Staring at Political Defeat in Afghanistan

Michael Yon over on Facebook links to two must-read articles about Afghanistan. One is an analysis piece for the Associated Press, the other an article in Foreign Policy dealing with the specific inability of the British army to gain control, and the transfer of a good part of the fight to the military. Both pieces are sobering and call for a review of our effort in Afghanistan.

Michael Yon has made it clear that he doesn’t think General McChrystal’s strategy is working – that while our troops and allies are doing some good work, the basic strategy of trying to provide security first and attacking the Taliban second is not bearing fruit. Yon considers his exclusion from Afghanistan likely due to his criticism of the effort – and asserts that such actions by the authorities betray their own concerns about the success of the mission (that they are, in effect, trying to hide the truth of the matter).

I can’t render any hard and fast judgment on that though Yon has my respect for the honesty and courage of his reporting since the entire War on Terrorism began. When he says something, it must not be dismissed out of hand – there’s something to it. The distinct impression I get is that our troops – as usual – are behaving magnificently – doing all we ask of them and as much as soldiers have ever accomplished. But war isn’t just fighting – it is politics by other means, and the concern is that on the political side, we’ve set ourselves up for defeat no matter what our troops do.

My view is that the flaw stems from the fact that President Obama, in announcing the surge to Afghanistan, pledged less force than the military apparently asked for and what might prove quite fatal for the whole enterprise, he pledged to start drawing down our forces in 2011. He announced when the war would end – and thus provided the Taliban a time line for when they will be able to start advancing, again. For the Taliban, it has been a matter of just enduring until we start to leave.

For the Afghan people, the fact that we have not pledged to stay for as long as it takes puts them in a difficult position: they don’t support the Taliban, but they also know just how savage the Taliban will be with those who opposed them. As we’re not pledged to protect the Afghan people indefinitely, it becomes for them a calculation: will the Taliban be defeated before America leaves? One can only assume that events on the ground have convinced the Afghan people to, at best, sit on the fence – but fence-sitting on their part is a strategic defeat for us; a political defeat which does not appear amenable to a military fix.

It must be kept in mind that our victory in Iraq’s Anbar province was predicated upon convincing the Iraqi people that we would not leave until the job was done. The actual start of our victory somewhat predated the surge and was well under way by the time we maxed out our forces in Iraq. President Bush was convincing on this – and knowing we wouldn’t abandon them as we had in 1991, the people of Iraq decided to jump off the fence and help us route the terrorists. Obama’s decision about Afghanistan was just about the worst he could have taken – even ordering an immediate withdrawal in 2009 would not have been as bad as ordering a half-effort with the end date pre-marked on the package.

So, what do we do? The only way to retrieve the situation – with or without a command shake up, which may be necessary – is for Obama to clearly and forthrightly state that given the changed circumstances, the 2011 draw down date is suspended indefinitely and we’ll fight on in Afghanistan as long as it takes for victory. That plus a possible command change – with possible changes in tactics on the ground – would open up the prospect of getting the Afghan people enthusiastically on our side, thus allowing us the real power to defeat the Taliban for good.

It is highly questionable if Obama can do this – or would be willing to do it, supposing he felt strong enough with his base to drag them kicking and screaming in to an enhanced effort in Afghanistan. Obama is already a much diminished figure on the left – calling for longer and bloodier war is not the way to refurbish a tarnished image. But this is part of the job of being President – not always thinking of the political calculus, but of doing what is best for the nation as a whole.

Make no mistake about if, if our effort in Afghanistan ends in anything other than a semblance of pro-American government in Kabul, then disaster would follow. The terrorists would be emboldened not just in Afghanistan, but around the world. The immediate effect would be stepped up attacks around the world and in the United States – the long term effect would be an unwillingness of more moderate Moslems to work with us. No one wants to back the side which will cut and run, leaving its allies to be beheaded by victorious Islamists.

We’ll now see if Obama has the stuff in him of an American President. The stakes are high, victory or defeat hangs in the balance. The decision is entirely President Obama’s – no one can make it for him, and no one can hide the consequences of his action or inaction.