Afghanistan: Obama’s spectacular Double Speak
First of all an apology. Orwellian terminology is definitely overused within the blogosphere. Yet yesterday President Obama offered us a master class in presenting something as its opposite. He billed his latest plans as a means of achieving a ‘responsible transition out of afghanistan’. He called on America’s allies to ‘come together’ for ‘the end of the war’. Yet what was he announcing? Increased efforts at negotiation with America’s enemies? Beginning a phased removal of troops?
No. Barack Obama, in his true rhetorical brilliance, has managed to describe the sending of 30,000 additional troop as though it were a plan for withdrawal. Under the circumstances his talk about “coming to the end of the war” appears rather odd. Though he referred to plans to begin withdrawing troops in 2011, one of his top commanders has said that the withdrawal will not begin in earnest until 2014. We are talking, then, about a World War 2 length commitment on top of the 8 years that the Afghan war has already lasted.
The logic behind this appears to be that a beefed up American presence will allow NATO to really get the job done, to ‘make their eyes bleed’ as one advisor put it, thus establishing a situation in which NATO troops are no longer needed to reinforce the Afghan state. From this perspective we need to get in to get out.
It’s a line of reasoning which I must admit I find unconvincing. Most obviously I am not convinced that the ability of the US/UK to get the result they want – an Afghan state that can survive their exit – is primarily a question of military firepower. The point is that for the past 8 years America and Britain have already been waging war on the basis of massive military superiority. Yes there have been more troops in Iraq. Yet the two best equipped armies in the world (not withstanding Switzerland, whose knives are indeed well cool) have faced a guerilla army. Are we really to believe that massive, massive military superiority as opposed to just massive military superiority will turn the tide and, as Obama seems to suggest, facilitate a quicker exit.
The reason that I am unconvinced lies partly in the nature of Anglo-American objectives. Their aim is not simply to cripple an army. Rather it is to ensure that Afghanistan’s newly created state can be a stand alone state. It is a political and not simply a military outcome. And here I must apologise again, for having already used an Orwellian concept I am going to engage in another cliche. I am going to mention Vietnam.
In the final 5 years of the Vietnam war the position of American troops relative to the Viet Minh was, in military terms, improving. This has given rise to the ‘stab in the back thesis’, the idea that the US could have won but were forced out by domestic protest. This, in fact, is incorrect. By the beginning of the 1970s the US, regardless of its military position, was no closer to victory. This is because victory, like in Afghanistan, meant ensuring that the ‘South Vietnamese’ state had the ablity to rule alone, and to independently make real its monopoly on physical force. It couldn’t for it utterly lacked the legitimacy and ability to govern that was necessary, and the longer American troops stayed the more its legitimacy ebbed.
And Vietnam is perhaps important for another reason. Lyndon B Johnson was no Roosevelt, but upon coming to power he looked as though he could have been a very substantial reforming president. Contrary to the cult of Kennedy, it was in fact under Johnson that the key pieces of civil rights legislation were passed. Moreover he planned to engage is serious public spending to create what he termed the ’great society’. Yet the engagement in Vietnam sucked away both the political and the financial capital that he needed. Will history repeat itself once again?
Reader Comments
Fine let’s agree a terrible speech.
But could anyone suggest what might happen if the NATO troops leave too quickly?
1) a civil war
2) a Taliban take over
Whatever Obama says, it is worthwhile thinking about the alternatives.
PS: Please could you add an email update on these threads, as other blogs implement, it would make following discussions easier. Ta.
Cheers for the suggestion, just added. See the checkbox below when you comment.
But could anyone suggest what might happen if the NATO troops leave too quickly?
1) a civil war
2) a Taliban take over
Sadly I think that’s inevitable. Reuben’s comparison with Vietnam is more apt than most. Not because of the length of the conflict, not because of the level of American casualties (they’ve been miniscule compared to Vietnam) but because forces there are only propping up a puppet government that lacks a monopoly of violence in its own right and lacks even popular support. See my earlier article on this:
http://thethirdestate.net/2009/09/a-thousand-splendid-sunnys/
Salman,
I don’t think it is inevitable, unless people wanted to be.
I don’t think that people in the West should recommend the course of action which would lead to a bloody civil war in Afghanistan or Taliban takeover.
The consequences of either, a civil war in Afghanistan will be death and destruction on a scale not seen. Millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands killed, etc
A Taliban takeover would probably be very similar.
So in the West we shouldn’t recommend a course of action that we wouldn’t want for ourselves, etc.
Neither do the Afghan people want to remain under foreign occupation. As horrifying as the thought of civil war and the return of the Taliban is, we cannot play policeman to the world. In the long run we are only storing up greater problems for ourselves and for the Afghans. We have already been there eight years. How much longer should we stay?
“In the long run we are only storing up greater problems for ourselves and for the Afghans.”
How so?
I set out my argument in some detail in my reply to Sunny’s call to stay the course in Afghanistan:
http://thethirdestate.net/2009/09/a-thousand-splendid-sunnys/
I expect you’ll disagree, but these are my considered thoughts on the subject. Whilst I opposed the intial invasion of Afghanistan, for a long time afterwards I felt it necessary to stay in order to prevent the Taliban returning to power. I no longer believe it is a winnable war, or, in terms of the long-term anti-western sentiment we are fostering, an advisable one. My opinion may change if circumstances do, but as of the moment, I continue to stand by everything I said in that article.
Salman,
Sorry but that’s not really an answer.
It’s a bit like parliamentarians saying “I refer the honourable member of the statement made by…..”.
It is not an argument.
You’re making a specific point:
““In the long run we are only storing up greater problems for ourselves and for the Afghans.”
I am asking, how so?
So I would be grateful if you could engage with that question.
Which I fully answered in the statement to which I referred the homourable member.
It fully engages with the specific point I made. Read it, and if you have any further questions, I will be happy to elaborate on my humble opinions.
No Salman,
I don’t have any questions, why would I?
I would only be referred to previously written answers, which would be completely unsatisfactory.
When engaging in a dialogue it is the duty of the participants to address the points made by their interlocutors, or it will cease to be a dialogue.
I believe that in academia they discuss these issues and why they are important, but as I’m not an academic I can’t comment
I’ll simply leave you with this,
For all of you who so desire a precipitous removal of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, please could you write yourselves a letter roughly containing:
“I believe it would be a good idea for civil war to occur in Afghanistan, I am not worried about the death toll of 100s of 1000s. Nor am I concerned if the Taliban take power, kill 1,000s, enslave women, etc and institute the worst human rights record in the world.
I believe all that because I think the NATO occupation was worse.”
Please write that letter, put it an envelope, marked “Open when NATO leaves”
And what you can do as the TV is full of scenes of bloodshed, mass murder, Afghan refugees fleeing the chaos, is open that letter again and think why you thought what you did.
I’m sorry that you find the fact that I’ve already fully answered your question completely unsatisfactory. I could copy and paste if that would make things easier for you? I’m hardly referring you to some random page in the Bible or citing some obscure piece of research. I fully set out an answer to your question and if you don’t think it’s valid because you have to click once with your mouse to read it, then that’s up to you, I’ll leave you to your hyperbole.