THE most relevant and universally proffered justification for our 'enduring', seemingly endless military aggression in Afghanistan is rooted in our nation's response to the 9-11 killings in our homeland. The specter of al-Qaeda (the accused) is manifested in the fugitives - suspected perpetrators and accomplices of the attacks alike - who were driven across the border by our invasion over seven years ago into the mountains of Pakistan.
The specter of al-Qaeda is also rooted in the individuals who were influenced in their resistance to our invasion of their homeland (and by the subsequent invasion and overthrow in Iraq) to provide a buffer, or safe haven of support and assistance to the once meager band of 9-11 thugs.
In December of 2001, then-Defense chief Rumsfeld touched down on the Afghan airport tarmac to express support for the head of the new Afghan government:
"The United States coveted no territory," he told Hamid Karzai. "We were here for the sole purpose of expelling terrorists from the country and establishing a government that would not harbor terrorism."
From that initial commitment (which Rumsfeld
told troops at the Bagram air base would consist of a "relatively small force of 3,000 to 5,000 troops and would not include Americans) the U.S. mission in Afghanistan has mushroomed away from the hunt for bin-Laden and his associates on the ground and is developing into a full-force defense of the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan against the resistant effects of our country's bungling, flailing militarism.
The swelling ranks of individuals in Afghanistan and Pakistan who identify and ally with al-Qaeda and their Taliban supporters (still a relative minority) have allowed the U.S. to represent the defense of the two precarious governments against them as a defense akin to the original response to 9-11. The effort, however, is a tragic, self-perpetuating battle against the ghosts of resistance to our own opportunistic military advance on the Afghan and Pakistani homeland.
That grudging battle has devolved into what Army Gen. David McKiernan described this month as a 'stalemate'. In fact, a day after President Obama announced the troop increase for Afghanistan, McKiernan discounted the ultimate effect of NATO's military build-up:
"The outcome will not be decided militarily but politically, by the people who live in Afghanistan," he counseled. "I want to get to what I call the tipping point, where the lead for security is in Afghan units, police and army, and we increasingly are more in a training and mentoring role . . . I think you can have too many foreign forces in Afghanistan," he said.
President Obama acknowledged the limits of that military force as he announced a 'new era' of diplomacy in the Middle East. "In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun," Obama told a joint session of Congress this week.
That call for diplomacy, however, was tempered with a nod by Mr. Obama to the escalating militarism of the last administration.
"We know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America," he said. "We cannot shun the negotiating table, nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm."
"With our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat Al-Qaeda and combat extremism," Obama said. "I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away."
That 'comprehensive strategy' is the subject of review by an 'Afghanistan-Pakistan Policy Task Force' which is tasked to report back to the president by the NATO summit in April. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and Brookings fellow, is co-chairing the review along with special envoy Richard Holbrooke and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy.
If the president's 'era of engagement' is to take root in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the State Dept. will have to emerge as more than the afterthought and support to military action that it had become in the last administration. From the actions of Sec. of State Clinton today, it appears that the agency is moving to make that diplomatic 'era' a reality.
In the wake of a cordial meeting between the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, Sec. Clinton announced the intention to hold regular, trilateral meetings between the countries as she met with Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta and Pakistan's Shah Mahmood Qureshi.
Talks over the past three days "would have been valuable even if they had simply been bilateral," Clinton said. The meetings were "especially meaningful" because "we have all been working together," she
told reporters.
The proposed State budget introduced Thursday would have an increase in funding of almost 10% for the agency and other international programs. From this fiscal year to 2014, the State Department’s budget will almost double, from $36.7 billion to $69.3 billion. The 2010 target is $51.7 billion.
Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry intends to introduce legislation to triple non-military aid to Pakistan. The initiative, sponsored jointly by Senators Kerry and Chuck Hagel, angles for $4-7 billion in immediate financial assistance.
Non-military aid has been included in the State budget for both countries “to revitalize economic development and confront the resurgence of the Taliban.” That funding will be crucial to realizing the administration's goal of moving beyond the destabilizing effects of the military assaults on the populations to attracting the citizens away from the influence of the militarized elements of resistance to NATO and the U.S..
Another part of that diplomatic effort will be challenged to further engage regional actors like Iran, China, Russia and India in providing the economic assistance and security that Afghanistan cannot provide on its own. However, we've yet to see an effective rallying of our allies - the revived coalition of which candidate Obama argued was essential to a successful resolution of the conflict and the stabilization of the region.
The new plan for Afghanistan which President Obama has under review will have to be bold in its commitment to providing the resources and political will to allow the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives to achieve parity with the continuing grudging military mission against al-Qaeda - which will undoubtedly emerge in his rationale as paramount to proceeding with the entire enterprise.
If we are not successful in building up Afghanistan's economy and restoring the population to a reasonable level of subsistence and self-reliance with our economic and diplomatic initiatives we will be locked, indefinitely, in this self-perpetuating cycle of resistance and retaliation. Hopefully, the direction for Afghanistan and Pakistan decided on by the president after his review will reflect that priority; that 'era of engagement' that he envisions for the future.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
