Obama’s “Good” War

The recent slaughter of Afghan civilians by a U.S. soldier might accelerate the Washington’s withdrawal plans. Without trained local troops, that could mean civil war.

In Oct. 2002, the rookie senator from Chicago, Barack Obama, explained his opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq and his support for the combat in Afghanistan. The little-known politician called the first war “dumb” and expressed support for the “fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”

Almost a decade later, the present occupant of the White House inherited two open powder kegs and in just over three years in the government, he has tried to close them. In June of last year, after the death of Osama Bin Laden, President Obama announced the withdrawal of the troops from Afghan territory by late 2014.

This is how Washington, along with other members of NATO, puts an end to more than ten years of failed military invasion of that central Asian nation. Also, the training of local forces as peace negotiators with the enemy, the Taliban guerrillas, contributes to a more dignified exit for the United States.

This is the road map that has been hit by recent scandals involving U.S. soldiers. In January of this year, a video surfaced in which soldiers in the north urinate on the bodies of Taliban killed in combat. Three weeks ago, word spread that copies of the Koran, the sacred book of Muslims, were burned by mistake in a military base in Bagram.

Some thirty Afghans died in the riots that followed that offense against Islam. But the worst came last weekend, when a U.S. Army sergeant killed 16 Afghans as they slept in their homes for no reason, including nine children. The senseless slaughter not only complicates Washington’s withdrawal plan, but also ends up helping the Taliban cause within the Afghan population. The greatest paradox is that these jihadists are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of their compatriots in terrorist attacks.

The outrage generated by the worst atrocity against civilians in more than a decade of conflict could hasten the departure of U.S. troops. Afghanistan could live up to its historical tradition of being the “graveyard of empires.” For centuries, its land has been invaded by powerful foreign armies, from Alexander the Great to the Americans, Chinese, Mongols, Persians, British, and the Soviets, in 1979. These multiple occupations have never fully subjugated the Afghans.

While 60 percent of Americans now support the decision to leave, neither local institutions nor the military are ready to ensure a minimum level of security in Afghanistan. The departure of Western forces would result in the loss of several democratic advances, such as education for girls. At the same time, it would mean more power for the Taliban, who would declare themselves victorious. And this could spark a new civil war between Pashtuns and ethnic groups in the north.

This political-military chess game unfolds in a U.S. election year. The Republican opposition will soon select the candidate who will try to recover the White House in November. Without many domestic achievements to show, and with a weak economy, President Obama wants to strengthen his legacy in foreign policy. The best way to do that is to ensure the end of the American troops’ presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. An increase in violence on one of these fronts would hurt the reelection campaign.

Although Washington has decided to withdraw, there is a difference between running away and planning an exit. The rights of an oppressed people are in the middle.