Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
A long exit from Afghanistan
ISLAM AND THE WEST
By Daniel Brumberg
THE most important moment in President Obama's Dec. 1 speech on Afghanistan came when he outlined his administration's exit strategy. "Additional American and international troops," he asserted, "will allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July 11, 20011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."
These carefully crafted sentences were no doubt designed to send multiple signals: to an American populace wary of losing more young lives overseas, the President set a date for starting to withdraw American troops. But to those parties worried about a premature exit (who include the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan), he not only carefully noted that the withdrawal would "begin" in July 2011: he also promised a "responsible" strategy that would take account of "conditions on the ground." This is the administration's loophole, one that it may eventually find itself forced to wiggle through.
For the U.S. military, a conditional exit strategy may be the best it can hope for. Because legitimacy is part and parcel of national security, it is vital that the White House consider public opinion when choosing to send more young troops into battle. As the administration struggles to tackle a series of dire security challenges, it can hardly be blamed for forging a military strategy that is tempered -and thus perhaps constrained--by the logic of democratic politics.
Still, the essential question remains: can the White House achieve its goals with 30,000 to 35,000 more troops (including NATO)? Here there is reason for concern. The White House's implicit optimism rests partly on the assumption that a U.S.-led military surge in Afghanistan will produce some of the security and political benefits that came with the previous surge in Iraq. But as Juan Cole notes, the analogy doesn't hold. Indeed, the substantial differences between the two countries suggest that the gains achieved in Iraq will be hard to replicate in Afghanistan. Consider two of these critical differences.
Difference 1: The U.S. surge in Iraq had the implicit blessing of the Shi'ites, who constitute 60 percent of the population. Acting through the militias and the national security forces, by the time the surge began the Shi'ites had already managed to expel nearly all Sunnis from Baghdad itself. This development played no small role in convincing Sunni Arabs to back the U.S.-funded "American Awakening Councils," whose subsequent actions helped to turn the tide against non-Iraqi Islamist insurgents. Iraq's security gains were thus the product of a bloody civil war that our taciturn Shi'ite allies won through an effective alliance with the United States.
No such analogous opportunity presents itself in Afghanistan. There the largest ethnic group, the Pashtuns, constitute 42 percent of the population. While nominally represented by a Pashtun president, to secure his reelection Hamid Karzai's compatriots had to resort to corruption, intimidation and fraud. Indeed, precisely because Karzai and his allies cannot count on the wider Pashtun population, they must rely on an army in which Pashtuns constitute no more than one third of the troops, and in which Persian speaking officers from the minority Tajik community are, as Cole notes, "disproportionately represented." Given Karzai's waning legitimacy, this is hardly a promising recipe for an effective US-Afghani surge!
Difference 2: Constituting no more than 20 percent of the population, and facing a determined U.S.-backed rival, Iraq's Sunnis had little choice but to join a fragile if forward-moving process of political reconciliation. By contrast, Afghanistan's Pashtuns constitute a sizable plurality. They not only have the capacity to resist the central government, but also the motivation: deep antipathy towards the minority Sunni Tajiks, Shi'ite Hazaras and Uzbeks, who were the allies of the U.S. in the 2001-02 war against the Taliban. The latter's extremist Islamism mixes with Pashtun ethno-religious resentment to create a potent reason to oppose the efforts of Karzai and his American supporters to topple the Taliban.
Given these differences, the U.S. faces an uphill battle. The Afghan army is made up of 80,000 troops, the majority of whom are illiterate, poorly paid and not Pashtun. It is hard to see how Washington will train a 134,000 strong national army, one that can, in part or in whole, "stand up on its own" in the 18-month schedule the President outlined.
The Taliban are well aware of these facts and their strategic implications. Their best tactic may be to lie low and avoid major engagements with U.S. and NATO troops. Perhaps that is why most of the new U.S. troops will be positioned in Kandahar and Helmand provinces--the stronghold of Taliban. But if we take the fight to the enemy, do we not risk provoking greater Pashtun resentment, particularly given the sobering fact that very few members of the Afghani army come from those two key provinces?
If the answer to these questions is "yes," the conditions for a rapid exit starting in July, 2011 will not be met. And if, as President Obama has stated, "what at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world," we should be prepared for a prolonged or even delayed departure--a prospect that the Defense Secretary raised the other day, and which seems to be implicitly anticipated in the President's own speech.
By Daniel Brumberg |
December 4, 2009; 10:06 AM ET
| Category:
Georgetown/On Faith
,
Islam and the West
Save & Share:
Previous: How a culture dies |
Next: Kaleidoscope of religions
Posted by: persiflage | December 7, 2009 8:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
As sent months ago to my two Democrat senators and my Democrat representative in Congress:
Some incentives to live a healthy life style and also ways to pay for universal health care.
1. An added two dollar health insurance tax (or higher) on a pack of cigarettes. Ditto taxes on alcolholic beverages, the higher the alcohol content, the higher the tax. Ditto for any product shown to be unhealthy (e.g. guns, high caloric/fatty foods??)
2. Physicals akin to those required for life insurance- the overly obese will pay signficantly more Medicare and universal health insurance (unless the obesity is caused by a medical condition).
3. No universal health care coverage for drivers driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs or using cell phones while driving.
4. No universal health coverage for drug addicts or for those having self-inflicted STDs.
5. No univeral health coverage for abortions unless the life of the mother is at significant risk and judged to be so by at least two doctors.
6. No universal health coverage for euthanasia.
7. No foreign aid given to countries who abort females simply because they are female.
Posted by: ccnl1 | December 7, 2009 12:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
One can only hope congress spends as much time completing a viable healthcare reform plan as they do on the propagation of endless war....of course the GOP resists in unison, so the democrats must do this all by themselves.
Hopefully they have the guts
to complete this work and prevent a huge deficit spending disaster in the future - as healthcare costs rise precipitously.
It's unfortunate that the GOP votes against America's healthcare future without regard to dire warnings if such congressional action is defeated.
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has spelled out the economics of this issue in no uncertain terms - but the GOP isn't budging.
Ideologues are always the undoing of every society......and this does not apply only to Islam.
Posted by: persiflage | December 6, 2009 2:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
And each US citizen can easily email his or her federal legislator and/or President to express(vote) their desires. Based on various polls, the US citizens favor cleaning up the terror and horror of Afghanistan's version of Islam.
Posted by: ccnl1 | December 6, 2009 10:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
'Apparently the President, Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Congress of the USA have again decided that Afghanistan is a significant center of Islamic horror and terror and said country needs to be cleaned up.'
But no one polled the (most revered) American taxpayer regarding the wisdom of this action .... as usual. There is every reason to believe the said taxpayers are exceedingly weary of spending American lives and money on wasted efforts in Iraq/Afghanistan.
As elections near, changes will occur - and re-election jitters seem to be the only thing that gets anyone's attention in Washington, D.C.
Posted by: persiflage | December 6, 2009 10:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Apparently the President, Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Congress of the USA have again decided that Afghanistan is a significant center of Islamic horror and terror and said country needs to be cleaned up.
Posted by: ccnl1 | December 5, 2009 10:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A brief review of America's recent and ongoing involvement in Afghanistan would be helpful. In 1979 the CIA covertly employed/supported the Afghan Islamists/mujahideen to help defeat the Russians and bring down the Soviet Union.
Ironically, we're now battling the same essential indigenous forces, currently known as the Taliban.
Posted by: persiflage | December 5, 2009 2:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Take a lesson from our own history and get out while the gettin' is good - there is absolutely no prediction of results that mitigates againsts a complete failure to implement change in Afghanistan....and plenty of historical reasons to believe that absolutely nothing will change.
We're there for the proximity to Pakistan, and that is all. I can still hear John McCain muttering in the background how the big troop surge will DEFINITELY bring about change - we can't live without it. Wasn't he the guy that also thought bombing Iran might be a good idea??
Hopefully the President is not following in Bush's footsteps, and that this growing involvement in Afghanistan will not become Obama's own 'Iraq' legacy.....
Posted by: persiflage | December 5, 2009 2:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hmmm, "Hitman" is showing signs of a person with multiple IDs. Keep in mind this is an anonymous blog and imposters abound.
Posted by: ccnl1 | December 5, 2009 7:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To solve the Islamic problem, the following should be translated into the local languages and then broadcast from every minaret in the Islamic world to include Afghahistan:
Are you ready for a new beginning??
Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.
"1. Belief in Allah"
"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.
"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."
Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".
"3. To believe in the existence of angels."
A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.
continued below
Posted by: ccnl1 | December 4, 2009 1:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."
Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.
Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.
"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."
Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.
Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!
Posted by: ccnl1 | December 4, 2009 1:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
'As sent months ago to my two Democrat senators and my Democrat representative in Congress:'
Shall we refer to this itemized list as the CCNL addendum to national healthcare reform as sponsored by the clinically/morally obsessed?
It's fortunate that veterinary care is not included in the proposed benefits. Consider that a blessing for all those dog haters out there!
Legislation that provides basic healthcare for all would be more than a sufficient start.....the personal morality crusade could begin any time after that happens.
On a personal level, I'll admit to having real issues with the growing problem of morbid obesity in the USA - and this is way beyond the 'overweight' of yesteryear. And smoking sucks in a very big way.
However, the idea of legislatively penalizing folks and denying healthcare based on lifestyle practices that we least like are kind of like religion - it should be practiced in the sacred privacy of your own home, but kept out of the profane halls of congress.....