End the War by Winning It

Barack Obama made the right decision to deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But he made the wrong one in announcing an arbitrary date for U.S. withdrawal.

BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN | DECEMBER 3, 2009

I think President Obama made the right decision to embrace a counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan and to resource it properly.  I would have much preferred that Gen. Stanley McChrystal receive the entire force he had requested.  But I have spoken with our military and civilian leaders, and I think the 30,000 additional U.S. troops that the president has called for -- plus greater force commitments from our allies -- will enable us to reverse the momentum of the insurgency and create the conditions for success in Afghanistan.  I support the president's decision, and I think it deserves the support of all Americans, both Republicans and Democrats.

What I do not support, and what concerns me greatly, is the president's decision to set an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan.  A date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies -- in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the entire region -- all of whom currently doubt whether America is committed to winning this war.  A withdrawal date only emboldens al Qaeda and the Taliban, while dispiriting our Afghan partners and making it less likely that they will risk their lives to take our side in this fight. 

Yes, our commitment to Afghanistan is not open-ended.  Yes, large numbers of U.S. combat troops will not remain there indefinitely.  And yes, this war will one day end.  But it should end when we have achieved our goals.  Success is the real exit strategy.  And when conditions on the ground have decisively begun to change for the better -- that is when our troops should start to return home with honor, not one minute longer, not one minute sooner, and certainly not on some arbitrary date in July 2011, which our enemies can exploit to weaken and intimidate our friends. 

Another concern I have has to do with the civilian side of our counterinsurgency strategy.  Greater military force is necessary to succeed in Afghanistan, but it is not sufficient.  I am confident in our military strategy and leadership, and I believe our troops can do everything that General McChrystal laid out in his assessment this summer.  I believe we can "clear" and "hold."  But I am concerned that we and our allies do not have a unified plan to "build" -- to work with and support our Afghan partners, in Kabul and beyond, as they build their own nation, their own economy, and their own free institutions. 

I'm also concerned by reports of divisions in our embassy, and by major differences between our commander and our ambassador.  We can only succeed in Afghanistan if we have a joint civil-military campaign plan-unified at every level, from top to bottom-much as Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus established in Iraq during the surge.

I have been critical of the president during the past several months, but that is now behind us.  Our focus going forward must be on winning the war in Afghanistan.  And this depends as much on the substance of our policy as the signals we send to actors in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the region.  The president was wrong to signal our intention to begin leaving Afghanistan on an arbitrary date.  But the fact is, we now have the right mission.  We now have the right leadership.  And we now have a request for sufficient resources to succeed.  So our friends can know that we will support them.  Our enemies can know that we will defeat them.  And all can know that we are committed to the long-term success of Afghanistan and Pakistan as stable states that can govern themselves, secure themselves, and sustain their own development.  Though the nature of our commitment to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and their region will change over time, our commitment to their success will endure.

We now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus in support of a vital national security priority: defeating al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- and ensuring that these countries never again serve as bases for attacks against America and our allies.  Americans need to know why winning this war is essential to our country's security.  They need to know that things in Afghanistan will get worse before they get better -- that, unfortunately, casualties will likely rise in the year to come -- but that ultimately we will succeed.

I look to the president, and to his entire administration, to lead an unfailing effort to build bipartisan support for the war in Afghanistan, both among the public and here in the Congress.  I will be an ally in this effort.  And I will to do everything in my power to ensure that we win this war -- not just end it, but win it.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

 

John McCain is the senior U.S. senator from Arizona and was the 2008 Republican nominee for president.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

SIR_MIXXALOT

4:54 PM ET

December 3, 2009

You are respectfully wrong, sir

Sorry senator, but you are wrong here, sir.

Here is what the CIA thinks:

"By now, as in so many other elements of the Global War on Terror, the U.S. has become more part of the problem than part of the solution. We are sending troops to defend troops that themselves constitute an affront to Afghan nationalism. Only expeditious American withdrawal from Afghanistan will prevent exacerbation of the problem. "

see: NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/opinion/04iht-edfuller.html?_r=1&ref=global&pagewanted=print

December 4, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Stretching Out an Ugly Struggle
By GRAHAM E. FULLER

Many decades ago as a fledgling C.I.A. officer in the field, I was naïvely convinced that if the facts were reported back to Washington correctly, everything else would take care of itself in policymaking. The first loss of innocence comes with the harsh recognition that “all politics are local” and that overseas realities bear only a partial relationship to foreign-policy formulation back home.

So in looking at President Obama’s new policy directions for Afghanistan, what goes down in Washington politics far outweighs analyses of local conditions.

I had hoped that Obama would level with the American people that the war in Afghanistan is not being won, indeed is not winnable within any practicable framework. But such an admission — however accurate — would sign the political death warrant of a president to be portrayed as having snatched defeat out of the jaws of “victory.”

The “objective” situation in Afghanistan remains a mess. Senior commanders acknowledge that we are not now winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan; indeed, we never can, and certainly not at gunpoint. Most Pashtuns will never accept a U.S. plan for Afghanistan’s future. The non-Pashtuns — Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, etc. — naturally welcome any outside support in what is a virtual civil war.

America has inadvertently ended up choosing sides in this war. U.S. forces are perceived by large numbers of Afghans as an occupying army inflicting large civilian casualties. The struggle has now metastasized into Pakistan — with even higher stakes.

Obama’s policies would seem an unsatisfying compromise among contending arguments. Thirty thousand more troops are less than called for and will not turn the tide; arguably they present more American targets for attack.

They will heighten traditional xenophobia against foreigners traipsing through Pashtun villages and homes. It is a fool’s errand to persuade the locals in Pashtun territory that the Taliban are the enemy and the U.S. is their friend. Whatever mixed feelings Pashtuns have toward the Taliban, they know the Taliban will be among them long after Washington tires with this mission.

The strategy of the Bush era envisioned Afghanistan as a vital imperial outpost in a post-Soviet dream world. That world vision is gone — except to a few Washington diehards who haven’t grasped the new emerging global architectures of power, economics, prestige and influence.

The Taliban will inevitably figure significantly in the governance of almost any future Afghanistan, like it or not. Future Taliban leaders, once rid of foreign occupation, will have little incentive to support global jihadi schemes — they never really have by choice. The Taliban inherited Osama bin Laden as a poison pill from the past when they came to power in 1996 and have learned a bitter lesson about what it means to lend state support to a prominent terrorist group.

The Taliban with a voice in power will have every incentive to welcome foreign money and expertise into the country, including the Pashtun regions —as long as it is not part of a Western strategic package.

An austere Islamic regime is not the ideal outcome for Afghanistan, but it is by far the most realistic. To reverse ground realities and achieve a markedly different outcome is not in the cards and will pose Obama with the same dilemma next year.

Meanwhile, Pakistan will never be willing or able to solve Washington’s Afghanistan dilemma. Pakistan’s own stability has been brought to the brink by U.S. demands that it solve America’s self-created problem in Afghanistan. Pakistan will eventually be forced to resolve Afghanistan itself — but only after the U.S. has gone, and only by making a pact with Taliban forces both inside Afghanistan and in Pakistan itself.

Washington will not accept that for now, but it will be forced to fairly soon. Maybe the Pakistanis can root out bin Laden, but meanwhile, Al Qaeda has extended its autonomous franchises around the world, and terrorists can train and plan almost anywhere in the world; they do not need Afghanistan.

By now, as in so many other elements of the Global War on Terror, the U.S. has become more part of the problem than part of the solution. We are sending troops to defend troops that themselves constitute an affront to Afghan nationalism. Only expeditious American withdrawal from Afghanistan will prevent exacerbation of the problem.

Afghans must themselves face the complex mechanics of internal struggle and reconciliation. They have done so over long periods of their history. The ultimate outcome is of greater strategic consequence to Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran, India and others in the region than to the United States.

Europe and Canada have lost all stomach for this mission that is now promoted primarily in terms of “saving NATO” for future (and obsolescent) “out of area” struggles in a world in which Western strategic preferences can no longer predominate.

In a counterbalance to the mini-surge, Obama wisely establishes a date for genuine withdrawal in 2011. The surge may just be worth it if it enables Obama to put the U.S. military and Kabul on notice that time is quickly running out to demonstrate genuine political and military progress.

So the ugly struggle continues with little prospect for genuine improvement. There are no good choices. Obama has only kicked the can down the road.

Only with immense luck will his real goal — creation of the minimally acceptable terms for an American withdrawal — come into sight, providing a tiny fig leaf to mask what will essentially constitute a strategic American failure that was inherent nearly from the beginning in America’s global military response to the challenge of 9/11.

Graham E. Fuller is a former C.I.A. station chief in Kabul and a former vice-chairman of the C.I.A.’s National Intelligence Council. He is author of numerous books on the Middle East, including “The Future of Political Islam.”
Tribune Media Services

 

SGRAJARAM@GMAIL.COM

11:58 PM ET

December 3, 2009

Why not pull out now

If the war in afganistan is so unwinnable, why not pull out now. Why spend an additional 30 billion per year and an increased loss of American lives?
The above is a geninuine question,I would like to have an answer.

 

RKERG

11:20 PM ET

December 3, 2009

More Faith Based Reality From Sen McCain

What this Afghan surge boils down to is to give the Afghans a chance to reclaim their country. One last do over to try and clean up another Bush administration mess. The Bushies were so eager to invade Iraq that they may well have let Bin Laden escape on purpose from Tora Bora so as to not have the American war fever die down. They staged a dog and pony show in Afghanistan and left as soon as they could for their big Iraq adventure, and doing so left an Afghanistan cobbled together by tribal militias. We actually owe the Afghans this last chance.
As for the Repub boilerplate criticism on the date certain (not surprising considering that most of the military industrial complex is practically a wing of the party and wars that end are not good for business) the Iraqis voted a date certain last year for us to leave (against the wishes of Bushies) and the world as we know it has not ended and the time for leaving is still in place.
I sometimes think that Sen McCain has never met a war that he didn't like.
Perhaps the GOP's new slogan should be "War Without End, Amen"

 

USMESSIAS

2:02 AM ET

December 4, 2009

Search and Destruction

- in Portuguese Language (Brazil)
O 11 de Setembro não foi um ato isolado. Ele foi concebido por uma mente que considera todo o planeta como um campo-de-batalha. Considerar a al-Qaeda um grupo terrorista é um raciocínio simplório. Trata-se de um Serviço de Inteligência apátrida, letal, com altíssimo poder de adaptação, e profundo conhecedor das incoerências da civilização ocidental. Cada movimento da al-Qaeda é determinado pela análise do contexto global. Ela nunca cometeu uma única ação pontual. A explosão de um carro-bomba somente é determinada após análise exaustiva do noticiário internacional. Em sua estratégia não existem fronteiras, pessoas civis, convenções ou qualquer outro tipo de limitação. Assim, as possibilidades do pensador da al-Qaeda são infinitas. Mesmo porque conta com uma arma que o arsenal ocidental não possui: o martírio.
Em Ciências Militares, o martírio é a manifestação máxima do espirito guerreiro.
Ele se manifesta quando a vitória é mais importante do que a própria vida.
O estrategista Americano tinha consciência disso quando declarou a Guerra Global contra o Terrorismo.
Na verdade, as fronteiras atuais são meramente linhas imaginárias de caráter administrativo estabelecidas pelo Império Britânico em seu apogeu.
O Exército Americano se lançou numa blitzkrieg contra o núcleo da al-Qaeda, estivesse ela onde estivesse.
Sua aniquilação era vital para a o supremo interesse dos Estados Unidos da América.
O avanço da Tropa foi impressionante, mas a região que o inimigo se encontrava era montanhosa e ele conseguiu se deslocar para o Paquistão.
A situação não compreendia o emprego de helicópteros, tanques ou aviões e, portanto, a Infantaria deveria ter sido lançada em perseguição até a completa destruição do inimigo.
Mas a estratégia militar foi arruinada pela miopia política e o Estado Maior da al-Qaeda permaneceu incólume nas Áreas Tribais do Paquistão, de onde lançou todas as suas forças sobre o Iraque numa guerra de Mídia que derrotou um exército de 160 mil Soldados Americanos e tornou Barac Obama Presidente dos Estados Unidos unicamente em funçao da promessa de retirar o Exército do Iraque.
Com isso, a política externa Americana entrou em colapso e o petróleo chegou a US$ 147.00 o barril no auge da campanha Democrata.
No mundo em que vivemos, 200 mil pessoas morrem de fome por dia com o petróleo em sua curva histórica de US$ 35.00 o barril.
Com o discurso de Obama sobre o Afeganistão, o petróleo chegou a US$ 76.00 o barril. A permanência insípida, inodora e incolor de Obama no poder está mantendo o crú no dobro de sua curva histórica. È impossível calcular o efeito dessa anomalia na vida dos desassistidos.
Um estadista do porte das tradições Americanas teria retirado o Exército Americano do Afeganistão em questão de semanas. Mas a Tropa permanece atolada no meio do nada há oito anos apenas para inspirar o discurso capcioso de sucessivos políticos de Washington que encontraram na libertação do povo Afegão um argumento vazio para encobrir a derrota do Exército mais poderoso da terra diante das forças nanicas da al-Qaeda.
Em consequência, a bolha imobiliária estourou. A Economia Americana entrou em recessão e a Economia global estagnou.
As equipes de busca e destruição do Exército Americano no Paquistão deram lugar ao Department of Homeland Security comprometendo as relações entre o Estado e o cidadão. Portos e aeroportos Americanos vivem sob Lei Marcial e o esplendor da América foi encoberto pela sombra do medo. A xenofobia se instaurou e muros quilométricos passaram a ser construidos nas fronteiras. Hoje os Estados Unidos da América são um país sitiado.
Toda a estrutura militar Americana foi concebida para um confronto com a União Soviética. Nessa equação foi levado em conta o Soldado europeu em luta pela defesa do solo pátrio. A realidade criada por essa opção é que o Exército Americano não tem Infantaria.
Todo o poderio militar Americano está voltado para uma guerra estratégica de alvos definidos.
Em resposta a isso, o pensador da al-Qaeda pulverizou a ação terrorista em milhares de grupos espalhados por centenas de países.
Na prática, a OTAN só se confirma como aliada em território europeu.
O único aliado dos Estados Unidos na Guerra Global contra o Terrorismo é o Reino Unido. Os outros países europeus dão esmolas em resposta aos insistentes pedidos Americanos por tropas.
O mundo está em guerra.
A Terceira Guerra Mundial se apresenta como um conflito de baixa intensidade sem prazo para acabar.
O ataque a Madri aconteceu à exatos 911 dias do 11 de Setembro. Isso significa latência.
O extremismo islâmico está preparado para uma guerra de milhares de anos que só acabará no dia em que o último Americano for morto.
A resposta de Obama para a determinação do inimigo é acabar com todas as guerras dentro de sua Administração.
Aliás, o Americano comum se comporta como se todas as guerras tivessem acabado e as poucas que existem acontecem porque o Exército Americano faz guerra de ocupação.
O Americano está cada vez mais gordo, adora festas e é adepto da filosofia do 'viva e deixe viver'.
Esse pensamento só cabe em uma civilização que floresceu protegida pelos oceanos Atlântico e Pacífico, responsáveis pela expulsão do colonizador Inglês.
Nenhum exército estrangeiro conseguiu realizar em solo Americano guerras de conquista que massacraram populações européias ao longo dos séculos.
Desde a colonização, o Americano viveu em uma redoma que o manteve alheio dos perigos do mundo real.
Essa redoma foi quebrada em 11 de Setembro e em função da inteligência superior de meia-dúzia de jihadistas, o Americano está desempregado, endividado, os carros que possue são estrangeiros e estão parados por falta de combustível.
Apesar da opulência, a América vive uma crise de valores sem precedentes e de consequências imprevisíveis.
Deus concedeu a mulher, o vinho e a amizade, mas isso foi insuficiente e o Americano é o maior consumidor de cocaína do planeta.
Não existe solução econômica para a recessão. Ela é resultado da crise de hierarquia que se estabeleceu no mundo com a humilhação imposta à América pela al-Qaeda.
Rússia, China, Coréia, Irã, Venezuela, Bolívia e até a Somália falam grosso com os Estados Unidos.
O papel hegemônico dos Estados Unidos é insofismável.
Isso implica em responsabilidades.
Por ação ou por omissão, tudo o que acontece com cada habitante do planeta é responsabilidade dos Estados Unidos da América.
A punjança da Economia Americana não se explica pela atividade existente no interior de suas fronteiras legais. O interesse Americano está presente no mundo todo.
A prepotência política que levou von Paulus ao desastre no front oriental e custou a vida de um milhão de magníficos Soldados Alemães hoje mata por dia duzentos mil consumidores de companhias Americanas no mercado global.
O mercado Americano está esgotado e a nova fronteira do Capitalismo é a África. O Estado precisa entrar com dinheiro a fundo perdido em pacificação, estabelecimento do Estado de Direito, Democracia e dignidade humana. Sem segurança não existe Democracia nem investimento da iniciativa privada.
Para reencontrar sua identidade, a América precisa estabelecer quem são seus aliados na guerra e na paz. Em plena globalização, não se trata mais de se relacionar com Estados, mas sim com indivíduos, porque as fronteiras não existem mais e o único Estado que existe é o Estado Americano. Tudo o mais são províncias rebeldes onde a Democracia Americana ainda não chegou.
A Terceira Guerra Mundial não se apresenta como um confronto de ideologias ou como uma guerra de conquista.
Trata-se de um confronto final entre a civilização e a barbárie.

 

SID

9:13 AM ET

December 4, 2009

McCain is Wrong

McCain is dead wrong on Afghanistan. Instead of 30,000 additional U.S troops if only U.S had sent ten thousand additional drones and UAV's it would have kept both Taliban & Al-Qaeda on their toes and their movement in & out of Afghan / Pakistan border would have been severely restricted. At far less cost, U.S would have pinned down the Taliban with in narrow belt and ISAF could have trained Afghan soldiers to defend their own country!

 

JASON SIGGER

10:26 AM ET

December 4, 2009

"Wrong Way" McCain

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that Sen. McCain is flip-flopping - again - on this issue of executing national strategy regarding the Middle East. I don't recall his arguments against President Bush when the US government signed off on the decision to withdraw forces from Iraq. Thou shalt not criticize a fellow Republican, but there's always an opportunity to slam the Dems, no?

"Wrong Way" McCain strikes again. He doesn't offer any plan on how to "win" in Afghanistan other than keeping troops there forever. Get him off the weekend television news shows, please. He's deliberately dumbing down America.