The Empty Chair

So, most of you have heard about the odd performance piece Clint Eastwood put on at the Republican National Convention, where he cross examined an imaginary President Obama signified by an empty chair. I like Clint, even if I don't agree with his politics and, as Bill Maher pointed out the other night, he went up there with no prompter and a chair and he got good responses from the audience, so you gotta give him credit for stepping out there. But it wasn't till I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart this weekend that I realized the significance of Eastwood's conversation with the empty chair. A significance that is obviously lost on the Republicans themselves.

As Jon Stewart put it, "Eastwood finally revealed the cognitive dissonance that is the beating heart and soul and fiction of [the Republican] party.   . . . I could never wrap my head around why the world and the President, that the Republicans describe bears so little resemblance to the world and the President that I experience. And now I know why. There is a President Obama that only Republicans can see. And while the President, the rest of us see has issues, apparently this President, invisible to many, is bent on our wholesale destruction." This theory is startlingly true. And it's been true since the campaign began. No, let's be honest, it's been true since January 20th, 2009. The GOP has based the majority of its attacks, not on the actual policies President Obama has championed or put into place, but instead, they have continually referred to a mythical, alternate reality version of Obama. Always exaggerating anything he said or did, and shockingly, often telling outright lies!

I can't even count the number of 'scandals' pushed, and often generated from thin air by Fox News and other GOP leaning sources that were completely untrue. And I mean proven false by objective investigation. But Republicans, and especially Fox News, know one very important thing about Americans and the media. They know that a salacious lie told today will be remembered, even if it's completely debunked tomorrow. Get your version out there first and proclaim it loudly and repeatedly. Then even if irrefutable proof arises later, you simply let it go without comment and your viewers and supporters will never even notice. Any proof offered later will be considered liberal propaganda. It's simple, and it works.

Look, I have a number of issues with Obama and his policies. I'm ticked off that the Gitmo gulag is still in operation. I'm ticked that we have made it OK to execute Americans via drone with little oversight. I'm ticked that we are still expected to be in Afghanistan for years to come, when we really aren't doing any lasting good and really don't have any control over the stability of the Karzai government. I'm pissed that the Bush tax cuts are still in place and continuing to feed the deficit. That's just what comes immediately to mind. Though even some of those items bear the fingerprints of the GOP. My point is that I can understand reasoned disagreement with the policies of this President. What I cannot understand is how much time is spent by Conservatives ranting and raving about policies Obama never proposed or on intentional misinterpretations of policies that actually were implemented. If we can't even agree on the basic facts, then how can we ever agree on anything else?

As an American, you must decide this November who you will support for President. I'm not asking that you blindly vote to reelect Barack Obama. But I do ask that you base your voting decision on facts. Not sound bites. Not some off the cuff remarks by Mike Huckabee or Sean Hannity. Not some unconfirmed headline you read on the Drudge Report. Not a Crossroads GPS funded attack ad. Base it on facts, that is all I ask. Wanna know the details on past and current fiscal policies and how they affect the deficit now and in the future? Actually go to the official sites and find the info! Don't pull it from breitbart.com! Visit the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is the non-partisan organization that is relied on by both parties for 'scoring' legislation. You want to hear some level-headed analysis of a Supreme Court ruling? Don't wait for Nancy Grace to enlighten you, go to the SCOTUS Blog, where experienced law scholars parse through the dense rulings and discuss the repercussions without adding partisan spin. Hear about a scandal that sounds shocking? Then investigate it through non partisan sources, or at least across a wide swath of sources, to see if maybe the reason it's so shocking is because it's made up! Vote for who you think is best for America, going forward. Just make sure you're basing your decision on factual information and not single sourced from a partisan pundit with an axe to grind.

Is it Time?

On July 5th an Op-Ed appeared in the NY Times, co-written by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) entitled 'Let's Not Linger in Afghanistan'. They put forth an argument that I've heard summed up as 'declare victory and come home.' These Senators are part of a growing, bipartisan movement afoot in Congress, mirroring the sentiments of more and more Americans, that want to see an end to the 10 year war in Afghanistan. In fact it's one of the few truly bipartisan things going on in DC these days. That in and of itself begs for attention.

We invaded Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, less than a month after in fact, and it made sense to do so at the time. The country was run by a regime that actively, and unabashedly supported and sheltered terrorists who attacked the US and other nations. It was the primary base and training ground for Osama Bin Laden's al Qaeda network and was the home of Bin Laden himself. When President George W. Bush announced the invasion to the American people, he stated clearly the reasons and goals.

"On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime."

This we accomplished in fairly short order. We destroyed al Qaeda's support and training infrastructure and forced the Taliban leadership from power. Bin Laden and the bulk of the remaining al Qaeda network were pushed into the mountainous area along the Pakistani border. By December Hamid Karzai was selected as Chairman of the Interim Administration. Six months later he was chosen for a two year term as Interim President before winning the first post-Taliban Presidential election in 2004. So by 2004 Afghanistan was installing a democratically elected government. Fast forward to early 2009 and newly elected President Obama announces an increase in Afghan troop levels, now that we are finally drawing down from the non-sensical Iraq war that had distracted us since early 2003. Obama stated that the addition troops were "necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires." Then in December of 2009 President Obama, speaking at the military academy at West Point, announced a surge of some 30,000 additional troops to "bring this war to a successful conclusion." Finally, on May 2nd of this year, Osama Bin Laden was tracked to a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan and killed in a SEAL team raid, ending a hunt that actually started in the mid '90s. So here we are in mid 2011, and the President announced the beginning of the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, which he had promised from the stage at West Point. But the drawdown will be much slower than the buildup, taking a year to return to the Fall 2009 troop levels of around 70,000. A full withdrawal would not occur till 2014!

So, by the current timetable, over thirteen years after it began and about ten years after the Karzai government took power, US troops will finally leave Afghanistan. By then we will have spent the better part of a trillion dollars, and that's only the direct military appropriations! We may never know what the exact number is, once you factor in all the ancillary costs and pallets of cash airlifted into Kabul that nobody seems to really be able to account for. Even more important than the cash are the lives lost. Over 1500 Americans thus far have lost their lives halfway around the world, averaging over 40 a month just this year, but rising month over month. You can add 920 additional deaths for the rest of the allied coalition. According to The Guardian news, you can tack on another 3800+ Afghan civilians, just since 2007, with numbers also continuing to rise. Don't forget, these are only the deaths. Current US wounded totals exceed 11,000! Then there is the strain on our entire military and their families as they return for tour after tour after tour. Many current American soldiers probably have more time 'in country' than our WWII veterans did. This is not a normal existence, with families split apart for 6 months or more at a time. We are wearing these men and women down, inch by inch. Treating them as if they were inexhaustible and ignoring the psychological, as well as physical, toll that some will never, ever recover from.

I'm just not sure what we're even accomplishing anymore. After ten years we still have only been able to really secure the larger cities. The hinterlands are still just about as dangerous as ever and still mostly outside the control of the central government. Just as they have been for centuries. Intelligence reports indicate that there are likely less than a hundred low level al Qaeda still in the country. The biggest single issue, as I see it, is really the Karzai government itself. Institutional corruption has prevented any deep reforms and undercut any real trust with the Afghan people. This is not a problem that can be fixed by yet another tour by the 10th Mountain Division! We have long since reached a point where all we're doing is keeping the various insurgent groups scattered. We can't eradicate them, any more than the British could in the 19th century or Russians in the 20th. I doubt Alexander had any better luck himself when he 'conquered' Afghanistan over 2000 years ago! The Senators' OP-Ed speaks to the problem succinctly when it states:

"Today, despite vast investment in training and equipping Afghan forces, the country's deep-seated instability, rampant corruption and, in some cases, compromised loyalties endure. Extending our commitment of combat troops will not remedy that situation." [emphasis added]

This is where we find ourselves today. We've spent dearly, in lives and treasure, and in the end we are not even the deciding factor in this equation. In many ways we never were. For the last six or seven years all we've really done is act as Karzai's army. But the problem isn't really military in nature, it's governmental. It's institutional. Afghanistan probably hasn't had a firm central government since the fall of the Persian Empire. Outside the main population centers it's still a tribal system that, aside from AK-47s and RPGs, is little changed from when the British occupied the country over 170 years ago. At least in Iraq there was a national governmental structure, despite the sectarian tensions. Afghanistan has none of this and out in the tribal lands, I'll wager, they don't even want it. We invaded to destroy al Qaeda and oust the Taliban. We accomplished most of this in the first year. All we've been doing since 2004 is desperately trying to hold together a corrupt government that most Afghans don't even trust. A government, in fact, that came off looking very shady in the last Presidential election. 

Look, I understand what everyone is worried about. We're all scared that when we pull out the bulk of our troops that the scattered elements of the Taliban will coalesce into a strong enough force to bring down Karzai and return to power. It is a valid concern, but will things be much different between summer 2012 and the end of 2014? Will the Afghan government be any stronger? Any less corrupt? We are dealing with a culture that seems to almost enshrine corruption and cronyism. A nation that has lived on the opium trade for generations. As I've said on more than one occasion, in the end the only people really in a position to 'win' in Afghanistan are the Afghans themselves. Whether we leave in 2012 or 2014, they are the ones who will determine if the new government stands or falls, not America or NATO. 

It's time to start bringing the bulk of our troops home, not by the end of 2014, but by the end of 2012. Do it for the troops, who have suffered, bled and died for 10 years already. Do it for the Afghan people who have lived with a foreign army of occupation for a decade, good intentions or no, and must be allowed to choose their own destiny. Do it for our economy, which cannot continue to hemorrhage money in the hundreds of Billions while we lay off teachers and watch our infrastructure crumble. Finally, as President Obama put it in his Afghan policy speech, "America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home." Way past time, if you ask me.

A Book Review: War

The war in Afghanistan conjures up many things for Americans. But unless we've got a loved one in harm's way or have lost someone there, we usually focus on the larger political issues. We think about the Taliban, Al-Qaida and the 'terrorist connection' or maybe about Pakistan's tepid response to extremists operating out their side of the border. What we don't think about is what it's like to be an infantryman, spending 15 months in one of the tiny outposts scattered about Afghanistan's frontiers. That's what Sabastian Junger's book 'War' is all about.

Sebastian Junger is a journalist who's written a number of books, including the book that was adapted into the movie 'The Perfect Storm'. This book was put together from five trips Junger made, often with photographer Tim Hetherington, into the Korengal Valley over the course of 2007 - 2008. He was embedded with a US Army unit, the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, occupying several outposts in a six mile long valley that accounted for a fifth of all the fighting in Afghanistan. As he puts it in the introduction, he was "totally dependent on the military for food, security and transportation." He often went on patrols with the men and, in one instance, was nearly killed by an improvised bomb that went off under a Humvee he was traveling in.

Much of the book takes place in the area around an outpost called Restrepo, named for a medic who was killed in the valley. This book doesn't address the grand points of strategy or politics, but instead focuses on a small group of soldiers and their daily experiences of boredom, terror and exhilaration. Most of these men are in their early 20's and sent to fight on the far side of the world. Junger introduces you to many of them individually and gives a glimpse into the stresses we, here in the States, can only imagine. Making foot patrols in 100+ degree heat in full body armor and loaded down with weapons and ammunition. Hiking through terrain that is so steep and difficult in places that even hardened infantrymen are left gasping and exhausted. Sudden bursts of gunfire and the latent fear of being overrun.

The book is neither Pro nor Anti war. Its focus is so close and narrow that the causes or goals of the war at large are barely even acknowledged. It's a book about camaraderie and trust at a level that only someone who has been in combat could probably really understand. Junger shows the strange world these soldiers inhabit where the boredom can become so oppressive that some almost hoped for an attack. He also gives us a glimpse into the aftermath of spending months in this environment. In one instance Junger relates how one of the soldiers, when he returned home, instructed his mother on the only way to wake him. He told her to touch his ankle and call his last name. This was how he was always awakened for guard duty. Anything else could mean they were being overrun.

This book shows very well the hardships and the toll this sort of experience exacts on young men under fire. But more than probably anything else, we see love. The kind of love that transcends the simplistic view of whether you like or dislike the guy next to you. Either way, you know that you'll risk your life for him and he for you. It's not a matter of bravery or courage in the Hollywood sense. It's a matter of love and trust. These men are driven, not out of some desire to be heroes, but by a soul deep determination to never, ever let the others down. I think this book is a 'must read' whether you support or oppose the war in Afghanistan.

The Case for a Withdrawal Plan

Since President Obama announced his policy for going forward in Afghanistan, there have been a few questions about the withdrawal schedule. At first the Administration was firm that this was a serious and solid schedule to begin pulling troops out. Then, within a few days, statements from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense have begun to water this down.

Then came Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' surprise trip to Kabul at the beginning of the week. Gates spoke about the planned withdrawal of US troops, as outlined by the Obama Administration. But in contrast to this, President Karzai stated that, only with a "maximum effort", could Afghanistan hope to completely take over its own security in 5 years. And he then stated that it would be at least 15 to 20 years before they would be able to actually bankroll their own military and police force. That's right, 2015 before they can provide their own security. And they will need outside financing for their armed forces and police until at least 2025! I can't help but wonder if Karzai discussed his take on the timeline with the Obama Administration, prior to this.

I fully admit that I am no expert in the state of the Afghan military and police. I am also aware that it takes more than just learning to shoot, as some pundits have ignorantly stated, to make a good military. What is needed is a military and police force that is 'nationalized'. In other words, one that has allegiance to the nation first and foremost rather to a province or tribal system. It also must attain a state of discipline and dedication within the ranks, beyond that usually seen in that part of the world. But 5 years just to take over the basic management of their own security? That's after some 7 years since the Karzai government took power. This seems to me, a very long time. Then add in that they can't even pay for it until 2025 or maybe longer. I don't even want to consider how much this will ultimately cost America and NATO,  in lives and money.

This underscores why we need a solid schedule. It needs to be made clear to Karzai and his government that America and NATO will not just hang around forever. Karzai needs a deadline. Without one, he will have no pressure to move forward quickly. Think about it, right now America and NATO are providing most of the money and the primary security force for Afghanistan. What is Karzai's motivation to step up and take over? I'm sure he'd like to not have us meddling in his politics, but I'm also sure he's happy for the elite military and seemingly endless flow of cash. I know if I was in his place, I'd certainly be in no hurry for that to change.

Setting a timetable isn't a matter of giving up or "surrendering", as the simplistic among us like to repeat ad nauseam.  It's a matter of being fully aware of everyone's motivation in this.  It's simple psychology.  If Karzai has the expectation that the US and NATO  will continue to militarily and financially sponsor his Administration until he is 'ready', then he's got no motivation at all to rush. As long as the benefits of our presence outweigh the complications, it's in his best interest to keep us around. It is only after Obama's plans for the future in Afghanistan that we find that Karzai has an expectation of troop support for the next 5 years and for us to continue to pay for Afghanistan's own military for another 15+ years. Clearly there is a huge disparity between US and Afghan expectations.

We set and do everything we can to stick to a withdrawal plan, so the Afghans know the clock is ticking. We need to keep pressure on Karzai so he will actually want us to step away. We need to make sure there are enough strings attached to the money we are pouring into his administration that he will actually start weighing the pros and cons of our support.  As long as it's in his best interests for us to stay, Karzai will never declare that Afghanistan is ready to stand on its own. Why should he? America and NATO will be footing the bills and doing much of the fighting. And whenever there are civilian casualties or an outcry about methods he can always blame it on us. We need to setup an exit strategy and make sure the Afghans are fully aware that we intend to use it whether he's ready or not.

30,000

Tuesday night President Obama gave a speech at West Point Military Academy in NY, the subject being the plan going forward for Afghanistan. The gist of the new policy is an increase of 30,000 troops, beginning in January. However, it also sets a planned date for the beginning of withdrawal in July 2011, a break with the policies of the previous Administration, and standing Conservative doctrine, of pledging to stay till we have 'won'. Another major change from past years is a pledge to fund the Afghan war in the light of day, using standard Congressional appropriations rather than in the shadows with special funding bills, as the previous Administration preferred.

As expected, this plan, which doesn't promise everything either wing of the political spectrum wanted to see, is getting mixed reviews from both Liberals and Conservatives. Republicans, such as Senator McCain, liked the troop increase, yet were upset at the time table for withdrawal. The Liberals like a time table, but think it's time to start pulling out now rather than increasing troop levels. This may be a case where, if both sides are only 50% happy, then it might just be the right course.

So what was my take? Well, I admit that I've been leaning towards beginning a withdrawal now. Technically, we already accomplished what we set out to do in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida was kicked out of their safe havens, being killed, captured or forced to scatter. We dismantled the Taliban run government which openly harbored and supported terrorists. And we helped the Afghans setup a new government. What else can we really do after 8 years? We're dealing with a government that has major problems with corruption and even the taint of election fraud, something we can't fix ourselves. I worry about us becoming the region's mercenary army and I worry a great deal about the state of our military in general. We are wearing the edge off our armed forces and leaving them tired and ragged. By the time this influx is completed we will have committed the vast majority of our available armed forces to Iraq and Afghanistan. Think about that. If another crisis arose in the world, we would be virtually incapable of dealing with it without yanking troops away from the current wars. We are over extended and over committed, and that makes me very uneasy.

One thing that I really did like about this speech was that Obama did not fall back on the old, tired talking points of fear and unquestioning patriotism. He laid things out in an organized manner that didn't rely on bullet points. It was refreshing for a President to talk to me like an adult, rather than a child who should just let the grownups deal with these complicated matters. It's the difference between 'explaining' a policy decision and 'demanding' obedience. It was a good speech and seemed to me to do a good job of outlining the situation, the Administration's plan and how it would be implemented. While I may not be in full agreement, I do accept that I am not in possession of all the facts and classified details. What he is planning does sound reasonable, as long as we do stick to a planned withdrawal.

This brings up the Conservatives' biggest gripe. Though they got almost everything their little olive drab hearts desired, you could hear the indignant cough when a withdrawal schedule came up. Senator McCain punched this point solidly when asked for his response, following the speech. "What I do not support, and what concerns me greatly, is the president's decision to set an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. A date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies." I am unsure how to take this statement from a military veteran.  The theory seems to be that if we set a withdrawal date, the insurgents will just hang back and wait until we leave. This is mush minded drivel. An insurgency cannot, by its very definition, pull back and wait. If they do that, then the Afghan government and the NATO advisers will have time to make serious gains with the Afghan people and make it more difficult for the Taliban to gain support in the future. They have to keep the pressure on or be edged out of the equation. What I see as the biggest advantage of setting a timetable is that the Afghan government knows it has a deadline to consider. President Karzai will be on notice that the US military will not be there to watch his back forever. It will light a fire under his administration to make sure its military forces are ready to take over when we leave. I realize this isn't a simple thing for Karzai, but I feel he needs to be shown in no uncertain terms that if he wants to keep the militant Taliban factions from overthrowing his regime, then he better get busy! This is what it all comes down to, here and in Iraq. We got rid of the autocratic, extremist government and helped them setup a new one. Their responsibility is to get their ducks in a row so they can police their country. Yes, we are worried about Taliban militants and the remnants of Al-Qaida from regaining strength and safe havens. But the only reason that's an issue is because the Afghan government can't secure their own territory. A professional and trained Afghan military will do a much better job against the militants than we would, because it's their country and their people. I'm a little tired of Americans dying on the other side of the planet so Hamid Karzai, and his alleged drug running brother, can relax and enjoy the Presidency. So, yes, I think a deadline is just what is needed.

There were a number of things the President said that resonated with me. The one that I thought was most important was, "As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests." Read that line again, as I think it's a very important statement. It bears on one of the major talking points that the Conservative Hawks constantly harp on: Victory. This is the same thinking that kept us in Vietnam for so long. The idea that we stay until we win. No matter what. I don't even know what they would consider victory. This isn't Europe, 1945. There will be no articles of surrender or treaties formalizing capitulation. Bin Laden will not walk out of the hills and lay his Kalashnikov at the feet of the NATO commander. Neither the Iraqi or Afghan wars will end with a victory parade through Baghdad or Kabul, with adoring locals chanting their love of America. Let's be very clear, 'Victory' in Afghanistan is a stable government that can keep the country's tribal, extremist elements in check. Honestly, that's all we can realistically hope, much less expect. Anyone who is holding out for an American style democracy, with a secular, non-political, professional military is dreaming. This region is nothing like Europe or America. We cannot keep thinking that we can twist and hammer it into a mirror image of a Western democracy. It may happen, to some degree, eventually but it will not be because the West forced it. It will be because the Afghan people WANT it that way.

He made two other statements while speaking of American security that jumped out for me. "And we can't count on military might alone.  We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad.  We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks." Then, a few sentences later he continued. "We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone." As I've said many times, we cannot operate as a one nation vigilante. We must work with other nations and use non military means to fight these extremist elements. In a time of insurgencies and terrorist strikes, Infantry Divisions are of limited use. When we are threatened, this is not the time to withdraw and cower behind the serried rows of drones, tanks and APCs. It is a time to tend to alliances and cultivate good relations where feasible. Nobody wants to help a bully, but they will help a friend.

In the end, this policy is not exactly what I would have chosen, but it seems to offer a plan to do what we have to do, yet shows us the light at the end of the tunnel. The withdrawal date is, I believe, necessary to ensure the Karzai government understands that America is not their private security force who will be there till they get around to securing their own country. It's been eight years, the clock is ticking.  Another thing, everyone needs to wake up to the strain we are putting our military through. This must be more than an abstract awareness.  These are our fellow Americans and they deserve more than being ground down in tour after tour as we wait for some event we can hang a 'victory' flag on. Our fighting forces are not limitless and we need to stop pretending that they are. And finally, the 'hawks' among us have to stop focusing on this nebulous idea of 'Victory' or 'Winning' at all costs. Only a fool makes statements like that, outside of a Terminator movie. This is the real world. We must look at things as they are, not as we wish them to be. I know it's very American to focus on winning, but this isn't a Western where we meet the bad guys at high noon, gun 'em down, and ride off into the sunset. Real life is messy. And it doesn't get much messier than this.

Link to video and transcript of speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/01/new-way-forward-presidents-address

Should We Stay or Should We Go

Afghanistan. The 'other' war has come center stage recently as the Administration considers how to proceed. More troops? Less troops? Pull out? Certainly no shortage of opinions. The senior commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, has called for some 40,000 additional troops to prevent 'failure' of the mission there. Now President Obama is weighing these options and is expected to announce a plan in the next few week or so.

Much has been made of how the troop surge in Iraq helped reduce violence but, we must be careful about making general assumptions that the same plan would work in Afghanistan. The two countries are vastly different. Contrary to Iraq, Afghanistan has minimal infrastructure. This, coupled with mountainous terrain, makes the same sort of mass troop movements and area control techniques useless. The non-urban population is highly dispersed and more beholden to local leaders than the central government in Kabul. So a surge of troops would almost certainly be much less likely to have the kind of affect seen in Iraq. Put simply, these issues would make this a dramatically more difficult situation, no matter the troop numbers.

Another major issue is the drug trade. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a major opium hub. This brings in a whole new complication to the situation. According to the CIA World Factbook, about 1/3 of the country's Gross Domestic Product is from Poppy and illicit drug production. So, basically, one out of every three farms is dedicated to growing drug crops. Not a good thing for stability, since with drugs comes corruption and violence. With drug crops making up such a significant portion of the country's economy, simply destroying the poppy fields is hardly going to solve things. The farmers need to make money to live and currently poppy production is the most lucrative crop. This only adds to the political and factional violence already plaguing the country.  And of course the various extremist and anti-goverment groups use the drug trade to finance themselves. With this much drug money floating around, it doesn't take a Harvard scholar to tell you that this pretty much guarantees  governmental corruption at the highest levels. There have even been numerous accusations of Hamid Karzai's own brother being heavily involved in the drug trade. So any military operations will have to consider the drug problem in addition to the factional and political issues.

One thing that is similar, though probably still on a much larger scale than Iraq, is the simmering and often explosive, anti-foreigner sentiment. While there is undoubtedly some of this everywhere in the country, it is most rooted in the rural areas where the tribal system is in full control. These are people who remember the last time a foreign power swept into the country in 1980. And as much as we may draw a sharp distinction between ourselves and the Soviets, to the Afghans, the line is much more blurry. This is something that America and the West seem exceptionally hard headed about. We keep believing that because we have good intentions that they should understand and let us go about our business. But our intentions are of no concern to them. All they care about is that foreign soldiers are running free in their country. Attacking their people. We seem to have a lot of trouble looking at our 'interventions' from the point of view of those we are 'liberating'. Things look a lot differently when you are on the other end of the assault rifle.

That we have a working relationship with the Karzi government carries little weight either. Karzi's popularity is on a low ebb and has never been very strong at all in the tribal areas. The recent election was rife with accusations of fraud and ended up so close as to require a run-off election. But the run-off election never happened due to the opposition candidate withdrawing at the last minute. Most recently, the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, has reportedly advised the President that  he is unconvinced that the Afghan leadership is committed to rooting out governmental corruption and that he has concerns about committing more US troops. Eikenberry is a retired Lt. General and former commander in Afghanistan which gives his opinion even more weight.  All of this casts a shadow over Karzi and his new government. Aside from these accusations, Karzi has his own internal problems to deal with and has to balance them with our needs. He is bound by political and factional necessities that limit or may even prevent him from fully supporting US and NATO operations and requests. Put simply, he has to worry about staying in power.

What it comes down to is this. The question of whether to add more troops or not is putting the cart before the horse. The real questions are, first, what is our ultimate goal and, second, can we realistically achieve it? If our goal is to eradicate the extremist elements, then we may indeed need to infuse more troops into the country. But is this a realistic goal? I'm not debating the morals of right and wrong. The question is, can it really be done, considering what we know about Afghanistan? We are dealing with a nation that has a highly factionalized tribal system outside the cities, with minimal infrastructure, very rugged terrain, a central government without any real power in the outlying provinces and a population that doesn't really want Western troops there at all. Some have simply pointed to General McChrystal's request for more troops and declared that we should listen to the commander in the field. But we must remember that McChrystal is looking at this from a purely military perspective, based on his current tasking. At the end of the day, McChrystal is simply trying to achieve the goals the Administration has set. Which brings us back to the question of what the ultimate goal should be.

This brings me to, what I believe, is one of the most important issues. The US military. Since 2001, when we began our post-9/11 military operations, we began deploying major segments of the US military to Afghanistan and later Iraq. These deployments have resulted in, roughly, some 150,000 troops in Iraq and some 60,000 in Afghanistan. This is a significant portion of America's available military forces, including Guard and Reserve units. Enough of a percentage of troops to require that units be rotated back into action over and over and over, with only short breaks in between. And lets not forget that we've already had troops in Afghanistan longer than we had troops in Europe during WWII. While combat operations are certainly not as consistently intense as they were then, the stress level of troops constantly on guard for insurgent attacks is great. The pressure this has put on the troops and their families has been tremendous. We must remember that our military is not a machine that can be turned on or off and simply oiled once and awhile. These are our fellow citizens and they cannot be run through this sort of high stress situation for years at a time without there being a corrosive effect on them personally and on combat effectiveness professionally. The previous Administration seemed to see the military as a resource that could be used indefinitely. Simply numbers on a chart.  But as suicides and post traumatic stress spike, and combat stress spills over into off duty violence the government must realize that we are running our troops ragged. They are not an infinite resource and the longer they exist in this purgatory of repeating deployments with only the minimal time home with families, the more damage we will do to them personally and to the military as a fighting force.

While I would very much like to see the extremist elements suppressed in Afghanistan and Pakistan, wanting it is a long way from having it. Can we, realistically, hope to eradicate these elements? Especially considering that, to them, there really isn't much of a border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, thus adding in a complex political side to an already messy internal situation. Personally, I don't see how we can do too much more than we have so far without at least doubling the current troop strength. An additional forty thousand will help, but I don't see how it will solve anything in the long run. The Soviets put in upwards of 105,000 men, at any one time,  during their invasion and occupation, and had complete control of the government, yet they couldn't pacify the country.  There is a reason Afghanistan is called the 'graveyard of empires'. This is a region that gives the insurgent defender every advantage over an invader. We need to consider what more we can realistically achieve. Not just what we would like to or feel we should achieve. It's time for some pragmatic analysis as to our goals, the means we have to apply and, most important of all, the likelihood of success.

So, what do I think? Well, while there are major differences between Iraq and Afghanistan, they have some things in common. First, and foremost, we must accept the fact that we cannot 'Win' in either country. I know how tough this is to wrap our heads around, as America is very much into winning. To 'Win' would require us to control most of the variables. However, even at the best of times we only control one part of a complex equation. We can suppress armed insurgents to a degree, we can provide expertise, we can provide intelligence assets and we can offer ourselves to support the central government. That's it. We will never eradicate the extremist elements in Afghanistan. The only way that would even be vaguely possible is if we stationed troops in every single village, town and city in the entire country. Essentially a police state. This is, of course, ludicrous. We will never convince the Afghan people to support the Karzi government if they don't feel trust in it themselves. It's their government, made up of fellow Afghans. The impassioned words of an outsider are not going to convince them. That kind of trust has to be built by Karzi, not the West. Secondly, we may very well be starting almost as many fires as we are putting out. Every single time a bomb or missile kills a civilian, we ratchet up the distrust and discontent of the people against us. You and I know that even modern, precision munitions cannot completely avoid collateral damage. We may have taken out an entire Al Qaeda cell, but all the Afghans know is that America killed their son/daughter/father/mother. Each time this happens, we move moderates towards the extremist camp. And we move another angry person to pick up a gun.

The bottom line is that this is not our country. It is not a Western country. It has a social order that is almost alien to most Americans. This is a region which has seen, time and again, world powers using them as nothing more than a spot on a Risk game board. Just a colored shape on the map to be occupied for strategic or monetary gain. They know we are not there out of an altruistic desire to make their lives better. Whether we do good there or not, it will not transform their hearts and minds about us. Pragmatically, it is probably time to start moving towards the exit, just as it is in Iraq. I feel that we have done about all the good we realistically can and that it's up to Afghanistan and it's people to take it from here. To do anything more would require the West to pour so many troops into the country as to make it little more than a client state, with a continuous insurgent threat. It's their choices that will decide the direction of the country from here on out. We cannot win this conflict. Only the Afghan people can win it.