www.antiwar.com
With the usual fanfare, the Obama administration has proclaimed a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan. On the surface, it does not amount to much. But if a story by Bill Gertz in the March 26 Washington Times is correct, there is more to it than meets the eye. Gertz reported:
"The Obama administration has conducted a vigorous internal debate over its new strategy for Afghanistan….
"According to two U.S. government sources close to the issue, senior policymakers were divided over how comprehensive to make the strategy….
"On the one side were Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg, who argued in closed-door meetings for a minimal strategy of stabilizing Afghanistan….
"The goal of these advocates was to limit civilian and other nonmilitary efforts in Afghanistan and focus on a main military objective of denying safe haven to the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists.
"The other side of the debate was led by Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy for the region, who along with U.S. Central Command leader Gen. David H. Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton fought for a major nation-building effort.
"The Holbrooke-Petraeus-Clinton faction, according to the sources, prevailed. The result is expected to be a major, long-term military and civilian program to reinvent Afghanistan from one of the most backward, least developed nations to a relatively prosperous democratic state."
I have not seen similar stories in other papers, so it is possible Gertz is not correct. But if he is, the Obama administration has just made the Afghan war its own, and lost it.
Ironically, the reported decision duplicates the Bush administration’s error in Iraq, another lost war (the next phase in Iraq’s Sunni-Shi’ite civil war is now ramping up). The error, one that no tactical or operational successes can overcome, is setting unattainable strategic objectives.
Punditman says...
Since the end of the so-called "surge" in Iraq, the bubbleheads who inhabit TV news land have been either hinting at, or directly referring to, Iraq as a "success story." A country where, hmm, let's see...on a fairly typical day, yesterday, 15 Iraqis were killed and 19 were wounded in political/criminal violence; a country where occupation by US troops continues; where 40 American soldiers have died so far this year; a country where increased sectarian violence looms, where...(okay, so there's a few minor problems left, but let's move on where the White House wants us to go, okay? - mainstream media minder).
I suppose if our kindergarten quality media can call the Iraq War a success, then the definition of "success" in Afghanistan can be equally misappropriated. Look for it as this new strategy unfolds...
