Comments on: Polk: Let America be America, and Depart Afghanistan

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:35:38 +0000

Even if Polk is wrong (and I think overall that he's right), the USA does not have the money to continue occupying Afghanistan.

By: economist

economist — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:03:12 +0000

Mr Polk's analysis is totally irrelivant to Washington as it's game is to have a compliant government in Afghanistan and to install more military bases there for the purposes of: 1) continuing surrounding Russia and China with US military bases, 2) control the natural gas pipeline from the "stans" to a US client and 3) continue to surround Iran with US military bases (Iran being an non-copliant country since it kicked the US out in 1979 when it overthrew the Shaw and nationalized oil – a huge no no in the halls of Washington)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:07:20 +0000

I really appreciate all the time and effort Mr. Polk obviously invested in this article, I learned a lot from it. Nonetheless, as many of you pointed out it will not be on the 6 o'clock news any time soon.

Ironically a suggestion from talk radio host Randi Rhodes the other day made a lot of sense to me.

To wit:President Obama should demanded Congress actually present him a formal Declaration of War, (plus a war budget and reinstate the draft).

I suspect she is right, the congress critters who are now so eager to spill blood in yet another unwinnable "war," will run away like cockroaches exposed to light.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:34:10 +0000

.
I don't see what the post by Richard at 6:11 AM adds to the conversation.
.

By: pabelmont

pabelmont — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:50:12 +0000

This wonderful article recommends something American pols (and tycoons) seem incapable of doing -- learning something about the REALITY behind the GAME they are playing.

Loya jirga instead of imposed puppet seems so sensible when it is explained.

What the USA is doing is not like "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" but more like "insisting on finishing the poker game before agreeing to look out for icebergs".

Americans in power prefer their games.

By: Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:25:29 +0000

This is the best piece I've read on the issue.

By any rational theory of national interest--geopolitical, economic, resource-based, a war to make over Afghanistan in something approaching our image is goofy. Worse than goofy, actually.

The Pushtuns still follow the Pushtunwala. Even if the Taliban take over, which they might not, things will come into balance. 40,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and we lost, but now Americans take bike trips there.

By: MonsieurGonzo

MonsieurGonzo — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:30:59 +0000

Obama had a brief window right after he was elected to end the US occupation of Afghanistan, when everyone was distracted by Iraq and the economic meltdown. That moment passed, he declared Afghanistan "the front line in the war on terrorism," probably thinking to himeself, "everybody believes this is the 'good war', so this will allow me to withdraw the occupation forces from the 'bad war' in Iraq," which he began to do. Unfortunately, Generals Petraeus and McChrystal took advantage of this faux pas and began to escalate Afghanistan. The president then found that by his own rhetoric and the Generals' opportunism he had painted himself into a political corner. Suddenly Afghanistan, which was nothing, (e.g., there are no al Qaeda, strategic interests, etc., there) is perceived to be something ~ something Over There "worth fighting for," (but no one can say, exactly, what that prize might be, what 'victory' would look like, or what anything remotely resembling an 'exit strategy' would consist of). It's obvious (to everyone, including imho the Republicans) that the proper policy is to end the military occupation of Afghanistan. But policy is not politics. Mr. Obama, himself has characterized Afghanistan as a "War," and his political opponents (and his Generals) and all those erstaz "nationalists" in the media echo chamber (the rabble-rousing political pundits on angry-radio and fear-TV) say the same thing: Afghanistan is a War. You can't "win" or "lose" an occupation, (you either choose to do it, or you don't). But in most peoples' minds, you either "win" or "lose" a War. What this means is that Mr. Obama cannot choose to withdraw US occupation forces from Afghanistan: he can only choose to remain there, "an occupying force," engaged in this self-referential conundrum = a fight against insurgents = anti-occupation forces, or he can choose "to lose the War" in Afghanistan. There is NO EXIT, n'est-ce pas?

Maybe, maybe Mr. Obama will do something (to end this madness) which is so clearly sensible policy but also obvious political suicide during his second-term. Meanwhile, we're talking another what, ~2,000 KIA plus ~20,000 WIA NATO-American casualties, and three more years of combat (if we can call random IED's and sniper attacks "combat"). All this by design of the Generals and vested interests who espouse that the best thing to do is to escalate the number of military forces in Afghanistan and place them in an entirely defensive posture (!) And so imho the Americans will continue this hideous policy = the expenditure of blood and treasure for a meaningless endeavour Over There, all for the sake of politics, Over Here.

By: William deB. Mills

William deB. Mills — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:19:37 +0000

I too thank Mr. Polk for his thoughtful contribution to the kind of serious debate we need to have.

Anonymous found the article "too brainiac" for policy-makers in Washington. Having spent my career in Washington, I am afraid he has a point. It is of course also a bit too long for the average concerned citizen. So, here's the opposite extreme: a very concise starting point...

All the endless debate over tactics is nothing but a sandcastle unless it stands on a foundation of correct principles and priorities. The choice between the goals of a well governed Afghan society on the one hand and some combination of establishing Central Asian military bases for the empire, guarding pipeline routes, or defeating an insurgency on the other is a choice that matters. All the above goals may be defensible, but where to put the focus matters profoundly.

Three core underlying principles should define Washington’s starting point:

· Local Control: Muslim socio-political reform should be managed first by locals and second by neighboring non-Western societies;

· Civil Society First: The method should always give precedence to civil society reform with military action firmly subordinated;

· Afghan Independence: The goal should not be incorporation into the American system but the establishment of an independent society.

To begin the arduous process of implementing these principles, make the following two steps top priority:

1. Washington announces that it will vacate any region of Afghanistan that is either -
* peaceful and drug-free or
* guarded by an international force, preferably from Muslim societies
2. the international force will have two duties -
* preventing the use of force to resolve conflict
* eliminating illegal narcotics, with emphasis on destruction of the refinement business.

Let those who disagree make their case…but at this level. Before the U.S. can sensibly consider issues related to military tactics or which Afghan politician to support, it needs to determine why it is in Afghanistan and what would constitute an acceptable exit strategy.