Dec 02 2009
Obama’s war
This is a war for the spin doctors. The President, like the Grand Old Duke of York, marches his troops into battle today, announcing at the same time he will be marching them out of a battle in eighteen months time, whatever the outcome. This is military campaign by triangulation. For the neo Cons, there is reinforcement and more war fighting. For the Democrats there is the promise of withdrawal before the next Presidential election. For the budget hawks, there is a statement that the USA has now to be careful about how much it all costs.
This is probably the beginning of the long retreat. It illustrates why it is not a good idea to lead an army – or indeed any main policy – from focus groups to an election driven timetable. The Taleban can take comfort from the knowledge that the allies are not there for the long term, making the allied armies task more difficult. Meanwhile more of our troops are put at risk, and the war fighting continues for the time being.
15 Responses to “Obama’s war”
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
So much for the element of suprise….
Good analysis.
I heard on Radion 4 this morning (6.15) that there was a 25% attrition rate in the Afghan army. If that is true – well you can draw your own conclusions.
The problem here is the there are Islamic schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan pumping out illiterate fundementalists who can only go into soldiering to make a living when they leave school. When the war is over they will simply supress the people.
It’s hive warfare – simple as that.
I’m not best qualified to pronounce on this, but it if the campaign in Afghanistan is worth the sacrifice, and when you hear reports of thousands of unchecked students from Pakistan gaining entry to the UK, it does rather seem like protecting your property at a distance of 7,000 miles, whilst leaving your front gate open….
but to announce a date to leave seems bizarre.
One of the features of this war seems to be that the Taliban melt away when it suits them and reappear when it suits them.
So what happens when the withdrawal is complete, if the government in Kabul fail to hold the circle?
You are so right.
During the 18 month surge the Taliban will simply go over to Pakistan or just blend into the local population. During this time the allies will claim that the surge has been a success and will start to withdraw in the middle of 2011.
After they have gone the Taliban will return.
What then?
Ah, we have trained the Afghan police and military to take over. They may do fine with allied support. Once they’re gone they will be no match for the Taliban and their supporters who are hardened fighters and have God on their side.
alan jutson Reply:
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
John C
Agree with your well made points.
The other thing to consider is where is Afgahnistan going to get all of the money to pay the 250,000 troops that they are supposed to have by 2011, because I do not see a lot of trade deals going on, other than in poppies.
Upon taking office, President Obama said he wanted to listen to the world, promising respect instead of arrogance and a new tone in US foreign policy. But after 1 year in office, he is now being compared to President Jimmy Carter. In his presidential campaign, he raised expectations about what he could achieve with his crafted speeches and soaring rhetoric. He is sincere, but now he needs to get some results and is perhaps trying to satisfy all sides of U.S. opinion in this war which he inherited from George Bush. It’s tougher at the top than he realised.
DominicJ Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“this war which he inherited from George Bush”
Do you mean Bush shouldnt have retaliated for 11/9?
Obama has spent his political life calling for the war in Afghanistan to be fought fully, calling Iraq a distraction from the real campaign, now he;s in power, he’s relaised its a lot harder to fight a war than an election campaign.
Defence of the Realm has a series of Posts on why the Afghanistan War is failing
The obvious solution is to leave it to the Chinese, who are planning to make the only substantial economic investment in the country (copper mining, railway, coal power station):
Perhaps they will succeed where other superpowers have failed over the centuries since Alexander the Great.
Islam4uk on the radio this morning quite explicitly said that the war against the Muslims was breeding more terrorists in UK. So much for that argument.
The USA always does this. From Mexico and the rough riders, through Vietnam to Iraq, they blunder in, have a surge, win the war, and leave. The result, of course, is a string of petty dictators – Marcos, Castro, HoChiMin, Karzai……
The problem is this: American style democrats form the majority, still, in the USA and Europe (the American strategy was brilliantly successful in 1945).
But American democrats are by no means universal.
Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, Somalis, Mexicanos, Vietnamese all come from ancient civilizations which are not in any way American.
And why, pray, should they be?
Harold Wilson saw this.
Blair walked straight into the trap.
Mark Reply:
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
The only American who really knew how to run a colony was General Douglas MacArthur. He did a first rate job with Japan.
“Karzai comes directly from the Bush camp and was put in place because of his role with Unocal in developing the Trans Afghanistan Gas Pipeline project. That remains a chief strategic goal. The Asian Development Bank has agreed finance to start construction in Spring 2011. It is of course a total coincidence that 30,000 extra US troops will arrive six months before, and that the US (as opposed to other NATO forces) deployment area corresponds with the pipeline route.”
(Craig Murray was a former UK ambassador)
It just proves that after 9/11 we should have gone into Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from supporting terrorism.Had we gone in after the Iraqi Regime with enough troops & a clear reconstruction plan then Iraq could have recovered quickly.By securing the borders and not disbanding the Iraqi Army and instead using it to subdue the insurgents you could have cemented an elected governments position.
By flooding Iraq with loads of troops and rebuilding the infrastructure you could have improved security & thus confidence.That would have paved the way for economic recovery and political development by curbing violence.At least Iraq had basic civic society & effective institutions to build on.
With Afghanistan we should have bombed Kabul & terrorist training camps right after 9/11.Then US Destroyers should have entered the Eastern Med with shed loads of jets & missiles aimed at Tehran & Damascus.That should have been a warning to those Rogue Regimes not to build WMD and not to back terrorists.Terror bases in Pakistan should have been attacked heavily from the air.
That would have neutered the Al-Qaeda threat from Pakistan & Afghanistan by driving it under-ground while stopping the Syrians & Iranians from causing mischief.Iraq could have been rebuilt into a stable,democratic and prosperous nation if some basic errors had been avoided.By putting the pressure on Iran & Syria and taking out Saddam Hussein the cause of Middle-Eastern peace would have been helped.Israel would have been more willing to talk if the terrorists had less support for attacking the Israelis.
The removal of the Baathist Junta in Iraq coupled with attacks on targets in Pakistan & Afghanistan and a direct threat to Syria & Iran would have been a wise response to 9/11.It would have curbed state sponsored terrorism by using force or the threat of force.The Iranian regime might have been more malleable if it had seen the scale of the US build-up in the Med coupled with the use of force against other targets.
The exiled King of Afghanistan could have been returned to Kabul – he could have acted as a figurehead to unite the nation.Coalition troops could have swept into the Afghan Capital and the King could have talked to warring tribal Chiefs & formed a government of national unity.The west could have kept some troops in Afghanistan near to the Iranian border for strategic purposes.We should have left the Afghans to get on with it once the Taleban had fallen as the King could have united his people a la Louis XVIII after 1815 & Charles II after 1660.Keeping a few troops there a la Germany after 1945 would have stopped the restored Monarchy falling.
To hell with 18 months time. Bring all our troops home NOW!
Would somebody please remind me what the war aim is. If it is counter terror, is not a joint military action by NATO and the Pakistan government into Pushtan territory either side the border necessary? Just suppose that the Pushtan were given a week to hand over the key terrorists or provide compelling evidence that they had departed, ……………… or else.
Or is the aim the radical one of transforming Afghan government and society, and rejecting the beliefs of the Taliban even if they lay down their arms? If so, basic rights for women should be high on the agenda. We might issue free tee-shirts emblazoned “No rumpy pumpy without education” in Urdu. To be serious, trying to impose our own values is high risk.