One would have been hard pressed to find much in the way of news about Afghanistan prior to Barack Obama being inaugurated. The U.S. war efforts there just sort of meandered along, taking a back seat to the conflict in Iraq. But, lo and behold, Barack Obama becomes president and the shit hit the fan in Afghanistan.
To some extent, he asked for it. Throughout the presidential campaign, then Sen. Obama warned the Bush Administration was ignoring Afghanistan and, if elected, he would concentrate on the war he considered justified. There's been no shortage of news about Afghanistan in the last couple days.
- The Administration has been deliberating about the appropriate U.S. course in Afghanistan for several weeks now and word came last night that Mr. Obama had rejected all the options presented by his National Security team. It's reported the president has now asked his team to include a framework that includes an eventual U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
- That decision is likely related to reports the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl W. Eikenberry, has expressed resistance to any increase in U.S. troop levels untii Afghanistan President Karzai effectively addresses corruption and mismanagement within his government.
- Also interesting were several news items related to the Taliban and al Qaeda. It was reported a week ago that fewer than 100 al Qaeda members are left in Afghanistan and al Qaeda has become increasingly dependent on the Taliban to carry out its terrorist activities in Afghanistan. There are also reports that relations are strained between al Qaeda and Taliban factions, and particularly with the Taliban fighters controlled by former Afghanistan leader Mohammed Omar.
- More evidence of a split between Omar's Taliban faction and al Qaeda are conciliatory messages coming out of the Taliban's leadership, both in terms of intra-Muslim tolerance and relations with other nations.
- Via Spencer Ackerman comes a link to a recent op-ed column by al Qaeda expert Leah Farrell. She makes a strong case for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, arguing al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 to lure the U.S. into Afghanistan in order to create an "exploitable jihad" there. Farrell also notes a continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan also allows al Qaeda to manipulate the Taliban.
Al-Qa’ida also has another reason for attacking the US in order to keep it engaged in Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban is moving away from al-Qa’ida and redefining itself as a national liberation movement. For al-Qa’ida, Taliban statements condemning colonialism and inviting good relations with its neighbours put a question mark over their relationship. The solution is the same: to attack the US, forcing a surge in American troop numbers.
This would tie the Afghan Taliban’s hands. Taliban leader Mullah Omar’s legitimacy would be jeopardised were he to publicly disassociate from al-Qa’ida and guarantee he would not again provide it sanctuary. His refusal to do so would then feed the justification for a counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, ensuring the US remains engaged in the conflict.
I may be missing something, but there aren't that many choices for Afghanistan. If the U.S. intent there is to deny the Taliban and al Qaeda safe haven, something on the order of 500K troops are required. Short of implementing a draft, the U.S. will not be able to amass that kind of troop level. Calls to add 20, or 40, or even 60K more U.S. troops all include caveats that those troop increases will only allow a larger U.S. presence in the big Afghan cities, essentially providing that safe haven to the Taliban and al Qaeda throughout the rest of Afghanistan.
More simply put: the U.S. can only accomplish its stated objectives in Afghanistan with hundreds of thousands more troops. That's not gonna happen. Therefore, the U.S. will be unable to accomplish its stated objectives. Dinking around like we are only wastes lives and money.
Comments