Barack's Afghan Gamble

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 16, 2009
All Rights Reserved.                    

       Making good on a campaign promise, President Barack Obama signaled he would shift U.S. forces from Iraq to Afghanistan, the real focus in the war on terror.  While beginning an orderly withdrawal in Iraq makes sense, a corresponding redeployment to Afghanistan expands U.S. risks.  When former President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq March 20, 2003, the Pentagon started redeploying troops to Iraq, leaving Afhanistan with only 23.000, less than half of the multinational force.  Since the fall of the Taliban Nov. 13, 2001, U.S. and coalition forces couldn’t stop a steady erosion of Afghan power led by U.S.-ally Hamid Karzai, controlling only parts of Kabul.  Obama now seems poised, like Bush was in Dec. 2008, to launch a U.S.-Afghanistan troop surge, taking the force from 32,000 to 50,000.  Unlike Iraq, there’s little popular support for the U.S. mission.

            Adding 3,000 troops to the Afghan war zone, Obama begins what could be another costly miscalculation.  Bringing in the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division Bush took troop levels to around 33,000.  Iraq’s 2008 troop surge eventually paid off, taking violence against U.S. forces down from over 100 deaths per month to under 20.  Obama hopes to stem a Taliban resurgence, leaving the guerrilla-based Islamic fundamentalist regime a deadly force.  Obama and the Pentagon now consider an Iraq-like surge, bringing in an additional 30,000 troops.  “In every case our vehicles returned with overwhelming fire,” said 3rd. Brigade Combat Team spokesman Lt.. Col.Steve Osterhoser.  “We have not suffered anything more than a few bruises, while several insurgents have been killed.”  While that’s true today, it won’t be when the U.S. starts taking casualties.

            Unlike Iraq, where various ethnic factions struggle to get along, the Taliban compares to the communist Vietkong, where ultra-religious nationalism drives today’s guerrilla war..  Insurgencies or guerrilla movements born from nationalistic agendas are difficult to overcome.  Afghanistan’s notorious opium trade controls much of the country’s economy and insurgency.  No amount of U.S. force can crush a nationalist movement fueled by an illicit drug trade with unlimited funding for homegrown terrorists.  Ten years of Russian failure in Afghanistan, in part caused by U.S. support for Osama bin Laden, contributed mightily to the collapse of the Soviet Union.  With the U.S. already bankrupting itself in Iraq, the treasury can ill-afford another costly escalation.  Obama’s plan to shift the Iraq War to Afghanistan spells economic and political disaster.

            Before the U.S. evicted the Taliban Nov.13, 2001, the country was dominated by a repressive Islamic regime.  Atrocities committed by the Taliban were well documented, including desecration of ancient Buddhist art and brutally sadistic treatment of women.  No sane individual or society wants a return of the Taliban.  But the U.S. can’t stop an ultra-religious nationalist movement, determined by popular majority to return to power.  U.S. interests in Afghanistan had to do with the Taliban’s support of Bin Laden, the mastermind of Sept. 11.  When the Pentagon and World Trade Centers were hit, sympathizers danced in the streets of Kabul, Palestine and other places hostile to U.S. interests.  Tracking down the perpetrators of 9/11 remains a worthy U.S. national security goal.  Wasting more blood and treasure has to be carefully weighed against any expected benefits.

            Republicans opposed to Obama’s economic recovery plan had no misgivings about writing Bush a blank check to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Bush believed that democracy would “transform the Middle East,” changing the landscape of regimes hostile to the United States.  With over 4,200 lives lost, tens-of-thousands more injured and nearly $1 trillion spent, the U.S. can’t afford to make the same mistake in Afghanistan.  No amount of conventional forces can effectively combat committed  Islamic guerrillas determined to return Afghanistan to a Muslim state.  “The weather has made it so the enemy activity is somewhat decreased right now, and I expect it to increase in the next two to three months,” said Col. David B. Haight, Commander of the 3rd Brigade.  When the Taliban comes out of hibernation, the U.S. can expect more resistance from a determined enemy.

            Obama needs to rethink the advisability of a major escalation in Afghanistan.  There’s more potential for losing blood and treasure in Afghanistan, a country where a determined ultra-religious movement won’t fold its tent anytime soon.    A troop surge in Afghanistan will likely increase U.S. casualties without directly discouraging or stopping a determined guerrilla insurgency.  Obama needs to keep U.S. forces focused on al-Qaida and the Taliban, without bogging the military down in another trillion-dollar-plus nation-building project.  Nothing threatens U.S. national security more than a sick economy, weakened by two unnecessary foreign wars.  With the U.S. facing the worst economic mess in recent memory, the White House can’t afford to take the nation down another dead end.  Keeping Bin Laden and the Taliban on the run doesn’t require the U.S. to rebuild Afghanistan.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.