The weakest part of Obama’s speech about Afghanistan

From Obama's December 1, 2009 speech at West Point announcing he will raise the US troop level in Afghanistan to about 100,000 in support of his new strategy (which frankly doesn't sound very new):

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam.  They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing.  I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history.  Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action.  Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency.  And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.  To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. 

I don't get the relevance of the broad coalition point. It wasn't the absence of a broad coalition that caused failure in Vietnam; we failed because half a million American troops couldn't control the place. Further, most of the support for our presence in Afghanistan is only lip service. There were 48 nations in the "coalition of the willing" that "supported" our 2003 invasion of Iraq. Most of them were more trouble than they were worth, and almost all withdrew long before we were ready to leave.

The notion that there is not a broad-based popular insurgency in Afghanistan seems just wrong. Whatever we face in Afghanistan is almost 100% local popular insurgency. I frequently see reports that US officials estimate there are fewer than 100 Al Qaeda types in Afghanistan. On the other hand, an important similarity between Vietnam and Afghanistan is that in both places the enemy did/can retreat to and operate from another nation that was/is no-go for us.

The third point, that we were attacked from Afghanistan but not from Vietnam, is certainly correct, but what's the importance of that? We have had our vengeance on many of the Al Qaeda leadership and operatives who were involved in the attack, and it is well understood that the rest are now elsewhere, probably Pakistan. From there, they could possibly return to Afghanistan if the Taliban took over, but they could probably as well move on to Somalia, Sudan, or some other failed state we are determined not to invade. Nevertheless, tenuous as it is, this is the only thing that sounds like a real reason for our involvement—we will have 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan to keep hundreds or perhaps a few thousands of Al Qaeda bottled up in the mountains of Pakistan. This is Mr. Obama's war.

Comments

[Robert Pisor]

In Vietnam, the U.S. was the Lone Ranger with only South Korea and Thailand (both client states militarily) joining the effort. Obama made no claim of additional military prowess from the coalition in Afghanistan, but he did suggest it provided stronger moral authority for action. Tell the Canadians and the Germans that they are providing only "lip service."

Don't mistake "al Qaeda types," of whom you say there are fewer than a hundred, for the thousands and tens of thousands of Chechens, Saudis, Egyptians, Yemeni, Pakistanis, Kashmiris and others who were drawn like flies to this accursed land when George W. Bush put his foot in the shit. These are the people who scare local Afghans into cooperation; would you help the Americans?

I am a serious skeptic of military ventures, especially in Afghanistan. But the President laid out a limited plan for that country, with 18 months of serious military effort and training, and then the start of a rapid draw down. That is his hope, as he expressed it, but he also stated flatly it will not be easy. At least he ended the open-ended commitment of his predecessor, and he has underscored that decision by beginning a rapid draw-down in Iraq, as promised.

I think I remember Obama saying during the campaign, again and again, that Bush had tragically diverted American resources from the true harbour of terrorists in Afghanistan to whacking moles in Iraq. He made it quite clear that he intended to wind down things in Iraq and to increase American military forces in Afghanistan. Surely, every American knew by the end of that campaign what Obama's plans for Afghanistan were. And now, ten and a half months after he took the oath he delivers. Remember, he's also been dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the potential for a swine flu catastrophe, and a world grown deeply skeptical of American hegemony --because the cowboys fucked it up.

Let's cut a little slack here, before throwing rocks.

[Skeptic]

I have seen the "only-100-Al-Qaeda-still-in-Afghanistan" estimate before. It is being reported again today: "A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 Al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department." http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861

It appears to me that Obama's decision about Afghanistan is not a national security decision but almost entirely a domestic political decision to kick the can down the road. At its core, it appears our national security objective is no more than to keep Al Qaeda bottled up in the mountains of Pakistan. In other words, if Al Qaeda were gone, I strongly doubt we would be escalating a war on the home-grown Taliban in a nation-building exercise. To advance this extremely modest national security goal, we will soon have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at a cost of ~$100 billion per year, and one of the things we will do is drive many Taliban out of Afghanistan into Pakistan where they are likely to cause even bigger geopolitical problems.

Once we get to 100,000 troops and are not successful, there will be even more political pressure in 2011 to escalate again to avoid an even greater humiliation then than we would suffer now. It would be better for our position of influence in the world to realistically appraise our situation and withdraw than to have it obvious to everybody (except perhaps to ourselves) that a rag-tag group of insurgents with little more than RPGs, AK-47s, donkeys, and pickup trucks, is able to pin down a major part of the world's greatest military for years on end and force it to spend $100 for every $1 spent by the insurgents. That makes us look like Gulliver--and a Gulliver that shows great determination to endure will only prolong the humiliation.

So, viewed through my national security and geopolitical lenses, this looks like a bad decision. Yet, it's probably true that doing anything very different would have caused Obama and the Democrats immense domestic political problems.

[Skeptic]

I received this comment by email:

I liked the approach - its candor and relative honesty. It's not such a hard puzzle: Afghans, you have 18 months to show seriously growing effectiveness of domestic order-keeping. Fail, and we start serious leaving despite real long-term risks, since we have made it plain that we can't afford sustained effort to make you ready; become partly effective, we start leaving, but slowly, and continuing to help you gain strength; win the gold, we leave with a parade, but continue an aggressive development effort.

I don't find the introduction of an 18 months "putuporshutup" period puzzling. It truly mirrors both our willingness and capacity. No one in the US will like it, but none can argue that it's based on mistaken premises or unexamined. If Afghans fail again, big undiscussed question becomes how do we deal with Pakistan after we leave Afghans - but at this point that q is too hypothetical for serious analysis.

[Skeptic]

Cynthia wrote her own take on this for a group of her friends and agreed to let me post it here as her comment:

In elementary school, teachers say to children that they must use "inside voices" or "library voices", or when it is time to speak up, to use "outside voices" and so on. During her campaign, Hilary was told to "find her voice". Well, it is time for those of us who lived through the Vietnam years to find our Vietnam voices and use them.

I appreciate our president, but his explanation of why Afghanistan is not Vietnam was not persuasive. Saying that in Vietnam there was a popular insurgency, whereas there in Afghanistan there is not, ignores the reality that at the time, we justified Vietnam as helping the "freedom fighters". Our eyes could not see that Ho was popular until it is was too late. We could only see from our own perspective, which was ignorant, as Robert Mc Namara and Mc George Bundy finally admitted. Our logic was not functioning because our information and our perceptions were distorted. And because we wanted to believe we were not killing people for bad reasons. So we twisted logic.

And we twist logic today. Just because we don't like the Taliban doesn't mean that the Afghan people don't hate us and want us out of their country. From the fact that we think Afghans should prefer Karzai, it does not follow that Afghans like Karzai. The notion that Karzai, whose family is implicated in smuggling the opium that finds its way into our streets as crime- inducing heroin, is a curable corrupt, is a convenient fantasy. Hillary Clinton, who called the Afghan state a "narco state" now says that US soldiers should go there to die because she is pleased with Karzai's progress? Please. Our dear President, pressured as he is, made a decision based on convenient distortion. Lyndon Johnson did the same thing.

It is partially the fault of progressives and Democrats because we did not speak up enough. Bless Nancy Pelosi for objecting, and Biden for suggesting a low troop level option, but this was weak. Democrats have been paralysed by our love affair with Obama. Let's face it, he is fabulous, but that doesn't justify what he is doing. I personally, was in weak voice because felt that I was too busy, to speak up as a citizen. I also hoped that Obama was really just trying to do the right thing and that it would all work out.

We have wisdom we gained from Vietnam and we now need to speak up and say "this is like Vietnam". It is like Iraq. It is immoral to kill people for opium trade and lucrative contracts. Or just to say that we have won, and that we are not weak so that the Democrats can avoid Republican criticism.

Is this war about stopping Al Qaeda? I don't think so. Why haven't we found Osama and put him in jail? The people who die under our bombs are not Al Qaeda. Innocent people are burned by flaming fuel or crushed when bombs fall on their towns to "clear" the area. Again, like the napalm and strategic hamlet programs of Vietnam. In Vietnam we had reporters who actually showed us pictures of people dying. Not now. We are in a state of not seeing and not knowing.

The Nation recently carried a cover page article about how 10-20% of US budget in Afghanistan goes for payments to Taliban and warloads to gain access to roads they control, so that we can supply our bases and troups. Also that huge contracts are going to family members of ministers for provisions, services, logistics etc. How can we justify killing people by saying that it is to fight the Taliban when we are paying them?

And, if immorality and illogic were not enough, we cannot afford this war or the war in Iraq. Why are we paying billions for this war while the University of California is increasing tuition, seeking foreign students to pay the bills, and decreasing classes? While climate change technology development is under funded? When the bridges and streets are dilapidated? and on. As Ntozake Shange once expressed it: "We needs our money for ourselves!"

How to use our voices?

Sign the rethink Afghanistan petition: www.rethinkafghanistan.com

See CREDO website (I use them for my mobile phone service; same prices as AT&T)
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/say_no_to_escalation/?r=5043&id=6770-1631265-yf7Bfrx

Sign the Peace Action petition http://www.peace-action.org/

Work with Pax Christi http://www.paxchristiusa.org/

Write your Congressperson and Senators

Write a short letter to the editor of the LA TImes or NY Times

See this video and send it to friends: http://rethinkafghanistan.com

Most important, for those of us who are in our 50s, 60s and up, speak up about what we know. Use your Vietnam voices. Obama cannot do everything by a wave of his presidential hand. He needs to hear from us.

[Skeptic]

Vietnam vet Charlie sends this comment by email:

I don't disagree with you that this is Mr. Obama's war. But I believe his decision is as sound as possible, both militarily and politically, given the difficulty of the situation. I’m cautiously optimistic that he’ll be successful.

I don't underestand why this is such a surprise to the liberal wing of the Democrats. He virtually announced during the campaign that this would be his war, emphasizing that Afghanistan was the real problem and not Iraq, and that he would fix that. Everyone nodded in agreement - - “yup, yup, old Bush screwed up in Iraq and should have been emphasizing Afghanistan.” I don't recall opposition to Obama's position a year ago. What has changed since then? Now, after careful deliberation, he sets out to fulfill his campaign position, and there's this (not surprising) lack of support (to put in mildly) from the left. Or did they think he was just kidding?

I think Obama's differentiation between the insurgency in Vietnam and Afghanistan is correct, perhaps overly simplified for popular consumption. Vietnam was initially just Viet Cong, but they were pervasive throughout the country (South Vietnam) and continued to recruit and expand throughout the war. The NLF organizational and command structure was fully developed and had not been interrupted much since 1948. The Viet Cong were just the Viet Minh in a new guise. After Dien Bien Phu and the 1954 Geneva Accords, they simply went underground for two or so years, but kept recruiting and expanding to overthrow the South Vietnamese government. But the main difference is that there were several hundred thousand North Vietnamese main force units starting about '65, and they kept coming and rarely went back home, and they had a lot of armor, aircraft, land and ocean supply lines, an a steady flow of support from Russia and China. There was only limited "slipping across the border" by the NVN/NLF, except in instances of fighting near Cambodia and that only late in the war. That was mostly Kissinger mythology to justify more bombing in Cambodia and Laos (where segments of the Ho Chi Minh Trail ran). NVN regulars and NLF were mostly well away from the border and couldn’t get there if they wanted to.

I agree with you about the coalition. Why this rhetoric?. I didn't get it with Bush and it sounds just as hollow coming from Obama. We did have a substantial coalition in Vietnam, possibly more so than in either Iraq or Afghanistan (and definitely more committed than most of the NATO troops.). There were two full Korean division deployed in Vietnam (although one of my Vietnamese boat crews and I wished they were more discriminating in who they fired at), as many as 8,000 Australians, New Zealanders, Philippine forces and various others.

Re your 3rd point, I understand the objective in Afghanistan is to secure those areas where the Taliban and Al Queada have resurged, and provide enough security for the rest of the country to prevent similar resurgences, then gradually switch security to the Afghan police and army. Reading the fine print, Obama did not say we be out in 18 months, only that this is the target for starting withdrawal. I believe we'll be there a lot longer in major numbers to accomplish the mission. I think the 18 months is politically sound: he gives himself the option of bailing at that time if things aren't working out. He’s given the military what they wanted, and he has reasonable cover if they aren't making major progress. That should be sufficiently in advanceof the 2012 the election to control major political damage.

[Skeptic]

Charlie and the President seem to think the insurgency issue cuts in opposite directions. Obama seemed to say that Afghanistan is a lesser problem than Vietnam because there is not an insurgency in Afghanistan. Charlie seems to say that the invading force from a no-go zone was the greater part of the problem in Vietnam. It seems to me both involve substantial elements of insurgency and invasion and that, therefore, the distinction Obama tried to make does not exist and/or is insignificant.