Dreyfuss / The Nation: Obama Readies Afghan Escalation

[laststeamtrain]

Obama Readies Afghan Escalation
posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 09/08/2009 @ 10:17am


Don't look for surprises from President Obama on Afghanistan. During the two year campaign, and since taking office, he's been consistent. For Obama, Afghanistan is the right war, and he's staked his presidency on winning it. In order to placate the liberal-left and its allies in Congress, Obama is putting out the word (from the National Security Council) that he's willing to listen to all points of view, including those who believe that it's time to cut and run. Listen, he will. Cut and run, he won't.

The big papers today are full of showdown talk. "US Buildup: A Necessity?" headlines the New York Times, citing George Will-style alternatives such as fighting Al Qaeda long distance, via intelligence, Predator drones, and US special forces. The Times likens the conflict to a "quagmire with a muddled mission," but it then cites a litany of experts from the terrorism-industrial complex explaining why the US can't scale back its commitment. The Washington Post headlines Afghanistan as a "pivotal moment" for Obama. But after raising questions about US strategy, the Post answers them, too, suggesting that the US can't back down because of "the stakes involved and the investment already made." Also in the Post, columnist Anne Applebaum stresses the importance of the war, adding: "Obama needs to cajole and convince campaign, in other words, and campaign hard."

A passel of neoconservatives, under the leadership of the Foreign Policy Initiative -- a group founded earlier this year as a reconstituted version of the Committee on the Present Danger and the Project for a New American Century -- has written to Obama urging him to stand fast. It's ironic, since unlike 2001-2004, when they had plenty of co-thinkers inside government, this time the neocons are on the outside looking in, with few if any friends inside the White House. But that doesn't stop them from providing free advice, calling on the president to "fully resource" the war, i.e., to escalate it. In its letter, the FPI crowd, including Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, warns:

Since the announcement of your administration's new strategy, we have been troubled by calls for a drawdown of American forces in Afghanistan and a growing sense of defeatism about the war.

And they add:

There is no middle course. Incrementally committing fewer troops than required would be a grave mistake and may well lead to American defeat. We will not support half-measures that repeat the errors of the past.

There is, of course, a middle course, and that's the path that Obama (unfortunately) is likely to take. According to media accounts, General McChrystal is recommending a low-end boost of troops (circa 10,000 - 15,000) and a high-end increase of 45,000, while putting a Goldilocks middle course of an additional 25,000 US forces smack dab in the center. I'd consider it a foregone conclusion that Obama will select the middle course, leading the liberal-left to despair and angering the far right. (Put me in the despair category.)

<more>

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/469907/obama_readies_afghan_escalation

[derby378]

1. The only way Obama can hope to win is if his commanders think like Afghanis

When Benito Mussolini (I know, not exactly a progressive head of state) decided to consolidate Fascist control over Sicily, he realized that he had to fight the Mafia on their own turf, especially since they gunned down any Fascists he sent to govern the island in his stead. So Mussolini, in what might have been his only worthwhile policy initiative, appointed Cesare Mori as Prefect of Sicily, admonishing him to bring ferro e fucci (steel and fire) to bear against the Mafia.

The tactics that Mori used against the Mafia were often heavy-handed and cruel, but as it turns out, Mori had one distinct advantage: he knew how to think and strategize in the same way a Mafia kingpin could. He insisted that Sicily should not be synonymous with the Mafia, but instead portrayed the Sicilians as being oppressed by the Mafia - which was true in the 1920s despite the Mafia's controversial origins as a partisan, Robin Hood-style resistance movement against foriegn invaders. In addition, Mori claimed that the only reason the Mafia could even retain its hold over Sicily was because of corrupt or ineffective government, which made the need for Fascism all the more obvious as far as Mori was concerned. He used the ego of local mobsters against themselves, forcing them to make mistakes that often delivered them right into Mori's hands.

Mori was probably the only Italian official at that time who made any headway against the onorata societá, but he only managed to disrupt the Mafia at a local level and nab a couple of kingpins - he did little, if anything, to tackle the social and economic problems that allowed organized crime to flourish in the first place, and the Mafia soon bounced back (as did the Comorra in Naples and the 'Ndrangheta in the Calabrian Mountains) as Mussolini's government collapsed.

For Obama to make any headway against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, he needs commanders with boots on the ground who are not only skilled tacticians in the traditional military sense, but also able to get inside the heads of Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders, disrupt their plans in their infancy, and neutralize their presence in Afghanistan. They cannot follow the example of Mori, who employed brutal torture as well as a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality - we've had quite enough of that from the past eight years. Instead, they must find a way to truly win over local Afghans to their side and earn their trust.