President Obama's New Afghan Policy

President Obama has delivered his decision on Afghanistan in a speech Tuesday evening. The President will send 30,000 more American troops to this civil war-ravaged, historically multi-factioned and warlord-dominated country in order, apparently, to eventually speed up their withdrawal. This seems to be somewhat like the "surge doctrine" used in Iraq during the last two years of the Bush presidency, when a more more aggressive military posture was employed to overcome insurgents there, particularly in Sunni areas.

In Iraq, however, whatever successes the surge had were based on the foundation of area tribal chiefs and leaders switching their allegiances from the insurgency to the government. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is not just some covert insurgency, but rather a very organized shadow government, not necessarily dependent on local chiefs for its survival. I may be misinformed, but I don't believe that the same scenario for success exists in Afghanistan (especially the southern region where the Taliban is the strongest) that existed in Iraq.

The additional U.S. troops will fill in the void of security in areas that the Afghan government does not control. Which of course means that these areas are, for all practical purposes, Taliban territory. With popular support rooted in those areas. When our soldiers go into these areas, they will once again be confronted by the specter of having to regard the local civilian population as the enemy unless proven otherwise, inviting possibly tragic misunderstandings and even atrocities.

But then again, I could have it all wrong. Maybe, as in Iraq, the groundwork for some success has clandestinely been laid with more moderate Taliban supporters being persuaded to support a temporary American presence in return for political recognition or autonomy of some sort. Who knows? Perhaps our elected leaders, with their access to classified intelligence, know something that I or my fellow lay citizens don't. But then again, this same reasoning was put over on us by the previous Bush administration to justify invading Iraq in 2003("trust us, we have access to special intelligence and know better than you").

Come what will, I believe that continually ostracizing the Taliban in this area is not a formula for success. Our focus should be to separate them from Al-Qaeda, not eliminate them. There will always be a harsh, Islamic fundamentalist presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those following it are in the minority in both countries, but they are devoted and willing to sacrifice themselves and others to achieve legitimacy. Ultimately, the solution for peace will come through negotiation and some sort of political equilibrium with these groups. And there will always be a degree of tension between the fundamentalist interests and those who want a more secular, albeit still Islamic, society in their countries.

Anyway, the way I see it, our main problem over there isn't Afghanistan, but rather Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons that is directly threatened by extremist forces and in which Al-Qaeda is currently based. And where American troops are not welcome by the presiding official government. Good luck on sorting that mess out, Mr. President! I just hope our additional troops don't just succeed in driving the Taliban completely over the border into Pakistan, further destabilizing that already too-unstable nation.