In the wake of the 'Quran Burning' riots, and the recent shootings allegedly involving an American soldier, many politicians have begun to question America's involvement in Afghanistan. Unfortunately for the brave service members and civilians who have been asked to sacrifice so much for the Afghanistan war, President Obama's strategy was doomed to failure before he was ever even in office. Because then-Sen. Obama chose to use the Afghan war to vilify the Iraq war, President Obama guaranteed that the Afghanistan war was going to be viewed as his own failure.
Prior to ascending to the presidency, Obama's primary contribution to the foreign policy discussion - other than a speech to a crowd of adoring Europeans in Germany - was his public opposition to the Iraq war. However, it is difficult to run for president during war if you are a pacifist. While the Iraq war was unpopular, few questioned in the wake of the 9/11 attacks whether or not the United States was going to act in Afghanistan. By arguing that Afghanistan was actually the 'righteous' war, candidate Obama could make the case that he was not actually a pacifist, but only opposed President Bush's use of force in Iraq.
Unfortunately, arguing that Afghanistan was a vital U.S. interest, contrasted with the distraction in Iraq, forced President Obama to commit heavily to Afghanistan. But Afghanistan was actually always the harder war to fight. When President Obama took office, Iraq was winding down a low grade civil war, and had largely sorted out the ethnic integration in Baghdad. There is no guarantee that Iraq will not collapse into civil war again, but at the time there was enough of a lull in fighting that the U.S. could credibly withdraw without the perception it was leaving under duress.
Receive email alerts
Furthermore, Iraq was always a more solvable problem than Afghanistan for demographic and historical reasons. Compared to Afghanistan's multifarious ethnic and religious groups, Iraq is quite cohesive, with only three major ethnic groups and two languages. While Iraq experienced four years of war from 2003 to 2007, and although Saddam Hussein's regime was vicious, war-torn and bloody, Iraq was a stable paradise compared to the thirty years of near anarchy and constant warfare Afghanistan has seen since the Soviet invasion.
Indeed, this problem should have been evident early on in the administration. It was striking when Obama – who, as a candidate, emphasized the importance of Afghanistan - ordered a reassessment after a year of waiting for a new policy. Whether or not the president realized then how intractable a problem he had gotten himself into or not, we cannot tell. However, it should have been obvious at that point the attainable aims were limited.
Unfortunately, President Obama had tied his own hands. If he reduced troops and Afghanistan collapsed he would have abandoned a vital interest in its hour of need. Either the administration convinced itself that another increase in troops - without a major change in strategy, it should be noted - would succeed where previous increases failed, or they decided to put on a good show for the folks at home, and sent less than what the military wanted, but more than was present in country at the time.
Now President Obama and the United States are confronted with a dilemma. Things have not improved, and if anything more troops have increased the probability of missteps. It is possible that we could strike deals with warlords, the Taliban and even drug dealers to get the killing to stop long enough to leave a sense of order, but not without abandoning values like women's education, democratic process and freedom of religion. We no longer seem to have the stomach to pay in blood for those values for the Afghans. Therefore, we are left with an unpalatable choice: stabilize Afghanistan by cooperating and compromising with unsavory groups, or continue in attempting to establish a liberal democracy in an unstable country.
The administration should take heart though, because the inevitable perception of a lost war is not all bad. While it does not bode well for his re-election prospects, knowing that no matter what happens the outcome will be the same, President Obama should be freed up to now act in however may be the best interest of the country.
It is not immediately obvious, in spite of the president's claims, that a stable Afghanistan is vital to American security, but it is certainly preferable to an unstable one. The United States should secure its interests in Afghanistan as best as possible, as we face our inevitable departure. It may be impossible to secure the image of a victory but it is not impossible to secure our national interests.
David Benson, an associate editor at RealClearWorld, is also a PhD candidate at the University of Chicago and a research fellow at the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism. Benson served six and a half years in the U.S. Army, including a tour of Iraq in 2006, followed by a year and a half as an intelligence analyst and instructor for the Joint-IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) in the Department of Defense.
(AP Photo)
Read Full Article »