New, unwise military interventions threaten to entrap U.S.
Wanting to look strong, President Obama is reluctant to abandon an Afghan mission that serves no good purpose. He and GOP challengers should be careful about what they say in the months ahead, lest they trap us in more military adventures.
MKhalili (Mehran Khalili)/Flickr
If you haven't noticed, election-year politics are moving the United States, day by day, toward new armed interventions that would be unwise.
We are, in fact, still not free of old ones from which the American people already are fatigued. This was highlighted anew this past weekend when a GI in Afghanistan lost it and gunned down 16 Afghans, including several women and children.
First, Afghanistan. President Barack Obama faces a dilemma there resembling that which President Lyndon Johnson faced in the late-1960s as he looked for an honorable escape route from Vietnam.
Johnson invited his old pal, former Oklahoma Sen. Mike Monroney, into the White House for late-afternoon bourbon-and-branch-water and candid discussion. According to Monroney, the discussion went as follows:
Johnson: "Mike, I've got to get out of this Vietnam mess without hurting our interests or appearing to cut and run. How do I do it?"
Monroney: "That depends on available transportation systems."
Johnson: "What do you mean, available transportation systems?"
Monroney: "Where you have trucks, you load up the troops and put them in the trucks. Where there are no trucks, you march them out. When they get to where there are airports or harbors, you fly them out or put them on ships. You arrange with the North Vietnamese to leave them alone until they clear out. Then you give a speech to the American people and declare victory. Our job was done and we left with honor."
Johnson: "Not quite that simple, Mike."
Monroney: "Oh yeah? If we continue the present 'stay the course' strategy, I bet the idea will look good to you a few months from now."
And so it would have. It would be 1975, following Johnson's successor President Richard Nixon's resignation from office, before American troops finally left Vietnam — many billions of dollars and thousands of lives later — pretty much as Monroney had suggested to LBJ, but in a less-ordered way.
The most recent incident in Afghanistan should remind us anew that, long term, there is no long term for us in Afghanistan.
Under pressure from Republican presidential candidates, and his own senior military officers, Obama is trying to pursue policies leading to an ordered withdrawal in the year ahead. During the interim period, Afghan military forces and police are supposed to be trained up to take greater responsiblity for internal security. Quiet negotiations are taking place with the present Afghan government and the Taliban to arrive at some kind of modus vivendi after a departure of NATO troops. In meantime, violent backlashes take place in-country in response to such actions as the recent unintended Koran burning by U.S. troops and last weekend's shootings.
One fact is clear: The United States has no more vital interests at stake in Afghanistan than it did in Vietnam. This fractious, tribal-dominated country has an economy largely dependent on narcotics harvesting and trafficking. It was important to us when its Taliban regime harbored Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda training bases. But Osama is dead and Al Qaeda's main operating centers are now in Pakistan and in various parts of the Middle East. Nuclear-armed Pakistan, a nuclear-arming Iran, and other places are important to us. But not Afghanistan. Time to leave according to the Monroney Formula.
The greatest obstacle to an immediate clearout is Obama's fear that he will draw fire domestically for such an action and that he will be judged less than credible by Israeli and other allies who depend on our security guarantees. But the way to calm the Israelis, of course, is to provide updated military systems they seek rather than spending U.S. lives and money on operations in irrelevant Afghanistan.
Republican presidential candidates and, notably, Sen. John McCain are all presenting themselves as stronger on national defense than Obama, as better friends of Israel, and as opponents of the reduced defense budget he has proposed to the Congress. They have all but endorsed a near-term Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilties and branded Obama's sanctions policy toward Iran as dangerously weak.
They also are pushing toward more robust help for Syrian rebels opposing the present tyrannical and Iranian-backed regime. Thus far Obama has responded by a) faulting the GOP leaders for their eagerness to go to war; and b) making ever more hawkish statements of his own to protect himself on that flank.
As a result, bit by bit, we are drifting closer to armed interventions in questionable places. The administration's high-visibility support for the so-called "Arab Spring" has not necessarily helped. The democratic revolution in Tunisia was generated internally. We lent non-military support to rebels in Egypt who deposed President Mubarak, leaving behind a tense contest between a military caretaker government and the Muslim Brotherhood and more militant Islamic elements who now dominate civilian politics there.
We and NATO partners went to war against Libya's Qaddafi, subsequently killed by rebels who have not yet formed a successor government whose composition is clear. Now we find ourselves having to answer why we have not come to the assistance of Syrian rebels opposing a regime more brutal and sinister than those toppled in Libya and Egypt. Both Obama and his Republican challengers are making "red-line" warnings to Iran, regarding its nuclear-weapons development, which could lead us to war there. We would be better served to deploy strength in the area but make our warnings private.
Both Obama and GOP presidential aspirants keep talking about extensions of American power in the Pacific to counter the Chinese military buildup. There, too, it would be better to project the power — easy to see by the Chinese — without talking so much about it.
Obama has taken a big risk by offering North Korea food aid in return for "discussions" about its nuclear-weapons program. But, in the past, such talks have gone nowhere. North Korea has gotten concessions; it has talked about its nuclear program but expanded it and continued to export nuclear materials and technology. If this proves to be the case again, Obama will feel obliged to show himself tough on other offshore fronts.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the most responsible and sober of the Republican presidential candidates — and his party's likely nominee. But even he, in his policy formulations, has pretty much parroted a get-tough line on foreign policy, which shows no appreciation of the virtues of subtlety and ambiguity in foreign policy. His advisors obviously have told him he must keep at least several steps rightward of wherever Obama stands on foreign policy at a given time.
Obama, left to his own devices, has shown himself to be a sometimes imprudent talker but, overall, a cautious operator on war-peace issues. He would no doubt tell you privately that, if it were up to him, he'd do an Afghan withdrawal tomorrow and pull back from his escalating public challenges toward Iran and its arms and technology suppliers in Russia and China. But the GOP devils, he would tell you, are forcing him to keep talking and acting as he is.
After the two national party conventions, nationally televised debates will take place between Obama and (presumably) Romney. The foreign-policy statements each makes in those debates will become the basis for U.S. national policy in 2013, if not before. Both should be careful their words do not take the country beyond where it should prudently go.
Let us hope that events before then do not provide their own momentum and produce consequences both Obama and Romney should want to avoid.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 7:25 a.m. Inappropriate
While I have two Vietnam service medals I never stepped foot on Vietnam soil so am no expert.
However I heard stories of our troops abusing civilians - true or not I have no idea.
Recent events in Afgan remind me of stories I heard. Defacing enemny / civilian corpses, the fiasco of burning Korans, now this.
Will we ever learn? Vietnam turned out to be a fiasco - all we accomplished was a bunch of dead, shot up troops some of whom still have PTSD.
We went to Afgan to get Osama - we got him. I am glad we got him but argue methods. We should have advertised on world wide TV that we were going to find him. When we did we advertise we are drop a smart bomb on you. If you other folks do not want to be collateral damage avoid our target or become collateral damage. Regardless how we did it - job done go home.
We are not wanted there. Why do we think we are smarter than the British and Russions who tried the same thing and failed?
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 7:25 a.m. Inappropriate
While I have two Vietnam service medals I never stepped foot on Vietnam soil so am no expert.
However I heard stories of our troops abusing civilians - true or not I have no idea.
Recent events in Afgan remind me of stories I heard. Defacing enemny / civilian corpses, the fiasco of burning Korans, now this.
Will we ever learn? Vietnam turned out to be a fiasco - all we accomplished was a bunch of dead, shot up troops some of whom still have PTSD.
We went to Afgan to get Osama - we got him. I am glad we got him but argue methods. We should have advertised on world wide TV that we were going to find him. When we did we advertise we are drop a smart bomb on you. If you other folks do not want to be collateral damage avoid our target or become collateral damage. Regardless how we did it - job done go home.
We are not wanted there. Why do we think we are smarter than the British and Russions who tried the same thing and failed?
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 10:01 a.m. Inappropriate
Good article, thank you. I think you underestimate the pain withdrawing from Afghanistan will cause (Al Queda will be back in a few years) but I don't think we are left with any other choices. If we can help protect Europe, Japan and Israel I think we can muddle our way through this.
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 10:13 a.m. Inappropriate
Ted you forgot the other reason we are in Afghanistan, control of the Empire. The USA doesn't like to admit that's what we are up to, but we are following the late 1800's early 1900's United Kingdom Empire book, "how to control the world's resources."
Afghanistan control is a base next to the Western edge of China, the Northwestern edge of India, and an Eastern border of Iran. Why is that important? Iran all that oil, 20% of which goes to China. India and China the next two growing up powers...
Syria, we are interested in because it has the only Mediterranean Russia seaport. We get control of that, and we own that sea.
I'm not defending any of this, but now that I see what is going on, it makes sense from that perspective. IMO we'll be bankrupt before we have the control that the followers of this plan are trying.
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 10:37 a.m. Inappropriate
Say what, TVD? We should just give the Israelis the "updated military systems" they seek, meaning huge bunker buster bombs and aircraft so they can go ahead and start a disastrous war with Iran that we will inevitably be dragged into and have to take over? Now there's some sage advice for President Obama.
Romney has been the "most sober and responsible" of the GOP candidates? That's not saying very much, is it? Isn't he the one who blasted Obama for proceeding with the withdrawal from Iraq and who shouts that Obama's policies are putting nuclear weapons in Iran's hands, and that he will increase military spending and win the war in Afghanistan? All very well-informed and responsible positions, huh? Let's get over this unsupportable rhetoric that Romney has been moderate and responsible, because the last six months of his campaign have blown up that illusion.
As far as Obama being an "imprudent" talker, TVD, show us the evidence of that. His recent handling of Netanyahu, Israel, and the GOP candidates on the Iran issue was masterful.
This column represents more false equivalence and anti-Obama bias from TVD. Though I certainly agree with the overall warning to get the hell out of Afghanistan and avoid new wars.
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 3:52 p.m. Inappropriate
It seems incomplete to say that Afghanistan "has an economy largely dependent on narcotics harvesting and trafficking" without noting that this is a result of the US invasion. The Taliban successfully enforced a ban on opium cultivation.
http://www.economist.com/node/1034972
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 5:02 p.m. Inappropriate
When campaigning for President, Obama denigrated the Iraq venture and said our efforts should concentrate of Afghanistan. It is perhaps for that reason that Mr. O. felt he had to increase our commitment in Afghanistan instead of beating an readily defensible retreat two years ago. Yes Harris, big talk can lay big traps.
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 9:23 p.m. Inappropriate
As Eisenhower said decades ago, "Beware the military-industrial-congressional complex". Today, that nightmare has come true as all of the institutions of our country have a blind allegiance to war making. That includes the media and writers like TVD who are full time apologists for U.S. policies that are ultimately creating more terrorists than they'll ever eliminate.
From this article:
"In meantime, violent backlashes take place in-country in response to such actions as the recent unintended Koran burning by U.S. troops and last weekend's shootings."
Really? They accidentally burned the Korans? Of course not. They were ordered to remove these Korans from the prison and bring them to the dumpsters.
And last weekend's massacre wasn't just a shooting. It was premeditated murder of several families. To call it a shooting devalues the people of Afghanistan. If that shooter (who is from Ft. Lewis) drove up to Tacoma instead and went door to door and shot several families and then burned their bodies, I doubt anyone in the media would be calling it merely a 'shooting'.
Posted Mon, Mar 12, 10:25 p.m. Inappropriate
What an oblivious op-ed, and then an "editor's pick" for "If we can help protect Europe, Japan and Israel I think we can muddle our way through this"? Not a single mention of direct U.S. military intervention in Iraq (2003-2011), or of the oil driving most of our government's actions in the Middle East. Nor any mention of Nicaragua (1981-1990, and others), Chile (1973--the first "9/11" terrorist attack), Dominican Republic (1965), Guatemala (1954), Iran (1953), Haiti (multiple occasions), Mexico (1912-1933), Philippines (1898-1946), Hawaii (1893). There are many other outrageous example of misuse of military power by the U.S.; these are the most blatant that come to mind, and do not include numerous instances of the use of military force against Americans in the U.S., starting with the Amerindians who were basically exterminated right through the end of the Nineteenth Century (Wounded Knee, 1890).
Many if not most of the intractable problems we face (like in the Middle East) have been caused in large part by our own earlier perfidious acts, like the overthrow of Mosaddeqh by the CIA. For oil.
The United States is recognized throughout the world as an imperialist power. Our interest in these military adventures has been and continues to be protection of American corporate property and prevention of control by competing imperial powers or by the "locals" when they get too uppity and try to set up governments too favorable to themselves. Many democratically elected leaders have been deposed by direct U.S. military force or covert support. Murdered.
We conduct military adventures for oil, lithium, and numerous other valuable commodities. You think the military-industrial machine does this for freedom and democracy? Remember the 1963 song lyric--"we fight for tin and tungston, and freedom, too" ("And Freedom, Too," Bill Fredricks - 1963). Freedom, yes, but only as an afterthought, and often only in response to tremendous domestic pressure.
The U.S. is not only evil; we have a strong thread of anti-authoritarianism, and have successfully moved toward a less racist, less sexist, and more egalitarian society (except since Reagan we've been moving backwards on economic justice). It was a Republican president who warned about the military industrial complex. Failing to acknowledge the dark side of our wealth and power and militarism is shameful and will not pass without comment.
Posted Tue, Mar 13, 2:51 p.m. Inappropriate
Update: In the short time since this was written, our presence in Afghanistan is quickly becoming an issue of urgent national discussion.
The shooting incident, and its aftermath, have been a catalyst. We shall see shortly how it plays out in the Congress and in congressional campaigns---if not immediately in presidential campaigning.
Posted Tue, Mar 13, 5:49 p.m. Inappropriate
Actually, Afghanistan already was "an issue of urgent national discussion" before the shooting, given the Koran-burning incident involving U.S. soldiers last month and the ensuing riots and killings of U.S. troops and others, the intense Afghan anger over the killing of eight young Afghans in a faulty NATO airstrike last month, and the video of Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters in January. Things have been sliding downhill for some time, while Republican presidential candidates and other GOP elected officials insist that we should fight to victory in that graveyard of empires and that we should jump into new hostilities with Syria and Iran.
Posted Tue, Mar 13, 9:39 p.m. Inappropriate
These types of massacres have been happening in the Middle East for years. Here's just one video from a shooting several years ago. It's called Collateral Murder. It looks like a video game where the soldiers just shoot and shoot and keep shooting. Only these targets never come back to life.
http://collateralmurder.com/
Sadly, the Koran burnings and the Massacre by this crazed army sargeant will change nothing. The Christian evangelicals love war and so do the corporate war profiteers. And so does the corporate media. And those groups are the ones dominating the discussion.
Most likely, this 'incident' as TVD calls it, will be blamed on a head injury, multiple deployments, PTSD, bad parenting, a failing marriage, drinking, drugs or some combination thereof. And the corporate media will converge to tamp down any outrage that may occur. Nothing will change and there will be no national discussion.
Posted Fri, Mar 16, 1:33 p.m. Inappropriate
Multiple deployments alone should tell us we've bit off far more than we can chew. It does not because "people" are neoliberal units of production to the crony capitalists who openly manage our affairs.
A cleaned-up, yet telling version of its inroads here: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/neoliberalism-and-higher-education/
The opposition here: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/index.php
Their review of Joseph Stigliz's book "Globalisation and Its Discontents" here:
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article330
Posted Sun, Mar 18, 9:34 a.m. Inappropriate
afreeman, you have it exactly right. The people involved in war profiteering don't care a bit about soldiers like Sergeant Bale. The government's case will no doubt treat him like a malfunctioning toaster, a product with a defect, rather than as a human who was pushed beyond the brink to madness.
The propaganda war from the Obama Administration has begun already. In today's NY Times, an anonymous quote from the government meant to muddy the water right from the start. In this story, there is none of the usual claims that they don't want to comment on an 'ongoing legal investigation'. The government is happy to anonymously insert itself into the story.
Suspect’s Deployments Put Focus on War Strains
NY Times, 3/18/2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/us/suspects-deployments-put-focus-on-war-strains.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp;
From the article:
A senior government official said that on the night of the killings, Sergeant Bales had been drinking. Although other militaries allow alcohol on bases in Afghanistan — Italian forces have wine with their meals — on American bases it is forbidden.
Posted Wed, Mar 21, 11:40 p.m. Inappropriate
Richard Borkowski, so you don't think that multiple deployments in the horrendous conditions that obtain in Iraq and Afghanistan, a head injury, and PTSD could possibly affect someone to the point of committing these kinds of acts? Just what else do you think is necessary in that person's recent history in order to qualify?
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.