ON THE EVE OF RESSETTING THE AFGHANISTAN WAR POLICY, THE FUTURE IS FORESEEABLE

By
Joseph Chez
No one questions President Obama’s process in realigning the policy for the war in Afghanistan, just the consequences of his actions. We know that it has taken several months for his administration to carefully consider Gen. McCrhrystal’s analysis of the war and his recommendations. And despite criticism for dithering, as war enthusiast “Dick” Chaney has called it, President Obama has impressed many policy experts, such as Gen. Collin Powell, for taking all the time necessary in order to come up with a sensible and effective policy for turning the Afghanistan conflict to a successful withdrawal from that war. In the process, Pres. Obama sought the unique and specific advisement from Pentagon officials as well as from other foreign policy experts, including two cents worth from American allies abroad; Israel, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Russia and India, but leaving out the objectionable posture from Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries.

Resetting the future:
Thus, on December 1, 2009 President Obama will address the nation and convey to the American public why it is necessary to remain in Afghanistan, his plans for a troop surge for the war, and a road map for extracting our nation from the liquefaction in the sands of Afghanistan. Accordingly, President Obama will point out that winning the war in Afghanistan is imperative for our national security. He will argue that increasing troop levels is a necessity in order to stabilize the country and to have adequate troop proportions to cover a wider area of the country. But more importantly, President Obama will give the nation specific details for his expectations for achieving the insurmountable goal of achieving victory and sensibly bringing the troops home.

Foreseeable future:
No one can predict the future but one can prognosticate what will result based on facts and acts of the past and present. In the case of the war in Afghanistan, President Bush promised the nation retribution for those who did harm to the nation on 9-11, but, he never worried about and end-game since it was a “given” that we would kick butt and have a mission accomplished. Yet, eight years into the war and a protracted insurgency continues with no signs of abatement. And, while the proper response to 9-11 should have been a deliberate but appropriate retribution of equal proportions, the U.S. government under the bush Administration veiled opportunism with patriotism and instead, invaded Iraq in a frenzied “shock and awe” while declaring in 3-15-02: “the Taliban is out of business.” Today the Taliban is stronger than ever and not only poses a danger to the current government; it also challenges the U.S. coalition.

Tomorrow, President Obama will reset the course of the war in Afghanistan in hopes of getting the upper hand and finding an honorable exit. Yet, there is an eerie parallel with the Viet Nam War; much like Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama ran for the presidency on a platform of bringing an end to the war, but also, wining the presidency by contrasting the hawkish views of his political opponent. And just like his predecessor Lyndon B. Johnson, President Obama has rebuked the (Afghanistan’s) government policies of corruption and own efforts to protect their country. Although, Lyndon Johnson promised, and Barack Obama will echo, the U.S. would remain in their country to fend off the aggressors, until such time that a stable and self sustaining government is present.

Inexplicably, candidate Obama did however believe that the war in Afghanistan was a war of necessity. However, he realized that the handling of the Afghan war was not properly handled by the Bush Administration – a false assertion that has led him to believe the war is winnable if only confronted properly. Thus, after careful review of the present Afghan war circumstances, insistence from the Pentagon and input from corrupt interested parties in the US military industrial complex, as well as Afghan government officials, President Obama has decided to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. Up to 30 thousand more US troops will be deployed in Afghanistan: a country which is considered the second most corrupt nation in the world and a country which produces 87 per cent of the world’s opium; a country which is mainly Pashtun, the Taliban are mostly Pashtun and the neighboring country of Pakistan initiated and continues to influence the Taliban; a country which is larger than Iraq and with the greatest concentration of high mountains, making the war far more difficult; a country which is riddled with political, religious and ethnic strife; a region of the world which has seen foreign mighty armies but only to defeat them; and a war in which eight years of conflict has only widened the conflict and has not produced a more perfect society in the likes of its invader.

Inadvertently or deliberately, the U.S. will again embark in a wider mission under the cause for freedom and sense of security. President Obama will again reassert the mission against the enemy. In Afghanistan however, it was Al Qaeda who initiated plans for the 9-11 attack on U.S. soil, not the Taliban. The Taliban were and are only an Islamic fundamentalist movement with puritanical interpretation of Islam – and have no interest in religious expansion or incurring harm on the U.S. Al Qaeda on the other hand, has moved on to Pakistan and India – the next chapter. Thus, even though President Obama wishes to make corrections, it is befitting to note that believing that because the war started incredibly badly, as Charles De Gaulle would say, “therefore, it must be continued”, is a precarious move which may bring no end in sight. But, if the goal is to win a victory, we must remind our president that dead soldiers take no victory.

In sum, I can not wish for our president’s policy to fail, for I know too well that his intent if for the good of the country. However, President Obama must consider what is at stake; a widening of the war, an increase in soldier casualties, additional burden to the national debt (currently14 trillion), but more importantly, a war which is not in the hearts and mind of the American people (57 per cent oppose it) is not a war that can truly provide an honorable exit.

But just a reminder Mr. President; when Lyndon B. Johnson prior to his famous words of “I will not run for re-election”, he was being asked by Viet Nam officials and U.S. hawks to increase troop levels to insure a final victory, and so he replied: “they call upon us to supply American boys to do the job that Asian boys should do.” What is your response Mr. President?