Obama at the Rubicon
If the aphorism holds—the guerrilla wins if he does not lose—the Taliban are winning and America is losing the war in Afghanistan.
Well into the eighth year of war, the Taliban are more numerous than ever, inflicting more casualties than ever, operating in more provinces than ever and controlling more territory than ever. And their tactics are more sophisticated.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal calls the situation "serious." Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Michael Mullen calls it "serious" and "deteriorating."
President Obama thus faces a decision that may decide the fate of his presidency. For if the situation is grave and deteriorating, he cannot do nothing. Inaction invites, if it does not assure, defeat.
Does he cut U.S. losses, write off Afghanistan as not worth any more American blood and treasure, and execute a strategic retreat?
Or does he become the war president who sends McChrystal the scores of thousands of U.S. troops necessary to stave off a defeat for all the years needed to conscript and train an Afghan army that can and will defend the Kabul regime and pacify the country?
Afghanistan is being called Obama's Vietnam.
It could become that, and bring down his presidency as Vietnam brought down Lyndon Johnson's. But Afghanistan is not yet Vietnam in terms either of troops committed or casualties taken.
The 68,000 Americans who will be in Afghanistan at year's end are an eighth of the forces in Vietnam when Richard Nixon began to bring them home. Vietnam cost the lives of 58,000 Americans. The Afghan war has cost fewer than 1,000. U.S. casualties in Afghanistan are as yet only a fifth of the U.S. losses in the Philippine Insurrection of 1899-1902.
If we compare Afghanistan to Vietnam, we are about in 1964, when the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was passed and the bombing of the North began, or December 1965, when the Marines came ashore at Danang.
Obama can still choose not to fight this war.
But should he so choose, he will be charged by Republicans and neoconservatives with a loss of nerve, with having cut and run, with having lost what he himself has repeatedly called a "war of necessity," with having abandoned the noble cause for which many of America's best and bravest have already paid the ultimate price.
And it needs be said: The consequences of a U.S. withdrawal today would be far greater than if we had never gone in, or had gone in, knocked over the Taliban, run al-Qaida out of the country, gotten out and gone home.
Instead, we brought NATO in, put tens of thousands of troops in and declared our determination to build an Afghan democracy that would be a model for the Islamic world, where women's rights were protected.
After inviting the world to observe how the superpower succeeds in taking down a tyranny and creating a democracy, we will have failed, and we will be perceived by the whole world to have failed.
While there was no vital U.S. interest in Afghanistan before we went in, we have invested so much blood, money and prestige that withdrawal now—which would entail a Taliban takeover of Kabul and the Pashtun south and east—would be a strategic debacle unprecedented since the fall of Saigon.
But what if Obama approves McChrystal's request and puts another 20,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops into the war?
Certainly, that would stave off any defeat. But what is the assurance it would bring enduring victory closer? The Taliban have matched us escalation for escalation and are now militarily stronger than at any time since the Northern Alliance, with U.S. air support, ran them out of Kabul.
About the political consequences of escalation, there is no doubt.
Obama would divide his party and country. His support would steadily sink as the roll call of U.S. dead and wounded inexorably rose. He would watch as the NATO allies moved toward the exit and America was left alone to fight alongside the Afghans in a seemingly endless war.
Consider. If there were no Americans in Afghanistan today, and the Taliban were on the verge of victory, how many of us would demand the dispatch of 68,000 troops to fight to prevent it? Few, if any, one imagines.
What that answer suggests is that the principal reason for fighting on is not that Afghanistan is vital, but that we cannot accept the American defeat and humiliation that withdrawal would mean.
Thus Obama's dilemma: Accept a longer, bloodier war with little hope of ultimate victory, a decision that could cost him his presidency. Or order a U.S. withdrawal and accept defeat, a decision that could cost him his presidency.
In such situations, presidents often decide not to decide.
Harry Truman could not decide in Korea. LBJ could not decide in Vietnam. Both lost their presidencies. Ike and Nixon came in, cut U.S. losses and got out. The country rewarded both with second terms.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
The only thing President Obama has to lose if he withdraws American troops from Afghanistan is a loss of support from Bill Kristol, David Frum, Michael Ledeen, John McCain, McCain's Sancho Panza Lindsey Graham, and a few dozen others. Which is very little to lose. President Obama should do the right thing and get out. He'll probably win re-election by doing so.
"The only thing President Obama has to lose if he withdraws American troops from Afghanistan..."
As Pat noted, he's already billed this war as important and necessary etc. So what he has to lose is credibility, I suppose. But anyone who would keep American soldiers in harms way for purely political reasons is a scoundrel of the lowest order.
Although being a scoundrel of the lowest order is a prerequisite for winning the White House, so who knows.
Central to Obama's persona is his self-absorption and desire for adulation combined with an intense dislike for Western Civilization. Think of his early support for the operation in Afghanistan as a tactic in portraying himself as a bi-partisan world leader. But as Afghanistan becomes a negative, unwinnable proposition, Obama will shuffle off to a self-preservation mode. He thirsts for re-election and Afghanistan's importance certainly pales in comparison to Barack Obama's needs.
Good points all around. Here are some numbers that explain the world's perception of our intervention in Afghanistan: http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/theslant/blog/2009/09/the_afghanistan_war_how_do_we.html
Let's always remember that it does little good to tear down Obama unless we have something worthwhile to offer as an alternative. All the hate thrown at Clinton resulted in nothing except Little Bush. So it will always be until the Republican party is destroyed and replaced with a party genuinely representing the American working and middle classes.
"All the hate thrown at Clinton resulted in nothing except Little Bush. So it will always be until the Republican party is destroyed and replaced with a party genuinely representing the American working and middle classes."
I agree Dr. Wilson, the current news is just another prelude to the republican slogan of "bringing back honesty and dignity to the Oval Office," again and again as in Bush I, Bob Dole, Bush II, McCain III, etc, etc. "So it will always be until the Republican party is destroyed and replaced with a party genuinely representing the American working and middle classes."
Dr. Wilson, keep up your commentary on the true nature of the two political parties - that the GOP is NOT and has NEVER been a conservative political party, and that the Democratic Party was the conservative American political party for the first century of its existence, and that it is the GOP, not the Democrats, who should be every decent American citizen's target for destruction and elimination from the political scene. When I first read those musings of yours on this website, I did some research beyond what the mainstream media and political establishment would like me to do, and found that, as always, you are right. As you have said, these things cannot be repeated enough until they sink in. If only my small-minded family could realize these things.
Granted that Democrats could be seen as Conservatives in the first century of the Republic, but this is not the case at least since Wilson. Republicans are terrible, Democrats are terrible and then what? This is why a pronouncement of this type is nothing more than a self serving platitude. YOu can rant and rave like some of the Paleo authors do about how things should be or how they are, but there is nothing more that needs to be explained any further. What is needed is serious and determined political activism by Conservatives to recapture the only party that is winnable at this time by them. Third party will never make it, just like Ross Perot did not or Theodore Roosevelt could not. There more centraly IS a basic difference between the parties right now. The Democrat party has been taken over by it's extreme wing, who are Marxists and revolutionaires. The Republican party has not been takeno ver by the Communists. Yes, there is the ongoing grudge with Neocons supposed sometime Trockyites, but it is not the same thing, they do not control the party. If we say that it is the same thing, then what? Such argument has no purpose other than keeping Obama in power.
Obama will follow the path of least resistance and staY in Afghanistan. However, the war has been run poorly and the anti-war arguments are correct.
Commentary on the two parties reminds one of the late (and great) Sam Francis whose formulation holds that we are ruled by one party of governance, consisting of the "Evil Party and the Stupid Party." (I once mentioned to Sam that I use this splendid formulation often, never even dropping a footnote to acknowledge its provenance!)
I don't quite agree with that assessment. I would call them the Evil Party and the Party Currently Occupied by Evil, with the Republicans being the former and the Democrats being the latter. As Dr. Wilson has reminded us, the GOP was CREATED as a party and organization devoted to big businesses, banks, and corporations and the usage of American resources, land, labor, and taxpayer dollars to subsidize and empower big businesses, banks, and corporations. There was never any purpose of the GOP. It was started and created for an evil purpose.
The Democratic Party on the other hand is merely currently occupied by wicked forces. As Max von Sydow showed us in The Exorcist, a good and decent being which is occupied by an evil demon can be freed from its evil demon occupier. The occupying demon must be forcefully expunged.
To correct the second-to-last sentence of the first paragraph of my previous post, there was never any OTHER purpose of the GOP.
"The only thing President Obama has to lose if he withdraws American troops from Afghanistan is a loss of support from Bill Kristol, David Frum, Michael Ledeen, John McCain, McCain’s Sancho Panza Lindsey Graham, and a few dozen others."
You have forgotten to mention that Obama stands to lose tens of millions of dollars in payoffs after he leaves office, if he withdraws US troops. He also stands to lose his own fevered dreams of power and self adoration.
Politcians are, mostly, greedy, narcissistic sociopaths. Obama displays all those characteristics and doesn't even try to conceal them in his public persona.
"I don’t quite agree with that assessment. I would call them the Evil Party and the Party Currently Occupied by Evil, with the Republicans being the former and the Democrats being the latter"
The way I picture Sam Francis' observation about the evil and stupid parties was that the evil party is the one in power, and the stupid party is the "loyal opposition". The titles change according to the status of the parties.
On the eve of 9/11 the Democratic Congress signals that it will no longer support the war against terrorism. The stakes are higher than whether or not we allow Afghanistan to revert to Taliban rule. By our presence we are also preventing Osama bin Laden and his ilk from toppling Pakistan and gaining access to nuclear weapons. That's something to think about, Nancy Pelosi.
Mr. Rafferty, our own intelligence agencies say that Bin Laden is most likely long dead. There is simply no way to effectively wage a "war on terrorism". Obama's insistence on ordering drone strikes in Pakistan is much more likely to put Pakistan's nuclear armory into play than anything the Taliban might be able to accomplish in the absence of our military.
You seem to have missed the obvious fact that the democrats became the war party once the republicans moved into minority status. Pelosi is as much in favor of more senseless war as any of your GOP heroes.
Also, Afghanistan has already reverted to Taliban rule. Maybe you should look for some new sources of information.
"The Democratic Party...is merely currently occupied by wicked forces..." "Currently"? Shall we say since 1912, or to cut Wilson some slack, 1917? One would be hard pressed to identify a time when this party since Wilson has ever been without the demon. Yes, there were some folk, largely from the South, who held the party evil in check for some years, but that was a kind of rear guard action, sustained by Federal government largesse to the region. In commenting in this way, one should not be considered a partisan of the Stupid Party. It's only to point to the greater evil.
I do not think any of the basic good elements of the Democratic Party exist today. The occupation became the party and they are no more capable of fielding a decent candidate than their opposition.
Well let me see,as Pat so clearly points out,we have a choice between a bloody unending war we can't win,or Obongo pulling out prematurely before climax.Hmmmm.Since his self-adoring image of himself can't stand that it will make him look like a "quitter" as the republitards will brand him,then i guess we'll be there for awhile longer.As Dr.Wilson noted,first we had Clinton,(bad),then little Shrub(worse),and now the republic has Obama(the worst).We are involved in two declared wars and one undeclared war in Pakistan.Our Economy is a Shambles,the national debt incomprehensible,and people have less faith in the government and congress then ever.Even worse,as Pat pointed out in an earlier article,we can't even agree on anything anymore as a collective society,thus undermining any national cohesiveness we should have as we fight these wars.
The last "Superpower" that fought in Afturdistan,was the Soviet Union,who,(like us)with all their military might and prowess could not triumph over a rag-tag collection of tribal leaders and assorted gooms armed with Stinger missiles and an unbreakable will to triumph over "the infidel".It wasn't long after their withdrawl,which they tried to paint as a "victory" that that Empire collapsed.I think the American Empire is fixing to head down the same road.Which in my opinion is going to be a good thing.Thus the wars there will speed up the process of Balkanization here.The only people i feel sorry for are the soldiers and airmen who come home maimed mentally, and/or physically from an Unnecessary,Unwinnable war.