Afghanistan: Where Politics is More Important than Reality

"Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so too does geopolitics, and should the United States leave Afghanistan -- should ISAF, should NATO leave Afghanistan -- that would create, in my mind, for all intents and purposes, a geopolitical vacuum, ahead, however, of the [Afghan forces] being ready to take full security."  General Allen, ISAF Commander, in testimony to Congress.

General Allen is in a difficult position.  When he accepted the job as Commander of forces in Afghanistan, he committed to Victory over the enemy, using whatever resources the POTUS allowed him.  Obama won't use the word Victory, and is hell-bent on "ending the war" by withdrawal.  In 2011, the POTUS began pulling Troops out, in the middle of the "fighting season."  In 2012, the POTUS is stubbornly removing another 25% of the force, again, in the middle of the fighting season.

A rapid expansion of the Afghan security forces, on orders of the politicians, led to a lack of vetting of the recruits, and hence a number of Taliban infiltrators to it.  That has resulted in an unprecedented rash of "green on blue" attacks.  Except, the attackers, while wearing ANA/ANP/ABP uniforms, were actually Taliban fighters.  Inexplicably, the Administration has ordered that to be downplayed. 

It is not a uniquely American Liberal phenomenon.  USA Today & the French are trying to portray their most recent terrorist attack as a "lone wolf" too, though, that Islamist Terrorist trained in Pakistan, in Al-Qaeda and Taliban strongholds.  He was on US "no-fly" lists and was even questioned by French Intelligence.  There may not have been sufficient information at that time to arrest and prosecute him, but there certainly is enough to say he is an Islamist terrorist.

And it gets worse.  Everyone at the table understands that the government of Afghanistan can't pay for an Army of 352,000, even though an Afghan Army of 350,000 is insufficient to maintain the peace of the country.  It can't even pay for an Army of 230,000, particularly not with expensive technology such as GPS & Night Vision Goggles or even M16's.

The question isn't if the rapid expansion of Afghan Security Forces will be reversed, but who will pay for the remainder.  The question isn't if the US and Europe will be paying for those forces long into the future, but how much they are willing to pay.  This isn't some new epiphany.  It's been a known factor for years, which further calls into question why the POTUS insisted on a rapid, unvetted expansion ahead of sending those newly trained fighters back to village life for Taliban recruitment.

Unfortunately, like his stubborn insistance on "peace negotiations" with the Taliban, after announcing a withdrawal, and his announcement of withdrawal simultaneous to his announcement of the Surge, it appears all of the decisions were based on politics of "ending" the war, rather than letting Our Troops to win it. 

In 2008, he claimed Afghanistan would be his top priority.  In 2009, he said the announced withdrawals would be based on consultations with Commanders on the ground, and conditions on the ground.  The conditions are worse and it has not been his priority.  When Commanders on the ground tell him they need more, not fewer Troops, he sticks to his withdrawal timetable, or fires them.  The violence in Afghanistan during 3 years under Obama is 3x greater than that in the previous 7 years. The Taliban have said they won't be bound by anything negotiated at the peace table.  The Afghan government has stated they have no desire to negotiate with the Taliban leadership which refuses to admit women have a right to learn to read.

Fighting to a Victory in Afghanistan has less support from the American electorate than at any time since Americans learned where the country was on the map, though the enemy, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have not changed, even if the Executive Branch now says the Taliban isn't the enemy.

While the French are denying that a terrorist trained on the Afghan-Paki border was part of the Al-Qaeda network, the fact remains that this war will continue, there or here, regardless of a politicians desire to claim he "ended" the war there, at all costs.  And European Security leaders are warning that they are on the cusp of a new wave of terrorism in Europe.

The problem is not the Afghan people, which overwhelmingly want democracy, literate daughters, and oppose the Taliban.  The problem is not American Troops, which though fatiqued and demoralized by the uncertainty of knowing who will be thrown into the unemployment lines by the POTUS, and who will remain to do even more with fewer brothers in arms.  The problem is a politician in chief, hell-bent on "ending" a war, regardless of the facts, regardless of the advice of Generals, who prefers to charge Veterans for war related medications and health care, while cutting the Military budget for weapons, than to reverse his massive pork barrel spending programs.  The problem is the guy at the top who is requesting Military cuts of enormous proportions, while requesting the same record deficits that he has gotten in every year of his tenure.

The good news is that Americans can remove him in November.  The good news is that the American political defeat in Afghanistan can be reversed.  It will not be complete by January 2013.