Adrian Hamilton: We must get out of Afghanistan
Obama's rethink is one of the best things that has happened since he gained office
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
If you're in a hole stop digging. Denis Healey's admonition to politicians has been so often quoted that it's become almost a cliché. But it's nonetheless true for all that. And nowhere is it more so than in Afghanistan.
The successive delays in the announcement of President Obama's much vaunted statement of US policy towards the Afghan venture has been treated as yet another example of the fumbling that has become something of a feature of the new administration, in foreign policy as much as home economics. It shouldn't be. Obama's reconsideration of his approach to Afghanistan, together with his policy towards Pakistan, is one of the best things that has happened since he gained office.
Obama came in committed to ramping up the US military effort there as the counterbalance to his determination to get the US troops out of Iraq. Afghanistan was the one area of policy where the new President was prepared to follow his predecessor. How far Obama genuinely believed this vision of a battle-to-the-death may be doubted. Since then he's steadily retreated from that stance on taking office and listening to the advice of his new Special Envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke, as well as the urgings of the generals and the hesitations of the State Department.
The turn-around in the White House approach has been truly astonishing. Where once the talk had been all about a General Petraeus-dictated surge that would see expanded US forces seize the strategic high ground, now all the talk is of the need to rebalance programmes from the military to civil assistance. In place of the accusations of sloth and even cowardice among America's allies, now the talk is less of demanding more troops from Europe than more help with policing, transport and energy.
Instead of talking of the battle in Afghanistan, Holbrooke has returned from his first trip announcing that the US now recognised that the situation in that country could not be divorced from the deteriorating conditions in next door Pakistan. Where initially the Taliban had been rolled up with al-Qa'ida in a ball called the "enemy", in the last few weeks there has been open discussion of negotiating with so-called "moderate" Taliban.
Most astonishing of all, President Obama, having declared "no, the US is not winning the war", has even been brave enough to speak out the dreaded "e" word, saying that the US had to consider an exit strategy among its objectives.
What accounts for this change of tack by the US administration – and has certainly caused Richard Holbrooke to tell some harsh truths in the Oval office after his recent visit – is the gradual dawning of the realisation in the White House that Afghanistan is a real mess and quite possibly one that has no solution as far as the West is concerned.
It's easy for General Petraeus and his supporters in Washington to talk of the Iraqi example and to argue that, with one more push, the war can be won. But Afghanistan isn't Iraq. There the US was eventually able to use the Shia-Sunni divides and the growing unpopularity of al-Qa'ida's civilian atrocities to split the Sunni tribal leaders from the foreign terror groups, persuade them to join the fight on the US side and to convince the Shia radicals that a cease-fire was in their interests. The government of Prime Minister al-Maliki proved, somewhat unexpectedly, to have more guts and power than they'd given it credit it for.
In Afghanistan, in contrast, the US forces did not win a clear victory. Rather they, and in particular the air force, enabled the Northern Alliance to march into the Taliban-controlled cities as conquerors, and for the war lords to claim local control as their reward. President Karzai has never been more than a figurehead. That was the reason he was accepted by all parties in the first place.
The geography of the country obviates central control and favours the guerrilla fighter. The presence of a foreign "occupying" force makes it an easy challenge for the unemployed youth. The conjunction of an anti-drugs policy intended to root out poppy growing with a military exercise aimed at wiping out insurgents has fatally sullied both aims. Add to that a porous border which allows the rebels to rearm, regroup and run away and you have all the classic conditions of a war that is basically unwinnable.
Talk to most British military and they know this. Speak to ministers and politicians in this country and they are in total denial. Speak now to officials and experts in Washington, in contrast, and the truth is at last being debated out loud. The difficulty is how to get out of the quagmire.
Almost everything that the allies are doing is making things worse. The more you talk of beefing up Nato, the more it appears as a Western, white force intent on suppressing an indigenous population and the worse the division within what was once the world's greatest military alliance open up. The more you use drones and air strikes to hit across the border, the greater the local resentment. Try to put backbone into Karzai by insisting that he appoint a strong Prime Minister of your choice – as Washington is now – and you simply unbalance further the confused politics of a fractioned country. Put pressure on the Pakistan government to take control of its tribal areas and you only tag the new president there with the sobriquet of the lapdog of overweening America.
Ultimately there is no future in Afghanistan other than the exit door, any more than there is a chance for the politics of Pakistan or Afghanistan to develop other than through a Western declaration of non-interference. Whether US politics would accept such a step at the moment is doubtful. Listen to Holbrooke and you hear all the old empty talk of forcing the government of Kabul and Islamabad to exercise more central control and calling the Taliban "outriders for al-Qa'ida" as if they were one and the same thing (which they aren't).
All one can say as the world awaits the US President's Afghan plan, before the meeting of interested parties called by Mrs Clinton in the Hague on Monday and the Nato summit in a fortnight's time, is that Obama seems ready to stop digging. And that, at least, is a start.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
What about the Afghan population that still says they don't want us there? Billions have been wasted in Iraq. And yet we think that we have to stay there "to gurantee safety." They safety of who? The U.S. military trained the Iraqi security forces for how many years? And then when that failed they used private contractors. And STILL it didn't work.
What's the point of staying? Maintain control of the oil. What's the point of being in Afghanistan? The CIA supported the Taliban's activities for a long time. And now suddenly they're have to be stopped.
Does Obama really want to be in anothe quagmire? Apparently that doesn't matter to him.
Where's the accountability that he keeps talking about? Go to http://globalcomedy.wordpress.com for another view on this.
Afghanistan is NOT a nation-state. It is a QUASI state. Central rule intensifies the divisions within society. It is a very heterogeneous, multi-nation space. Centralised rule does not engender accountability, it only gives a select group the right to do what they want to all the other people - in who's name they are supposed to be governing - but are in fact ruling. Karzai was set up as a King in all but name. It has encouraged cronyism, corruption on an epic scale, and the coming together of other natural criminals - drug dealers - whom the Karzi clan lead - through one of the brothers of Hamid Karzai. All of this abuse will ultimately result in a colossal explosion of people power - which will make NATO problems with the Taliban look like no real bother.
To succeed in Afghanistan - one must view it as a territory which is made up of many different regions. The north has been relatively stable and peaceful - yet it has received pittance in aid compared to the south - in which it has to all purposes been wasted. Popular local leaders - whom were doing a genuinely great job for the local population from whom they got their base of support - and thus to whom they felt accountable have been removed - ISLMAIL KHAN being removed from HERAT - is a primary example.
Since the removal of ISLAMAIL from Herat has deteriorated rapidly - with unaccountable people appointed from Kabul by Karzai taking over and doing their best to undo all the good work done by the previous administration. The West totally backed this move - with many articles in the western press - called Ismail Khan a warlord and so on - calling for his removal. such things do not go unnoticed by the people of that land. NATO is in fact digging its own grave in Afghanistan.
The different region of Afghanistan must recognized - local leadership - whom are genuinely popular in the local - not the ceremonial MPs - but the so called 'war lords', whom should really be called 'Popular Partisan Leaders' - many of whom would not exist if it were not for the local support they had - should be co-opted and given the resources to build up their local areas and bring development. For all the fears people have spinned about them - they will do a far more effective job than any ceremonial MP in a parliament which is totally ignored by King Karzai ! A few parliamentarians have resigned - saying there is no point to a parliament which is not listened to and left out of the decision making process.
The US needs to drop its 'SOUTHERN STRATEGY' in which it favours the south of the country in all decision of aid, political and military development, and that it seeks leadership for the whole territory from that southern regions.
To many people in Afghanistan - increasingly the perception is that - all of this western 'incompetence' and 'mistakes' and 'trial and error efforts' are actually deliberate policies to create more havoc in the country, and that they are not genuinely interested in a better future for the people of that land. It does not bode well for the future of the western alliance in that region.
Who do you think is getting the contracts for building Iraq and who is paying for this?
Its not the USA or its allies paying for this, its Iraq thats paying and some more to cover all the other expenses of bringing their armies over.
So dont go believing that USA and its allies have been killing the Muslims at cost to their own nations back home - its all recoverable.
The British troops are damned, the stubborness of this government knows no end and the Taliban don't do summer holidays, in fact that time of year invariably means more package deals of grief for Afghan families over there and those of the flag draped returnees here. Forget the wider implications, both here and in Pakistan - the government has.
Until Obama has the guts to dump the "Israel Firsters" who he has surrounded himself with, there will be more wars for the West and not less. Indeed, Israel has been doing its damnedest since its 9/11 attack to foment a world war between the Christian West and Islamic East: Goy against Goy for the benefit of Zionism.
Obama's biggest fear though is not another war against a Muslim country but of going the same way as the only other US president who stood up to Israel...John F Kennedy.
There is no talk of what happens to Afghans after this "exit strategy"
Why?
Because Hamilton, and likely you, simply dont give a damn about Afghans is the truth. Like millions dying in Africa or North Korea, so long as these poor people are suffering in silent bondage, who gives a f? Not "people" like Hamilton it seems.
All it will take for Afghanistan to be free is for Afghans to BELIEVE that NATO will not abandon them. The Taliban say that only they will always be there, this is their clarion call and this is what Afgans fear.
By providing, indeed promoting, the idea that NATO will leave (if only the pile of bodies the Taliban and AQ create gets big enough) you Mr Hamilton are the Talibans greatest weapon. What a disgusting position to decide to take.
NATO used to be a great military alliance when the "allies" did not have to do anything and could hide like the spotty adolescents they are under the skirts of the USA which they hate while they spenty nothing and did nothing. The second NATO "allies" do have to actually DO something, we see the "allies" for what they are. Slothful selfish cowards. If Europe had sent its monies and troops as they promised (lied) then Afghans who, over 90% in all polls, reject and fear the return of the hated Taliban, would not believe (or start to) that NATO will indeed leave and that the Taliban will revenge those that spoke or acted against them.
Still, Hamilton never talks of the wishes, desires and opinions of Afghans. He is it seems, like you dear reader, still at heart a colonialist who cares not a jot for Afghans believing their rights to be somewhat less than those he woould no doubty claim as his "right". This is a difference based on race, i.e, racism
Why not render Hamilton and the editorial sewer of the Indy to southern Helmand, THEN we can leave. (and never report these peoples future of course, problem will be solved then so we can get on with our fat lunches in our "safe European homes")
Who would ever defend an old Europeans liberty? Why? I would not. I doubt many Iraqis, Georgians, Bosnians or Rwandans would either dont you?
Afghanistan is JUST LIKE Iraq. The battle is for the belief that freedom will be defended, or not if you listen to the simpering ewmpty cant of "people" like Hamilton.
Or perhaps not.
Afghanistan is NOT a nation-state. It is a QUASI state. Central rule intensifies the divisions within society. It is a very heterogeneous, multi-nation space. Centralised rule does not engender accountability, it only gives a select group the right to do what they want to all the other people - in who's name they are supposed to be governing - but are in fact ruling. Karzai was set up as a King in all but name. It has encouraged cronyism, corruption on an epic scale, and the coming together of other natural criminals - drug dealers - whom the Karzi clan lead - through one of the brothers of Hamid Karzai. All of this abuse will ultimately result in a colossal explosion of people power - which will make NATO problems with the Taliban look like no real bother.
To succeed in Afghanistan - one must view it as a territory which is made up of many different regions. The north has been relatively stable and peaceful - yet it has received pittance in aid compared to the south - in which it has to all purposes been wasted. Popular local leaders - whom were doing a genuinely great job for the local population from whom they got their base of support - and thus to whom they felt accountable have been removed - ISLMAIL KHAN being removed from HERAT - is a primary example.
Since the removal of ISLAMAIL from Herat has deteriorated rapidly - with unaccountable people appointed from Kabul by Karzai taking over and doing their best to undo all the good work done by the previous administration. The West totally backed this move - with many articles in the western press - called Ismail Khan a warlord and so on - calling for his removal. such things do not go unnoticed by the people of that land. NATO is in fact digging its own grave in Afghanistan.
The different region of Afghanistan must recognized - local leadership - whom are genuinely popular in the local - not the ceremonial MPs - but the so called 'war lords', whom should really be called 'Popular Partisan Leaders' - many of whom would not exist if it were not for the local support they had - should be co-opted and given the resources to build up their local areas and bring development. For all the fears people have spinned about them - they will do a far more effective job than any ceremonial MP in a parliament which is totally ignored by King Karzai ! A few parliamentarians have resigned - saying there is no point to a parliament which is not listened to and left out of the decision making process.
The US needs to drop its 'SOUTHERN STRATEGY' in which it favours the south of the country inall decision of aid, political and military development, and that it seeks leadership for the whole territory from that southern regions.
Why is it that because Afghans may find it difficult to find and elect the democratic leaders they want that some think this is a reason to abandon them to takeover by the Taliban? This argument means that the more broken a society is, and thus the harder it will fnd the transition to freedom and democracy, the less it can expect any help becuase it will be harder for them to change. I think this is a vile argument, utterly wrong headed. The more broken and brutalised a people is the more there is a moral imperative to intervene and allow them to try and sort themselves out.
As for the US favouring the south, thats where the US are. Europeans are in the North. Where is the European money there then? Or is it only and always the USA who must be responsible and accountable? Is it the US's fault that Europe has promised little and delivered even less in the (safer)areas they are responsible for?
Militarily we can beat the taliban and co every time, but these all seem to be pyrrhic victories and lead us nowhere.
If Obama advocates this against Petraeus views though he will be hung out to dry by the right-wing press, politicians and commentators in America (and here). if he is ruthless enough he will demand from Petraeus a timetable and a statement of what he requires and make sure it is not left open ended. he will then give Petreaus that (30,000 troops?) perhaps even offer a reserve of another division, add an extra year to the timetable if required. And then make sure the ultimate failure is clearly seen to be the military for when he can finally get us out. Obama will have to be very ruthless and be willing to sacrifice hundreds of America's young men and women.
why do you "think" that turnover to the Taliban would mean Afghanistan " return[s] to developing a peaceful agrarian society where everyone is respected and everyone has rights."
are you under the influence of some halucinatory drug? The Afghans fear the return of the Taliban who they hate because the Taliban are brutal violent and oppressive. Shallow doesnt quite capture the true horror of your "considered views" really does it? Maybe a picture of a teacher's acid burned face would help youi have a think? http://i.abcnews.com/International/wire
USA and its allies should leave. People are being killed (inc civilians) on all side for no gain.
USA should find an alternative route for its Trans-Afghanistan Gas pipeline or sign an commercial agreement with the Taliban (like they did pre 2001).
As for your ridiculous gas pipeline story, this pipeline would go to India from the Caspian and benefit who? The US wants a pipeline from the Caspian west to Europe, not east. No pipeline will be built and if it is it will be Iranian gas that flows along it.
In fact Afghanistan does have one valuable resource that foreigners are contracted to exploit, world class copper reserves. The Chinese are contracted to produce these. Surely the yanquis were out to steal this? Or does your mind only overheat when oil-fired? Maybe thise dumb yanks "forgot" to steal the Afghan silver? What do you reckon?
Its not that I disagree with these Afghan withdrawal arguments that makes me so mad and sad, its the the pathetic unreality of them where easily checkable facts are simply ignored in preference for hysterical ignorant emotional vomit grazed from the sewer of the media. Try reading Wikipedia or even a book.
The prime movers for this invasion were the USA and UK. Karzai was the negotiator for the American Gas company Unical. Nato is a puppet organisation that allows the major powers to cause mischief around the world for self interest.
You are correct about the gas pipeline going from the Caspian to India, but you missed the part about it going through Afghanistan and Pakistan.
For your information - the Taliban (for the most part) are Afghanistani but are sunni. The northern alliance (shia) aligned themselves with the USA and its allies. So for the USA and its allies its case of divide and conquer, except for the fact that its very, very, very difficult to conquer in Afghanistan.
But pakistan is not the only neighbor to afghanistan. It's a pity that the U.S has not used its threatening stance against Iran to leverage Iran's influence to combat the taliban in afghanistan. Instead, Iran was put in the axis of evil. And, even india has a huge stake in the destruction of the taliban, as it will almost wipe out the scourge of terror from kashmir. In someway the U.S has been fighting India and Iran's battle in Afghanistan. The wise policy going forward would be to marginalise the pakistani army, woo the iranians for opening of supply routes and outsource some of the reconstruction efforts to countries like India. All this needs some serious rethinking of decades old foreign policy in the region. Retreat needn't be one of them.