How to get out of Afghanistan
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
-
During the early, heady days of the Obama administration, when fear stalked the land and Wall Street execs had to change their Calvins hourly, Rahm and the boys had a saying. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
That was a great idea. Use a crisis to make positive change. They haven’t followed their own advice on Wall Street and the health care issue is still up for grabs, but the idea is sound. Change is hard in normal times, crises make it easier. It’s much simpler to build anew when you’re knee deep in rubble.
We are knee deep in Afghanistan already. In the next few weeks Obama will decide whether or not we wade in up to our necks. But we’ve been in that country for eight years and there’s no end in sight. The only thing that can save us from more of the same, and worse, is a crisis.
A crisis is brewing in Afghanistan. Actually, crises are always brewing in Afghanistan, but the one coming now is threatening to boil over, melt the kettle and blow up the stove.
That crisis is the Afghani presidential election runoff and the crisis of legitimacy that is sure to follow. Hamid Karzai will win, but it will be a messy, nasty business with messy, nasty consequences. Those events will precipitate a crisis that provides an opportunity, a fleeting opportunity, to get America out of that country. If we’re smart enough to take it.
The first thing we need is a reality check. What are our objectives in Afghanistan? What do we want for that torn patchwork quilt forever trying, and failing, to become a healthy nation? What’s our goal there, freedom and democracy? Well, people in heaven want orgies. We need to dial down the expectations.
Maybe we just want to build up the Afghan state until it’s ready to stand on its own two feet. But Afghanistan doesn’t have two feet, it has dozens. If it is to stand at all, it will be on the feet of clans, warlords, druglords, local despots, religious authorities and assorted tribesmen who have precious little in common, save this: they don’t respond well to outside force. Nor inside force, for that matter, which is why they’re always fighting.
That fight is going to get a lot hotter in the days and months ahead, after the runoff. There will be hurt feelings and wounded pride and a severely diminished belief in the ballot box’s power to make things right.
Obama will have a chance to make good use of that crisis. When Afghanistan devolves into chaos, on top of the already occurring civil war, Obama can begin to make the case that it’s beyond our power, any power, to heal that nation—not even with 500,000 boots on the ground, much less the 40,000 that General McChrystal wants.
We needn’t “cut and run,” nor will we. All Obama needs to do is “set down markers.” He can give the Afghan government some time to get their act together. He can save face by getting into a holding pattern, keep the already augmented troops in country for a while and “await events.” He can even add a few, saying it’s a down payment on our commitment to Afghanistan, the rest to be provided when conditions on the ground, in theater, allow. And when those conditions never arise, which they won’t, Obama can announce that it’s time to “change the mission” and begin to withdraw our troops.
What should our mission in Afghanistan be? To keep our real enemies there from taking over and to keep al Qaeda on the run. We can do that with special-ops and commando raids and Predator strikes on terror camps or anyplace else fanatics are holed up, dreaming of a second 9/11. Just like we’re doing in Pakistan.
With our army mostly gone, and hearts and minds, always out of reach anyway, no longer our core mission, our job will be much easier. Our footprint will be smaller, collateral damage can be minimized, and when it inevitably happens, regrettable though it is, it won’t hurt our troops engaged in pacification. Because they won’t be there. Pacification won’t be our mission. Defense will. And the people we’ll be defending is us.
Never let a good crisis go to waste. If we don’t want to be stuck in Afghanistan for longer than the American people, or the Afghani people, can tolerate, we have to follow that advice right now. The coming crisis will give us a precious chance to get out. It is too good to waste.
Comment by Richard on 23 October 2009:
Snark: Afghanistan is about keeping it from being a sanctuary for al Qaeda, Taliban or successor groups dangerous to the U. S. and allies.It is not about bringing a pre-modern, tribal society into the 21st century. It is absurd to even assume it is a nation. It is not.
The only issue is if the U. S. nd our few remaining allies can keep it out of the hands of terrorists.
Classically Americans and hence its government do not see the threat and so we will declare a “win” and abandon yet another chapter in favor of ease and instant gratification.
Comment by proletarian on 29 October 2009:
Snark my friend, I’ve been MIA for a while. A much needed sabbatical you know. Somewhat disposed, or reposed, depends on one’s view. The inane ramblings of others, on occasion, tires and causes one to take pause, therefore, I haven’t been on the scene as of much lately.
I must say, however, you seem to have become more pragmatic, more commiserate to the right. I commend you. I enjoyed your article, although not spot on, it was, nonetheless, concise and contained a focused point of view.
Let me say, being the opinionated fellow I am, we cannot win in Afghanistan. There’s nothing to win and it is nothing more than an “Obama war”. Not unlike Bush’s war in Iraq. It is a country assembled of tribes, warlords, drug dealers, et al. Is it worth fighting for? Not really. At least in Iraq we freed a people that wanted to be freed. In Afghanistan, they don’t want freedom. The people like the way it is. They like the tribal control, domination, and want for nothing than a society that takes care of them. There’s no infrastructure, no GDP, no government, and nothing else that even closely resembles a civilized society. We need to step back and let them progress on their own for the next hundred years and then try to inject culture into their existence.
Obama insists it’s for vengence, the perpetrators of 911 you know. But in reality, it’s about ideology. It’s about spreading America’s views. No, elitist views of the oligarchy that controls America and most of the free world. It’s a feeble attempt to protray and enforce, in Afghanistan,the Middle East and through out the world, the ideology that people like Soros, Rothchild, Morgan, Rockefeller, etc., want others to fall for. I know, I know, conspiracist’s theory. Right? Take a look at it. I mean a real, hard look. Why does our administration, governments of other G-20 countries, condemn, excoritate and chastise countries like Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, et al? Could it be that they aren’t beholden to the World Bank or the IMF? Could it be that wars cost money and money is a major contributor in the control of others? I don’t condone the violation of human rights these countries commit, but I also don’t condone the interference and interloping agenda we, as a country, go acquiescently into the night to support.
Comment by Snark Twain on 30 October 2009:
Prole, good to hear from you again. Thanks for your kind words about this piece. I feel I must quibble with your assertion that I’ve become “commiserate” to the right. Not that I mind the inference, or that I even disagree with the assertion, I have no allergy to conservative thoughts and positions, and hold many myself.
But my mind simply doesn’t work that way. I think what I think and write what I write, edit it down and maybe toss in a joke or two for entertainment value, then send it off. Only then, after the fact, do I even notice whether the piece is conservative or liberal, right or left or somewhere in between. In fact, I usually DON’T notice; people notice for me and then tell me about it.
It is no secret that my views tend towards the left, and that, in general, I’m a big fan of Obama, who I believe is doing a good job under near-impossible conditions. But I don’t reflexively defend him or the Democrats or liberals on every issue, that’s not my job or inclination. I defend my OWN positions, attitudes and preferences with vigor, because that IS my job. I am open to intelligent argument, such as yours, and I reserve the right to change my mind.
I sympathize with your fatigue and the need to take a break from “inane ramblings.” They are the coin of the realm online, real, original, personally-derived and adequately written posts and comments are the all-too-rare exceptions. But I’m delighted to have you back.
In response to the substance of your post, I wish you were right about Iraq being “a people that wanted to be freed.” But I think Iraq is similar to Afghanistan, only less fractured. Three “tribes” are fighting for dominance there, Shia, Sunni, Kurd. They have a much better chance of making something work than the Rubic’s Cube of Afghanistan, because three is easier than thirty, but I don’t think freedom has much to do with it.
As for your point about ideology, I basically agree. Ideology is important but it’s a lousy reason to fight a war. A nation’s ideology will triumph if it’s right, if it works better than another ideology, it spreads best by word of mouth, not at the mouth of a carbine. Ideology succeeds by example, by reputation–which is why people who are enraged by our president’s unearned Nobel and overall good reputation in a world where he has yet to accomplish much, miss the point. Changing the atmospherics is a huge accomplishment, reclaiming the moral high ground from thugs and thieves posing as national champions and religious leaders is an important step to de-legitimizing them, marginalizing them, and ultimately destroying them. And that part of the fight doesn’t cost us a drop of American blood.
And lastly, in response to your IMF comments, and the similar but less thoughtful “empire” thesis posed by others here. Come on. I mean, do you really think our major goal is to corner the heroin market, open a couple hundred Chevron stations, and help Archer Daniels Midland sell lots of camel feed? If this war is about making defense contractors rich, couldn’t we find a nice easy country to conquer where the local currency isn’t yak dung?
Comment by proletarian on 1 November 2009:
Mr. Snark, I fear you have mistaken me for one of the other bowsies who responded to your post. I am not intimating that the fight in Afghanistan is empire building, I’m only stating it’s not an honorable, or even justified war. Obama and his cohorts would like us to believe that it is, but in all actually, it’s more inglorious than Bush’s war was in Iraq.
Iraqis have, and had previously, an infrastructure. They have a GDP, culture, economy, social structure, etc., unlike Afghanistan. Yes, there is a social, economic and geopolitical struggle going on between the Shia, Sunni and Kurds, but there is a vast contrast between the “Rubic’s Cube of Afghanistan” and the more cultured and social Iraqis.
The Iraqi people lived in bondage, suppression and fear under the onerous yoke of a ruthless dictator, all the while seeking and praying for redemption. Afghanis want not for such salvation. They are mired down in a morass that is inconceivable to them. They have never had anything other than slavery at the hands of tribal warlords and know nothing else.
And yes, ideology is a lousy reason to fight a war, but at the hands of a government that is ran by dominating world corporations, what else would you expect? I’ve written several articles on how to lead by example and that appears to be exactly what you espouse. Unfortunately, with our current state of affairs and the manner in which our inscrutable government is taking us, there may be no turning back the hands of time.
I had held out for hope in view of Obama’s election, even if I didn’t vote for him myself. I almost bought into his rhetoric along with the throngs, but it is readily perspicuous that his actions belie his words.
Let me solidify my point with the IMF and World Bank, organizations that are ran by the hands of a few. Wars are fought economically, e.g., the dominating invasion of Iraq, Germany’s conquering of Europe, even as far back as the Byzantine and Mesopotamian Empire controlling of all the known world. That is why world governments, just like ours, push others to war — control and conquer, the spreading of ideology. It’s not about serving Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, et al, it’s about control and domination by the plutocrats.
Afghanistan is but a pawn in the world’s chess game, used as an example and served as a notice. Russia used them, we used them, who’s next? Iran? Maybe, but they’ll use them as a psychological ploy to garner support, they’re good at that.
Nonetheless, it was never my intention that we are in Afghanistan to support the likes of ADM, Chevron and the plethora of other vassals that serve the hierarchy. But that we are there to make a statement to the world. To put those who are in the know on notice that world domination is well at hand. Pushing ideology is but the tool.
Comment by Snark Twain on 1 November 2009:
Ah, Prole, I would NEVER equate you with the bowsies, not even if I knew what a bowsy was. I was just doing some “conflating” to keep my response time down to a professionally-justifiable minimum.
But I bet you already knew that, from the way I phrased my comments. It’s a simple matter of politeness. Kind of like when you brought a friend home when you were a kid, and he broke something, but your mom yelled at YOU.
And even when I cannot agree, I always find your thoughts thoughtful and civil. You are a pleasure to disagree with, my old friend.
Now, to be a bit more specific than I’d like. Mr Woods. Let me get this straight. We created the “monster” al Qaeda so we could get more money, guns, oil and gold? Because, like, they provided an excuse to go to war? With the Saudi’s sitting on their enormous, overweight asses and those asses sitting on half the oil in the world, wouldn’t have they have been a “softer target?” The House of Saud may not have any weapons of mass destruction, but I think we could work up a good rational to invade. That ridiculous black beard dye they use is a crime against humanity. Do you think that’s enough reason?
And as for us being like the Nazis invading Poland; I wish! The Nazis were smart enough to make Stalin do half of the job before they stole it back from him. We’re mucking around Afghanistan with only a measly few so-called allies to help. It hardly seems worth the trouble, guns, oil, gold, opium, and all the sand you can eat, notwithstanding.
Seriously though, Mr. Woods. If you read my piece you’ll see I basically agree with you. We should get out of Afghanistan as soon as we geo-politically can. I just find your reasons rather dire, your claims somewhat fantastic, and your call for a new form of government of “function and skill” based on “facts” downright terrifying. Whose facts, what functions, whose skill? Yours? Proles? Mine?
Comment by Jonathon Woods on 1 November 2009:
The word “bowsie” is rooted in Ireland, it’s a street slang term, it means scum bag. That’s a good one… Thanks Pro.
“Now, to be a bit more specific than I’d like. Mr Woods. Let me get this straight. We created the “monster” al Qaeda so we could get more money, guns, oil and gold”
No, that’s not what I said, I said “oil, drugs, guns and gold = huge PROFITS, what other incentive is there?” And I use the word “monster” to refer to any perceived enemy of the US. We create real enemies and fictional enemies, enemies that we use to justifiy our invasions, what we have in Afghanistan is a huge Poppy empire within reach of oil rich regions, it’s a strategic location and that is what is appealing to many multinational corporations.
Your point about the IMF and World Bank is interesting Pro, and there might be something to your idea.
“and your call for a new form of government of “function and skill” based on “facts””
Governments will change when they no longer serve the people. And I’ll let you decide for yourself what that means.
Thanks for allowing me to comment on your well written article.
Comment by proletarian on 2 November 2009:
Mr. Woods, the derivation of “bowsie” is indeed Irish, but it’s not street slang, it’s informal or colloquial, which ever you like. Street slang would be the language of gangs, thugs, etc., like in the movie “Blade Runner” or “Rebel Without a Cause.” And the correct definition is a low class or unruly person, I would never refer to someone as a scum-bag. Not even Barack Obama or George W. Bush.
I do like your analysis of Saudi Arabia however, you do appear to be spot on. What do you do for a living? I went to a private dinner in October of 2008 where the Vice President of Internal Affairs from Great Britian and Australia spoke informally, or on the “down-low”. Now that’s a slang term. They covered exactly what you’re referring to, and you are correct, it is not something that is common knowledge to the general populace. Evidence Mr. Green’s response. Some people just don’t get it.
And to you Mr. Green, let me try to explain this in simple terms. Do you play chess? The analogy would be as if the world was a big chess match and the pawns on the board are countries like Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, Venezeula, Pakistan, et al. The pieces rank in value, importance and strength, therefore, bishops and knights would be Germany, France, Russia and China. And that leaves good ol’ America, of course she’s the queen. But let’s not forget, the game is being played by someone else, not the pieces. Sometimes even the queen gets captured, or is sacrificed at best. But when one sacrafices their queen they must assuredly be certain of victory, there is no second chance, vanquished is the loser.
America is in the throes of the world’s chess game, to the victors go the spoils. We are at war with the world and sacrificing our economic future all for the gains of the masters, the puppeteers that jerk the strings. They are not after money or wealth, hell, they have more money than God already. They’re after power, control and world domination. They would like nothing more than to return to Feudalism where we, the vassals, pay homage to them, the Lords. Do not fool yourself my friend, do not be conned into believing America is in control of herself. That time has passed long ago.
Now for my response to you my friend, Mr. Snark. You are always so kind to me. Wouldn’t the world be a safer, more honorable and harmonious place if all could discourse in such a manner? All I can say to you, my fair comrade, is keep on writing. Keep on elucidating and edifying us with your wisdom and insight, it’s something that gives us pause and thought.
Comment by Harold Green on 2 November 2009:
And how do we choose to difine the low-class bowsie? I know of many monetarily poor artists, farmers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, teachers, and the like who have more class in their little finger than many of the unethical rich bankers, lawyers, and merchants that I know.
I know of a group of low class politicians who couldn’t hold a candle to the class of people who produce all that we require in this world.
Do I play chess? Yes, I play chess and understand your point, but I also understand where Jonathon is coming from, as well, this is interesting. I am currently reading a book called the “Classical Greeks” by Michael Grant And I’m reading about Hippocrates, a contemporary of Socrates, anyway I will quote from the book and see for yourself how this may apply to our perceptions of power whether real or imagined.
“Health depends on the balanced ‘equal rights’ of opposites in contrast to the ‘monarchia, or ‘tyranny’ of disease.
If I’m not mistaken, I think Jonathon is referring us to the principals of Alcmaeon of Croton, who advocated a government of skill and function based on science in balance with natures laws… Nice Jonathon, you are obviously educated in the classics.
Please tell me more about yourself.
Comment by admin on 2 November 2009:
To Whoms it may concern: Scouler Management here: Recently a site was set up at technocracy.superblogs.com for those who are adherents of a proposed form of political organization run by scientists using free energy reserves as currency. Previous adherents of that form of government have been excluded from this site due to relentless advocacy of their beliefs which first reached unacceptable and repetitive assertions that were described by one as an incomprehensible one trick pony. Additionally most of us fallible citizens of the world, scientists or not, are unable to understand the nirvana like assertions, government guarantees and other principles of technocracy. That plus numerous unsatisfactory onsite and especially back channel discussions with adherents which become abusive, accompanied with sharp anger and name calling has caused management to conclude that the topic deserves it’s own site technocracy.superblogs.com and will not be a major/continuing topic which interferes with the stuff of hypocrisy.com. So sorry. We all hope that we do not need to exclude others for similar reasons.
Comment by admin on 3 November 2009:
Forgiven Jonathan. Yes, too bad about that odious golden rule for those of us who have no gold and remain in denial. If you want, please make one post today about your technocracy right here in these comments and I will repost it under your name and appropriate discussions may follow for a short while. Then register at the top of technocracy.superblogs.com and explain and debate endlessly your chosen solution. This tread has spread far and wide so I will close comments here when I get around to it and encourage all to immediately continue any unfinished thoughts on other posts and comments. Scouler Management out.