Which Endgame in Afghanistan, Again?
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 8:49 am
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that this great New York Times story about President Obama’s Pakistan decision-making isn’t worthwhile, but there’s a quote buried in it that deserves a lot of elaboration:
During Mr. Obama’s Situation Room briefings on his alternatives, those advocating a minimal commitment of new troops in Afghanistan have argued that the United States needs only enough forces to keep Al Qaeda “bottled up” in the mountainous tribal areas of Pakistan.
“You could argue that even under the status quo, we don’t see Al Qaeda coming into Afghanistan,” said one official sympathetic to this view. “And so an additional commitment of forces isn’t going to apply more pressure on our main target.”
Divorce that, for a moment, from the troop-escalation question, and this quote throws into relief a conflation of endgames that the Obama administration has committed from the start. If al-Qaeda isn’t coming back into Afghanistan under these current favorable circumstances, then it’s fair to take this official’s point that the strategy being pursued is, at least, taking a rather indirect and circuitous route to dealing al-Qaeda a strategic failure. But what it is designed for is the stabilization of Afghanistan. (No guarantee that it’ll be achieved, but still.) Here’s Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on ‘Meet The Press’ yesterday:
We want to get Al Qaeda. We want to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat those who attacked us. And we want to be able to give the Afghans the tools that they need to be able to defend themselves. We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan.
As the anonymous official’s quote suggests, these are two different goals entirely. If the goal is to get al-Qaeda — well, it’ll be nice to give Afghanistan the tools to defend itself, but it’s besides the point. If, on the other hand, the goal is to give Afghanistan the tools to defend itself so that the United States can extract itself from Afghanistan, then it’s nice if we disrupt, dismantle, and defeat those who attacked us, but it’s besides the point. Since the day Obama announced his strategy in March, I’ve been making this point. Obama’s currently reviewing that strategy to see if it makes sense. Perhaps he could disentangle this confusion about when the United States will be done in Afghanistan.
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
7 Comments
Pingback posted November 16, 2009 @ 9:20 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by AfghanNews, TMC Member Feed. TMC Member Feed said: Wash. Independent: Which Endgame in Afghanistan, Again?: Don’t get me wrong, it’s.. http://bit.ly/3wByng [...]
Trackback posted November 16, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by AfghanNews24: Which Endgame in Afghanistan, Again? – The Washington Independent http://bit.ly/a5lGI...
Comment posted November 16, 2009 @ 10:56 am
As things stand, we will never be done in Afghanistan, because we cannot win hearts and minds in Helmand while the Taliban and corrupt Afghan Government officials are buying the poppy corp, which supplies 50% of Afghan GDP. Therefore the UN/WHO should buy the poppy and use it to satisfy unmet need in Africa where 6000000 people die each year from cancer in unrelieved agony.
Pingback posted November 16, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
[...] During Mr. Obama’s Situation Room briefings on his alternatives, those advocating a minimal commitment of new troops in Afghanistan have argued that the United States needs only enough forces to keep Al Qaeda …Read Original Story: Which Endgame in Afghanistan, Again? – The Washington Independent [...]
Pingback posted November 17, 2009 @ 12:03 am
[...] During Mr. Obama’s Situation Room briefings on his alternatives, those advocating a minimal commitment of new troops in Afghanistan have argued that the United States needs only enough forces to keep Al Qaeda …Read Original Story: Which Endgame in Afghanistan, Again? – The Washington Independent [...]
Comment posted November 17, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Obama does not trust, nor does he respect and honor our military.
Just very inexperienced and egotistical. It amazes me that a man that had never had any military experience can second-guess his commander on the ground. If he did not trust McCrystals judgment, why did he even put him in charge?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
rss