Responding to a Cheerleader for the Afghan War

Posted by Guy Saperstein, News Hoggers at 9:57 PM on July 29, 2009.



Liberal hawk Peter Bergen fails to address core questions about the occupation, such as why the US is fighting the Taliban in the first place. Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
8 COMMENTS
Share and save this post:








AlterNet Social Networks:



Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

PEEK RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed


Get PEEK in your
mailbox!



Ed. Note: Recently, Peter Bergen of the New America Foundation had an op-ed published by the Washington Monthly entitled "Winning The Good War." It has been widely and approvingly linked by Democrat interventionists as a bolster to their support for Obama's staying Bush's course in Afghanistan. Co-Founder of the National Security/Foreign Policy New Ideas Fund and civil rights lawyer Guy Saperstein has written a letter in response to Bergen's column (this letter first appeared on News Hoggers):





Liberal Hawks like Peter Bergen are not merely ascendant, they have become dominant, so it is important to look at their arguments and see if they make any sense.



While I am impressed with Bergen's knowledge of Afghanistan, in a long article he fails to address the core questions about Afghanistan: Why are we fighting the Taliban? There are crucial differences between the goals of al Qaeda and the Taliban, so why are we treating them the same? Why do we have 70,000 combat troops, plus private mercenaries there? How many more will be needed? What are the metrics of success or failure? How long will we be there? What will it ultimately cost? What is the exit strategy? Are there alternatives to the military model? And what are the real strategic threats to America and is spending hundreds of millions more in Afghanistan getting in the way of dealing with more important national security issues?



Bergen calls Afghanistan the "Good War," and it might have been that when it was harboring al Qaeda, but everyone, including General Patraeus acknowledges al Qaeda left Afghanistan long ago -- pushed out by our military intervention. In the absence of al Qaeda, we have simply substituted the Taliban as our enemy, without Bergen, or apparently anyone, asking whether this makes any sense. And should we consider it a success that al Qaeda has been pushed from a country with little or no strategic significance into nuclear-armed Pakistan, one of the potentially most dangerous countries on earth? Is it a success that now we are beholden to Pakistan to control al Qaeda, a task they have undertaken with mixed motives and weak results?



Al Qaeda has an international agenda, sees America as a long-term obstacle to its goals, and, of course, attacked the American homeland. But the Taliban never attacked America and no one claims the Taliban has any interest or capacity in attacking the United States homeland. It wants to take power in Afghanistan and it is fighting U.S. soldiers because these soldiers present an impediment to that goal. While the Taliban are not nice people, should America spend another trillion dollars, or more, on top of the $3 trillion cost of the War in Iraq [which Bergen also supported] to prevent the Taliban from taking power in Afghanistan? And while Bergen suggests the U.S. must reform not only the Afghanistan army and government, but also provide long-term "stability and prosperity" so that it "will never again be a launching pad" for terrorism, does this apply as well to the many weak and failed nations around the world which potentially could be launching pads for terrorism? Do we invade and rebuild them all? And with the American economy faltering and falling deeper into debt to its most important strategic rival, China, can we afford the luxury of fighting expensive wars wherever terrorism might arise?



Is negotiation and accommodation possible with the Taliban, or even part of it? Is there a deal to be made with the Taliban which allowed it to pursue its goal of retaking power in Afghanistan, provided that no terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda be allowed to operate in the country? Should we pursue such a deal?



And while I don't wish to argue tactics with Bergen, the Army's operation manual on counter-insurgency recommends one combat soldier for every twenty of population for success: With Afghanistan being a country of 13 million people, the 20:1 ratio would mean 650,000 combat troops. Is that where Bergen thinks we are trending, or should trend? If so, then Afghanistan will start looking like Vietnam.



The problem with Bergen's analysis is the same problem as the Administration's war effort: They both are full of talk of tactics and logistics, founded on unarticulated assumptions and lacking a long-term strategic vision or even consideration of less intensive, and perhaps more effective, alternatives. President Obama promised metrics and an exit strategy, but, to date, none have been forthcoming, either from the President or cheerleaders like Peter Bergen.