A “Responsible End” in Afghanistan?

Part I – The Draw Down

The Republican responses to Obama's announcement are varied. Some Republicans such as presidential candidate Mitt Romney, taking the hint from the same poll that no doubt encouraged the president's decision, are saying they favor a rapid withdrawal. However, others such as Representative Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, oppose the move, claiming that Obama is playing politics by manipulating troop levels. These multiple responses mean that whatever happens the Republicans can always say “we told you so.”

The US military commanders in Afghanistan are not happy about the pullout. They claim that withdrawal of the surge troops now make unlikely the “consolidation of the fragile gains that they had made in Helmand and other provinces.” This is probably true but is based on the assumption that the “gains” could ever be something more than “fragile.” On the other hand, Afghan commanders such as General Mohammad Zahir Azimi of the Afghanistan Defense Ministry, declared that his country's army will “fill the gap” created by the withdrawing Americans. “We are ready” he said. He is probably as naive as his American counterparts.

All of this has an unreal sound for those who actually know the modern history Afghanistan. That history, properly considered, makes the entire American adventure in that country problematic. In a recent interview with Amy Goodman on her show “Democracy Now!”, the Middle East scholar Juan Cole stated that “US leaders often are just not good on history.” He noted that the British in the 19^th century had “tens of thousands of troops” in sensitive parts of Afghanistan and could not pacify them. Then of course the Russians failed in this as well. What are the odds that a “relatively temporary…and small American expeditionary force can go into some of these provinces and shape them up for the long term? I always thought that was just very unlikely.” And indeed it was and still is.

Here are some other points to consider:

1. As far as the Afghanistan franchise of al-Qaeda is concerned, it has long ceased to be a factor in the Afghan war. Even back in December of 2009, when the president announced his “surge,” US intelligence estimates put the number of al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan at no more than one hundred. Therefore, even before the death of Osama bin Laden, the war in Afghanistan was not so much about al-Qaeda as “its extremist allies.”

Click here to get Truthout stories like this one sent straight to your inbox, 365 days a year.

2. And who are they? Well, they are the Taliban. But as the “they” implies, the Taliban are not one unified group. They are many groups. As Cole told Amy Goodman, “what the US calls the Taliban is four or five different groups, and they're not necessarily all Mullah Omar people.” Mullah Omar is the fellow who was in charge in Afghanistan when the Americans invaded in 2001. Right from the beginning US leaders had a tendency to mix all these elements with al-Qaeda. Certainly the Bush Jr people lumped them altogether. When, after 9/11 the government of Afghanistan responded to the Bush demand for the surrender of Bin Laden with a request for evidence of his involvement with those horrific attacks, the Bushites did not even bother to respond. All these folks were one and the same to them and they just launched the invasion.

3. Today it does not matter who is with Mullah Omar and who is not. All the Taliban factions are opposed to US intervention in their country and all are opposed to the corrupt and often incompetent ally of America, President Hamid Karzai, sitting in Kabul. And they know that without the presence of American combat troops, they have the power to bring down his government.

4. In this regard President Obama also knows that between now and 2014 the United States cannot make the Kabul government strong enough and popular enough to survive. He tells us that al-Qaeda is all but defeated and “we will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government.” These juxtaposed statements reflect an as yet feeble effort to separate out what Americans have always thought were the same thing. The president is suggesting to us that we can defeat al-Qaeda and still lose Afghanistan to Taliban factions. He is beginning to tell us this because that is the way it is going to be.

5. However, the president is going to make as good a show of drawing down as he can. He certainly does not want to see another Viet Nam style retreat. He wants to minimize the chances of the Democrats being blamed for a debacle. So, whether it be Iraq or Afghanistan, his goal is to accomplish “a responsible end.” After that, it will be the natives' fault if Iraq ends up with a government allied to Iran and/or falls back into sectarian Sunni vs Shi'ite vs. Kurd civil war. And, after 2014 it will be Karzai who will take the blame when Kabul falls to some form of “Taliban” government and/or relapses back into a sectarian civil war of Pashtuns vs. the country's various ethnic minorities. So the “responsible end” comes to mean no more or less than an orderly withdrawal.

Part II – A Really Responsible End

What would a really “responsible end” entail? It would entail meaningful reflection on the part of both the president and Congress. It would require their thinking deeply and objectively about our foreign policy over the last fifty years. If they did so they would come to the rather obvious conclusion that, if Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan can teach us anything, it is that the standing policies that have led us into such disasters need of serious examination and reworking.

Unfortunately there is absolutely no sign that any of our leaders are on this learning curve. President Obama's precipitous jump into the morass that is now Libya shows that he is quite willing to continue the opportunistic war policies of his predecessors. And, the shameful display of Congress slobbering over Benjamin Netanyahu several weeks ago tells us that branch of the government is stuck in a deep and dangerous rut.

A lot of this tunnel vision reflects the fact that foreign policy is just domestic policy in altered form. It flows from home grown political and ideological attitudes which are systemic. We repeatedly head full speed off a cliff because we are being pushed from behind and not pulled from the front. And this means that while Obama may exit relatively gracefully from Iraq and Afghanistan, there will be no “responsible end” to disastrous foreign adventures. Our lobby driven “interests” will demand it.

Part III – Conclusion

What does it take to fundamentally change a nation's way of doing things? Political parties, government bureaucracies and ideological outlooks are big and weighty things. They move through time and space in a straight line (perhaps this is tradition) and do not change directions easily. Indeed, it takes a powerful force coming in at an angle to deflect such laded institutions onto some truly new course. This powerful force is usually negative, some sort of serious catastrophe. The US has not met such a force yet. As a country it is so stuck in its ways, and so full of hubris and self-righteousness, that over the past few generations it has absorbed repeated military defeats and nearly gone bankrupt while still not altering its response patterns to foreign happenings. It is a real wonder to behold!

John Davies, a 17^th century English poet, once remarked that men learn little but forget much. Most Americans have learned nothing about foreign affairs. It is all a mystery to them and they have gladly abdicated this part of their national lives to the politicians and lobbyists who forget mistakes as soon as they make them. At this rate the United States will not go out with a bang. It will just be a death dealing whimper.