too much fun to resist."

    You have no influence here, Truth101, and all you've done is argue ad hominems, not ideas.

    And "pragmatic progressives" is an oxymoron, but you're too stupid to realize it.

    Be gone you.

    ReplyDelete