Cole in Salon: Obama is Wrong on Afghanistan
My Salon column, , "Obama is saying the Wrong things about Afghanistan," , is now available online.
Excerpt:
' The governor of the North-West Frontier province, Owais Ghani, immediately spoke out against Obama, saying that the senator's remarks had the effect of undermining the new civilian government elected last February. Ghani warned that a U.S. incursion into the northwestern tribal areas would have "disastrous" consequences for the globe.
The governor underlined that a "war on terrorism" policy depended on popular support for it, and that such support was being leeched away by U.S. strikes on the Pakistan side of the border and by statements such as Obama's. A recent American attack mistakenly killed Pakistani troops who had been sent to fight the Pakistani Taliban at American insistence. The Pakistani public was furious. Ghani complained, "Candidate Obama gave these statements; I come out openly and say such statements undermine support, don't do it." '
Read the whole thing.
See also Barnett Rubin's recent essays on Afghanistan at ICGA.
And at the same site, don't miss Farideh Farhi's analysis of the Iranian negotiations with the US and Europe over its civilian nuclear research program.
posted by Juan Cole @ 7/23/2008 01:33:00 AM
|
Facebook
18 Comments:
Three things immediately come to mind when I hear Obama or any other American talk about increasing the number of soldiers as the answer.
First, the North Vietnamese general that captured Saigon made a statement after 9/11. He said, “I hope President Bush can defeat the terrorists, but if he tries to do it with the military, he will only add fuel to the fire.” I would bet that he knew what he was talking about.
Second, a couple weeks ago, the Taliban forced the U.S. troops to leave an outpost. Before the Taliban captured that outpost, they had moved into local villages and recruited enough solid support from the villagers that they were able to prepare well for their upcoming assault. How come we could not obtain that kind of support?
Third, just go check every insurgency in the world that is resilient or makes progress. Their number one favorite propaganda is to fuss and focus upon the foreigners and the clumsy and cruel things that they do. They also say that the foreigners do not and can not really protect you so you had better join us.
Well, a fourth thought---“If you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always gotten.”
Bob Spencer
I have another thought.
Before anyone tries to build institutions or police or any other western concept, I would like to suggest that they first read the research by Armando Geller and Scott Moss. They have done a deep analysis of how factions and networks operate in Afghanistan. They add valuable methodology and a political context to work done by the late George Foster, formally an anthropologist at Berkley. Prof. Geller did not know George Foster, but their valuable works support each other.
http://www.terraplexic.org/review/2008/7/5/modeling-afghan-power-structures.html
thanks,
Bob Spencer
Dear Professor Cole
I wonder if you read Con Coughlin's recent piece on the most dangerous country in the world
An ulterior motive
As he says there is some logic to the idea of going after people who actually posess nuclear weapons instead of the one who might possibly want some.
I do wonder what the effect on some of the British cities with substantial pakistani populations will be if Nato troops end up fighting their cousins.
I really appreciate your commentary on the middle east. After reading you speak with such depth about these issues it annoys the hell out of me to see "journalists" spouting talking points and ignorance.
However, I wonder: You are definitely an expert on these things. How can you get your message to the Obama campaign? Do they have someone there who thinks like you do?
I find this problem a lot in politics - there are a lot of smart people with good analysis and conclusions, but their analysis and conclusions never seem to go farther than the anonymous readers that peruse them.
Eric Margolis gives a similar analysis of the foolishness of Obama's position on military action in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
http://www.ericmargolis.com/
Interesting that Cole does not mention that Obama courageously criticized the US killing of innocent Afghani civilians last summer. Now he thinks
part of the US military failure follows from a shortage of troops and military assistance. Cole does not argue against Ahmed Rashid's position that some military force will be needed to vanquish some of the Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan who, were they to be victorious in Afghanistan, would spread terror to Kashmir (not the US and Europe as Bush claims); this should not be allowed. Of course Obama is proposing about 7000 extra troops as he draws down 140,000
combat troops from Iraq--he's not jumping into another frying pan. He is focused not on the occupation for imperial control of the oil business but on the war on terror. His proposal
is overwhelmingly focused on massive development aid which analysts are saying has to better targeted.
Also Cole forgets what he himself said. He noted that it would be impossible for an American president to say that while he had intelligence on al Qaeda camps in parts of Pakistan inaccessible to the Pakistani government, he refused to act on it. What Obama has to guarantee that he would do no more than raid such camps.
Afghanistan/Pakistan--two artificially made states where a good map is always very helpful. Along with the map, an informed update of the situation is also needed.
As with the Iraqi Holocaust, the root of the problems in both Afghanistan and Pakistan are Imperial ambitions of first the British, then Russia, and now the USA. It seems clear how the US can turn the situation around when one reads this quote:
"Listen to Mustafa Abu al-Yazeed - a senior al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan, in a very rare interview with Pakistan's Geo TV, shot in Khost, in eastern Afghanistan.
"At this stage this is our understanding - that there is no difference between the American people and the American government itself. If we see this through sharia [Islamic] law, American people and the government itself are infidels and are fighting against Islam. We have to rely on suicide attacks which are absolutely correct according to Islamic law. We have adopted this way of war because there is a huge difference between our
material resources and our enemy's, and this is the only option to attack our enemy."
"The interview is not only about defensive jihad. Yazeed delves into classic al-Qaeda strategy - inciting a cross-border Taliban jihad against the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces and blasting a state, in this case the government of Pakistan. According to him, "Sadly, it is the government of Pakistan which has most damaged our cause. President [Pervez] Musharraf violated the trust of Muslims and contributed to the destruction of the Islamic government of Afghanistan ... Musharraf and his government have made big mistakes, there is no such example in other Islamic states."
Clearly, the percieved Imperial jihad by the US government against Islam is assumed to be supported by all US citizens (it's not, of course) and forms the rationale for al-Qaeda's existence. The "mistakes" made by Musharraf are primarily aligning itself with the US. As pointed out by Dr Cole, Pakaistani-based political initiatives have reaped the most success in dealing with the reasons for the Taliban's existence, and the Taliban's existence provides the base for al-Qaeda. Thus, eliminating the political reasons for the Taliban's existence will go a long way in containing and allowing for the elimination of al-Qaeda.
But even more is needed from Obama to make any headway. Foremost, the US must exit Iraq and provide VERY visible reparations to the Iraqi people. Second, the economic war against Iran must end. Third, US military presence in ALL Islamic countries must be scaled back to no more than adivisors--the bases MUST go. Fourth, after taking the first three steps, the US must solicit the help of Islam's leaders in waging jihad against Islam's infidels--al-Qaeda. There are currently no sustained ringing indictments made by Islamic leaders against al-Qaeda that I know of that would help the political process because of the wars the US is waging against several Islamic countries--not just one tiny group of Islamic heretics. In other words, the War of Terror's Imperial goals MUST be completely dropped--indeed, publicly disowned in forcefully visible ways.
Such a set of policy steps will be met with great resistence by US Imperial planners and their political and industrial allies. But it's very clear the sledgehammer approach has failed and the financial drain is untenable. Internationally, the USA can no longer afford to be viewed--correctly--as desiring global dominance. The hardest nut to crack is the US relationship with Israel. The global community as expressed through its UN votes desires Israel to be based on its 1967 borders and justice provided to the Palestinian people, which must consist of massive economic reparations paid by their oppressors, the US and Israel.
If al-Qaeda's defeat is really wanted by the world's governments, then the fundamental factors that provide for al-Qaeda's existence must be addressed and solved. The one power on the planet that's targeted by al-Qaeda is the US Empire because it alone is responsible for the factors underlying al-Qaeda's existence and persistence. Remove those factors, and al-Qaeda will eventually, and quickly, shrivel and die.
Brilliant and courageous. I have been appalled at the extent to which Obama is making war an indefinite reality for Afghanistan and continually threatening Pakistan.
Thank you so much.
Re Obama's support for Afghan 'surge', and invasion of Pakistan tribal territories
I hope that Obama is not doing the kind of shaming-campaigning that JFK did with his 'missile gap'. '1000 missiles' opened the door to some really horrific above ground nuke test fallout, and set the stage for the Cuba invasion, whose failure bred the sending of 'advisors' to Viet Nam.
I have hope. But I'm just saying... The 'strong on defense dems' helped screw up in the 60's, before Nixon ever promised to 'end the war', or failed to do so.
Thank you Prof. Cole/Salon for casting the Afghan-Pakistan civil wars in terms of 'tribal insurgencies.' Also for keeping the opium war aspect front and center. The policy pretense that Iraq was not an insurgent civil war, and that it was not about oil, has taken a long time to even partially correct. Talk on Afghanistan suffers from the same sort of Carlin-esque distortions.
Obama, Clinton, Reid and Pelosi are all prone to slipping into 'terrorism vs freedom' talk. Fine. Paki and Afghan Pashtuns want to be free from the terrorism of foreign arms, free from hunger, free from disease and old age at 45, free from clever Urdu, Hindi and Persian elites using them as pawns in the Great Game 3.0.2.
Here is a question for IC readers:
Is the USA intentionally playing the warlord-drug game, as we did in SE Asia, and in the anti-Russian and anti-Taliban insurgencies? According to the UN, neighboring Iran has the highest opiate addiction rate of any country in the world. And it is increasingly heroin addiction, as Iran tries to stop the in-flow of bulky opium (and arms) thru draconian enforcement.
Afghanistan and its borderlands spawn are very much drug wars, with all that implies. It's not just our soldiers, with their weapons grade ups and prozac.
Extracting ourselves from the growing war in Afghanistan may turn out to be even messier than pulling our sticky fists out of the Iraq tar-baby.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/23/obama/print.html
July 23, 2008
Obama is Saying the Wrong Things About Afghanistan: He hit the right notes during his swing through Iraq, but his plans for that other war could mean trouble.
By Juan Cole
Barack Obama's Afghanistan and Iraq policies are mirror images of each other. Obama wants to send 10,000 extra U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but wants to withdraw all American soldiers and Marines from Iraq on a short timetable. In contrast to the kid gloves with which he treated the Iraqi government, Obama repeated his threat to hit at al-Qaida in neighboring Pakistan unilaterally, drawing howls of outrage from Islamabad....
[Notice, there is an important problem here. Obama has decidedly not spoken of withdrawing all American troops from Iraq but only "combat" troops. There are to be significant numbers of troops left in Iraq with combat ability beyond just being defensive.]
Obama has surely not discussed withdrawing all troops from Iraq, and we could easily be left with tens of thousands of troops there if only to protect American offensive capability should offense be found necessary. However adding to the war in Afghanistan while drawing down combat teams from Iraq is terribly regrettable.
I am responding to Matt's comment above. Obama is a smart politician who understands that the task at hand is to get elected. If he fails at that, then his thoughts are irrelevant. He also knows that foreign policy debate in the US usually comes down to some kind of penis contest. That's what he is trying to win right now. He is trying to show the country that he has as much, if not more, than John McCain. If he is successful and gets elected, then we will find out what he reallty thinks about the middle east. Like you, I'm audaciously hoping it's more than we've seen so far.
Tariq Ali - Afghanistan:Mirage of the Good War - NLR March/April 2008
http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2713
What is so important is that you are among the very very few who view war in Afghanistan as a tragedy. To wage war in a country among the very poorest of all countries is beyond toleration, though I hate war everywhere.
We need to leave Afghanistan and offer peaceful assistance, but Obama has made leaving Afghanistan impossible. So the people of the country will be further ravaged.
I have some disagreement with your analysis.
1.) Are you making the case that the Taliban is the Afghan national liberation movement of the 1990s?(Russian officers)
It seems to me it is a partial Pashtun movement mainly fueled by growing anarchy coming from the failed state of Pakistan and supplied by Wahhabi excommunicators and drug mobsters.
Obama's mild criticism of the narco-state of Pres. Karzai(I don't blame Karzai for that but it is the reality) seems rather modest for all the money the US will funnel there.
2.)Praising the glorious Pakistani democracy a la Bush isn't going to make it a glowing success. I don't praise the glorious Mexican democracy for the same reason.
It's probably corrupt top to bottom and unable to do anything for the people of Pakistan. But it is what it is. Obama is taking some lumps for riling their hot-button nationalism but it is unavoidable. Pakistani politicans used nationalism against India just as Mexican politicans use anti-US rhetoric.
A possible advantage of the democracy might be to send economic rather than military aid
to Pakistan. Today I read that the Pakistani poor are burning shade trees to make charcoal for cooking fuel.Fractured Pakistan is looking for another strongman (stronger than Musharaf). I am not advocating that but it seems a pattern.
So my advice to Obama would be, offer the Pakistanis a very large economic assistance package(to be administered fairly as possible) and help the US destroy Al Qaeda/ Taliban for good.
I think the AQ propaganda about crusaders is not working and the Afghans do not like Iraq style suicide bombers. From what I understand about the Pashtuns on both sides of the border, they
are always capable of turning in the Taliban/ AQ for the 'right' incentives.
Matt,
As you know the Establishment media are not interested in good or great minds and original, non-conformist thought.
That's because what the media does is show-biz. Shallow, narrow, loud and simple are the key words.
What the Establishment Media booking agents and human resources managers are looking for are employees and contractors who are aware of the various taboo subjects. The talent and potential media talent must tacitly acknowledge that certain opinions are off limits. Part of the employment bargain is the employees and independent, professional "guests" must agree not to say things that make a few sub-sets of the population feel angry or uncomfortable.
The Establishment Media know where to find Dr Cole and one hundred other informed, insightful and incisive commentators and analysts. In fact I think it's likely there are many Establishment Media employees who read Informed Comment regularly. But the parade of lightweights and dimwits you see, hear and read in corporate broadcasting and in the corporate press are not where they are today because of extraordinary qualifications or superior intelligence (think Chris Matthews). They're there because they've agreed to play along and confine their "reporting" to safe, corporate-approved memes, legends and superficialities.
To keep this brief, the Establishment Media know all about the genuinely talented, intelligent and informed people who are accessible primarily on the internet (unfortunately). And those same Establishment Media don't want any part of them. Internet writers often speak openly and say awkward things that wouldn't fit into the Establishment Media news-charade at all.
Jasmine--"...foreign policy debate in the US usually comes down to some kind of penis contest."
Brava!! Brava!!
Walking Wounded--The CIA has been deep into the drug trade to accentuate their funding for black ops since its inception. The work of Mike Ruppert at From The Wilderness and Gary Webb's work Dark Alliance provide irrefutable proof of this. In fact, Ruppert was able through a lawsuit to force the CIA to publicly admit (never heard it did you?!) its role in fostering the crack cocaine epidemic during Reagan's illegal Contra Wars. Remember, the Taliban was able to eradicate opium cultivation during the 1999-2001 growing seasons, and even recieved money from BushCo for doing so prior to 911. An additional aspect of the first Opium War against China was US involvement that escapes notice in all US history texts, when the US got its opium from Turkey, while the British got theirs from India. So you see the US Empire has a long and sordid history of involvement with the illicit drug trade.
In dealing with the Taliban, I wonder how many policy planners read Ahmed Rashid's book about them? Judging from US actions, few. I would posit that the Taliban are not the enemy. Rather, they are somewhat like Hezbollah in that they're an indigenous reaction to intolerable deprivation caused by external military occupiers who were able to find an external friend with monies in the Pakistani ISI, which wanted to use them for its own perverted reasons.
The enemy US citizens face here is in reality their/our own Empire, for as I explained above, without the US Empire as foe, al-Qaeda wouldn't exist. And as in Star Wars, the damage inflicted on innocents by the Empire only creates reinforcements, a la Luke Skywalker. So, there is really only one viable solution as I outlined above: Remove ALL military occupiers while providing political and economic stability, while exerting great efforts to contain and interdict drug and weapons movement through the outer border areas; and then let time take its course, which in this case means several generations. In other words, there is no quick fix, no panacea to solve this dilemma. And of course, all the other actions I mention above must take place too.
What I suggest amounts to Statesmanship, not the instant glorification most US elected Emperors seem to crave. The US Empire has created deep-seated, intractable problems with the Islamic world over the past two-plus generations that will not be solved by a few kind words and half-hearted gestures. In a Peak Oil world, we MUST have excellent relations with the Islamic world--that's where most of the remaining hydrocarbons are--so the relations we have with it tomorrow must be the polar opposite of today.
Are any Obama staffers reading this? Is Obama?
"Obama...wants to withdraw all American soldiers and Marines from Iraq on a short timetable."
Pardon me, but this is anything but an informed comment! Obama has made it clear on a number of occasions that he does not intend to withdraw all American forces from Iraq. On the contrary, his intention is to leave a "residual force" there for an indefinite time. Military analysts agree that in order to fulfill the "missions" that Obama has identified he will need to keep 50,000-75,000 troops in Iraq.
In fact, though he has repeatedly stated in sound bytes and campaign P.R. literature that he intends to withdraw "all combat troops", he has also made it clear that the "missions" he plans for the "residual force" he will leave in Iraq are a number of combat "missions".
Further, though I am not a military expert by any means, common sense tells me that as long as the United States intends to maintain any military forces at all in Iraq for any purpose, they will need to keep a combat force there to protect them.
Therefore, any pretense that Obama intends to withdraw all combat forces, let alone, all troops, is just that - a pretense.
Post a Comment
<< Home