AFGHANISTAN

Readers of my blogs know that I am an avid supporter of President Obama. He has inherited an awful mess from his predecessor, whose presidency I view as a total disaster for America. Worst of all, he seemed to lack any ability to assess the serious consequences of his decisions. So, he justified his invasion of Iraq in a different way every week, and he blithely dismissed concerns about the huge budget deficit that his policies caused.

By comparison, watching President Obama explain and implement his policies is like a breath of fresh air in the body politic. The Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, who is a holdover from the Bush Administration, explained over the weekend that while his previous boss showed little interest in detailed analysis before making a decision, the much more serious Obama approach invites in-depth assessment from all sides before he makes policy calls.

In this context, I am puzzled by the President’s approach to Afghanistan. He announced that he was making good on his campaign promise by committing an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. At the same time, he has appointed a top team of military and diplomatic experts to come up with the best strategic policies that America should pursue in that region.

Mr. Obama stated a few days ago that he will make strategic decisions for the future after he receives the recommendations from this high-powered, important group. Why announce the movement of American forces in advance of their report? This unfortunate commitment of so many new troops only makes sense in terms of an increasing military commitment in Afghanistan.

What are the goals of the United States-led NATO presence in Afghanistan? We know that America’s number one enemy, Osama Bin Laden, is hiding somewhere in the vast mountain areas that span the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Special forces from the United States and its allies have been on an unsuccessful mission to find him for the last eight years, mainly because the terrain, mostly mountains and caves, is very inhospitable to Western troops. And, the people in the villages, who may know where he is, will not talk because of a combination of an historical hatred of Western invaders and a fear of harsh reprisal by Taliban or tribal leaders.

The Taliban were successfully ousted from power by Western forces, but they have gradually reasserted their authority over most of the country, outside of Kabul. The central government seems unable to establish its control, even with the help of US and other NATO forces.

American leaders are also very concerned about the huge supply of poppy, the basic source of opium and its derivative, heroin, that is grown in Afghanistan. Indeed, the Taliban, who derive most of their funds from the drug trade, have instructed the local farmers to expand their production of this profitable crop. And, there was a big increase in the poppy supply from the region in 2008.

The Taliban are fully supported by Al Qaeda forces in their war against the West. Bin Laden called for Muslims everywhere to treat the latest “invasion” in the same way the Russians were treated. In addition, thousands of nomadic Pashtun militiatemen have crossed over the mountains from Pakistan to support the war efforts of their co-religionists.

All these groups espouse a very narrow version of Islam. We read recently of the closure of girls’ schools in part of the area controlled by the Taliban. The poignant symbolism of cutting young girls off from learning how to read or write is surely as close to cultural nihilism as you will find anywhere.

Back to the basic question regarding what the United States and its allies are trying to achieve in this chaotic country. Sure, we want to defeat Al Qaeda and capture or kill Bin Laden, but why should we be successful now when our best efforts have failed since 2002? Will 17 thousand – or ten times that number – help us to meet that goal? Or will additional Western soldiers stiffen Taliban resistance even more as increases in Russian troops did twenty years ago? Will confronting Islamic extremism with sophisticated American weaponry inevitably lead to more terrorist actions against the West?

Western bombers control the air, but bombing “targets” in mountain villages has the serious downside of increasing the level of anger and hatred against the “American invaders!” A senior Russian diplomat, Mr. Ragozin, was quoted recently as saying about the war in Afghanistan: “They have repeated our mistakes, and they have made a mountain of their own.”

Will the Karzai government be able to hold credible elections this year, despite the Taliban insurgency? Can any elected government in Kabul extend its remit over all of its territory? Do tens of thousands of foreign troops help or hinder their chances of success?

Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, said recently that the three D’s will guide US foreign policy all over the world – development, diplomacy and defense. Development funds are badly needed for education and health care in that area of the world, and behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts, especially in the Muslim world, to enhance the legitimacy of the Kabul government could be very helpful and productive.

Under the third “D,” I think that there is a strong argument for limiting American military involvement to training, equipping, and advising the Kabul government’s army. There is a real danger that Afghanistan could become Obama’s Vietnam, a quagmire that he is dragged into because he didn’t get out on time – an unwinable war, that will drain America’s weak treasury, against opponents who play by their own rules.