I thought that Hamid Karzai's clear call for the U.S. to reduce its military presence in Afghanistan and ratchet down the level of aggressiveness of the forces that remain was unqualified good news for President Obama. Interestingly, I haven't seen much analysis in the mainstream media that suggests that this is the case. I, on the other hand, see this as a rare gift to be accepted with enthusiasm.
I think this especially so since I have long had the sense that Obama doubled down in Afghanistan with the greatest reluctance, having been boxed in by a combination of his own campaign rhetoric (a war that must be won), military leaders who are committed to playing out their counterinsurgency fantasies, and the inexorable logic of the Washington Rules. It seems to me pretty clear that Obama assumed office believing that things in Afghanistan were not nearly as bad as they turned out to be and when advised of the reality on the ground, found himself without good political or military alternatives -- hence the hesitation in choosing a policy and then adopting one that was somewhat contradictory -- escalation coupled with a July 2011 target date for drawing down those same troops, a move that seemed far more political than strategic.
Now, however, the elected leader of Afghanistan, who, whatever his legitimacy, surely has more right than David Petraeus to dictate policy in that sad country, has said in effect, enough is enough -- that the bombings and the night raids and the special ops units, and now, God forbid, the tanks, are not going to produce victory for the United States in what is, from a military perspective, a hopeless cause.
As reported in the Washington Post article on the introduction of tanks into the theatre, the cultural perceptions of this sort of thing are about as at odds as they could be:
[M]any residents near Kandahar . . . have lodged repeated complaints about the scope of the destruction with U.S. and Afghan officials. In one October operation near the city, U.S. aircraft dropped about two dozen 2,000-pound bombs.
In another recent operation in the Zhari district, U.S. soldiers fired more than a dozen mine-clearing line charges in a day. Each one creates a clear path that is 100 yards long and wide enough for a truck. Anything that is in the way - trees, crops, huts - is demolished.
"Why do you have to blow up so many of our fields and homes?" a farmer from the Arghandab district asked a top NATO general at a recent community meeting.
Although military officials are apologetic in public, they maintain privately that the tactic has a benefit beyond the elimination of insurgent bombs. By making people travel to the district governor's office to submit a claim for damaged property, "in effect, you're connecting the government to the people," the senior officer said.
I believe that this may be the new Millennium equivalent of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" and it portends no good. This kind of delusional madness -- this bizarre moral myopia -- is a sign that we are metaphorically back in Saigon circa 1963 -- and we all know how well that worked out.
Obama should take full advantage of the escape route offered by Karzai and commit to a serious pullback of troops as of the July 2011 target date. The American people will welcome his choice even if the Washington elites get the vapors.
