President Obama on The Way Forward in Afghanistan

Obama outlines his new objectives for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in an address at West Point Military Academy last night. This includes his exit strategies for both wars, the time lines for each, as well as troop allotment in both countries in the near future.


(read the full text)
It seems the Bush administration made one final contribution to the American people and the world at large - they gave us the gift of jaded cynicism. Obama appears to be a very good person; his intentions seem genuine. Or at least he's a very persuasive speaker. Unfortunately, most of us listen to him now the same way an emancipated abduction and rape victim might listen to the defense of their former captor. But should we be so guarded?

Obama, particularly with his speech last night, illustrated beautifully the differences between his administration and the former one. He outlines smart, measurable, attainable goals and most importantly a realistic time line for each, in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq. He acknowledges what many people have come to accept - that al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan(1), he acknowledged that the Karzai government and its elections in Afghanistan have been wrought with fraud and corruption(2, 3), and he also addressed the naysayers almost haughty comparisons of the current conflicts to the Vietnam era.

Let's be clear: Obama is not perfect, and he is even perhaps a little naive*. America is by no means a truly righteous, democratic nation, but it was founded on those principles, in a revolution against many of the tyrannical policies of empire they employ today. Obama is trying to restore those principles (albeit within a corporatist, oligarchic structure) so that America can progress as a world leader of positive change. It's unfair that so many people liken him to Bush, since this mess was handed to him. It's unfair that so many people have turncoat against him, because he hasn't done more for America. Our expectations for the change we wanted to see were far too high, in much too short a time frame.

Those of us who might argue for a rapid withdrawal of troops aren't thinking rationally. The war should come to an end, but only if we leave the country well enough equipped to handle future insurgencies on its own. The re-emergence of the Taliban in Kandahar(4) is, at least in part, an effect of fighting a two-front war in the region. As he states, "when I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war."(5) If we leave now, Afghanistan will return to its pre-9/11 Taliban rule.

It also seems important to recognize the differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan.

This argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

This is not the same Cold War-era rhetoric used to justify American intervention in the Vietnamese civil war. This is not capitalist versus communist, or even particularly an imperialist endeavor. Granted, the Afghan government has since been marred with corruption, but what is best for the Afghan people and indeed for the world, is not to leave the country as a haven for pan-Islamic Jihadists and international terrorism. We must continue to put pressure on the Karzai government as well as our own, to ensure that the values we are exporting are righteous, and our motives transparent. This can and should be done in a culturally sensitive manner, while still maintaining solidarity with true democratic principles and the observation of basic human rights.

It's not about winning a war to save face; and this applies to all of the developed nations. It's about stabilizing a country, correcting past mistakes, and aspiring to re-establish ourselves as a model for human decency, democracy and positive national progression.

* It's possible that I'm the naive one. The more reflection and research I do on the position taken in this article, the more I realize the likelihood that it's wrong, and even morally reprehensible.

The situation in Afghanistan - the re-emergence of the Taliban particularly - may be an effect of fighting a war on two fronts, but it probably has more to do with the fact that a protracted war has been waging in their country for 8 years. Support for the Taliban may be due to national illiteracy, intimidation, bribery, etc, but what about national pride and self-determination? As well-intentioned as we outsiders may be, we've taken it upon ourselves to reform their country in our image, with complete disregard for that nation's right to control its own destiny.

Perhaps the proper thing to do is to set a better example in our own countries, for those civilians in Afghanistan who have had enough. For those who want democracy, but on their own terms. Perhaps instead of occupying their country, we should provide guidance through international awareness and political pressure.

First and foremost, if we're sincere in our solidarity with the civilians of Afghanistan, we need to leave their country. The Taliban may again rise to power, but what's worse? Subjugation under the Taliban rule, or subjugation under the corporatocracy? Second, we need to stop participating in terrorism and its financing (ie: the opium trade) and crack down on countries which participate in such activities (ie: Saudi Arabia) Finally, we need to recognize our own inflated ego; outside the developed countries, there are no lesser people, only countries and ideas in different stages of development. We were there too, once. And just because we have advanced past that point, doesn't give us the right to force them to catch up. A nation needs to progress and evolve on its own momentum. We saw this in the American revolution, with the Bolshevik's in Russia, the Paris Commune in the late 1800s, Simon Bolivar in his struggle to liberate Latin America, the July 26 Movement in Cuba, the rebellions in Canada in 1837, the Iranian revolution in 1979, Indian independence from British rule in 1947, Angolan independence from the Portuguese in 1975, and on and on. History has many examples - the change in Afghanistan must come from within.

__
References:

1. http://www.france24.com/en/node/4936250
2. http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/Afghaniscam.html
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/03/afghanistan-karzai-uk-us
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/13/AR2009091302950.html
5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/02/barack-obama-full-speech-text