Depending on your views about what we should do in Afghanistan, you may agree that Ambassador Karl Eikenberry is right or that General Stanley McChrystal is right. Either way, this is could turn out to be the whizzing contest of all whizzing contests.
Why would we expect Afghanistan to do anything different than what it has done for centuries? Why should we expect them to be eager to commit more resources from what little they have if we are willing to do their fighting for them?
Why would we expect the oppossition party to do anything else but Monday morning quarterbacking? It was their former leader who started the war in Afghanistan and then abandoned it in favor of toppling Saddam Hussein. The end result is two campaigns that are literally and figuratively bleeding us dry; killing and maiming our young men and women by the hundreds while we make little if any headway.
I cannot blame President Obama for being gun shy--Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires and I am certain he does not want us buried there. He must do something though because we can't just leave what we have in country to fend for itself. We either have to fish, cut bait or get out of the boat. The question is, "What and how do we do it?"
Afghanistan is not a "nation"--it is a place and people. There are numerous tribes who mostly live in remote villages in "tribal territories/districts/or whatever you want to call them" and there are some wht I chose to call "city states", much like ancient Greece--Kabul (the capital), Kandahar and Herat. There are four major languages and perhaps 30 minor languages. Pashtuns and Tajiks make up about 70% of the population while Hazaras, Uzbeks, Aimaks, Turkmen, and Balochs make up about 25% and the remainder are "odds and ends."
Afghanistan is vast, some 250,000 square miles, just a little smaller than Texas; however, the terrain is very mountainous and rugged with little infrastructure once outside the cities. If we put a million troops into Afghanistan, we still could not "secure" it nor could we sustain such a force. Neither can Afghanistan--it has neither the willpower nor the resources.
Somehow, the tribal areas have to be developed to stand on their own against the Taliban and al Quaeda. We have to find a way to reassure them that we are not there to conquer them, but to help them become self-sufficient when it comes to their own defense.
If possible we have to find a way to clean up the "central" government; get rid of its corruption, which foments the distrust of the tribal leaders. So far we have not been successful. We jumped on the Karzai bandwagon only to find out it is seen as anathema to the tribal leaders with Karzain a corrupt American puppet. The recent national election debacle only reaffirmed this to Afghanis and the outside world. But we picked "our man in Kabul" and it would seem we are stuck with him.
Anyone have any answers?
George
Official: Obama wants revised Afghan war options
By BEN FELLER and ANNE GEARAN, AP
2 hours ago
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes, a senior administration official said, as concerns soar over the ability of the Afghan government to secure its own country one day.
Obama's stance comes as his own ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, is voicing strong dissent about a U.S. troop increase, according to a second administration official.
Eikenberry's misgivings center on a concern that bolstering the American presence in Afghanistan could make the country more reliant on the U.S., not less. He expressed them in forcefully worded cables to Washington just ahead of Obama's latest war meeting Wednesday.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss administration deliberations.
The developments underscore U.S. skepticism about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose government has been dogged by corruption. The emerging administration message is that Obama will not do anything to lock in an open-ended U.S. commitment.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that she is concerned about Afghanistan's "corruption, lack of transparency, poor governance (and) absence of the rule of law."
"We're looking to President Karzai as he forms a new government to take action that will demonstrate — not just to the international community but first and foremost to his own people — that his second term will respond the needs that are so manifest," Clinton said during a news conference in Manila with Philippine Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo.
Obama is still expected to send in more troops to bolster a deteriorating war effort.
He remains close to announcing his revamped war strategy — troops are just one component — and probably will do so shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends Nov. 19.
Yet in Wednesday's pivotal war council meeting, Obama wasn't satisfied with any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, one official said.
The president instead pushed for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government. In turn, that could change the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official.
Military officials said Obama has asked for a rewrite before and resisted what one official called a one-way highway toward war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendations for more troops. The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options beyond military planning, officials said, though a substantial troop increase is still likely.
The president is considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government's small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over. The other three options on the table are ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that McChrystal prefers, according to military and other officials.
The war is now in its ninth year and is claiming U.S. lives at a record pace as military leaders say the Taliban has the upper hand in many parts of the country.
Eikenberry, the top U.S. envoy to Kabul and a former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, is a prominent voice among those advising Obama, and his sharp dissent is sure to affect the equation.
The options given to Obama will now be altered, although not overhauled.
Military officials say one approach is a compromise battle plan that would add 30,000or more U.S. forces atop a record 68,000 in the country now. They described it as "half and half," meaning half fighting and half training and holding ground so the Afghans can regroup.
"The government of Afghanistan has to accept greater responsibility for its own defense," Clinton said Thursday. She had no comment on the Eikenberry memos.
The White House says Obama has not made a final choice, though military and other officials have said he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than McChrystal wants at the outset.
Among the options for Obama would be ways to phase in additional troops, perhaps eventually equaling McChrystal's full request, based on security or other conditions in Afghanistan and troop levels by U.S. allies there.
The White House has chafed under criticism from Republicans and some outside critics that Obama is dragging his feet to make a decision.
Obama's top military advisers have said they are comfortable with the pace of the process, and senior military officials have pointed out that the president still has time since no additional forces could begin flowing into Afghanistan until early next year.
Under the scenario featuring about 30,000 more troops, that number most likely would be assembled from three Army brigades and a Marine Corps contingent, plus a new headquarters operation that would be staffed by 7,000 or more troops, a senior military official said. There would be a heavy emphasis on the training of Afghan forces, and the reinforcements Obama sends could include thousands of U.S. military trainers.
___
Associated Press writers Matthew Lee in Manila, Philippines, and Pamela Hess in Washington contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment