Monday, October 26, 2009

Obama's great grim gamble: he holds a weak hand



War, it has often been said, is the greatest gamble of all.

It is time, once again, to roll the Afghan dice.

The gamble is a grim one.....

This time President Obama holds a very weak hand.



Jack of Diamonds: "I bet you I beat you next game"
Check the cost of the gamble at iCasualties.org

**********

One of my old time favorites.

This classic musical allegory is "The Cuckoo"

An Appalachian Montains analysis of the complex process of going to war.

"War is the greatest grim gamble of all."

In Afghanistan the United States, like Britain and the Soviet Union before it, once again prepares to roll the dice.

**********



**********

Meet the "Enemy"




Pashtun Taliban operate, recruit, and thrive off of resentment against foreign occupiers. See David Rohde, "Held by the Taliban," NYT, Oct. 17, 2009 for an account of how occupation and bombing reinforces anti-American feeling.




**********

This writer has reluctantly altered his conclusions.

Lots of reflection, a journalist's perpetual research and a lifetime of study go into an altered, painful stance toward an issue involving so much human suffering.

Raised with Quaker pacifist roots, he now believes that some kind of "surge" probably will be necessary -- given the growing strength of the Taliban.

In order to prevent a quick collapse -- and to lay a foundation for whatever stage comes next.

With Taliban strength growing, a "surge" may be necessary.

Important questions will be how big a "surge" to support; how large a series of operations in how much of Afghanistan over how long a period of time?


--Even if President Obama chooses a less ambitious strategy which avoids "seize and hold" counter-insurgency operations in a large part of the country.

--If American forces are to have any leverage in protecting even a limited part of Afghanistan from the brutalities of the Taliban.

--If the U.S. is to maintain a stable base from which to launch attacks on Al Qaeda.

--If the U.S. is to solidify its presence sufficiently to seek a political deal with some of the insurgents.

--If the U.S. is to help stabilize Pakistan and keep its nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists.

--Even if the U.S. eventually withdraws to pinpoint and fight Al Qaeda from offshore.

But it is highly doubtful that the U.S. government will be able to execute a limited surge with a clear exit strategy -- amidst the complexities of both American and Afghan politics.

Some things are near certain:

A large scale, long lasting military commitment is impossible.

If the American people turn against a long, costly war, it will be only a matter of time before the U.S. position in Afghanistan will collapse.

A long war would mean deep costs for the American economy and a likely decline in this country's military, economic, and political standing in the world.

**********

The challenge will be to find a workable mission and strategy which promise ways of getting out in a reasonable time period even as the U.S. gets more deeply in.

If the mission requires more troops, a "surge" must flow onto the beach and then back out again.

**********

A small surge risks being ineffective -- or of escalating into a large one.

A large surge runs the risk of escalating the conflict, getting more deeply trapped -- and producing a deadly and costly anti-American backlash across the South Asian region.

One result could be a destabilization of Pakistan -- with a theoretically increased danger that nuclear weapons could be obtained by terrorists.

Indeed a number of veterans conclude that one great danger is that the American military will again be put in an impossible position: unreachable goals with limited resources.

As one veteran puts it, "to be set up agains for defeat as we were in Vietnam because no sitting President wants to be seen as losing."

**********



Ahead could be another cycle of blowback -- where forces unleased by American intervention come back to strike the U.S. -- as was the case with the 9/11 attacks.




The ultimate risk in this gamble is that a new generation of anti-American terrorists will ultimately get their hands on nuclear weapons.

For testimony on the destructive effects already evident from the Obama policy see an article by Graham E. Fuller, former CIA chief in Kabul.

Also a video of an interview with Pakistani journalist Hamad Mir dealing with the impact of American drone attacks in Pakistan.


**********
It is time, once again, to roll the Afghan dice.

The greatest grim gamble of all.


No comments: