Obama in Afghanistan: Convince Me. Convince Me. Convince Me. Convince Me. Convince Me. Convince M

[KoKo]

Obama in Afghanistan: Convince Me. Convince Me. Convince Me. Convince Me. Convince Me. Convince Me.
By Charles P. Pierce
at 8:46PM


Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-afghanistan-speech-may-2012-8521670#ixzz1tkks9meT

The president gave a speech on Tuesday night about why there will continue to be a substantial — if dwindling — American military presence in Afghanistan for two more years. He gave it like this:

As we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm timeline. The answer is clear: our goal is not to build a country in America's image, or to eradicate every vestige of the Taliban. These objectives would require many more years, many more dollars, and many more American lives. Our goal is to destroy al Qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that. Afghans want to fully assert their sovereignty and build a lasting peace. That requires a clear timeline to wind down the war. Others will ask why we don't leave immediately. That answer is also clear: we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. Otherwise, our gains could be lost, and al Qaeda could establish itself once more. And as Commander-in-Chief, I refuse to let that happen.

Speaking as a single American citizen, I don't think there ever will be an Afghan government as described by the president in his speech. I don't think there will be Afghan institutions that will work reasonably to curtail the level of violence, let along bring equal rights to all Afghans. I don't think the Taliban will negotiate in good faith to become some part of a functioning governing coalition. And I'm not entirely sure that locking the credibility of the foreign policy of the United States to Hamid Karzai's ability to become some sort of regional leader isn't a unicorn hunt of the first order. But, still, he was talking about the wrong country....

It establishes the basis of our cooperation over the next decade, including shared commitments to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions. It supports Afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people. And it includes Afghan commitments to transparency and accountability, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans — men and women, boys and girls.

Quite simply, and for what its worth, which probably isn't much, but I don't believe a word of that paragraph. I don't believe the Afghans are committed, truly committed, to any of that. I don't believe the United States has any ability to enforce that part of the partnership if the Afghans renege. (A third of our casualties this year have been inflicted by the very Afghan Security Forces to whom the president on Tuesday night insisted he will hand the country in two years. There is no good reason at this point to take on faith any committment by that particular institution.) If we're not going to try to "build a country in America's image," how do we hold our Afghan allies to their alleged committments to "protect the rights of all Afghans"? If this is about getting out, why do we presume that we're going to leave democratic values behind to take root in the rockiest possible soil?

He was handed a bad hand, this president was. (And he took great pains to remind Americans exactly who dealt that mess over the eight years before he became president. He read out the whole litany. Tora Bora. The "other war.&quot He may be playing out that hand as best he can. But, at the same time, he's asking a lot now if he's asking for patience. He doesn't yet have a good answer to the question of what we will do if what he is telling us about the Afghans will do isn't matched by reality going forward. If what's left of the mission is only that whole standing-down-and-standing-up thing, what's so magical about two years? Why not ten? Why not six months? Is there evidence that the Afghan security forces will be up to the job in two years? Is there evidence right now that the Karzai government is in any way moving towards transparency and accountability, let alone to protect the human rights of all Afghans? If none of that has started, we're all within our rights to wonder if all that the president did on Tuesday night was put Hamid Karzai on two-years probation.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-afghanistan-speech-may-2012-8521670#ixzz1tklBIeME

[msongs]

1. Afghans have a tribal society. Islam couldn't tame it and neither can we.. get out now nt