Certainly, the War in Afghanistan is one of the foremost issues in American foreign policy. Over the past year, the American public has been told time-after-time about how the Afghanistan War is getting out of hand, with ominous allusions to the 04-06 Iraqi quagmire. While Iraq has become a more stable country in the months following the ingenious General Petraeus and "The Surge", it seems that Afghanistan has gone the opposite direction -- more casualties and less stability.
In the recent weeks, the Obama Administration has been forced to focus on defining it's policy on the War in Afghanistan. Here is the article I will examine, from Nov. 17 ,which outlines the goals of the Administration. For information on the speech the President will give tomorrow night, check out this article from earlier today.
Top Obama administration officials took pains to lower the bar for success in Afghanistan Sunday, stressing that the administration is seeking an exit strategy and holds "no illusions" that it will transform the country into a functional modern democracy.Lowering the bars for success, I would suggest, is a horrible strategy. This idea that you cannot establish a "functional" democracy in Afghanistan is ludicrous. In the Middle East, we have already established a functioning democracy in Iraq, which not only holds regular elections, but also has seen civilian deaths fall to record lows this month. For goodness sake, the Iraqi government has its own YouTube channel to promote its propaganda. Why is Afghanistan so much different? Perhaps, I would argue, the problem is not that this region is inherently unable to have functioning democracies, but that our strategy is flawed. Just as experts who said democracy was "unattainable" in Iraq were wrong, I would contend a similar statement about Afghanistan will be proven wrong. President Obama, don't change the end goal, change the strategy.
"We have been there for eight years. It is a long, long time. And we have to keep focused on what our purpose was in the first place. Our purpose was to disrupt and dismantle and destroy Al Qaeda," he told CNN's "State of the Union." But obviously we cannot make an open-ended commitment. And we want to do this in a way that maximizes our efforts against Al Qaeda, but within the framework of bringing our troops home at some point. ... There has to be a framework to this decision."
Defining the "end strategy" is exactly what we need to avoid. An end strategy gives no benefits whatsoever. An end strategy has no purpose aside from being a ceremonial "shame on you" to the Afghani government. All it does is point out how frustrated we are with the progress in the country, and show our impatience to the entire world. When we rebuilt Japan after WWII, we did not constantly whine and complain about the lack of progress. We did not constantly remind the people and government of Japan that we were dissatisfied with their efforts and wanted to wash our hands of the operation as soon a possible. An exit strategy goes against the image that we need to project to the people of these new democracies -- that we are confident in democracy and want to establish long-term alliances with the new countries.
Clinton would not comment directly on concerns expressed by the U.S. ambassador to the country, Karl Eikenberry, who relayed to the White House his reservations about whether problems with the Afghan government could undermine the effectiveness of any troop increase.
This is what President Obama needs to address in his speech tomorrow. The Afghani government was given the golden opportunity after the post-9/11 toppling of the Taliban to establish a democracy. Is corruption the reason why they failed? What measures will he recommend be taken to root out corruption in the government? We need the President to take the initiative, take leadership, and come up with a strategy to confront corruption in the Afghani state. I don't want to hear, "I will recommend the Afghani leaders address this problem", or "the government in Afghanistan needs to address this dire situation"; no, I want President Obama, or his foreign policy experts, to design a actual policy to solve this problem. That is what leaders do: find problems, find solutions.
President Obama, Afghanistan can be made into a stable democratic ally. Drop the rhetoric about how democracy is impossible in Afghanistan, or about the need for an exit strategy. Then, spend time actually solving the huge problems facing the Afghani government.
It is time for the rubber to hit the sand.
