The Hidden Danger Posed By Afghanistan

Bob Herbert has uncovered a ticking time bomb set by Bush and set to go off during the early stages of Barack Obama's presidency. Afghanistan, a nation that borders Iran and Pakistan; two nations that pose their own conundrums for American strategists. With the shifting sands of Iraq still holding our commitment of masses of troops, contractors, and civilians, the perceived plan is for Obama to deploy thousands of American forces to a region of the world populated by a fierce population known for its ability to ward off numerous invades for centuries. The American's chances do not appear better than their predecessors. For support of this "quagmire" thesis Herbert quotes: "Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel who is now a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, (who) wrote an important piece for Newsweek warning against the proposed buildup. “Afghanistan will be a sinkhole,” he said, “consuming resources neither the U.S. military nor the U.S. government can afford to waste.” Another expert; "Michael Gordon noted that “Afghanistan presents a unique set of problems: a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain." Afghanistan would not be an easy military mission for the U.S. even if we were well prepared for extended conflict; however, because of our long military engagement in Iraq, we are not ready. Our troops are too few in numbers and need rest while our war equipment is in need of repair and replacement. We missed our time for victory in Afghanistan and the possibility to kill or capture Osama bin Laden when Bush withdrew and incredulously switched his war efforts to Iraq. If we fight in Afghanistan, we will also be drawn into Pakistan because "radical Islamists" may fight in Afghanistan, but they use Pakistan as a safe haven to collect their forces. Going back into Afghanistan means we have wasted five years and are back to square one after Bush's diversionary mission to Iraq achieved nothing but to make us militarily and diplomatically weaker. Sure, we have an America-friendly government in Afghanistan led by President Hamid Karzai; but that's only because Bush created a puppet government when he installed Karzai in office. But Karzai's authority only extends over the major cities in Afghanistan including the capital city Kabul; beyond, in the more rural areas of the country that amount to perhaps 80% of the total landmass; the Taliban is back in complete control. Still, Mr. Herbert and many other Americans see the inevitability of our military presence in Afghanistan escalating, leaving Herbert with the following advice for Obama: "If Mr. Obama does send more troops to Afghanistan, he should go on television and tell the American people, in the clearest possible language, what he is trying to achieve. He should spell out the mission’s goals, and lay out an exit strategy. He will owe that to the public because he will own the conflict at that point. It will be Barack Obama’s war." My advice is if it is to be war, let it be a war led by a ferocious diplomatic offensive that involves the Taliban warlords who will listen to reason and the leaders of Iran and Pakistan who seek stability in the Central Asian region as a whole. We must not discount the potential for a diplomatic solution in a region that is unafraid of lasting wars of attrition.