HOW SHOULD OBAMA DEAL WITH AFGHANISTAN?

The past empires of Greece, Persia, France and Russia all tried to unify and control Afghanistan, and they all failed at an unbelievable expense to their militaries and their fortunes. Will it be any different with the United States?

...US Soldiers in Afghanistan

Columnist Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post wrote an interesting column recently asking; "Will Obama Fight For Afghanistan?". With the allegations of fraud in the election of the Afghani president and with the low Afghan voter turn-outs due to the violence throughout Afghanistan´s more populated areas, it´s a fair question.

We can all remember back when the war in Afghanistan, in going after Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda was referred to as the "good war". And we can also recall when the Bush-Cheney administration´s war in Iraq, with the WMD and nuclear lies was called the "bad war". But the reality is that during the election campaign, "candidate" Obama did in fact, commit his support for the war in Afghanistan and for going after Osama and al Qaeda. Unfortunately, as is usual when long periods of time are allowed to pass, the president is now "caught between a rock and a hard place" as the situation in Afghanistan has changed.

The first change occurred when Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda moved their operation into the "difficult-to-reach" mountainous regions of the Afghan neighbor, Pakistan. And of course, when going after Osama and al Qaeda with US cruise missiles or unmanned drones, more Pakistani´s are usually killed than are al Qaeda insurgents. This rightfully upsets the local Pakistani´s. And being that Pakistan also has nuclear weapons with a "not-so-stable" government and military, the situation is tense at best.

On top of all this, the conservative, war-hawk and op-ed columnist George Will has rightfully pointed out that US involvement in Afghanistan has lasted longer than America´s participation in both World War I and World War II, combined. And this does not even consider that in over 2000 years of its existence, no nation has ever conquered Afghanistan. Occupied, yes. Conquered, never. In fact, going back 2,400 years to Alexander the Great, even his empire could not fully conquer Afghanistan.

So with all of this hind-sight and knowledge for what has not occurred in the past, what´s President Obama to do now?

First, personally I would rent Mike Nichol´s movie "Charlie Wilson´s War" and use it for understanding just how the US helped the Afghans run the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.

And, we should then carefully watch and listen to the last minutes of the movie that shows how the US abandoned the Afghan people after the Soviets left Afghanistan. This part of the movie clearly explains how this abandonment by the US eventually spawned and supported what eventually became Afghanistan´s extreme Taliban leadership. Perhaps that knowledge will give us an Idea for how to help the real Afghani´s get their country back….?

It might also help change the attitude of the local Afghani´s for supporting the US for helping them change their largest local export crop from opium poppies to the Afghans´ own consumable food crops. Instead of building more military camps and outposts, the US could then help by building hospitals, schools and other life sustaining services instead of teaching them how to throw grenades and repair AK 47 assault rifles.

Unfortunately, this last week some individuals from the GOP such as Karl Rove and Sarah Palin were quoted as saying how much they supported President Obama´s increase of the US troops in Afghanistan. As expected however, there were no comments from these same individuals for their support in helping the average Afghani family in the Afghan capital city of Kabul whose existence today is mainly supported by their street begging.

Oh yes, this is the kind of "bi-partisan support" that President Obama and the Democrats really need………….Right!!!!!

But now on the horizon, the US is beginning to see another problem in Afghanistan.

Today, most of the coalition countries currently in Afghanistan are beginning to understand that the real issues in Afghanistan can only be resolved by the Afghans themselves, not by any outside forces. Outsiders can help, but the real work is for the Afghans. And as it was with Iraq, these coalition countries are once again beginning the process of leaving the US alone in dealing with an expensive and possibly endless foreign war.

The Minister of Defense in Germany recently caused a major uproar by predicting that German troops might be in Afghanistan for another decade. The German opposition leaders then immediately started calling for a much faster withdrawal from the country.

In addition, faced with public disapproval, the Canadians have now promised to withdraw their troops by 2011.

And the Dutch are currently scheduled to pull out in 2010. At a recent conference in Amsterdam, a large audience cheered when a national panelist denounced the war. Demands for a time-frame; "two more years and then out", can be heard from most of the other coalition countries´ populations.

Equally universal are the complaints that the Afghan war's aims are unclear or unrealistic. A British defense official resigned last week saying he no longer believed the British people would accept the government's justification for the war, which has ranged from "fighting terrorists" to "controlling heroin exports".

The American Pulitzer Prize winning international journalist, Tom Friedman, this week demanded to know "what it [the war] will cost, how much time it could take, [and] what U.S. interests make it so compelling." Others grumble that we should be out of Afghanistan and focused on the "real" problems, such as Pakistan, or on an "achievable" solution, whatever that may be….?

What is now becoming apparent is how all Americans and the coalition countries were being duped about Afghanistan while we were all concentrating on the war in Iraq. For years we were all conned into believing that many of the troops weren't really fighting in Afghanistan, but, were participating in an extensive "armed charity operation".

The German population, as an example, were deeply disturbed to learn that a German commander recently called for a NATO airstrike that killed some 90 Afghans. This news surprised the Germans who thought their troops in Afghanistan were only doing reconstruction work, not using military airstrikes.

Many Americans seemed shocked to discover that US Marines were fighting this summer to retake previously lost "safe areas". They have also now become aware that the Afghan election is not going smoothly and that the government of President Hamid Karzai is majorly corrupt. This situation had actually been very clear to many of the previous administration for some time. But no one in the main stream media has been talking about it.

Just as Obama showed his ability to design and run the most successful political campaign ever, he must now gather the best people and resources for dealing with the war in Afghanistan. If the health-care debate is eventually going to determine Obama´s domestic success, Afghanistan could make or break his foreign policy.

President Obama has said many times that he supports the Afghan war in principle. Will we now see whether he supports it in practice, or will he take a different direction?

If he continues his current approach to support his commitments made during the long election campaign, he may just end up supporting a war that could become similar to that which virtually killed the GOP and another version of what eventually bankrupt the USSR.

Once again, I guess only time will tell.

Copyright G.Ater 2009

Follow me on Twitter: gater01