The Ultimate Afghan Strategy

President Obama wants to save money, cutting programs that contribute neither to national security nor the economic recovery. Okay, that’s a fairly obvious path given recent voter reactions. Healthcare? Fareed Zakaria, writing for the January 25^th Washington Post, reminds us that 85% of Americans are concerned with rising medical costs and only 15% prioritized extending coverage to those currently without insurance. But the healthcare “reform” on the table succumbed to pressures from Big Insurance and Big Pharma, preserving their profit structures pretty much intact while making sure there was not the slightest hint of cost-reducing competition. What a surprise? The voters didn’t like what they saw.

But, Mr. President, if you really want to cut the budget, take a real good look at that war we are waging in Afghanistan, the one where we are sending even more American sons and daughters – 30,000 additional soldiers to be exact – to fight and perhaps to die. Look at the government we are supporting, long known to be corrupt and ineffective. The administration put pressure on the Hamid Karzai government to change its evil ways. Doesn’t look like that happened or will happen any time soon. Most of Karzai’s post-questionable-reelection cabinet appointments were so completely below grade that they weren’t able to pass the legislative confirmation that was mandatory before they could assume office.

And now there are these two communications from the U.S. Ambassador to Kabul – Karl W. Eikenberry – sent to his bosses in Washington (as reported in the January 25^th New York Times) that have surfaced: “The United States ambassador in Kabul warned his superiors … in November [of 2009] that President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan… ‘is not an adequate strategic partner. The proposed counterinsurgency strategy assumes an Afghan political leadership that is both able to take responsibility and to exert sovereignty in the furtherance of our goal — a secure, peaceful, minimally self-sufficient Afghanistan hardened against transnational terrorist groups…. Yet Karzai continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, governance or development. He and much of his circle do not want the U.S. to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further,’ Mr. Eikenberry wrote. ‘They assume we covet their territory for a never-ending ‘war on terror’ and for military bases to use against surrounding powers’…

“The cables — one four pages, the other three — also represent a detailed rebuttal to the counterinsurgency strategy offered by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, who had argued that a rapid infusion of fresh troops was essential to avoid failure in the country…. They show that Mr. Eikenberry, a retired Army lieutenant general who once was the top American commander in Afghanistan, repeatedly cautioned that deploying sizable American reinforcements would result in ‘astronomical costs’ — tens of billions of dollars — and would only deepen the dependence of the Afghan government on the United States.”

The collapse of our Afghan strategy of passing responsibility to the Karzai government is particularly hopeless given Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ rebuff earlier in January from the Pakistani military in connection with his attempt to get Pakistan to take seriously Taliban/al Qaeda infiltration from Pakistan into Afghanistan and back again – effectively making the Pakistani border region a military sieve and a safe haven for our enemies. Eikenberry’s assessment of this shortfall? Writing in November: “Pakistan will remain the single greatest source of Afghan instability so long as the border sanctuaries remain… Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, the gains from sending additional forces may be fleeting.” Well, Mr. Eikenberry, Pakistan has rejected any reasonable solution to that problem.

Many suggest that the administration’s escalation in its combat role in Afghanistan is only a prelude to deal, as uncomfortable at this may be, with the Taliban from a position of greater strength. Think this is far-fetched? Look at this report in the January 29^th New York Times: “Kai Eide, the United Nations’ special representative in Afghanistan, met with a group of Taliban leaders in the days leading to [a recent] international conference in London, where President Hamid Karzai invited the Taliban to enter peace talks… ‘He wanted to test for himself the mindset of some of the Taliban leaders,’ said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was briefed by Mr. Eide on the talks. The discussions were confirmed by a United Nations official in Kabul.”Just think of the lovely choices we face: support a corrupt government that clearly does not work, make peace with our tormentors (an untrustworthy and brutal group, who harbored Osama bin Laden), just leave or stay in Afghanistan… for a very, very long time.

We are not protecting the United States by remaining in Afghanistan. We are not even in a battle where winning is one of the alternatives, and expecting a corrupt and ineffective government to pick up the slack has already been proven to be a failed policy. We had our chance in Afghanistan early, after the 9/11/2001 attacks, but we chose to deploy to Iraq instead. The opportunity is long lost; it’s time to allow pragmatism to “redeploy” our scare tax dollars – literally hundreds of billions per year – out of a wasteful military expedition with virtually no chance of success and into domestic programs that are woefully underfunded. Should militants choose to use Afghanistan to launch another strike against the United States, we most certainly will retain the right and the power to retaliate in strength… but this slow sapping of our national spirit and flushing of billions of deficit tax dollars down a Central Asian drain has simply got to stop!

I’m Peter Dekom, and this war failed war strategy is getting old and worn.