What makes "now" the right time to "end"the War in Afghanistan? Is it because we have defeated the enemy? Is it because the democratically elected government of Afghanistan is now stable? Is it because the enemy is on their knees? Has the Taliban declared they would treat women as humans? Is the war just un-winnable and it's time to give up? Is the Administration declaring defeat? Or, have we met our objectives?
Before we can ask if we've met the objectives, we have to ask why we went to Afghanistan in the first place? On September 9th, 2001, Al-Qaeda assassinated Mahmood Shah, the leading anti-Taliban General. On 9/11/01, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists, having trained in the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, attacked the United States, in New York City, in Washington DC, and over the skies of Shanksville, PA. They murdered nearly 3,000 Civilians in the United States. Their goal was 250,000 dead Americans.
In September 2001, the US Government requested extradition of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and other co-conspirators of the attack, from the Taliban ruled Afghanistan to the United States for trial in the war crimes and acts of terrorism of the United States. Democrats and Republicans were united. Both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush stated that other Nations were "either with the United States, or against us." The Taliban government of Afghanistan called "the bluff." It decided that it would protect its benefactor, believing that it could survive the historical cruise missile retribution attacks they had become accustomed to in the previous decade. After all bin Laden had married Mullah Omar's daughter, not to mention given the Taliban a lot of equipment.
Is Afghanistan safer than it was 4 years ago? No. Every year since 2008 it has been at least twice as deadly as the most deadly year prior. In Fact 75% of all violence in the last 10 years in Afghanistan has occurred since January 2009. Did it get worse after Al-Qaeda was defeated in Iraq? Yes, but it doubled in violence from 2008 to the end of 2009. 2011 was only marginally less violent than 2010, and was still the 2nd worse year since 2001. So, no, we haven't defeated the enemy in Afghanistan, by any standard.
Nor has the Taliban renounced any of their atrocious ways. They are still murdering Afghan Muslim women and children.
The Taliban haven't renounced atrocity, aren't defeated, and haven't broken their alliance with Al-Qaeda, but have regained their alliance with Pakistan. Perhaps then, it is because the duly elected President of Afghanistan wishes to hold peace negotiations with the Taliban? No, the Administration is adamantly pushing the Afghan Government to negotiate peace with the Taliban. Does the Taliban want to negotiate with Karzai? No.
But what does the Taliban want in their negotiations? An international retreat from Afghanistan and release of their terrorists from Gitmo. Why would they want that? Because if the US is not there, they figure they have a better shot at regaining some ground, if not control over the majority of the country. What is the Obama Administration willing to give up, to get them to the negotiation table? Release of top Taliban officials from Gitmo, and it has already laid out the timeline for retreat from Afghanistan.
If the Obama Administration is willing to meet all the demands that the Taliban want "for peace" in order to get them to the negotiations table, what will they ask for there? Probably money, for "their pain and suffering," but they don't need to negotiate anything. Their demands will already have been met, and they just need to wait until 2014 to take Afghanistan back from the democratically elected government.
In fact, not only has the Obama Administration laid out the timeline for retreat from Afghanistan, but it has moved up the timeline. Instead of its 2010 decision to be out in 2014, or rather to "transition to an advisory role," it now says it will "transition" in 2013, leaving US Troops to train Afghan Troops. Is that because 2011 was a year of peace in Afghanistan? No, 2011 was more deadly than 2004-2007 combined, more deadly than from 2001 to 2006.
Is it because in 2011, the Afghan forces have demonstrated an ability to handle their own defense, and to support the democraticallyelected government? No, the political push to "train" the Afghan Army has resulted in the worst year for Afghan Security Forces attacks on International Troops that are training them. The Administration attempts to portray these attacks as "lone wolf" attacks unrelated to the enemy, but the reality is that the rush to put Afghans in a uniform has put the Taliban in the Afghan uniform. Yeah, and they say the Fort Hood shooting was "workplace violence," rather than the Al-Qaeda terrorist attack orchestrated by al-Awlaki that it was. And the Taliban STILL considers itself our enemy, whether or not, we are willing to accept it.
We also didn't acknowledge the declarations of war by Al-Qaeda in 1996 and 1998, but that did not stop them from attacking in 2001, or on our Embassies in Africa in 1998, or our Ship in 2000, or the World Trade Center in 1993.
So, if the war is not won, if the Taliban are not reformed, if they have not broken their alliances with Pakistan and Al-Qaeda, and if Karzai isn't interested in negotiating with the Taliban, why IS this Administration so intent on pushing it on the American and Afghan people? The only reasons I can come up with are NOT pretty. It appears that a politician in chief's personal ambitions outweigh reality, history, security, and the Troops themselves. He is asking fewer Troops to do more, to ignore the sacrifices of their brothers, with less, worn out equipment. He is pushing them into the unemployment lines, taking away their retirement benefits, and proposing to freeze their pay. Why is he pushing these negotiations, despite the facts? Because he wants to "end" the war, regardless of the ground truth.
And that is giving him the benefit of the doubt. The alternative to trusting in his ignorance and political ambition is to believe he is intelligent and doing it, knowing the repercussions.
Stumble It!