The Wrongologist

What’s Wrong Today

We know that President
Obama is going to pull our troops out of Afghanistan not later than 2014, he
said so. What? we are not leaving in 2014?

This may not be a big
surprise to you, but I had thought that President Obama meant what he said. After
all, we ARE getting out of Iraq, right?

What is
really going on in Afghanistan: intense negotiations to keep US forces there
for another 10 years after the 2014 deadline. Just as in Iraq, there is a big
debate in-country about whether they should allow us to stay and there is no
debate at all here at home.

So,
What’s Wrong?

How is
it possible that a third rate country that can’t decide if it is going to be a
democracy or a feudal Islamic society or some amalgam of the two is talking and
voting on extending our stay in their country, and we in the most advanced
democracy on the planet are not?

Hamid
Karzai is convening a loya jirga, a traditional Afghan meeting of elders, beginning
tomorrow to debate the value of the Afghanistan’s future relationship with
the United States.
This gathering has drawn criticism from his political opposition as well as by some
in our government. Karzai’s opponents see the three-day jirga as a way for his
administration to acquire a veneer of popular support for its agenda with
Washington. Others believe that the reliance on the Jirga undermines the newly
empowered parliament, although the Parliament will consider the extension of
our stay at some point.

Here are comments this week by
our current General, John Allen, the commander of the NATO-led International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in an interview with the Afghan-based Tolo
News Service:

“The
post-2014 US presence in Afghanistan would be limited to intelligence
gathering, special operations capabilities and training of the Afghan forces”… “the
US footprint in Afghanistan beyond 2014 still needs to be determined”…”probably
what you would see in 2015 is advisors, trainers, some people to enable Afghan
operations, some intelligence building capabilities and some special
operators…”

“A
strategic partnership with Afghanistan is a “big deal” for the United States,
said Gen. Allen, adding the partnership would be “the logical extension of
that feeling that we have for Afghanistan”. “There will be a
government-to-government relationship. I think it will create the opportunity
for excellent economic relationships as well. There will probably be a security
relationship that will emerge from the strategic partnership.”

The two
countries have yet to agree on key issues about the proposed arrangement.
Afghan officials have sought concrete commitments on how much the United States
will continue funding Afghan soldiers and police — who are now almost
completely reliant on American funding-as well as timelines on when the Afghans
will become in charge of detentions and night raids. For our part, American officials want to have
access to long-term bases for their troops to pursue counter  terrorism
operations or address other regional issues that may arise.

Officially,
the reasoning is that the US wants to prevent the Taliban and al Qaeda
regaining their influence in Afghanistan. But permanent bases provide much more
important regional strategic value:

–Iran
would be wary of the US maintaining a long-term presence in Afghanistan. We
would have a base to move against them should that become necessary. This is
particularly interesting if we do leave Iraq.

-We
would continue to have a launching pad for drone attacks on Pakistan or
for other military intervention in Pakistan, should their nuclear weapons
stockpile be threatened by internal disruptions.

–Russia
and China would be reluctant to see US bases near their borders, as this
would clash with their plans to gain unhindered access to natural resources in Central
Asia and Afghanistan.

Staying
looks like a neocon’s wet dream and like it or not, a client state Afghanistan has
strategic value.

Kabul does
not have anywhere near as much choice over whether we stay or go as Iraq had:
If we say we require military bases in Afghanistan and will pay a lot for them,
then it will likely become only a matter of price.

How
much?
We have yet to see any estimates of what it will cost, but supporters of the
idea in Washington will certainly argue that it will be substantially cheaper
than maintaining 100,000 troops like we do today.

Maybe. But,
can we afford to continue to bleed this kind of money when our domestic economy is so
weak and lowering our deficit is so important to the right wing? Can we afford
to be on the wrong side of history again by propping up another unpopular
and corrupt leader? Most important, how can we slide into this commitment
without a debate on its merits?

So, another
administration wants to continue nation-building in the Middle East under the
guise of fighting terror. Once again, without discussion. This is simply WRONG.