The Threat of a Horror Scenario Like Vietnam
Published in die Presse
(Austria) on 24 June 2011
by Burkhard Bischof (link to original)
(Austria) on 24 June 2011
by Burkhard Bischof (link to original)
Translated from
by Ron Argentati.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
As is almost always the case, it was the savvy but tired-of-Washington Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who is unfortunately soon to leave office, who put Obama’s decision in the right context: “There are concerns among the American people, who are tired of a decade of war. So, the president obviously has to take those matters into consideration, as well as the conditions on the ground in Afghanistan.”
America isn’t just war-weary; it’s also ailing economically, financially cash-strapped, politically split and socially anxious. Unemployment is at nine percent. People traveling to the United States these days report there are visible signs and a tangible feeling that things aren’t going well for the country. At the same time, the United States is spending $110 billion a year on its military operation in Afghanistan.
No wonder Obama is stepping on the brakes, announcing that he intends to bring 33,000 troops home from Afghanistan by the summer of 2012. There will still be 70,000 soldiers in the Hindu Kush at that point. The decision is driven by domestic and economic politics, not military policy. Obviously, if it were up to some of the decision makers in the Pentagon, troop strength would not be reduced; it would be increased. Accordingly, they’re also dissatisfied with Obama’s partial withdrawal plans.
It’s also obvious that Obama has abandoned his predecessor George W. Bush’s plan to convert Afghanistan into a democratic showpiece in Southwest Asia. In a television interview last Wednesday, Obama said, “We won't try to make Afghanistan a perfect place.”
The original reason George W. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan in the wake of the devastating terrorist attacks of 9/11 has again become the focal point of the mission, namely to prevent al-Qaida from establishing a safe haven from which it could plan and carry out further attacks while providing a training base and refuge for its activists. When Obama succeeded in eliminating Osama bin Laden at the beginning of May, pressure immediately mounted on him to gradually end the Afghanistan adventure for once and for all.
But despite the heavy losses the Americans were able to inflict on al-Qaida over the years, the Taliban is not only still present in Afghanistan, it is stronger and more dangerous than it was before the Western intervention 10 years ago. Obama’s optimistic hope now is a scenario wherein a deal can be made with the Taliban. President Hamid Karzai has already put feelers out and has been negotiating with “the warriors of god” behind the scenes.
A more likely scenario after allied troops leave will be a horror show similar to Vietnam. The NATO-trained Afghan security forces won’t be able to stand up to the Taliban onslaught. There will be a horrific bloodbath, at the end of which Karzai will end up dangling from a lamppost in Kabul just as Mohammad Najibullah did before him. Back then, in the early 1990s, nobody other than a couple of Afghanistan’s close neighbors were interested in what happened inside its borders. The result was that al-Qaida was able to build a terrorist base from which New York and Washington were eventually attacked.
Will history be repeated in the Hindu Kush? That all depends on the Afghans themselves. How war-weary are the people who will have to do everything necessary to stop the circle of violence that has enveloped their country since 1979? Nobody deserves to permanently vegetate in poverty, misery, violence and oppression. As Obama’s speech made clear, the West can’t do much more to help them. Now they have to help themselves.
America isn’t just war-weary; it’s also ailing economically, financially cash-strapped, politically split and socially anxious. Unemployment is at nine percent. People traveling to the United States these days report there are visible signs and a tangible feeling that things aren’t going well for the country. At the same time, the United States is spending $110 billion a year on its military operation in Afghanistan.
No wonder Obama is stepping on the brakes, announcing that he intends to bring 33,000 troops home from Afghanistan by the summer of 2012. There will still be 70,000 soldiers in the Hindu Kush at that point. The decision is driven by domestic and economic politics, not military policy. Obviously, if it were up to some of the decision makers in the Pentagon, troop strength would not be reduced; it would be increased. Accordingly, they’re also dissatisfied with Obama’s partial withdrawal plans.
It’s also obvious that Obama has abandoned his predecessor George W. Bush’s plan to convert Afghanistan into a democratic showpiece in Southwest Asia. In a television interview last Wednesday, Obama said, “We won't try to make Afghanistan a perfect place.”
The original reason George W. Bush sent troops into Afghanistan in the wake of the devastating terrorist attacks of 9/11 has again become the focal point of the mission, namely to prevent al-Qaida from establishing a safe haven from which it could plan and carry out further attacks while providing a training base and refuge for its activists. When Obama succeeded in eliminating Osama bin Laden at the beginning of May, pressure immediately mounted on him to gradually end the Afghanistan adventure for once and for all.
But despite the heavy losses the Americans were able to inflict on al-Qaida over the years, the Taliban is not only still present in Afghanistan, it is stronger and more dangerous than it was before the Western intervention 10 years ago. Obama’s optimistic hope now is a scenario wherein a deal can be made with the Taliban. President Hamid Karzai has already put feelers out and has been negotiating with “the warriors of god” behind the scenes.
A more likely scenario after allied troops leave will be a horror show similar to Vietnam. The NATO-trained Afghan security forces won’t be able to stand up to the Taliban onslaught. There will be a horrific bloodbath, at the end of which Karzai will end up dangling from a lamppost in Kabul just as Mohammad Najibullah did before him. Back then, in the early 1990s, nobody other than a couple of Afghanistan’s close neighbors were interested in what happened inside its borders. The result was that al-Qaida was able to build a terrorist base from which New York and Washington were eventually attacked.
Will history be repeated in the Hindu Kush? That all depends on the Afghans themselves. How war-weary are the people who will have to do everything necessary to stop the circle of violence that has enveloped their country since 1979? Nobody deserves to permanently vegetate in poverty, misery, violence and oppression. As Obama’s speech made clear, the West can’t do much more to help them. Now they have to help themselves.