Afghan Mythologies
Victor Davis Hanson

As President Obama decides whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, we should remember that most of the conventional pessimism about Afghanistan is only half-truth.

Remember the mantra that the region is the "graveyard of empires," where Alexander the Great, the British in the 19th century, and the Soviets only three decades ago inevitably met their doom?

In fact, Alexander conquered most of Bactria and its environs (which included present-day Afghanistan). After his death, the area that is now Afghanistan became part of the Seleucid Empire.

Centuries later, outnumbered British-led troops and civilians were initially ambushed, and suffered many casualties, in the first Afghan war. But the British were not defeated in their subsequent two Afghan wars between 1878 and 1919.

The Soviets did give up in 1989 their nine-year effort to create out of Afghanistan a communist buffer state -- but only because the Arab world, the United States, Pakistan and China combined to provide the Afghan mujahideen resistance with billions of dollars in aid, not to mention state-of-the-art anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons.

While Afghans have been traditionally fierce resistance fighters and made occupations difficult, they have rarely for long defeated invaders -- and never without outside assistance.

Other mythologies about Afghanistan abound

Is the country ungovernable? No more so than any of the region's other rough countries. After the founding of the modern state in 1919, Afghanistan enjoyed a relative stable succession of constitutional monarchs until 1973. The country was once considered generally secure, tolerant and hospitable to foreigners.

Did we really take our eye off the "good" war in Afghanistan to fight the optional bad one in Iraq? Not quite. After a brilliant campaign to remove the Taliban in 2001, a relatively stable Karzai government saw little violence until 2007. Between 2001 and 2006, no more than 100 American soldiers were killed in any given year.

In fact, American casualties increased after Iraq became quiet -- as Islamists, defeated in Iraqi's Al Anbar province, refocused their efforts on the dominant Afghan theater.

Is Afghanistan the new Vietnam? Hardly. In the three bloodiest years, 2007 through 2009 so far, the United States has suffered a total of 553 fatalities -- tragic, but less than 1 percent of the 58,159 Americans killed in Vietnam. What is astounding is the ability of the U.S. military to inflict damage on the enemy, protect the constitutional government and keep our losses to a minimum.

Our military is the most experienced in both counterterrorism and counterinsurgency warfare in the world. The maverick savior of Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, now oversees operations in the Mideast and Central Asia. His experienced lieutenant, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is a successful veteran of the worst fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unlike past foreign interventions, our U.N.-approved aim is not to create a puppet state, but a consensual government able to defend itself against the Taliban and al-Qaida -- while preventing more strikes against the United States.

With Iraq relatively stabilized, jihadists have no choice but to commit their resources to prevent a second defeat. Meanwhile, Pakistan at last is cracking down on terrorist enclaves.

Unlike the case with the unpopular Bush decision to surge troops in Iraq, President Obama does not face a hostile political opposition at home. Many Americans are undecided rather than against continuing the war.

Republicans in Congress will support the administration's efforts to secure the country. There are no conservative counterparts to Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. Even most anti-war Democrats became quiet once Barack Obama was elected. European NATO commanders want the U.S. to lead them to victory.

What, then, prevents President Obama from sending more troops to secure the country?

Mostly problems of presidential indecision and confusion. Candidate Obama ran on the theme of Afghanistan as the necessary war, Iraq the optional one. But he assumed the then-quiet front in Afghanistan would stay that way, while Americans would withdraw from what he deemed a hopeless effort in Iraq.

Just the opposite ensued. The surge worked. But Afghanistan heated up. So now the president finds himself increasingly trapped by his campaign rhetoric. He is on record as committed to defeating the Taliban and winning the "necessary" war. But the president is now also a Noble Peace Laureate who apparently does not want what has become a messy conflict with Islamists on his watch.

We have experienced soldiers and military leadership, a just cause and Western unity. In other words, we have everything we need to defeat the Taliban -- except a commander-in-chief as confident about fighting and winning as he once was as a candidate.

 

 

Victory in Afghanistan Requires Fully Supported Counterinsurgency
James Danly

In order to declare victory, we need to aid the Afghans in establishing a legitimate government whose population does not effectively support terrorist networks. The only viable course is to commit the resources necessary to conduct a full-spectrum counterinsurgency of the kind employed to such great effect during the surge in Iraq

Counterinsurgency Cookie Cutter Doesn't Fit Afghanistan
Gian P. Gentile

'Counterinsurgency' has become the new American way of war. A once obscure theory of internal conflict, it has become ubiquitous in military circles and dominates thinking on both current and future wars. More important, its precepts are being followed without serious inquiry or examination, and the U.S. military has become so enamored with the theory that it seemingly will not consider any serious alternative methods to achieve the president's objectives in Afghanistan.

Despite Obama's Concessions, Russia Remains Unhelpful on Iran
Joshua Kucera

The Obama administration's announcement last month that it was scrapping plans to build missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic removed a prime irritant in the U.S.-Russian relationship; Russians felt the missile defense network was targeted as much at them as against the purported threat, Iran. And the move appeared at first to pay dividends. However ...

Can United States Truly Press 'Reset' Button With Russia
Ian Bremmer and Alexander Kliment

Today, Moscow and Washington elites glower at each other over a host of global disputes, and Russia, far from blossoming into the pro-Western, market-oriented democracy that the 1990s shock therapists dreamed of, has developed into a quasi-authoritarian petro-state at home, guided by zero-sum revisionist ambitions abroad.

Arrogant U.S. Misses the Message From Pakistan's People
William Pfaff

There has always been in American foreign policy circles a virus called arrogance, caused by the hereditary assumption that Americans know better than others. Surprisingly, this does not always prove the case, but the condition seems highly resistant to treatment, even by experience. There seems a high probability that the disease has struck Obama administration policy circles dealing with Pakistan

For Europe, U.S. Is Country That Cries Wolf
William Pfaff

Officials such as Philip Gordon regularly travel to Europe to ask for support for American initiatives. The Europeans reply that they have not been consulted in making these policies. The Americans say we will be happy to discuss them, but we are putting up most of the men and money, so it's too late to change anything. Maybe next time.

With al-Qaida Diminished, There's No Sense in Expanding Afghan War
William Pfaff

Al-Qaida's relations with the Taliban today are troubled. Effective counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan is on the brink of completely eliminating al-Qaida. There will be no organization to return. This is the result of effective international and domestic intelligence cooperation as well as good police work. So why, one asks, is the U.S. expanding its war in Afghanistan?

United States: Single-eyed Vision
Robert C. Koehler

The promise the United States once represented to the world has spent itself, and what we have to offer in terms of opportunity, or at least hope, is overshadowed by the spreading shadow of our hubris. And it's all coming home to roost.

Latin America Low on Obama's Priority List
Latin American Current Events, News & Affairs - Andres Oppenheimer

One year after the election of President Barack Obama, it's time to ask whether his ambitious campaign promises about Latin America are being fulfilled, or whether, like others before him, he has placed the region at the bottom of his foreign policy priorities. Let's look at Obama's key campaign promises for Latin America

In the Quicksands of Somalia
Bronwyn Bruton

The U.S. government needs to change its Somalia policy -- and fast. For the better part of two decades, international attempts to create a government have failed. And since 9/11, U.S. attempts to prevent Somalia from becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda have visibly backfired, alienating the Somali population, and propelling an indigenous Salafi jihadist group, called al Shabab, to power

Changing North Korea
Andrei Lankov

When it comes to dealing with North Korea the United States and its allies have no efficient methods of coercion at their disposal; the regime is remarkably immune to outside pressure. Its leaders cannot afford change, so they make sure their state continues to be an international threat, using nuclear blackmail as a survival tactic while their unlucky subjects endure more poverty and terror. Since outside pressure is ineffective

Receive Political Commentary Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner and iHaveNet.com

Afghan Mythologies | Victor Davis Hanson

 

(c) 2009 Victor Davis Hanson