I Hate Cats

Why The Obama Doctrine In Afghanistan Won't Work

THIS IS AN INTERESTING PIECE. I think if you read it carefully it clearly shows the conflicting ideas toward a solution within the administration.

excerpts from America.gov
OBAMA

In his December 1 remarks outlining the new strategy, President Obama said the United States “will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens” and assured the Afghan people that the United States has “no interest in occupying your country.”

Hillary Clinton

Speaking before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee December 3, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told U.S. lawmakers that the Obama administration understands that some who are fighting international and Afghan government forces “do not do so out of ideology, theology or conviction, but, frankly, due to coercion and money.”

She said the United States believes that the average Taliban fighter “receives two to three times the monthly salary [of] the average Afghan soldier or police officer.”

Among much of the Afghan population, “there is no appetite for the return of the Taliban whatsoever,” she said, adding that many within the Taliban do not share the overall goal of the core group. The Taliban have “morphed” from a homegrown Afghan nationalistic and Islamist group that rose up in response to the Soviet invasion and chaos under the country’s warlord era into a group that now espouses establishment of a united caliphate across the Muslim world, she said.“A lot of the people who have been conscripted, in effect, into service on behalf of the Taliban have no real allegiance,” the secretary said.

However, many Afghans increasingly have been wavering between supporting the government and supporting the Taliban insurgency. “People are understandably nervous,” Clinton said, over what the outcome of the fighting will be and which side they and their family should be supporting.

Defense Secretary Gates

According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Afghans fear that choosing the wrong side could lead to their getting killed. “They are waiting to see where the momentum is shifting,” he told the lawmakers at the committee hearing.

“Frankly, it’s this shift of momentum that we think is important, and that is a fundamental purpose behind this surge of troops to push that Taliban back.” Part of the goal is to create a more secure environment “in which these people … [can] decide which way they want to go,” he said.

The 30,000 additional U.S. forces President Obama is sending to Afghanistan will deploy in the first part of 2010 and will be targeting the insurgency, securing key population centers and training Afghan security forces.
Gates said the president’s strategic concept “aims to reverse the Taliban’s momentum and reduce its strength while providing the time and space necessary for the Afghans to develop enough security and governance capacity to stabilize their own country.“The essence of our civil-military plan is to clear, hold, build and transfer,” he said.

The defense secretary said the concept of reintegrating Taliban fighters is focused on the foot soldiers who, under better circumstances, would prefer to return to their homes.“We think that there is some significant percentage of these foot soldiers who actually are doing this for pay, or who have been intimidated into doing it,” he said.

Part of the president’s strategy also calls for an increase in civilian assistance programs. Gates said providing more people with economic opportunities, including in agriculture, would allow the soldiers better alternative ways of earning a salary.But the security component of the president’s plan is “absolutely central” to the effort, he said, because of “too many stories of people who have wanted to quit the Taliban, who not only themselves have been killed, but all of their family have been killed.”

Gates said that along with reintegrating some Taliban fighters, there is also the concept of reconciliation with Taliban leaders “to get these guys to think differently about the future” and “bring them over” from violent resistance. However, “until the momentum shifts against the Taliban, the likelihood of significant reconciliation in those terms is not very bright,” he said.

end of excerpt



My Opinion......

Obama is in a dreamworld. The taliban will not give up their affinity for violence. It's part of who they are. Nor will they respect the rights of human dignity. Toward women, toward children, toward education, or any form of a democracy outside of their commitment to a radical form of Islamic heirarchy amony the elders. The few "Taliban" that may "change sides" and give up the struggle, will either return to their ranks or be killed once the US "re-integrates" the Taliban" back into Afghan society.

Hillary Clinton seems to be saying on one hand that all it will take is a little money to co-erce some taliban fighters into giving up their ways. Great. Welfare for the taliban. Classic Clinton. She goes on to say that most of the Afghanis have no appetite to see the return of the Taliban. This statement flies in the face of Obama's desire to see the Taliban re-integrated back into positions of power in the Afghan Government. She also said the Afghanis are nervous since they are unsure which side they should be supporting. That's understandable given the history of what has transpired in Afghanistan over the last 30 years and is underlined by the obvious conflicts and disagreement over Afghanistan's future within the administration itself today.

Gates is walking a tightrope. His comments not only have to placate Obama and Hillary, who, from what I can see are diametrically opposed., he has to somehow give the Generals some semblence of what they need to pursue a defined mission successfully. He has a tough, tough, job. The military, as we know, has been very public about what they require and just recently have settled fon a compromise agreement to at least move forward. However it is clear to anyone with eyes and ears that the compromise left the military wanting. Gate's seems to try and agree with both Hiillary and Obama while adding his own assesment for a "solution". However, at least to me, it seems that none of them are on the same page.

Gate's remark “The essence of our civil-military plan is to clear, hold, build and transfer,” is a mouthfull. It sounds like the blueprint for Iraq after the "Awakening: and "The Surge". It also sounds like nation building. Build and Transfer? In reality if we don't simply obliterate the region and walk away, Gates is correct on that point. However, that's going to take a heck of alot longer than 18 months and the dems have an election coming up in 2012. The commitment for that plan is sure to fade. Also, so much for Obama's assurance of not occupying Afghanistan. Unfortunatley, Gates is also under the impression that the Taliban can successfully be reintegrated into Afghan society. For me, that's like putting cancer cells back in a patient that has just gone through Chemo.

In short, what I think we have here is a failure to communicate. I think it's an ill thought plan destined for failure. I believe that if by some miracle the plan even shows a glimmer of hope, the whole thing explodes with the fall of Pakistan to the internal struggles they are waging, a conflict with Iran, which can be sparked in any number of ways, nuclear concerns certainly being one as has been reported. Iraq falling back into turmoil, which it's beginning to show signs of doing, or, the under reported story of the build up of Hizbollah and the stockpile of new, more deadly weapons being positioned in Southern Lebanon. To call the situation there tense would be an understatement. Israel is geting close to pulling the trigger this time around and all it will take is a few Iranian supplied Hizbollah fired missiles for Israel to not only respond in Lebanon but to take out the Iranian Nuke sights. Netanyahu is not at all content with the Obama Administration's position with Israel  and won't think twice about unilateral military action against Iran. Then, we have a real mess, but I suppose, that's almost inevitable.

30,000 more troops? 18 months? Good Luck with that. I have a feeling Obama's Peace Prize after all is said and done will carry less weight than a third place bowling trophy.



In my opinion.