There are times in everyone’s life where you are presented with a choice; you can continue to support a policy or an idea against all the evidence or you can reevaluate and take a new position. The Dog is at that place on our war in Afghanistan. Unlike many of the folks on the left side of the blogosphere, the Dog has supported the renewed focus on the war in Afghanistan.
"Originally posted at Squarestate.net"
Besides the clear interest the United States has in not having an Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban (given their willingness to help old allies in Al Qaeda) in being there. The Dog has always maintained that a conquering power (defined as a nation that removes an existing government by force) has the responsibly of putting in place some form of stable government before they withdraw. More specifically, they are the responsibility to try to do so. Like so many of the things the criminal Bush administration did, they went after this responsibility in a totally half assed way.
If we had engaged in our responsibilities sooner, perhaps the outcome would have been different. Perhaps not, given the level of veniality, corruption and incompetence the criminal Bush administration showed. We will never know since we rushed to fix President Bush’s daddy issues in Iraq. When President Obama came into office he made it clear he wanted to do a better job in Afghanistan, and the Dog supported this. There were always grave doubts whether we could, after seven years of war and six years of neglect, succeed in putting a government in place, which was the choice of the Afghan people and could actually hold the nation together, but the requirement to try was one we had to attempt.
All of this was predicated on the idea we had the tools we needed to actually achieve this goal, even if it would take a long time, even if it would cost a lot of money and even if it would cost the lives of soldiers and civilians. The eventual outcome, if positive, while costly would be better than the alternatives. However, it has become clear to the Dog in the recent weeks that we do not, in fact, have the tools we need to achieve even a modest level of success.
To have a successful counterinsurgency one of the requirements is a government which the people can see as legitimate. The massive levels of corruption in the recent national elections throw a level of doubt on the Karzai government. This combined with the revelations of the Afghan President’s brother being a notorious drug dealer and a long-term member of the CIA payroll make confidence in this government all but impossible.
If this were the only issue, there might be some salvaging of this situation (though it would be the kind of odds that are usually associated with winning the lotto). Sadly, this is not the only factor. There is the issue of being able to escalate our military presence. Whether you agree or not, one of the pillars of counterinsurgency is providing security for the people. This requires large numbers of troops spread over the country for long periods of time.
Spencer Ackerman reported yesterday that there are only 50,000 active duty soldiers who are not deployed and can be deployed left in the U.S. Army. This means if the President sent the full compliment requested by General McChrystal, there would be only 10,000 troops in reserve for emergencies or to also be sent there. Having this few troops available would limit our ability to project force in a way we have not seen in more than 100 years. We would still be able to use our overwhelming air power in any strategic conflict, but it is not the same as being able to send troops in, if they are needed.
Again, this might, on its own, be something we could live with and perhaps succeed, but it is further complicated by our other war in Iraq. We have been expecting to begin our troop drawdown within 60 days of the Iraqi elections. These election were scheduled in January but now there is some doubt as to when they will actually happen. The election law which the Iraqi’s were to elect there new government under was vetoed yesterday by the Sunni Vice President al-Hashemi. He is objecting to the number of seats in parliament, which are allocated to Iraqi’s living outside of Iraq. The issue here is that many of these exiles are Sunni Muslims. The current government wants to limit the influence of this group, as they are more likely to have been involved in Saddam Hussein’s Bath Party and the former government.
This is likely to be a contentious issue. If the law is open to renegotiation there are Kurdish lawmakers who would also like to change the laws regarding the number of Kurdish seats in parliament. This is the kind of issue which can tear a new and fragile democracy apart. It is the Dog’s fervent hope the Iraqi’s find a way to address this and quickly, but we have to brace for the possibility the Iraqi civil war will turn hot again. If that happens our troops are likely to be tied down there for an extended period. This means the level of troops we have to deploy to Afghanistan will not increase.
There is also the issue of what eight years of continuous war zone deployments is doing to our soldiers and their families. Suicides in the Army are rising at an alarming rate. This trend is matched by increases in domestic abuse cases and divorce. All of these statistics indicate a huge psychological toll which is being paid by our Armed Forces as our wars drag out longer and longer. It is unclear if the Ft. Hood shootings were part and parcel of this or if they were a random event by a deeply disturbed soldier. But in the end it does not matter, it is clear we do not have the systems in place to help our soldiers deal with the stresses of multiple deployments to war zones.
Given all these factors it seems clear there is very little chance we will be able to sustain the kind of effort which would be required to set any kind of stable government in place. This leads the Dog to the conclusion we should end our involvement in Afghanistan. This is not an easy conclusion to come to. It is very clear the result of NATO and the United States withdrawing from Afghanistan will be horrific. The Taliban will try to reassert its control of the country. The Karzai government will not go quietly, so the very least we will see is another Afghan civil war. The Warlords of the Northern section of the nation will hold on to their territory, as they did previously. The people of Afghanistan will once more suffer an incredibly intolerant and repressive government, if the Taliban are successful in retaking control. There will be poverty and very little hope for the future of this nation. There may be a return of Al-Qaeda to the Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan.
Additionally there will be the correct perception that the insurgent forces managed to beat the U.S. military. The contributing factors will not be discussed, it will be a "We won, the U.S. lost" conversation. It will embolden those in the Islamic world who like the idea of jihad, just as the Soviet withdrawal did. All of these are to put it mildly less than optimal outcomes. However, they seem unavoidable at this point. It seems to the Dog that we do not have the needed tools to do better than this outcome. The time when we might have achieved this has passed while we were involved and focused on Iraq. The opportunity to live up to our responsibilities as the conquering force has slipped through our fingers.
When looking at issues where people will die, no matter what, there is a need to be clear eyed and deal with the facts as they are not as we would like them to be. When the Dog adds up all of these facts, the reality of the situation is clear. We are so unlikely to be able to achieve any of the goals we have for Afghanistan that the time has come for the Dog to switch his position and say, this war is lost and we must find a way to leave Afghanistan as soon as is possible.
The floor is yours.