Our Military's Enduring Future in Afghanistan

[bigtree]

"The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared. " -Barack Obama, July 15, 2008


AMERICANS have been mostly silent about the anticipated 'surge' of troops into Afghanistan that the Obama administration has been signaling for weeks. There's not much dissent in the country against the prosecution of the 'good war' which most in the U.S. believe is a fight against perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks on our nation. It's not certain, though, that most Americans know what or troops are actually doing there.

Polls have predictably shown that the public has confidence in the new commander-in-chief in 'handling' the Afghanistan occupation. Overwhelming opinion against the Iraq occupation, though, has been regularly ignored over the terms of the dual-occupations by the policymakers and legislators as they've done little more than rubber-stamp the administration's unilateral exercise of the size and scope of the deployments by approving off-budget funding requests without any limiting exercise of their own dual responsibility in determining where our military goes and what they do.

That opinion will undoubtedly shift with the new focus on the increase of force and the response to that 'surge' by the Afghans.

The new plan for Afghanistan, which has been telegraphed by the Obama Pentagon, is to order an initial deployment of one or two brigades to bolster NATO forces already patrolling areas outside of Afghanistan's capital and center of their government. AP reported today, that about 3,000 U.S. soldiers who recently arrived have been deployed to the south of Kabul in what they describe as 'violent' provinces where attacks have been somewhat diminished because of the winter snows, but are expected to increase partly in response to the addition activity of the incoming troops.

Further south, there are NATO forces defending wide swaths of mountainous terrain against militarized resistance forces crossing back and forth over the Afghan/Pakistan border. Those forces are spread out so thin and wide that their main mission, outside of aiding in offensive strikes on combatant positions, is just defending their own hides. If there is to be an 'enduring' mission in Afghanistan, it's these forces which need and deserve bolstering from any influx of troops.

I don't pretend to know what the rationale from the Obama administration will be as they justify this anticipated escalation of force in Afghanistan. The initial concern expressed by the Pentagon is to secure the ground around the capital in anticipation of the upcoming 'elections'. That's a pursuit which will predictably ensure support in the outcome of that voting for the protected regime, from the population which our escalated forces protect.

Those communities outside of that decided influence of our military presence, those resistant provinces outside of the protective ring of NATO militarization which are considered 'enemy' territory and subject to reprisal attacks from our forces will, predictably, be disadvantaged in that election outcome.

What we need to hear from the administration is a clear mission for our nation's defenders in Afghanistan which is directed toward fulfilling the original authorization to use military force which Congress approved for prosecution against "those responsible for the (9-11) attacks launched against the United States."

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

That resolution does not authorize any of the nation-building defense of Kabul that has become the focus of a substantial portion of our military commitment. It's clear that that the Karsai government probably wouldn't stand in its present form without the U.S. presence and the advantage we've given the Afghan military over those communities which would be in a decisive position to challenge that rule if given the protection and support that is now leveraged against their resistant communities.

In fact, you can see the same thing in Iraq where the protected communities naturally lead in the 'elections' and ensure the enabled regime in assumed authority.

If we are really serious about 'democracy' in Afghanistan we should be compelled to let the Afghans sort out those conflicts they have with resistant communities and provinces. Unfortunately, that means more armed conflict for our assisting troops, and, the reality is, democratic governance from the protected regime won't happen in any truly representative way while the Afghan military is operating behind our heavy-handed presence which carries with it our decidedly retaliatory and destabilizing agenda. We should let Karsai (or whoever manages to assume authority) prosecute those defenses without our compromising influence.

What we need in Afghanistan is an end-point to the occupation. That isn't likely to come in the President's anticipated announcement, but it's something which Congress should demand from the administration before they hand over another wad of borrowed cash. If they're not prepared to draft a more defining and relevant authorization for the use of our defensive forces in Afghanistan they should, at least, endeavor to compel the administration to adhere to the limited mandate in the original one.

The President and our legislators need to craft and direct policy in Afghanistan which is 'enduring' but, not merely an extension of this self-perpetuating flailing of our military forces at every expression of resistance to their self-serving presence. There will undoubtedly be diplomatic initiatives announced to compliment the escalation of force to Afghanistan, but there should be care taken to ensure that the military moves don't obscure or overshadow the benefits and effects of the non-military aid and assistance.

It may be too much to hope for some rationality in the upcoming plan for Afghanistan which respects all of these concerns, but I would hope that the American public demands accountability from this administration on the goals they establish behind these new deployments. It should be remembered that the Iraq 'surge' began as a trickle, and, in a year, over 800 U.S. troops had lost their lives as a result of that escalation.

The administration has already predicted increased casualties from an Afghan escalation. I'm anxiously awaiting their definition of the new mission they've planned for our nation's defenders. One thing is certain - those who hoped for a decrease in overall deployments into combat will be disappointed by the 'enduring' commitments anticipated from the WH, at least in the near future.

[Old and In the Way]

1. I see nothing of strategic value in maintaining an occupation of Afghanistan.

A limited, multilateral presence in the region to do surgical strikes and humintel operations to track and kill AQ terrorists ought to be the longterm plan. Pitting our US Army against mujahadeen forces seems to be a no-win, big financial drain for us.

[malaise]

14. Ditto

Bad move President Obama.

[blues90]

2. I still don't feel the US has any business spreading democracy

and we can't and never will. The entire reason we ever went into Afghanistan still smells like the pipeline to the Caspian sea. All of that smoke him out and the rest is just one enormous continuous lie.

That's the way I look at it besides all the needless death which in itself is bone chilling and horrific.

It seems like all of the news about any of this was rolled up and put away like the TV media flying banners since it is not in their best interest to talk about it.

The focus on both Afghanistan and Iraq was shifted to the two year long primaries and debates and elections and now the economy and bailouts which if we would never have gone along with these insane media packaged and sold wars we would not be in this mess right now.

[conturnedpro09]

3. I see Afghanistan as the anti-Iraq War scenario...

For almost every single reason I opposed the invasion and continued (though dwindling) war in Iraq, I fully supported and continue to defend our war effort in Afghanistan.

The fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda is not window dressing to some sort of nefarious motive on the part of our government. If it is, I seriously don't see it or honestly care. Even if destroying these terrorists was only a part of our reason for being there, I'd still be 100% behind every missile into the caves in which they hide. If toppling the Nazi Empire was actually smoke-and-mirrors for, say, securing US economic dominance in western Europe, would anybody seriously rethink the goodness of crushing Nazis? Of course not.

As for America spreading democracy, I have my thoughts. While the practicality and financial drain of doing so must always be at the forefront of the debate, so must it's ultimate nobilty. If we have it in our ability to allow the faces of Afghani girls to see sunlight, then... as I said, it's a worthy debate.

[bigtree]

4. The 'fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda'

. . . is a nebulous affair which has our deployed troops defending the ground they capture and hold, mostly against individuals who are resisting our assault on their land. Some of them have aligned with forces who have taken on the moniker of the fugitive suspects Bush allowed safe haven in the mountains of Pakistan across the Afghan border.

Others are just defending their territory against the foreign invaders; they too, driven together by a common interest in repelling our opportunistic, self-serving forces. Among the myriads of factions and tribes in Afghanistan are rivalries which predate our invasion and occupation. Those conflicts are also aggravated by the advantage our military forces have given Karsai's dubious regime over opposition communities and provinces which are subject to attacks indiscriminate to our original goal of uprooting the original perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks.

The collateral effect of these strikes and raids in defense of the enabled regime has been a predictable alienation of those Afghans who may well have been sympathetic to military action against 'al-Qaeda' and their Taliban supporters. The flailing of our military forces against every instigation of resistance has compromised the propped-up regime and has (as in Iraq) fueled and fostered even more individuals who are resigned to violent expressions of self-determination and sovereignty which our occupying forces regard as mere threats to the U.S. consolidation of power and influence.

There is a multiplying folly in pressing forward as if there is some supreme justification which stems from the 9-11 attacks in the military aggression our forces are waging against the Afghan resistance. The reality is, however, that our forces are in a perpetual defense against the effects of their own destabilizing militarism.

The notion that it's prudent or necessary to continue the folly for decades, as some have suggested, is ultimately going to be seen (correctly) as just another imperialistic U.S. aggression directed against the Afghan people. To regard the target of these NATO reprisals as akin to the Nazis, just because they are labeled by the military as 'insurgent' or 'militant' is a typical disregard of those myriads of Afghans who have nothing at all to do with the 9-11 attacks; many of them innocent victims of indiscriminate NATO attacks.

Take some time and consider why we have 'enemies' in that region. Do you remember this much animosity toward the U.S. before Bush's blundering militarism? It's done our nation no good at all in obliging those who taunted the past administration into these heavy-handed, collateral reprisals. The new administration will do well to respect the lessons of the limits and consequences of the exercise of our military forces abroad; etched in history on the gravestones of those who fought and died, on all sides.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. You have a way yet to travel before you rid yourself of the poisons you have been fed.

I wish you well.

Read this: http://www.rawa.org/events/mar8-08.htm
And then read through the rest of the site.

And read this short history: http://michaelparenti.org/afghanistan%20story%20untold.html
And much more of his writings.

And view these photos and read the comments, taken over several visits from 1970's through 2003: http://www.lukepowell.com/
And return again and again - you will only get a part of a hint in the first few hours there.

You have been fed a lot of crap (to use the polite term) by both the Corporatist Media and their brownshirt contingent in hate radio. It will take a while to purge that poison, but the little bit of reality those sites provide should help.

(edit phrasing)

[MadBadger]

11. Are you an ass hole to everbody (to use the polite term of course)?

[ConsAreLiars]

12. Too late to edit, but the RAWA link should have been -->

http://www.rawa.org/events/sevenyear_e.htm

If you don't know, RAWA has been working for simple human rights for the women of Afghanistan for over 30 years, and this is what they say:

The day to day expansion of the power of Taliban reflects the real nature of the “war on terror” which has empowered the roots of fundamentalist terrorism more than ever. This is only a showcase to justify the long military presence of the US in our country and in the region. The result of this war has been such a huge failure that even political and military officials of the US and other countries have mentioned it very explicitly several times.

Instead of removing the cancerous lump of the Taliban and their Jehadi brothers from the framework of Afghanistan, the troops of the US and its allies are bombarding wedding and joy parties and showering bullets on our oppressed people, especially women and children. Furthermore, when such crimes are exposed they shamelessly and haughtily deny them, and when the matter is proved, an arrogant “sorry” is offered, which pours more salt on the wounds of the people.

As we have declared many times, the US government has no and will not have any genuine concern for the condition of freedom, democracy and women’s rights in Afghanistan. It is ready to accept a more corrupt, destructive and anti-democratic government than the one in power now, provided that its stooges are the rulers. Therefore today, some top criminals are being consistently freed from the prison. This clearly shows that “democracy” and “freedom of women” do not hold even an iota of value for the US administration and its allies in Afghanistan. They are planning to install a government made up of Talib and Gulbuddini criminals; Khalqi and Parchami Quislings; lackeys of the blood thirsty Iranian regime from the “National Front”; and some other reactionary and treasonous elements related to the intelligence services of the West, so that even without direct military presence they would be able to control the country and save the country from becoming Iraq where the people rose against the US forces and its allies. If the US argues that it has not committed treachery, with the establishment of a government woven of the dirtiest enemies in the history of Afghanistan, they have committed the biggest possible treason against the Afghan nation, and they will not be able to justify this with any kinds of fabrications and cheatings.

[bigtree]

5. .

[TahitiNut]

6. Kipling was right. Afghanistan is where empires go to die.

It's a well-trodden path. :shrug:

[bigtree]

7. yep

Even imperialists like Kipling understood that.

[cliffordu]

8. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, after all......

I guess ending the hallucination there is as good as anywhere.

[bigtree]

9. the conflict there is self-perpetuating

. . . the delusions are compounding underneath it all.

[TexasObserver]

13. let's get the hell out and leave these goat herders to themselves

And can we quit pretending they had anything to do with 9-11?

I thought Obama was wise to use the themes he did during the election, but I do not think we are going to get anywhere but deeper into it by sending more troops to Afghanistan. What are we supposed to be accomplishing over there? Do we think we're going to change their tribal systems? Are we going to change their religious beliefs?

They'll endure whatever we do, they'll kill more of our precious young people in the process, and in the end, we'll leave and accept whatever the situation is. As long as the delusion exists that we are going to "fix" Afghanistan, we'll continue to fight a war that cannot be won.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

15. Kicking