I am the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. You can read my work on The Seminal or at Rethink Afghanistan. The views expressed below are my own.
Uh oh, looks like you are starting to have an effect on the war. Congress is freaking out, calling hearings, holding up so-called emergency funding, and demanding to know why it is that the longest war in US history has to go on even longer. All of this has led some to question the President’s leadership altogether. Is he an effective, or even competent, Commander-in-Chief? Serious concerns about Obama’s escalation policy are being raised, and it’s likely to severely damage his presidency. Well, rather than using this opportunity to their advantage, the opposition party has opted instead to say something stupid:
Senate Republicans on Wednesday attacked President Obama’s plan to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan in July of next year, saying that the United States was sending a self-defeating message to its allies in the region. [...]
“Right now, we’re sounding an uncertain trumpet,” [Republican John] McCain said. “Our allies in the region are convinced that we’re leaving.” [...]
Ah yes, the old "exit strategy = defeat" meme. This is one of those annoying war myths that just won’t go away, no matter how stupid it looks in the face of facts. Weirdly enough, it’s often the argument made by people who claim to be "strong" on national security, when in reality it should call into question their grasp of even the mild complexities of war. This argument isn’t just wrong, it’s plainly stupid, and you only to have pay a little bit of attention to see why.
Normally when you see this myth, it’s about our enemies rather than our allies. It’s usually something along the lines of "if we tell the insurgents when we’re leaving, they’ll just wait until we’re gone and start back up." That’s wrong though. See, much like US senators, insurgents have to have legitimacy -that is, some right or justification for making decisions and taking actions on behalf of so many people. That doesn’t necessarily mean that citizens vote for the insurgency, rather their legitimacy comes from the presence of the occupation.
Take Iraq, for example. The Sunni Arab insurgency is able to support itself in its civil war against Kurds, Persians, Shi’a, etc partly because its "constituency" (not always the locals) supports their fight against the American occupation, in the name of Iraq and/or Islam. The US supports some of them, further tying their legitimacy to our presence, but also retarding the civil war which would inevitably destroy the insurgency. When the Americans withdraw, the Shi’a like Prime Minister Maliki, purportedly our allies, will be free to overtly reject reconciliation and prosecute the civil war against the Sunni (and any other dissenting Iraqi) as brutally as they like.
That’s why Sunni insurgents are increasing their violence just as US troops are re-deploying to Afghanistan, because US leaders gave vague promises about withdrawing "based on conditions on the ground." The insurgents want to change the conditions on the ground, increase the violence so we stay longer, thus keeping them in business another day. Otherwise they lose their legitimacy, they become not heroic freedom fighters or well-paid concerned local citizens but anti-Sadd- excuse me, anti-Maliki government criminals. And they will be annihilated.
Our enemies are not waiting for us to leave, they desperately need us to stay. But what about the twist we have on Afghanistan? Is an exit strategy not only good for our enemies, but bad for our allies? Unfortunately no, it’s just as stupid.
Who are our allies? That would be NATO and Pakistan, both of which would benefit greatly from our exit strategy.
NATO-member Canada is already in the process of replacing its military with an all-civilian program, and the UK has completely ruled out any more troops for Afghanistan. If the US military leaves, the development and "nation building" projects by our NATO allies will get better, not worse.
And much like insurgents in Iraq, the Taliban in Pakistan gain much of their legitimacy from the continuing US occupation of Afghanistan, and the illegal drone strikes and special forces raids in Pakistan. Pakistan’s army and intelligence services are likewise able to support the Taliban and other militants against India because the US is there in the region fighting, showering the Pakistani military with weapons and money.
If we left? We’d blow a massive hole in Kayani’s budget for fighting India, and that includes "strategic depth" like extensive support for Taliban militants. With the military’s ability to create conflicts hampered, the civilian government of Pakistan would have more legitimate political space to pursue its goals of economic development and peace with its neighbors. The liberal Pakistanis, our real allies in the region, would gain that ever-important legitimacy.
Conversely, the Taliban lose one of their biggest claims to legitimacy (besides Islam, which is another conversation entirely). Many Pakistanis and Afghans, even liberal, educated middle class as well as the victims of militant violence themselves, often sympathize with the cause of the insurgents simply because they’re fighting the American invaders. The Taliban may be extremely conservative and oppressive, but at least they’re not raiding houses at night and killing pregnant women. At least they’re not blowing up women and children with cowardly robots in the sky. Or so the logic goes. If the US leaves, there are no more invaders to fight, and the Taliban are plainly exposed as the Pakistan-destroying monsters that they are.
See why this myth is stupid? It’s exactly the opposite of reality. Exit strategies are bad for our enemies, and good for our allies. It’s just that simple. So don’t be fooled by the opposition’s talking points about "uncertain trumpets" and "sending the wrong message." Ending the wars is good for the US, it’s good for our allies, and it’s good for the citizens themselves.
A timetable for withdrawal is a good thing. Forcing the President to keep his commitments is a good thing. Ignore the partisan myth-making and keep pressuring your representatives to hold Obama accountable and bring this war to an end.
Want to help? Join us on Rethink Afghanistan’s Facebook page.



23 Comments







Ideas well worth exploring. And extremely valid points made.
The AffPack war is immoral, illegal and expensive. It makes the American people poorer and less safe. So lets end it now. But what about the poor war profiteers? Lets make them wear funny hats and put them to work cleaning public toilets.
Well, there’s Karzai, except he is trying to put as much daylight between himself and us as possible.
Then there is his drug dealer of a brother. Enough said there I think.
You are right about Pakistan. They continue to back the Taliban, not just to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan but also because, as you also note, ongoing conflict in Afghanistan keeps American aid flowing as an American exit would not.
And that’s about it for allies in the region.
None of this addresses my own core point about our military presence in Afghanistan: we have no policy reason to have an army there. We have, for example, military strike capability in places like Somalia and Yemen without an occupying army. Afghanistan should be no different.
Shorter Republicans on National Security: “Four More Wars! Four More Wars! Four More Wars!”
What’s the point of “foreign policy” anymore? Isn’t it pretty much to display ideological conformity with the oligarchies which currently rule the world, so that careers can be advanced? Otherwise it seems pretty pointless, like there’s no future in it.
Don’t assume “oligarchs” all have the same goals – for each other. They fuck with each other all the time, just depends on opportunity.
For example – Hank Paulson screwed Lehman over, and rewarded his own Goldman Sucks tribe; because he was in the right place and at the right time and he COULD.
Lehman’s tribe members were certainly oligarchs, just on the losing end of the deal for once.
When everyone in the club has the goal of “getting richer,” some can get richer at the expense of others, yet the ideology of “getting richer” still elicits universal conformity. What I said stands.
I think that’s kind of harsh. Nobody in history has managed to successfully occupy Afghanistan. Ask the Soviet Union. Oh that’s right. You can’t. Not being able to do that same thing many, many others have also been unable to do doesn’t make someone incompetent. I am by no means defending his war policies, just taking issue with that characterization.
If this is your idea of a successful occupation, I’d hate to see what your version of a failed one looks like.
I think the R strategy is a lot simpler, and quite likely to sell with the public. As long as the U.S. military is still in Afghanistan, the U.S. hasn’t lost the war. As soon as the U.S. leaves without a definitive victory, the U.S. has lost. It’s all about not losing and the voters will go along with that.
Oh, the other thing to remember about not leaving/escalating Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter, where the U.S. still had 90,000 troops) is the military’s say. The more spread out the military is around the globe, the more commands, promotions and medals there are. Never underestimate that as a motivating factor, esp when the prez ‘pays attention’ to what the generals are telling him. They are not disinterested witnesses.
The problem is, when we leave, what follows isn’t going to be user-friendly to U.S. interests. In fact, it’s probably going to be pretty close to what was there before the Taliban “unified” the country; a bunch of warlords jockeying for power, and killing quite a few people in the process.
And, eventually,the Taliban just might find the support to sneak back in power.
That’s just the reality of the situation, and the question is, can any american president survive it when it happens?
I think the answer is that it’s going to be hard, which is why I also think that Obama is going to continue this clusterfuck (and the one in Iraq, too…) as a matter of what he PERCEIVES as self-preservation.
Same old story: in an amurka still pretty much awash in knee-jerk testosterone, the only thing worse than staying is leaving.
Well, the U.S. prez & U.S. voters are likely to pay about as much attention to the aftermath in Afghanistan as they did to the aftermath in VN, Laos & Cambodia.
I don’t agree. Getting off of oil and therefore away from the policy of meddling in the Middle East would render the Taliban and Al Qaeda impotent. Let them live in the fifteenth century if that’s what they insist on. If they attack us, there are other responses that don’t involve hundreds of billions of dollars and unwinnable wars. Besides, nobody believes that tripe about how they “hate us for our freedom”.
Exactly. If we move into an era using new alternative sources for homes and transportation, we could basically stop purchasing oil from the Middle East. Sad to say in some respects, but the area would then become irrelevant to most politicians. How many people realize that Canada is our biggest supplier of crude oil? So, if we drastically cut back on oil consumption at home, and got out of these wars (which would further reduce oil consumption), we could really begin to enter the 21st century.
I would like to see that happen too. But I see no signs that the empire — that is, the MIC and the neocons and the neolibs and the great majority of both houses of Congress — has any intention of getting anything but bigger.
I keep wondering if Americans will wake up, get politicians in office who will represent them, and change the path we are on. A major change in energy policies could have such a profoundly positive impact on our futures, yet where is the drive or leadership bringing it about?
We’re it, friend. If we don’t get busy, nobody will.
To be painfully clear, having a competent exit strategy is Business Planning 101. Just because Harvard MBA George Bush flunked that course is no reason that stellar HLS grad Barack Obama should. But as usual, Obama is so painfully averse to recommending or standing behind a proposal, no matter how good it is as public policy, that ANYONE might object to, he’s very much in danger of flunking that course, too.
People should read about the effect the Russian – Afghanistan War had on Russia:
Russian vets’ dire warning
U.S. could become trapped in Afghan war — like they were.
Written in 2001, we didn’t listen.
Again this is the price of letting inertia replace policy. Leaving Afghanistan does not mean that we would have no further strategic options there. This is not an either/or.
Pakistan has been working for a Taliban run Afghanistan all along. I do not think this actually serves their long term interests or the stability of Pakistan, but that is a different matter. Nor would Iran favor a fundamentalist Sunni Taliban regime as a neighbor. The stay or leave paradigm is a strawman.
Here’s DiFi on this subject:
“On December 1, 2009 President Obama announced that he will deploy an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in an effort to quell a resurgence of the Taliban and regain the initiative against terrorists operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This will be a short-term, high-intensity effort, with a majority of new American troops focusing on training Afghan National Security Forces and securing local populations. Further, the President indicated his intention to start drawing down troop levels in July 2011, pending the outcome of a security review at the end of 2010.
“I support the President’s plan, which is consistent with the recommendations laid out by General Stanley McChrystal. It has been carefully deliberated by senior officials in the Administration, including the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It recognizes the severity of the situation, calls for strong cooperation from NATO partners, and avoids an open-ended commitment of troops.
“I believe strongly that Taliban forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, al Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and other extremist groups represent a real and significant threat to the security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unchecked, they threaten the United States and our allies as well. The plan put forward represents the most credible effort to reverse the Taliban’s gains and deny terrorists a safe haven, while giving the Afghan people the best chance for security and opportunity over the long term.
“While we do not necessarily agree on this issue, be assured that your views are important to me, and I will keep them in mind . . . “
The post has a great deal of merit, but an historical perspective suggests that whether “exit” is in defeat or victory, “exits” are all about wars of choice.
See: Empires, Fall of.
We ought to be able to get the RonPaulistas/isolationists on board with a deficit reduction drive to cut the Pentagon budget in half.