There has been great anticipation of the NATO Lisbon meeting and today, the expectations of calls for a Four Year Retreat from Afghanistan were confirmed. No doubt, there were other important decisions and alliance strategies made at Lisbon, but this one confirmed rumors and speculation about what the POTUS has long planned. It is not as bad as was his flawed and failed broken campaign promise of a 16 month hasty retreat from Iraq, but neither is it wise or "responsible" either. Let's face it, when the UN and NATO warn you're being too hasty to call for retreat, it's a bad sign.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon cautioned that the drawdown has to be guided by “realities not schedules.”
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the move would depend on the security situation in Afghanistan.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the move was “irreversible.”
There is no doubt that our European Allies are war weary. Despite campaign promises otherwise, our allies have long questioned the President's commitment and resolve, while pulling out of Afghanistan. There have been other allies that have stepped up their Troop numbers, but some that have pulled out completely.
Woodward, who has always been friendlier to the DNC than the RNC, had an inside look at the current administration from the early days of it. And his book demonstrated that the Administration was looking for an exit from Afghanistan from day one, despite campaign promises that it would be "the number one priority." Is it any wonder the POTUS has already fired two Generals who told him that wasn't in the cards?
American Troops are blessed with a great and unfireable Commander in General David Petraeus now, but one great leader is up against an uncooperative body of politicians that constantly undermine his effort to win. The General's battles are more uphill with politicians than with the enemy. In Iraq, he and Ambassador Crocker presented a unified and allied front. They were on the same page. In Afghanistan, ambassador Eikenberry is the first in a long line up a mountain fighting his efforts.
After practically begging the United States to stay involved in Afghanistan in 2002, 2003, and 2006, President Karzai now seems to welcome every move away from that help and call for more. How did that change? Why does he seem so erratically motivated against US assistance? During the previous administration, the proud Pashtun was treated with respect as the elected leader of a sovereign and allied democracy.
Beginning in 2008, when the junior Senator from Illinois first visited Afghanistan while campaigning for his current job as POTUS, he treated the elder President as a vassal. He walked into Karzai's house and began lecturing the War Veteran and President on what he would do, completely disrespecting his position, his experience, and the fact that he was the elected President of a sovereign, allied Nation. It has never gotten better from then.
Once in office, the US President first attempted to install a "counterweight" to President Karzai, a non-elected opponent of Karzai that would have powers equal or near equal to him. Though some European allies supported the move prima facie, democratic governments could not morally force the move while pretending to be interested in supporting democracy in Afghanistan.
Simultaneously, the US Administration sent retired General Eikenberry as the Ambassador to Afghanistan. This looked wise on the face of it, as Eikenberry had been the Commander in Afghanistan only years earlier, but Eikenberry as Commander had allowed the Taliban resurgence and demonstrated arrogance to Troops and Allies throughout his tour there. As Ambassador, he demonstrated even greater arrogance and worked to undermine the current Generals, first McKiernan and then McChrystal, both of whom were fired for failing to follow the party line of apologies unwarranted and against evidence Supporting Our Troops actions. Ambassador Eikenberry publically led the charge against the request for more Troops and Equipment requested by General McChrystal. And he has failed as Ambassador in his plan to make it a civilian effort. His tripling of civilians means there are now "thousands" rather than the "hundreds" he started with.
The Administation also created a new position, the AfPak Envoy, which by its very existence undermined the sovereignity of Afghanistan as a seperate nation from Pakistan. It appointed Richard Holbrooke to the position, who wasted no time in ignoring the culture and disrespecting both Nations.
The Administration wasn't done though. It brought out the full forces of the US Government to accuse the democratically elected Karzai of corruption. It actively campaigned for the election of his opponent in the 2009 elections and even attempted to prevent the return of a Karzai ally who was campaigning for him. When Karzai was elected against the Administration's wishes, the Administration used its bully pulpit to allege election fraud. The US Administration was eerily silent when Iran slaughtered its people in the streets at the sight of true election fraud, but actively worked against Karzai's election.
That is not to say there isn't corruption in Afghanistan. It has been a way of life for so long that Afghans don't even recognize it as corruption in many aspects. Paying the Police Officer a dollar or two to get expedited at the airport is just a part of the process to Afghans. That kind of national culture doesn't change overnight, nor even in a decade, particularly not in a war torn country where the Police Officer is probably illiterate and getting paid too little for the risks he takes. But the corruption in Afghanistan today pales in comparison to the Taliban era or the Soviet era. It won't be eradicated for decades and will take education, literacy, and ethics classes to overcome.
When the election campaign, the corruption propaganda campaign, and vassal dictates of the US Administration failed, the White House decided to circumvent the allied elected President completely, by announcing a focus on local leaders. They decided to simply empower the local leaders while running around the President of our young ally.
Again, this is not to say that local leaders are not an important key to success, but that attempting to neuter the Afghan President was bad diplomacy and bad policy. It is decidely not democratic. Our Lieutenants, Captains, and Colonels must work with the local leaders, but our Ambassador and General and US Administration should be working with the National Government and its elected leaders. We are not an imperial power and we don't get to appoint the leaders of allied nations.
There is little doubt in my mind why the Karzai-Obama relationship is far from friendly. It is unfortunate but understandable why that has spilled over into the foreign policies and speeches of the two nations.
But not all that Karzai says can be categorized in the framework of animosity towards him by the Current Administration. His calls for an end to night raids and his voiced outrage over collateral damage are criticisms of the military, not the President. And he has spoken out against them and for greater input into the Military Decision Making Process for years. The fact is that that is politics and he's a politician. It is his duty as President to express outrage when his citizens are killed. He can't get up to the podium and say "that's war."
Of course he expects to know what militaries are doing in his country. How can he claim to be the sovereign President of a Nation, when foreign militaries are conducting operations without his knowledge? Of course our military leaders are leary of telling Afghans what operations we're going to conduct. It's not that President Karzai is telling the enemy, but that there is very likely a member of his staff or janitorial staff that is a paid informant of the enemy. That's part of the nature of civil war.
It is not that Karzai doesn't recognize that the citizenry are being blackmailed into claiming Taliban deaths are those of their villager civilians or that sometimes collateral damage can't be avoided. It is that NATO has been largely incompetent in countering the enemy propaganda, which many Afghans believe. And so long as Afghans believe enemy propaganda, that civilians have been killed unnecessarily, he must speak out against it.
No one likes to be woken up in the middle of the night at the point of a gun, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't enter Talib compounds while they're groggy and less likely to kill the good guys. It does mean we shouldn't search a friendly village in the middle of the night because a rumor says one of the homes might have been taken over by the enemy. It means we should get some more intel and find out which home was hi-jacked and which specific home should be entered in the middle of the night.
Nor are airstrikes always a bad thing. But neither are they always the best policy. The problem is that this administration seems to prefer the kind of policy that prevents air strikes as decisive while preferring them when used in a bad policy. Air strikes as a stand alone battle policy are based solely on intelligence reports, are often reactionary, and can lead to civilian deaths.
When Troops are in contact and can see an enemy position, an airstrike can save the lives of Our Troops, as well as civilians that might be in the area, that might be killed by the errant bullets of the battle.
Our Ground Troops must have every decisive asset at their disposal to kill or capture the enemy. Air power is a key part of our National Superiority on the battlefield. When wars between equals are fought more people die, military and civilian. When every bit of leverage is used to tilt the odds into one's favor, wars are shortened and lives are saved.
There is no shame in using an airstrike to kill an enemy combatant, but intelligence is fallable and when only intelligence combined with only air strikes is used, it increases the odds that the wrong person is killed. Without "boots on the ground," we do not control that ground, nor do we change the policies and attitudes of those that are on the ground, positively. Sure, it is politically expedient, as having no boots on the ground reduces the liklihood that Our Troops will make the ultimate sacrifice, but like paying ransom to kidnappers, as a stand alone policy, it is short-sighted.
The bottom line is that neither the War in Iraq nor the War in Afghanistan is over. Al-Qaeda is still present on both battlefields. Our young democratic allies are still fragile. The Taliban are as strong as they have been since 2001 and Hezbollah is growing in strength in Iraq. Calling it a "contingency" does not make it a "non-combat" environment. We are still at war, no matter what politicians wish to say.
The stubborn, arrogant ignorance at the top continues to put Our Troops and Our Citizens at risk. The campaign promises of pandering politicians and political correctness is costing US lives. We must fight to win and that is not enhanced by giving the enemy of a timetable of retreat as Our Troops are achieving hard fought Victories at the height of the war. It signals the enemy that their strategy of patiently waiting us out is working. The question does not seem to be if this Administration will finally decide that winning is important, but if Our Troops will have the resolve to outlast the current Administration. It seems our allies have lost that resolve.
Stumble It!
