Writing off Afghanistan, too

Posted By Kori Schake Thursday, February 2, 2012 - 10:35 AM Share

The Obama administration is sending contradictory messages on a crucially important national security subject. At the NATO Defense Ministers' meeting in Brussels, Leon Panetta seemed to accelerate the withdrawal timeline for Afghanistan from the end of 2014 -- what NATO nations have been committed to -- to "mid-to late 2013." In Chicago, meanwhile, the President's Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes insisted there will be no change to the 2014 plan, warning that "We will need allies to remain committed to that goal." The president's Special Assistant for European Affairs Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, evidently ignorant of Panetta's statement, assured reporters that the Secretary of Defense "will be very clear about our plans to remain on the Lisbon timeline."

The evident confusion among senior policy makers in the administration prefigures the administration's cratering commitment to win the war in Afghanistan. The White House has narrowed its war aims from defeating all threats to only defeating al Qaeda. The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified to Congress this week that the deaths of senior al Qaeda leadership have brought us to a "critical transitional phase for the terrorist threat," in which the organization has a better than 50 percent probability of fragmenting and becoming incapable of mass-casualty attacks. 

The White House appears set to use progress against al Qaeda as justification for accelerating an end to the war in Afghanistan. Since the president has concluded that we aren't fighting the Taliban, just al Qaeda, no need to stick around Afghanistan until the government of that country can provide security and prevent recidivism to Taliban control. The president will declare victory for having taken from al Qaeda the ability to organize large scale attacks, and piously intone that nation building in Afghanistan is Afghanistan's responsibility.

This policy will not win the war in Afghanistan. It will not even end the war in Afghanistan. It will only end our involvement in that ongoing war. Because arbitrary timelines do not translate into having achieved the objectives that cause enemies to throw down their weapons. And it is the enemy ceasing to contest our objectives that constitutes winning. Interrogations with prisoners in Afghanistan have caused the American military to conclude that "Once ISAF is no longer a factor, Taliban consider their victory inevitable."

Secretary Panetta's public affairs folks will likely spend a few days prettying up the mess, emphasizing the secretary was referring to the transition from combat operations to advising and training Afghans. But the damage has been done. As Michael Clarke of Britain's Royal United Services Institute said, "the suspicion that America is going to pull out early will create a self-fulfilling prophecy and there will be a rush to the exit." The Obama administration created this problem by the president's own arbitrary timeline. It is hard to blame Nicolas Sarkozy for playing politics with the issue; politicization is contagious, and allies caught it from President Obama.

Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/Getty Images

EXPLORE:FLASH POINTS, MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AMERICA, AFGHANISTAN, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
 

LITTLEMANTATE

4:27 PM ET

February 2, 2012

"This policy will not win the

"This policy will not win the war in Afghanistan."

Unwinnable by would be nation-building standards, or already won per the original justification- OBL.

"It will not even end the war in Afghanistan"

That's for regional powers and the Afghans to work out.

" It will only end our involvement in that ongoing war."

If only! No doubt the US will maintain a presence there of SF or contractors. This country is like a cur with a bone, a clueless ex-lover, or a bad gambler; just can't let it go.

 

CHRIS HOYT

4:36 PM ET

February 2, 2012

Afghanistan

The war isn't winnable, all the Taliban have to do to win is survive. Pakistan needs the Taliban to survive to try to control Afghan politics once the ISAF leaves.

 

TIMING

4:55 PM ET

February 2, 2012

worst foreign policy ever...hes putting his election over FP

AMAZING...

This is all part of his and holders plan to attempt deal with gitmo....

its weak...

what did all of the pundits say about america bailing on afghanistan in the 80's?

so since were now counting; he's abandoned iraq, iran, poland, the czech republic, egypt, libya, and is desperately trying to distance himself from israel.

In short, and I could go on in detail about what a facade his whole FP is, but in short, this president is without a doubt, weakening america...which if you follow alynski and soros, its all part of his plan for "change"...

boy did he ever hoodwink the naive american public. This admin smells of a very faaaar left agenda which is praying for another 4....

drones are not a foreign policy..they are cheap points that look good. bin laden was a great thing, but its not a FP....its an intel opportunity that fell into his lap. leading from behind is not a FP.... HIS Russia RESET BUTTON was a PR focused group scam...and with russia sending arms to assad and blocking anything meaningful on iran, its clearly a failed policy. He has bungled the middle east PP so badly that peace is actually farther away....amazing the damage this man is doing.

 

DRLAKE777

5:14 PM ET

February 2, 2012

And Schake continues the

And Schake continues the dishonesty...

The implication that Obama EVER committed to defeat all foes in Afghanistan is laughable. He was always very clear that our goal was to defeat AQ and prevent their return, and has been willing to negotiate the other issues with the Taliban. Guess what? Bush was too! Only idiots (and political hacks masquerading as pundits) think we should engage in an open-ended commitment to war in Afghanistan until we defeat all our foes.

The "war in Afghanistan" as Schake apparently defines it is only winnable by purging Afghanistan of humanity. Short of that, we can't win, and shouldn't even try.

 

MARTY MARTEL

8:44 PM ET

February 2, 2012

PEACE IS COMING! PEACE IS COMING!

After ten long years of Afghan war fueled by America’s own ally Pakistan, US is ready to throw in the towel.

Obama administration is ready to conclude a Vietnam-style peace deal as dictated by Pakistan with Afghan Taliban leaders chosen by Pakistan. US will begin its drawdown and finally exit the theater of a war it is desperate not to be seen as having lost, not so much to the Taliban and Al Qaeda as to the wily Generals of Rawalpindi who have proved to be smarter than the Americans.

That facade of peace will crumble within few years after the departure of US troops and Pakistan will bring Afghanistan under its suzerainty with reimposition of Taliban rule just as it did in 1996 while tired and financially broke Uncle Sam will helplessly look the other way just as it did in 1975.

 

ALANCHRISTOPHER

11:05 PM ET

February 2, 2012

Writing Off Afghanistan

The Bush regime wrote off Afghanistan in 2002. Bush presented his "Axis of Evil" threats in the State of the Union message against Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. 14 months later, US troops entered Iraq, and Afghanistan became a soldier's version of Peter Pan's home. None of our so-called leaders ever grew up. I support the arrest, trial, and execution for treason of those in the Bush regime who were responsible for the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States in a time of war and should pay the ultimate penalty. As a Special Forces combat veteran, I remember that General Patton said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He did it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his." America does not owe its freedom to the dead; it owes its freedom to the professional killers like me. I volunteered for the US Army, for airborne training, for Special Forces, for Vietnam, and for special projects after Vietnem. Five times, I volunteered to kill people for the US. I volunteer to be the executioner of the traitors responsible for Iraq and for turning Afghanistan into a debacle.

 

PHILBEST

4:51 AM ET

February 4, 2012

Kissinger was right all along, sadly

I am deeply grateful to the US military for what it does for humanity. The world with an isolationist USA is a very dangerous place.

But I have been coming to the conclusion that Henry Kissinger was right all along. "Nation building", in some cultures, is simply a waste of blood and treasure. Some cultures are never going to have benign government, and all the western world can do is make sure that whatever brutal dictator runs countries like Afghanistan is SCARED of us and wouldn't dream of hurting us or harbouring anyone that does.

Christopher Hitchens was a rare example of a consistent left-winger, who opposed Kissingerian realism all along. That meant SUPPORTING G.W. Bush's nation building efforts, not opposing them. The Left merely shows its hypocrisy by despising both Kissinger AND George W Bush.

What made me decide Kissinger was right, was when the new democratically elected Afghan govt passed its first law - the death sentence for "apostasy from Islam". That's "nation building" worth shedding western blood for?????

Read "The True Beleivers" by V S Naipaul, to see why there will never be an Islamic modern, secular, progressive, democratic nation.

 

JOHNHUNT

1:31 AM ET

February 3, 2012

Where Have We Heard It Before?

Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election.

The Afghan war is winnable. But not if you only do a half-surge. Not if you tell your enemy that you're gonna leave regardless of how well things are going. Not unless you're willing to stay in there until the Afghan army has considerably more force than the Taliban.

Obama's desire to pull US troups out of Iraq at the height of the sectarian killing was telling. He hasn't learned the lesson that sufficient force is necessary to bring a war to a favorable conclusion. But I doubt he cares. If Obama gets re-elected, expect another Vietnam-style loss.

 

KUNINO

4:45 PM ET

February 3, 2012

Certainly there's some confusion

... and part of it evidently exists in the mind of Mr Schake, certainly where he claims that the president has a "cratering commitment to win the war in Afghanistan". As has been clearly reported for years, the Pentagon told the president its target was victory in Afghanistan. The president asked for a definition of the term. He got none that satisfied him, and it's notable today that leading military figures don't claim that military victory in Afghanistan is a viable proposition. Retired general Jack Keane offered a formulation somewhat like that on PBS Newshour Thursday evening, but had only claims of regional defeats for the Talibans in parts of Afghanistan to support it.

The Obama definition of doing well in Afghanistan has to do with ensuring that al Qaeda will never again have a haven in that nation. Any sensible, honorable assessment of the president's commitment would be based on how well or poorly things are going by that policy target. This Mr Schake doesn't attempt. Instead, he implies that the president should be hanging around in the Oval Office mute about Afghanistan until that great day when some senior guy in uniform phones to give him permission to bring the boys home. I seer that as simple foolishness.

PS The Panetta Plan seems to follow by some days what Sarkozy of France agreed with Karzai of Afghanistan some days earlier, and be very much like it. Efforts to suggest that Mr Obama is betraying his NATO pards seem meretricious. Why think those foreign nations want to leave their troops there one day longer than they have to?

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More