DESPITE assurances to the contrary in Washington and a major policy speech in London, one must accept the obvious fact that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating beyond repair. Although the international media is more concerned with what that means politically for US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, little attention has been paid to the frustrated and war-weary people of the country itself.
One should know that public support for the war has greatly diminished. Conservative commentators such as George Will writes in the Washington Post: “(US) forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units ..." OK, so his narrative is still ultimately violent, but the fact remains that the war mood is changing; after all, Will's Sept. 1 article was entitled, “Time to Get Out of Afghanistan.”
Dan Senor and Peter Wehner responded with a peculiar diatribe in the New York Times, accusing Will of allowing his party allegiance to influence his views on the war. The two authors, both senior fellows at two major US think tanks offered a bloody rationale, wrapped in deceptive wording. They argued that historically Democrats opposed Republican wars and Republicans have done the same and that that must change. It was implied that virtually every major war in recent decades was a war that served US national security interests; therefore, “Republicans should resist the reflex that all opposition parties have which is to oppose the stands of a president of the other party because he is a member of the other party.” In other words, yes to war, whether by Democrats or Republicans.
The intellectual wrangling, of course, is not happening in a vacuum; it almost never does. Indeed, there is much politicking going on; intense deliberation in Washington, political debates in London; defensive French statements and more. It seems that the war in Afghanistan is reaching a decisive point, militarily in Afghanistan itself, and politically in major Western capitals.
But why the sudden hoopla over Afghanistan? The fact is that the bloody war has been grinding on for eight long years. The Taleban and various groups opposing the Kabul government and their Western benefactors are gaining ground — and not just in the southern and eastern parts of the country. Daring Taleban attacks are now taking place in the north as well, long seen as peaceful and thus requiring little attention. On Aug. 26, a roadside bomb hit the car of the chief of the provincial Justice Department in the northern Kunduz province, killing him, and sending shock waves through Kabul. The bloody message was meant to echo: No one is safe; no place is safe. Another attack was reported in the province of Laghman, in the east, in which 22 people, mostly civilians were killed. Among the dead were four Afghan officials, including the deputy chief of the National Directorate of Security, Abdullah Laghmani. The irony is too obvious to belabor.
IN Washington, London and Paris, politicians wish us to believe they are not unnerved by all this. They exaggerate the meaning of the recent Afghan elections, attempting once again to underscore that the “crucial” elections placed Afghanistan at a crossroads. Crossroads? What does that mean in any practical terms? George Will, although selective in his logic, was honest enough to mention that President Hamid Karzai's “vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker.” Even US officials admit that the government they have created is corrupt, to say the least.
Richard C. Holbrooke, among other envoys “responsible for Afghanistan,” told reporters in Paris on Sept. 2, that the envoys had no preference among the candidates, nor are they particularly interested in runoff elections, but they wished to see a government that appointed “more efficient, less corrupt ministers.” It behooves those “responsible for Afghanistan” to remember that inefficiency and corruption were the predictable outcomes of the very policies they have so eagerly pursued in the country. No sympathy for Karzai here, but it’s unfair to point the finger of blame at a feeble leader whenever a Western strategy fumbles — as it repeatedly has.
SPEAKING of strategies, what is the plan for the future? French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner promised that foreign troops would stay in Afghanistan unless the country’s security was ensured. In practical terms, this means “never,” for how could security ever visit that region as long as the strategy is hostage to two equally destructive narratives, that of troop surges, as articulated by Dan Senor and Peter Wehner, and, the other supposedly more humane “offshore” strategy of George Will: “using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units ...”
Hubris aside, Washington and London are facing difficult political and military decisions. Senior officials in both capitals are using grim and somber language. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, responding to a call by the top US general in Afghanistan for a fresh approach to the conflict, is considering another troop increase as part of Obama’s new Afghan strategy.
The sense of urgency was increased by the detailed report of the newly appointed Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who maintains that “success” is still possible but that change of strategy is needed. The report resulted in intense deliberations in Washington, highlighted by grim press conferences involving the Pentagon’s heavyweights, including Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While “Obama’s war” is deliberated, expectations are centered around primarily militant options.
Speaking at the Pentagon, Gates said: “I don't believe that the war is slipping through the administration’s fingers. I absolutely do not think it is time to get out of Afghanistan ... (but there remains) a limited time for us to show that ... this approach is working.”
The details of the new Obama strategy are still not very clear, but the commitment to the war is still unquestionable, as expressed in a “major” Sept. 4 speech by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. “When the security of our country is at stake, we cannot walk away,” said Brown, according to the BBC.
In related news, NATO airstrikes on a pair of fuel tankers killed up to 90 people early Friday, Sept. 4, according to Afghan authorities. Indeed, the situation in Afghanistan requires a fresh approach although not the one George Will has in mind.
— Ramzy Baroud is author of several books and editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
