Afghanistan and Iraq Trade Places

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Sept. 2, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                                             

             Fourteen members of the U.S. military lost their lives in Afghanistan between Aug. 29-30, attesting to the up-tick in violence since President Barack Obama decided to escalate the war.  Since taking office Jan. 20, 2009, Obama has added more than 50,000 troops, making good on at least one campaign promise to end the Iraq War.  While the Iraq War served as a pivotal campaign issue, attesting to the collective frustration with his predecessor President George W. Bush, Barack has shifted the killing field to Afghanistan.  Whether admitted to or not, both countries are equally corrupt and incapable of delivering the democracy or stability sought by the U.S. Neither country had anything to do with Sept. 11, though Bush, and now Obama, insist there’s a connection between the two.  Whether or not the Taliban government in 2001 shielded Osama bin Laden, they had nothing to do with Sept. 11.

            Today’s Afghanistan bears little resemblance to the one after Sept. 11 where the Taliban’s now exiled leader Mullah Mohammed Omar harbored the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.  Having fled Afghanistan in Dec. 2001, the renegade 53-year-old Saudi-born Bin Laden lurks somewhere in the ungoverned lands inside Pakistan.  His forces and affiliate groups sponsor terrorist acts on virtually every continent, attesting to a shifting command-and-control that has long since left Afghanistan.  Today’s newly minted U.S. Afghan commander Gen. David Petraeus says he has a plan for victory but doesn’t specify what winning looks like.  Much of Afghan’s civilian population, including its current Prime Minister Hamid Karazai, has deep family and personal ties to the former Taliban regime.  Like in Iraq, Afghanistan no longer enjoys popular U.S. support.

            Watching growing numbers of U.S. troops massacred in Afghanistan assumes Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy, the same one he used in Iraq, will work in Afghanistan.  Unlike in Iraq, Karzai has strong ties through his brother, Ahmed Wali, to the opium trade and historical roots to the Taliban in southern Afghanistan, the so-called Kandahar region where most casualties are taking place.  With Karazi’s close ties to the Taliban, it’s difficult to say whether Karzai continues to tip off the Taliban with respect to U.S. troop movements.  Having lost a national election July 30, 2009, Karzai has been accused to rigging the results.  White House officials can’t reconcile Afghan corruption with a failed leader that can’t accept the legitimate results of an international monitored election.  U.S. troops now die to defend a corrupt puppet regime with ties to the opium trade and Taliban.

             Escalating the Afghanistan War has cost Obama votes, especially among independents and crossover Republicans.  Obama took votes away in the ’08 presidential election for his opposition to both wars.  “There should be a review of the strategy in the fight against terrorism, because the experience of the last eight years showed that the fight in villages of Afghanistan has been ineffective apart from causing civilian casualties,” said Karazi, attesting, if nothing else, to coddling the Taliban, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.  Karzai seeks to change the mission of going after the Taliban because of his family ties to Kandahar.  Karazi knows that the Taliban hides in the civilian population.  He also knows that there’s no defeating the Taliban because the U.S. has no real enemy to attack.  Hiding in the civilian population assures that a U.S. victory is next to impossible.

            With U.S. counterinsurgency operations shifting to Kandahar, there’s no way to know how much intelligence about U.S. troop movements Karzai gives the Taliban.  There’s growing futility among U.S. forces because it’s impossible to know the exact whereabouts of the enemy.  Placing 140,000 troupes in Afghanistan has only made the country more dangerous for U.S. forces.  Whether or not the U.S. wins, it’s difficult to reset the objectives, including clearing out terrorist nests.  Karzai recently criticized Obama’s plan to begin withdrawing troops by 2011, citing a lack of progress gaining control of the country.  Yet, at the same time, he blames the U.S. for going after the Taliban in the civilian population in the Kandahar region   Karzai can’t have it both ways:  Criticizing the U.S. for going after the Taliban in civilian centers and faulting the U.S. for planning an exit strategy.

            Today’s Afghan War raises the same doubts that once plagued Iraq:  What possible benefit is there to the U.S?  It’s difficult for Obama to make the same national security argument as Bush with a straight face, without alienating his base that saw only a downside for American troops and the U.S. economy.  Watching the death toll rise reminds voters facing the midterm elections that there’s little differences between the parties under Obama.  Afghan President Hamid Karzai must do more than criticize the U.S. for going after the Taliban in the civilian population in southern Afghanistan.  Escalating the war since taking office, Obama has only added to U.S. casualty rates without making a compelling argument.  Before the death toll rises too much and the miderm election is out of reach, Obama should reset U.S. Afghan strategy and plan to accelerate his timetable.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.