A Leauki's Writings

"Anti-war" Democrats in Congress question President Obama's anti-war stance:

 

After campaigning on the promise to end one war, President Barack Obama is preparing to escalate another.

Obama's dual stance on the two wars is not lost on congressional Democrats, many of whom also ran on anti-war platforms. In coming weeks, they expect to have to consider tens of billions of dollars needed for combat, including a major buildup of troops in Afghanistan.

While increasing the military's focus in Afghanistan was anticipated — it was a cornerstone of Obama's campaign — many Democrats acknowledged in recent interviews that they are skittish about sending more troops, even in small numbers.

...

"Before I support any more troops to Afghanistan, I want to see a strategy that includes an exit plan," said Rep. Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts liberal who at one point wanted to cut off money for the Iraq war.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090208/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_afghanistan

 

I have seen the results of the war in Iraq (see the article on Arbil on my other blog). I also knew from the beginning what the war was supposed to accomplish. Iraq now appears to be a working democracy. And although there were many civilian casualties (and I don't mean made-up numbers in the million range), the war caused considerably fewer deaths than Saddam's rule over the same period of time. I was a proponent of the war in Iraq from the beginning and it has paid off.

I cannot say the same thing about the war in Afghanistan.

The war in Iraq was run by the US with British and Australian help without UN or NATO involvement. The war in Afghanistan was fought, so far, like liberals and internationalists wanted to fight a war: there is lots of UN involvement and everything that is done is done only when European countries like Germany or France approve of it. And so far the war has been a disaster. The lowest estimate of casualties is 30,000 and the war is nowhere near as finished as the Iraq war. And it doesn't help that the European "allies" rarely contribute usable troops.

If Obama wants to abandon the war that the US are winning in favour of a war that cannot be won, I think we might just experience a second Vietnam. But perhaps sending more troops to Afghanistan will help. Perhaps Al-Qaeda and the Taliban who sit in Pakistan will be sufficiently scared by American troops located in another country and will give up, although I wouldn't count on it.

I remember that Barack Obama spoke about attacking Pakistan if necessary. I wonder if attacking an unstable nuclear power is wise, but perhaps he is right. (I myself would prefer pressure on Pakistan in conjunction with India, but Obama might well take unilateral action and that might be the correct way to deal with the situation.)

Republicans should support President Obama on this. The US cannot just withdraw from both battlefields. (And Obama is learning slowly that the US cannot just withdraw from one battlefield either. The Iraqi government doesn't want the troops to leave, regardless of Obama's opinion on a withdrawal.)

But the "anti-war" Democrats have a point too: if you demand an exit plan for one war, you should have one for the other war as well (if we assume that we need "exit plans" rather than victories in wars).

The war Obama wanted to end ended before Obama even became President. The war he wants to continue might well turn out to be unwinnable.

George Bush's "exit plan" (AFTER victory) was to make Iraq into a modern democracy. As the elections last week have shown it has actually worked:

 

"It is beautiful," said Hatim, pleased and proud over the tumult of the grass-roots campaigning and the pictures of candidates slapped on the sides of buildings.

Hatim's enthusiasm for the election is particularly telling because he's a Sunni Arab -- the once-disaffected group that largely shunned Iraq's provincial races four years ago.

But Hatim and other Sunni Arabs will be among about 15 million registered voters turning out Saturday for the elections -- seen as a test of the country's young democracy, the performance of its security forces, and a harbinger of parliamentary elections to be held later this year.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/27/iraq.elections/

 

I agree that George Bush fought the war in Afghanistan without paying enough attention to it, instead relying on the UN and NATO to figure out what to do about it. This was what the left wanted, but it was wrong. (The left now say that he should have paid more attention. But originally they wanted as much international involvement as possible.)

But I do want to know what Obama actually wants to achieve in Afghanistan.

Does he have plans to make the country into a working democracy (and Afghanistan is not Iraq and it might not work) or will he simply bomb the place for a while and then leave it alone to see what happens next?

 


Comments
on Feb 09, 2009

And what will happen when the terrorists find that Iraq is a lost cause and start sending their zombies into Afghanistan instead? Will the Afghanis even survive the onslaught as a people?

 

on Feb 09, 2009

But I do want to know what Obama actually wants to achieve in Afghanistan.

There's a strong push from some countries - the UK and Australia among them - to try and solve it diplomatically by getting tribal heads together and sorting out grievances. This is more likely to work than the current method of scattered military strikes in a place of constantly shifting alliances.

And what will happen when the terrorists find that Iraq is a lost cause and start sending their zombies into Afghanistan instead? Will the Afghanis even survive the onslaught as a people?

Certainly. The Afghanis are the toughest, most determined people on the face of this planet. No conquerer has ever been able to control them. Not the Greeks, not the Mongols, not the British, not the Russians and certainly not the western world through NATO and the blue beret.

Their tribal system, although a major source of corruption and their problems becoming a democracy, appears to be a massive force for social cohesion and resistance.

on Feb 09, 2009

Their tribal system, although a major source of corruption and their problems becoming a democracy, appears to be a massive force for social cohesion and resistance.

Their oft-mentioned tribal system didn't prevent the Afghan-Arabs from promoting the Taliban to Afghanistan's quasi-government.

On the other hand it did help the coalition when the Northern Alliance drove back the Taliban in 2001.

I'm not sure I would be so happy about the Afghanis "surviving" such an onslaught. It would be better if Obama had a good plan to prevent it. At the moment it seems like he will do in Afghanistan what Bush did in Iraq. Maybe it'll work. I hope it will.

(And I hope Obama realises that he cannot trust America's "allies".)

 

on Feb 10, 2009

Their oft-mentioned tribal system didn't prevent the Afghan-Arabs from promoting the Taliban to Afghanistan's quasi-government.

True. But it's questionable that any central Afghani government has ever had much more than titular control over the outer, including the Taliban. The stories I've read from the region (only a few by Robert Fisk - google him for something you'll probably find amusing) seem to indicate the outer areas are Northern Alliance or Taliban when it works for them/the area.

The Taliban regime had a whole heap of negatives, but I suspect that its extremely effective anti-drugs campaign is at least partly responsible for the lukewarm assaults on its returning authority.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how effective Obama's stratagems will be. I suspect they'll simply add to the quagmire, but I thought that about Iraq too and that seems to be ticking over a little better these days.

on Feb 10, 2009

True. But it's questionable that any central Afghani government has ever had much more than titular control over the outer, including the Taliban. The stories I've read from the region (only a few by Robert Fisk - google him for something you'll probably find amusing) seem to indicate the outer areas are Northern Alliance or Taliban when it works for them/the area.

Robert Fisk is usually amusing, yes. (I recently read a bit by him where it hit me that he didn't know about the Lebanese Civil War. That was fascinating!)

The Northern Alliance has been in control of the north throughout the 90s. But they are Uzbeks, Persians (or some related people) and other tribes, not Pashtuns. It's the Pashtun areas in the south of Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan that seem to be the problem.

 

The Taliban regime had a whole heap of negatives, but I suspect that its extremely effective anti-drugs campaign is at least partly responsible for the lukewarm assaults on its returning authority.

Yes.

 

I guess we'll have to wait and see how effective Obama's stratagems will be. I suspect they'll simply add to the quagmire, but I thought that about Iraq too and that seems to be ticking over a little better these days.

I always thought that Iraq was winnable. And I so trusted my sources over the mass media that I visited Iraq last year. And I was right.

From the beginning I supported the invasion and thought that Iraq could be made into a democracy. The similarities between Iraq and Germany were just too striking to ignore. But Afghanistan is different. I think it can only work as a monarchy. But there is no political will to revive the monarchy and the last king died after giving his blessing to the republic.

Should I trust Obama like I trusted Bush? I could, but Obama has a history of trying to block exactly the kind of policies he is now trying to pursue, which is why he is being criticised by the (other) loonies in his party.

 

on Feb 10, 2009

Iraq now appears to be a working democracy.

George Bush's "exit plan" (AFTER victory) was to make Iraq into a modern democracy. As the elections last week have shown it has actually worked:

based on what i've read, it appears voter turnout--even in places such as anbar province where sunnis were expected to throng to the polls to regain some of the power they pissed away in 2005--was nearly 25% lower than in the previous election when voting was a much riskier undertaking. 

if the us were to stop paying off the sunni insurgency in anbar (where they've created a shadow military maliki has been working hard to disband) and shiite militias in the south, things could easily deteriorate quickly.

several newly elected officials have already been assassinated during the week following elections; at least 4 are avoiding travel to their new seats of power because they know they'll be killed.

there was one big winner by all reports: al-maliki--whose appeal appears to be his year long transformation into the closest thing iraq's had to a strongman since hussein. 

the big losers seem to be kurds and assyrians.

don't strike me as anything close to a major change.

 

 

on Feb 10, 2009

based on what i've read, it appears voter turnout--even in places such as anbar province where sunnis were expected to throng to the polls to regain some of the power they pissed away in 2005--was nearly 25% lower than in the previous election when voting was a much riskier undertaking.

The previous election was a parliamentary election. This current election was about local councils.

 

 

on Feb 10, 2009

you can criticize nato and whomever else you choose for what's happened or, more to the point, not happened in afghanistan since 2003, but if bush & company had built on our initial success there instead of being so rashly determined to embark on their grand adventure in iraq, the situation in afghanistan would likely be much more favorable now.

america has treated afghanistan and its people horribly and foolishly pissed away two possible opportunities to make things if not right, at least better. 

hopefully you're not too deeply invested in the fantasy that reagan--being benignly manipulated by the very same neocons who spent most of the past 8 years proving how clueless they've always been--brought down the soviet union by demanding gorbachov tear down the wall.  whatever happens to us in afghanistan won't be another american vietnam (if you knew anything about vietnam, you'd know this) but it sure as hell was the soviet version. 

we honored the deaths and carnage suffered by the afghan warriors who fought our war for us how?  we aided and assisted their survivors who were left homeless, hungry and destitute how?  we showed our gratitude to their homeland, a wasteland with no infrastructure--not even a single national highway--intact how?

we walked away and pretended our proxy war never happened.

their failed state and the curse of the taliban might have happened no matter what we did, but since we did nothing to help rebuild the place we ensured that result.

after we'd decimated the taliban, we had a second chance to do the right thing.  thing is, iraq was so much more seductive and lots sexier to rummy, wolfowitz, pearle, cheney and fieth (i don't even wanna imagine what kinda awful stuff they do but i know iraq was like viagra to those degenerates)  so once again we let afghanistan slide into chaos.

what's really scary is this: despite all your fantasies about leftwingers being responsible for what's happened in afghanistan since 2001 in direct contradiction to the fact that it was the bush administration's irresponsibility that brought us to where we are today, america may no longer have the money or the will to do what must be done sooner than later.

any little kid with the benefit of a few aesop's fables coulda predicted this cuz it's so predictable and exactly what happens when a fool foolishly squanders all his resources, strength and his neighbors' goodwill on foolishness without a thought to the future. 

 

on Feb 10, 2009

Wow, Kingbee, you should really read what I actually wrote before criticising what you wish I had written.

(For example, I don't even remember mentioning Reagan... Wow!)

It seems to me that you are either unable or unwilling to add something useful to the discussion.

 

 

on Feb 10, 2009

It seems to me that you are either unable or unwilling to add something useful to the discussion.

that's such a great crutch aint it?

iraq was a distraction from the war we shoulda been fighting in afghanistan  what success might have been (or even seemed) possible as little as a year ago may no longer exist.  ultimately we're prolly gonna have to do what pakistan can't and won't--success then will be avoiding nuclear war.

there have been 2 times in this century (not even 10 years old yet) when i've been transported back to the awful days when we were never able to truly forget that at any time we were less than 2 hours away from being destroyed by nuclear weapons.  it hit me again about three months ago.   the time prior to that was when sharon decided to jim jones his country in order to win an alection.

on Feb 10, 2009

there have been 2 times in this century (not even 10 years old yet) when i've been transported back to the awful days when we were never able to truly forget that at any time we were less than 2 hours away from being destroyed by nuclear weapons.  it hit me again about three months ago.   the time prior to that was when sharon decided to jim jones his country in order to win an alection.

The withdrawal from Gaza? Really?