While everybody is awaiting President Obama’s Tuesday evening speech on Afghanistan strategy to be broadcast out of the United Military Academy at West Point, we are still awaiting some definition of what it is that we are trying to achieve there. To the best of our knowledge nobody has defined either the Iraqi, nor the Afghan war’s mission objectives – not Bush and not Obama.

At least, the president is reportedly going to address his planned exit strategy. That’s better than nothing, but are we waiting for a few more ministers of the Karzai government to be indicted for corruption, before we withdraw the troops which – at a cost of $1 million per year, per soldier – are propping up his regime?

The mission objectives should of course be the absolute first thing to be addressed and that’s why we have decided to re-post this article, originally published here on November 3, 2009.

Since the original article was posted there have been some overtures by the Karzai government to engage “moderate elements” of the Taliban, so we stand corrected on that point.

______________________________________________________________________________________

While the Obama administration ponders whether to send tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, as General Stanley McChrystal proposed and as everybody is trying to figure out what impact the Afghan run-off election, which has never taken place will have on the overall situation there, we still haven’t really figured out what it is that we are trying to achieve there.

“A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency; the insurgency in Afghanistan requires an Afghan solution,” wrote General McChrystal. In view of that probably sound assessment, why would we need an additional 40,000 U.S. troops?

Lets first of all decide what is it that we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan. Is it hunting down the remains of al-Qaida and maybe finally catching up with Osama bin-Laden? Or maybe something that sells in Washington, DC, but it doesn’t sell in Afghanistan – a stable Karzai government? Or maybe we are trying to defeat the resurgent Taliban? Or are we trying to transform the Afghan society? Are we including Pakistan in our grand plan?

Speaking of the Taliban, we haven’t heard any proposals to include this group in possible talks about forming a coalition government. No doubt that this omission is a really big mistake.

As things stand, eight years into an occupation of Afghanistan even the military are saying that we have not achieved anything, but that the situation on the ground has in fact deteriorated. What in fact appears to be the main problem is not the remains of al-Qaida, or the Taliban itself, or even the rampant corruption among the ruling clique, but rather the militarization of the Afghan conflict.

The military “solution” is obviously not working in an environment as complex as the one in Afghanistan and Pakistan for that matter.

One cannot expect the average U.S. serviceman to understand the very complicated tribal, ethnic, or language problems of the country he, or she has been shipped to.

The actual solution to the problem staring us in the eye appears to be getting the foreigners out of Afghanistan, rather than increasing their number.

When in 2001-2003 troops were truly needed in Afghanistan, they got diverted to the insane invasion and occupation of Iraq.

To make a long story short: we don’t even know what problem, or problems that we are trying to solve in Afghanistan are and we are still talking about changing our military strategy and increasing the number of troops. What are those troops supposed to do there? What do we expect from them? What is their mission? Nobody seems to have an answer to any of these questions.

Our advice to the White House team is to first come up with a mission statement, to nail down what it is that we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan and whether getting involved in that country is really in the U.S., or the world’s interest.

Throwing more troops into the Afghan quagmire, without even having a clear objective is clearly not the way to proceed.

Technorati Tags: Afghan, al-qaida, election, mission, obama, objectives, Pakistan, politics, Taliban, war

Matthew Hoh, a former Marine captain and lately a Foreign Service official in Afghanistan has decided to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he believes simply fuels the insurgency.

“I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan,” wrote Hoh. “I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.”

Hoh also wrote that many Afghans are fighting the United States largely because its troops are there – a growing military presence in villages and valleys where outsiders, including other Afghans, are not welcome and where the corrupt, U.S.-backed national government is rejected.

In 2006 Matthew Hoh was called up to active duty from the reserves to serve in Iraq. He commanded a Marine company in Anbar province. In 2008 he rejoined the Foreign Service and went to Afghanistan’s Zabul Province, on the border with Pakistan.

Soon after the August 20, 2009 presidential elections Hoh became so seriously disenchanted that he wrote: “multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, “[the insurgency] is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and NATO presence in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified.”

Although we generally agree with Matthew Hoh’s assessment of the situation and his decision, there probably isn’t much that we can add to this.

Technorati Tags: Afghan, Diplomat, Matthew Hoh, Over, Resigns, US, war

OK, we got a Nobel Peace Prize, now what?

Despite what anyone could possibly say we turned Iraq into not only a mess, but also several hundred thousand people have died in the process and we managed to spend untold billions of dollars to do it.

Will Afghanistan/Pakistan turn into a similar – this time a nuclear-armed mess?

The shadows of Vietnam are almost unmistakable: More troops, changes of strategy, changes of generals – all for naught. It looks like still another quagmire.

Maybe it is time for our fearless leaders to dig up some history books and re-learn the experiences of others and finally realize that at this stage many Afghans prefer the bloody Taliban to the corrupt Karzai regime. Yes, folks, the Taliban might be severe in their religious beliefs, in their punishment and in their treatment and attitude towards women, but for the most part they are at least honest. To be sure their religious rules and methods are no worse that those of Saudi Arabia – a country with which we have pretty close relations.

Go ahead, visit some of the smaller Afghan towns and villages and ask the people, whom they would prefer out of the two lousy choices. The answers might surprise you.

In the meantime, we wonder if our two ongoing wars will bring about songs as good as the Vietnam War did…

Technorati Tags: Afghan, iraq, Pakistan, Vietnam, wars