Obama’s Afghanistan: Is it deja vu? Obama may not be Talking the [Bush] Talk, but he is surely Walking the Walk!

Perhaps President Obama is not talking the talk, but he surely is walking the walk: Where is the change we can believe in?  How does President Obama’s Middle East policy differ from that of President George W. Bush?

Obama’s surge in Afghanistan, is it the George W. Bush Iraq’s surge policy all over again, a deja vu, if you will? Or, is it the beginning of an overwhelming force which the region will require before all is said and done?

Is this the beginning of extending George W. Bush’s policy of an protracted stay by the United States military in the Middle East? If it is, it is not necessarily a bad approch to the world problems…


Obama’s Afghanistan actions exonerates Bush’s Iraq war!

There is little or no doubt that President George W. Bush was a very marginal president. President Bush mademany mistakes, but, as President Obama’s recent actions in the region are proving,  starting the war against Sadam Hussein was not a mistake.

As America’s role in Iraq is winding down, leaving the country free of the regional threat that was there before Sadam Hussein was removed from office, the United States role in Afghanistan is continuing to expand.

President Bush mistake in Iraq was in listening to his civilian ( Rumsfeld, et al) rather than military advisers. who suggested that an overwhelming force should have been committed to Iraq. The civilians who suggested that the the Iraq war should be conducted like a business were responsible for the poor US second stage (after Hussein and his forces were removed, and before the surge) performance. The surge was paramount to an overwhelming force since it came after the military confrontation was over, and only an insurgery type of conflict remained.

President Obama has now prepared the nation to a protracted military engagement in Afghanistan. The hope is that Obama does not underestimate the magnitude of the commitmentand is prepared to an eventual need for an overwhelming force, a force that, with its allies, may well come near in size to the Iraq commitment at its peak.

Even though during the election process, President Obama, then candidate Obama,  promised to bring the troops home and is now only commitment to re-deploying many of these troops to Afghanistan, all indications are that he is doing the right. thing!


Scenario: 100000+ Allies troops for Afghanistan. McCain’s campaign suggestion that: “100 year US troops overseas, is OK,” may be a prophecy with its fulfillment starting in Iraq, continuing in Afghanistan, and spreading (reprinted with permission from Zyonism.org)

Short of deploying an overwhelming force in Afghanistan, McCain’s “100 years troops overseas is OK campaign rule;” may well become a prophecy in Afghanistan.

Before starting the George W. Bush Iraq war, General Shineki, then the Army Chief of Staff, told Congress that an overwhelming force of about 500,000 would require to do the job right. Shineski was summarily fired by Donald Rumsfeld, who with Paul Wolfovitz wanted do do the job with a minimal force. It is obvious who was right; not Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz! One can say that the Afghanistan situation could turn to be: De-ja vu all over again!

Afghanistan is a challenging country situated on a uniquely difficult terrain. The difficulties start with archaic religion and culture. The Islamic democracy that Afghanistan is, has its laws based on, and subservient to, the Shariah (Islamic law.)  The total Afghanistan legal, social and religious structure is based on outdated laws from the Koran, comprising of many rules that are not compatible with the modern world of the Twenty-first Century..

In addition to the intangible issues, Afghanistan’s terrain is so difficult to manage. It is a haven for renegades, terrorists, and/or any outlaw trying to elude the authorities. The landscape is not only hard to manage, the weather combines to make the land in many spots essentially uninhabitable. The fact that Afghanistan shares some of its rough terrain with Pakistan would force the United States and its allies to include in their efforts in Afghanistan, means to deal with Pakistan with its very complex politics, and nuclear capabilities. 

The religious backbone of Afghanistan is much more prominent and less yielding than the one in Iraq, anyone trying to compare the two countries is likely to be very disappointed. Communication with the people of Afghanistan will prove a much more difficult task than is the task dealing with the people of Iraq. President Obama desire to use diplomacy in Afghanistan has minimal chance of succeeding, while his commitment to add troops, even before leaving Iraq, is an early sign of what may be actually the beginning of a very long journey, a venture with no end in sight.

President Obama before getting truly initiated into the office of President, committed 17,000 more troops for Afghanistan. It is known that at least 30,000 more troops are also slated for Afghanistan before the Iraqi withdrawal is complete. These known deployments will leave over 100,000 US and NATO troops in Afghanistan; how many more will be added in the future, is too early to say.

Consistent with President Obama’s projection that Afghanistan will need to have some 400,000 military and police personnel before it can take care of its security needs, for the US to clean-up the tougher parts of Afghanistan (including an area across the border in Pakistan,) in preparation for Afghanistan to take over the security responsibility, will require an overwhelming force, likely MORE troops than were committed to Iraq at the peak of that campaign.

With a lesser force, which may be dictated to President Obama by the American public, the Afghanistan/Pakistan mission is likely be protracted, well into the tenure of President Obama’s successor; the McCain 100 year in the region may well proved to be a prophecy, not just a campaign mis-statement.

Technorati Tags: , , ,


Overwhelming-force needed: Afghanistan!

Overwhelming-force needed: Afghanistan!

Experiences of others, such as Russia, notwithstanding, Afghanistan unique character requires an overwhelming-force in order to accomplish the goal of neutralizing the Taliban, and establishing a democracy that is not encumbered by religion, or guided by Shariya (Islamic law,) as it now is. In spite of Americans reluctance about having fighting United States troops overseas, especially in harm’s way, a success in Afghanistan would bring about troop levels not a-similar to those reached in Iraq.

President Obama shows a significant naivete when he suggests that diplomacy could work with the Taliban. In spite of the President’s exposure to Islam, and his Islamic birth, President Obama demonstrates ignorance of even the minimal requirements dictated by the Koran. Koranic law would not even allow a Taliban to communicate with the heathen Americans, especially that they are represented by a woman.

For the United States to accomplish minimal goals in Afghanistan the American public must expect troop levels in that country to reach the same, or near the same level that was reached in Iraq.


Afghanistan: A new Iraq? The case for overwhelming force!

 

Afghanistan: The case for overwhelming force!

 

Before it is all said and done, it is likely that over 100,000 United States troops will participate in the “securing of democracy” in Afghanistan. Including “allied” forces the number of troops will likely be over half of those that were deployed in Iraq!

 

President-elect, Barak Obama was primarily “hired” by the American public to end the war in Iraq and to bring US troops home, to the United States.  The President-elect, even before taking office already “modified” his job description to allow for at least 30,000 American troops deployment in Afghanistan, and this is only a beginning…

 

Short of President loch sojourn into Kosovo, there are examples in human warfare when the doctrine of overwhelming force, did not determine the outcome. In Kosovo, where unlike most war situation, the enemy was well defined, and “locals” did not side with the it, targeted air attack was enough to bring about a satisfactory outcome.

 

When the Israeli in their naiveté, attempted to follow the Kosovo model, they suffered their first defeat to Arab forces in sixty years of fighting. Hezbollah, and the Lebanese people made it clear, as did the Iraqi in the most recent American invasion, that it is nearly impossible to win a country through the use of minimal force.

 

In Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld, and his deputy Paul Wolfovitz attempted to use business models to plan the war. Even in business, where the basic model of using what essentially is zero inventory, and for all practical purposes only build to ship, the model without modification proved flawed; it clearly fails in a war situation when new and unpredictable inputs continue to emerge.

 

The Afghanistan situation is extremely complicated. The Russians found this out the hard way; the United States must not allow itself to face a similar situation.

 

To avoid public rejection and resentment, President-elect Obama must, without delay, prepare The American public for an expensive and protracted engagement in Afghanistan.

 

Obama appears committed to get the world of Osama bin-Ladin, and is on record as willing to go as far as to violet sovereignty of anyone in his way of protecting the United States from its enemies. Such a position, when dealing with the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation must be explained in may be its possibly worse case scenario.

 

United States presence in the broader Middle East may change. There may be fewer troops in Iraq, but there will likely be many more troops in Afghanistan. There may have to be more United States ships in the Arabian Peninsula as a buffer to Ahmadinejad, and a larger presence with more joint exercises with Israel of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.

 

It would behoove the incoming United States Administration to prepare the American public for an ongoing war situation with hundred of thousands of troops remaining in the Broader Middle East than the time frame for a total troop withdrawal that the President-elect spoke about during his campaign.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.