by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 27, 2009

All Rights Reserved. 

          Seven-and-a-half years since the former President George W. Bush evicted the radical Taliban regime from Afghanistan, the U.S.-backed government of Hamid Karzai controls only parts of Kabul.  He has virtually no control of any other region, carved out to various warlords and opium barons, whose cash funnels back to the Taliban and al-Qaida for a de facto militia.  Like Iraq’s radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s 10,000-man al-Mahdi army, the Taliban and al-Qaida protect abundant poppy fields for a host of nefarious drug lords.  Announcing a “new” strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama committed an additional 4,000 non-combat military trainers and hundreds more of civilian advisors to help reverse Taliban gains and sway the hearts-and-minds of the Afghan people.  Barack promises to clean out terrorist nests in the rugged ungoverned Afghan-Pakistan border region.

            Faced with exploding budget deficits and a shaky financial system, Barack hoped to invest less blood and more U.S. treasure in pursuit of his ambitious domestic agenda.  His proposed $3.66 trillion budget includes prodigious spending programs on national health care, global warming, alternative energy and education.   Already projecting a $1.7 trillion budget deficit in 2009, Barack’s budget doesn’t accommodate escalating military cost for his new Afghan war.  While phasing down Iraq, Barack hoped to fund his national agenda with savings from military outlays in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recent military estimates about the mushrooming costs of ending the Iraq War and now added costs for Afghanistan bode badly for the federal budget.  Calling the situation in Afghanistan “increasingly perilous,” Obama commits the U.S. treasury to a potentially bottomless pit.

            No one knows for sure what will happen in Iraq, including the possible need for future military reinforcements.  Spending in Afghanistan promises an endless flow of U.S. blood and treasure to reverse years of benign neglect by the Bush administration.  Bush’s Pentagon showed little hope for Afghanistan or material interest in escalating  U.S. involvement.  Unlike Iraq, there’s virtually no oil, offering little natural resources for American business.  “If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorism,” said Obama, justifying his decision to escalate U.S. involvement.  Despite record budget deficits, Barack announced plans to increase Pakistan’s foreign aid to $1.5 billion.  Obama hopes that Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari will give the U.S. the green light attack Taliban and al-Qaida safe havens.

            Afghan president Hamid Karzai welcomed Obama’s new interest in Afghanistan.   Promising it will “bring Afghanistan and the international community closer to success,” Karzai can’t wait for additional U.S. cash and military help.  “So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal:  To disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future,” said Barack, confusing al-Qaida with the Taliban.  Al-Qaida has a peripheral involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while Mulllah Mohammed Omar’s Taliban represents a real threat to the Karzai government.  Unlike al-Qaida, the Taliban is a homegrown nationalistic Islamic movement that controlled Afghanistan from 1996-2001.  Russia had little success battling the Taliban and al-Qaida from Dec. 27, 1979 to Feb 15, 1989.

            Taliban and al-Qaida fighters are a uniquely evolved guerrilla fighting force, blending into the civilian population.  Karzai’s ineffectual military stems from heavy infiltration by Taliban and al-Qaida elements, sharing blood relations with Karai’s military.   “That is the goal that must be achieved, said Obama, referring to defeating al-Qaida.  “That is a cause that could not be more just.  And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same:  We will defeat you,” sounding the same platitudes as Bush, once promising to get Bin Laden “Dead-or-Alive.”  Obama hopes to expand the current international coalition, referring to Afghanistan as an “international security challenge.”  More goading from Bush didn’t result in NATO or the European Union jumping on the bandwagon.  Of the current 65,000 international force in Afghanistan, over half are already from the U.S.

            Obama’s plan for Afghanistan falls far short of Bush’s so-called “troop surge” strategy in Iraq.  With the squares miles roughly of Texas, Afghanistan lacks the infrastructure, especially roads, to mobilize more troops to remote parts of the country.  Adding 21,000 troops is a drop in the bucket to defeat a deeply entrenched guerrilla fighting force with nationalistic appeal.  Adding more U.S. forces doesn’t address terrorists’ safe havens along the ungoverned wilderness with Pakistan.  Zardari has so far refused U.S. entry on Pakistani soil.  Predator drone attacks kill too many civilians and are far too clumsy to root out Taliban and al-Qaida elements embedded along the border.  Zardari walks a fine line supporting Obama’s plan and risking a coup d’etat.  Before Barack upends his domestic agenda, he should think twice about committing more U.S. blood and treasure in Afghanistan.

About the Author

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

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.