In other news, too, perhaps more pressing than China and green tech, today we learned that Hamid Karzai, the sometimes president of Afghanistan has agreed – under great American duress, no doubt – to allow a runoff to last month’s disputed banana republic-style national election. Throughout the media hoopla, it’s hard not to feel like the US is saying to Afghanistan, if you’re going to rig elections, at least do a better job of covering it up.
The Obama administration has, it seems, strong-armed the strong-armer, which, instead of bringing glad tidings of a bright political future for Afghanistan, merely underscores the morass of nation-building we’ve waded into over there.
Sure, the media continues to refer to this tarpit of an occupation with that puzzling term “war,” which seems a little far-fetched at this juncture. In a war, there are clear enemies, a well-delineated objective, a constant series of combat operations. We’re not fighting a war in Afghanistan. This is an occupation, puntuated with occasional guerilla-style skirmishes. This is national-building, carried out in a nation that for centuries has refused to be built, least of all by imperial forces.
Any war has an objective, an endpoint in sight. What’s our objective in Afghanistan? Obama, like his weak-minded and ill-intentioned predecessor, talks continuously of “victory” and “success.” But the parameters of success have never been clearly circumscribed. We arrived at first in the wake of 9/11 to topple the Taliban and rout Al Qaeda. Over years, we achieved a measure of accomplishment and sent militants fleeing.
Now they’ve regrouped across the border in Pakistan, where the issue of armed imperialist adventuring becomes a whole lot pricklier. We can’t invade that nation, and its tenuous, enfeebled government is of two minds when it comes to helping the US. As this re-energized Taliban snaps at the haunches of the Pakistani government, launching attacks within their own borders, Pakistan’s leaders continue to be preoccupied with old Indian feuds. What’s worse, Pakistan’s nuclearized, which ups the ante darkly should that government fall to militant forces.
And yet, despite the stakes with Pakistan and the rudderless stagnation in Afghanistan, President Obama continues to consult with his military and diplomatic advisers, promising via proxies a rich resolution right around the bend.
There is easy resolution in Afghanistan. We need to quit trying to democratize a hostile, mountainous, decentralized nation-state. We need to quit playing the occupier in a futile game of atttrition.
From what I’ve read of the closed-door negotiations taking place within Obama’s inner-circle, it seems apparent they get some of this. McChrystal has asked for more troops, but when – as has often been pundited – do military strategists request less? And it’s not like he can throw up his hands and admit he’s out of options.
As far as I can tell, it’s Biden’s plan that looks the most promising. We pull back and secure the borders, maintain current troop levels, but focus on securing the major urban strongholds. Then we focus the bulk of our efforts on foiling terrorist activity throughout the region with precise surgical strikes, all of it buttressed by a strong multilateral diplomatic push, spearheaded by the president himself.
Obama needs to quit defining this effort in Bush/Cheney terms. We need to return Afghanistan to autonomy and quit trying to democratize the region, and stop propping up Karzai’s straw man narco-state.
Let’s see Obama scale down this occupation, this endless non-war. After all, he won a peace prize. Let’s see some alternatives to perpetual warfare.
