We've seen this before, and now we are seeing it again.
This time it was President Barack Obama's quick, unadvertised visit to Afghanistan to sign a partnership deal with President Hamid Karzai, and to assure U.S. troops and all Americans that "there is light on the horizon."
In other words, Obama is all but conceding defeat.
We saw it in Vietnam when then-President Richard Nixon assured that the withdrawal of American troops meant "peace with honour" -- and America's South Vietnamese allies were abandoned to the forces of Ho Chi Minh.
President Obama promises that U.S. forces will mostly be out of Afghanistan by 2014, except for those training the Afghan National Army. Already, negotiations are underway with the Taliban to "share power" while continuing to pursue al-Qaida.
The U.S. plans no permanent bases in Afghanistan.
There are several points that could be made from Obama's Afghanistan speech.
First of all, if one is intent on winning a war, or at least not guaranteeing one's own defeat, one does not give a timetable for leaving, and proclaiming that your fighting soldiers will cease fighting on such-and-such a given date.
Where, in that, is the incentive for the enemy to stop fighting?
And does one notice how Obama stresses that it's al-Qaida that is now the enemy and not the Taliban? While the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to rid the country of al-Qaida training camps, it was the Taliban who were the main enemy. And over most of the last decade, the casualties endured by American, and Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, were inflicted by the Taliban, not al-Qaida.
Again, the idea of "sharing" power with the Taliban, or even including the Taliban in some sort of regime of reconciliation, is nonsense. Of course the Taliban leaders may agree -- why not? Agreements mean little in that part f the world -- look at Syria where Bashar al-Assad assured the UN he'd halt killing Syrian citizens, and then continued killing Syrians.
The Taliban are capable of agreeing to anything that suits their interests, and then ignoring any deal, and grabbing all power. Little about the Taliban indicates willingness to share power. They want to win. Period.
It's understandable that President Obama wants the Afghan mission concluded, victory or no victory.
There have been some positive changes. A lot of money has been invested (or at least spent) in Afghanistan. But it's still a country where, if the Taliban have power, Sharia law will flourish, women will continue to be persecuted, niceties like amputations, stoning, honour killings and such will blossom.
Miscalculation has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ironically, Iraq (for which Obama blamed former President George Bush) has tamed down, while Afghanistan, which Obama adopted as "his" war, has become the disaster of the moment.
Perhaps "disaster" is too strong a word. Much of the country is pacified and has benefited from the presence of Western soldiers and aid agencies.
But positive gains are destined to fade if the Taliban again assumes power -- a reality to which President Obama (and certainly some Canadians) seem resigned after Alliance troops pull out, and leave the country to its own devices.
Alan Schroeder: The Commander-in-Chief Debate
Conrad Black: Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Saw U.S. Failure, But Not Defeat
Saad Khan: Battle Tanks for Afghanistan: Will They Do Any Good?
This archaic country will eventually become civilized. Exposure to the internet and other decadent western ideas will continue to seep in and corrupt and eventually change things for the better. People will simply want the good life. It is a force much stronger and inexorable than bullets.
*And does one notice how Obama stresses that it's al-Qaida that is now the enemy and not the Taliban?*
Well...yeah. The Taliban are a rural government in exile, not international terrorists. Al Qada are the terrorists hat used Afganistan as a base. Our job was to topple the Taliban and destroy al Qaeda. So we can't force them to pick our dictator over their choice, even at gun point... I could've tod you that outcome a decade ago, if anyone bothered to ask me.
I`m also having a ahrd time believing that Worthington is comparing Iraq to Afganistan... (did he accidently publish the first draft?) the one is a stone age tribal dust hole who`s main export is suffering. The other was quite recently (until the insane invasion of Kuwait and backlash) the shining beacon of light for seccularism and technology in the middle east.
I don`t get it and I dont get the blame Obama crowd -you might a swell blame him for not personally diving down and plugging the BP oil leak. Can`t ask the impossible of a man and it`s not right to blame him if he fails in a impossible task.
CHEAPER THAN WAGING THIS ENDLESS WAR.
TORONTO HAS SEEN IN ACTION AN EXAMPLE OFAN AFGANISTANIS COLD METHOD FOR DISPOSING OF WOMEN
Well that's one way to put it. The Snowbird Neocon way. However, the correct way to put it is that he is recognizing the reality that other empires failed to recognize until it was too late. That Afghanistan is unconquerable and ungovernable, even in the drone era. And rather than being hidebound by dogmatic stubbornness and pride he - Obama has the courage to acknowledge that Afghanistan is a lost cause and should be the focus of alternative methods of ensuring that it does not become a refuge for those who would harm the interests of the West. An alternative method that does not require the presence of a western army within Afghanistan. Which costs lives (of coalition forces and Afghanis) as well as treasure, and which produces only further resentment.
If you want to look through your myopic glasses and call that quitting - then fill your boots Peter.
bush and karzan set the withdrawl date not Obama.....
but feel free to go there and change their minds...
I think most of us would pitch in to buy you a plane ticket