George Will: Time to get out of Afghanistan

[mhgaffney]

I had to send G Will a congratulatory email. I was surprised to read anything this sensible from a conservative.

MHG

Time to Get Out of Afghanistan

By George F. Will

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...083102912.html

"Yesterday," reads the e-mail from Allen, a Marine in Afghanistan, "I gave blood because a Marine, while out on patrol, stepped on a [mine's] pressure plate and lost both legs." Then "another Marine with a bullet wound to the head was brought in. Both Marines died this morning."

"I'm sorry about the drama," writes Allen, an enthusiastic infantryman willing to die "so that each of you may grow old." He says: "I put everything in God's hands." And: "Semper Fi!"

Allen and others of America's finest are also in Washington's hands. This city should keep faith with them by rapidly reversing the trajectory of America's involvement in Afghanistan, where, says the Dutch commander of coalition forces in a southern province, walking through the region is "like walking through the Old Testament."

U.S. strategy -- protecting the population -- is increasingly troop-intensive while Americans are increasingly impatient about "deteriorating" (says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) conditions. The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible.

The U.S. strategy is "clear, hold and build." Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.

Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country -- "control" is an elastic concept -- and " 'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime." Just 4,000 Marines are contesting control of Helmand province, which is the size of West Virginia. The New York Times reports a Helmand official saying he has only "police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for 'vacation.' " Afghanistan's $23 billion gross domestic product is the size of Boise's. Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches, not very helpfully, that development depends on security, and that security depends on development. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production for opium comes from Helmand. In what should be called Operation Sisyphus, U.S. officials are urging farmers to grow other crops. Endive, perhaps?

Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan's recent elections were called "crucial." To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against American "success," whatever that might mean. Creation of an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had one. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hopes for a "renewal of trust" of the Afghan people in the government, but the Economist describes President Hamid Karzai's government -- his vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker -- as so "inept, corrupt and predatory" that people sometimes yearn for restoration of the warlords, "who were less venal and less brutal than Mr. Karzai's lot."

Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan's "culture of poverty." But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, thinks jobs programs and local government services might entice many "accidental guerrillas" to leave the Taliban. But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment of al-Qaeda bases -- evidently there are none now -- must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?

U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000, to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen's, is squandered.

georgewill@washpost.com

[mhgaffney]

Former CIA agent Ray McGovern, now an outspoken voice in the peace movement, describes the war in Afghanistan as a re-run...

"It's the third time I've seen this movie," he says.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle23410.htm

[Rohirrim]

Ray McGovern is drinking his own bathwater. There are major differences between Vietnam, Irag and Afghanistan. Number one: The people who attacked us were actually from Afghanistan and sponsored by the Taliban government of Afghanistan. They hit us first. I know Gaff doesn't believe that, but the overwhelming majority of people who are still in contact with their reason do. Unfortunately, Bush ****ed up the mission in Afghanistan beyond all recognition specifically by taking all our best Afghanistan experts and special forces and shipping them off to Iraq right when the mission in Afghanistan was at its most crucial point. He let Bin Laden escape and he let the Taliban up off the mat and allowed them time to regroup.

We should have gone in, whacked Bin Laden, wiped out the Taliban government, turned the government over to the Afghan people, and left. We did save the Afghans from the Taliban, at least for a brief moment, but now it turns out that Karzai is not a whole lot of an improvement. We lost the chance to get Bin Laden. Now we are going to find ourselves in the same boat the all who came before have discovered: The Afghan people do not want to join rest of the world. They are tribal. They want their warlords. We had an opportunity and let it pass. So in one way, it is like Vietnam: The politicians (Bush) ****ed it up.

[gyldenlove]

Afghanistan, unlike Iraq is a hotbed for muslim fundamentalists who would love to blow up some Americans. You can't save people from themselves, Afghanistan will either revert to the Taliban or tear itself apart if the military leaves now. There is a reason that there has never been a stable national government of Afghanistan other than the Taliban, there is no national feeling in Afghanistan and the Afghan people will never be able to cooperate to run the country, they either need a gun shoved up their asses or to be split up in smaller regions.

If you give up in Afghanistan now you will be worse off than before you went in, the Taliban will take over again and they will have an easy time recruiting massive amounts of locals and pakistanis and insurgents from Iraq.

[cutthemdown]

The problem is Obama has said over and over this war needs to be won, its important, its worth fighting. If he know balks at sending more troops and instead just quits and leaves will he have any leverage in the next election when it comes to saying he is tough.

It would go over fine with the lefties, but you can't elected with just lefties.

He would have to backtrack on what his plan was if he changes course.

He would have to send more troops to listen to generals.

It's a tough choice for Obama and one I think that looms larger then healthcare overhaul.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Ray McGovern is drinking his own bathwater. There are major differences between Vietnam, Irag and Afghanistan. Number one: The people who attacked us were actually from Afghanistan and sponsored by the Taliban government of Afghanistan. They hit us first. I know Gaff doesn't believe that, but the overwhelming majority of people who are still in contact with their reason do. Unfortunately, Bush ****ed up the mission in Afghanistan beyond all recognition specifically by taking all our best Afghanistan experts and special forces and shipping them off to Iraq right when the mission in Afghanistan was at its most crucial point. He let Bin Laden escape and he let the Taliban up off the mat and allowed them time to regroup.

We should have gone in, whacked Bin Laden, wiped out the Taliban government, turned the government over to the Afghan people, and left. We did save the Afghans from the Taliban, at least for a brief moment, but now it turns out that Karzai is not a whole lot of an improvement. We lost the chance to get Bin Laden. Now we are going to find ourselves in the same boat the all who came before have discovered: The Afghan people do not want to join rest of the world. They are tribal. They want their warlords. We had an opportunity and let it pass. So in one way, it is like Vietnam: The politicians (Bush) ****ed it up.

I cant say that Bush did a good job in Iraq, untill many wasted months...and i personally did not want of troops to go in to Iraq, but once there felt like we had no choice, but to attempt to "win."

Before Obama came into the picture I have felt, sadly that we needed to pull our troops out of the Iraq (like I thought they were doing) and in Afghanistan, and Germany, and most places in the world.

If one believes we are on the brink of finiancial ruin, like I do, then even military expenses need to be cut back. Everything should be cut back in terms of spending, so $ will be there to help returning vets, and those with disabilities who need the systems of support that government can provide (when family/churces are not in a position to do so.)