Trump Wants a New Afghan Surge. That’s a Terrible Idea.

[homersapien 11,428]

I'll admit, I've been back and forth about the virtue of "nation building".  A few years ago, I started reading Andrew Bacevich who makes a compelling case about the overreach of American power and capability when projected to other parts of the world that are so alien to our tradition.

This is another powerful argument by a different author, Douglas Wissing, a correspondant:

Trump Wants a New Afghan Surge. That’s a Terrible Idea.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/06/trump-wants-a-new-afghan-surge-thats-a-terrible-idea-215107

 

 

Someone needs to tell the president: The war in Afghanistan cannot be won.

By DOUGLAS WISSING 

May 06, 2017

 

[AUUSN 823]

Great article.

Unless we are willing to take on Russia influence and the Haqqani Network in Pakistan, this will be a never ending war.

From the article:

And the insurgents are patient. Taliban commanders have long told their fighters, “The Americans have the watches, but we have the time.”

I have been told this numerous times during my time in the middle East.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

What's interesting to me about this article; is the title and the content of the article are at odds.  A quote from the article states:

The Trump administration has yet to formulate a strategy for Afghanistan.

If the Trump administration has yet to formulate a strategy, its a leap in logic to assume that the administration wants a new surge  in Afghanistan.  So, the whole article is based on an assumption, as many emotional pieces are in these days of journalism.  When the author chose several times to use the F-bomb in the article, this tells me he is going for the emotional angle and has an agenda he is championing.

The author also misses the point that the escalation is against "terrorism" and not against Afghanistan per se.  It is interesting to note that Afghan is a theocracy along with Iran, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and a couple of others.  It's been well established, by several administration, these governments have been deemed "sponsors of terrorism" and Trump has vowed to fight terrorism as a campaign promise.  

Interestingly, the Vatican is also a theocracy, however it does not support terrorism (some here may disagree with this).

The article mentions: After the well-documented “nation-building” failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, counterinsurgency is now a discredited doctrine.  It appears that Iraq is on the verge of successful "nation-building".  Mosul should be liberated from ISIS in the very near future and is a nation that has been removed from the proposed travel ban in recent weeks.  Remember, ISIS took control after US removed troops from Iraq and there was a vacuum of power in which ISIS took advantage.  An important fact is that Iraq has accomplished this by using their own troops with strategic help from the coalition.

The difference in these governments is Afghanistan is a theocracy and Iraq is not.  The difference between the theocracy of Iran and Afghanistan is Iran can be controlled through sactions, as it is a richer nation.  Afghanistan, not so much.  If we pull our troops from Afghanistan and ISIS or the Taliban become stronger; does any act of aggression toward them for acts of terrorism constitute an act of war (similar to post 9/11)?  Then we will be right back in there with a stronger foe.  I don't know the answer to this or if we should stay in Afghanistan.

As AUUSN mentioned, they can wait us out.  This has been the trend the US has demonstrated since the WWII starting with the Korean War.  JMO, I could be wrong.

[homersapien 11,428]

8 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

What's interesting to me about this article; is the title and the content of the article are at odds.  A quote from the article states:

The Trump administration has yet to formulate a strategy for Afghanistan.

If the Trump administration has yet to formulate a strategy, its a leap in logic to assume that the administration wants a new surge  in Afghanistan.  So, the whole article is based on an assumption, as many emotional pieces are in these days of journalism.  When the author chose several times to use the F-bomb in the article, this tells me he is going for the emotional angle and has an agenda he is championing.

The author also misses the point that the escalation is against "terrorism" and not against Afghanistan per se.  It is interesting to note that Afghan is a theocracy along with Iran, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and a couple of others.  It's been well established, by several administration, these governments have been deemed "sponsors of terrorism" and Trump has vowed to fight terrorism as a campaign promise.  

Interestingly, the Vatican is also a theocracy, however it does not support terrorism (some here may disagree with this).

The article mentions: After the well-documented “nation-building” failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, counterinsurgency is now a discredited doctrine.  It appears that Iraq is on the verge of successful "nation-building".  Mosul should be liberated from ISIS in the very near future and is a nation that has been removed from the proposed travel ban in recent weeks.  Remember, ISIS took control after US removed troops from Iraq and there was a vacuum of power in which ISIS took advantage.  An important fact is that Iraq has accomplished this by using their own troops with strategic help from the coalition.

The difference in these governments is Afghanistan is a theocracy and Iraq is not.  The difference between the theocracy of Iran and Afghanistan is Iran can be controlled through sactions, as it is a richer nation.  Afghanistan, not so much.  If we pull our troops from Afghanistan and ISIS or the Taliban become stronger; does any act of aggression toward them for acts of terrorism constitute an act of war (similar to post 9/11)?  Then we will be right back in there with a stronger foe.  I don't know the answer to this or if we should stay in Afghanistan.

As AUUSN mentioned, they can wait us out.  This has been the trend the US has demonstrated since the WWII starting with the Korean War.  JMO, I could be wrong.

You make a good point about the title.  If he has a reason to believe that, he sure didn't share it.  It seems a little presumptious without evidence.  

But even so,  the article itself was non-partisan and could just as easily been written - and probably would have been - had Clinton won the election. I felt it was a purely analytical non-partisan opinion, which is why I compared it to Bacevich, who comes across the same way.  

In other words, it's much more about American hubris than it is party politics.

But without spending extensive time there, his position is one most Americans find difficult to accept.   The proposition that we let a country be taken over and ruled by religious extremists is hard to swallow.  It just seems like a defeat and a huge step backard.

But I think the ultimate point of these opinion pieces is that we cannot force it. I has to come from within. We have the power to conquer from a military standpoing but we have very little power to effect change.

Surely Afghanistan has a better future or destiny, but apparently, it will take generations.  My heart aches for young people being born there, especially the girls.  I hope there is something we can continue doing that will help them.  They are the only hope for change.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

@homersapien, I agree in that change has to come within the religion itself.  Most Islam detractors have fled to the west to try to affect a change, woman's rights maybe a catalyst for change, but like you said it will take generations.  Their culture is so different than ours with regard to freedom of religion.