Afghanistan, the election and the end game

 
US Marines Lance Corporal Michael Horne gets ready to open fire in Sistani, Helmand Province May 7, 2011 Most US troops are due to leave Afghanistan by 2014

Congressman Walter Jones is that rare thing, a politician suffering remorse.

He's very public about his regrets over America's recent wars. In his office on Capitol Hill, where every wall is covered with surrounded by military memorabilia from veterans' organisations, he tells me he was duped by Bush and Blair.

A Republican, like his friend Ron Paul, he wants an end to the wars.

He's the man who pushed for the Congress restaurant to rename its French fries "freedom fries". He's rather shame-faced about this as well.

But it is the suffering of the bereaved and wounded that haunts him. He has signed 10,000 letters of condolence. He tells me he recently went to see a marine who had lost a leg. The marine had a question.

"Can you tell me something, Congressman?"

"Anything."

"Why are we still in Afghanistan?"

'We've won the war'

Congressman Jones says he has no answer to that, because he is campaigning for all the troops to come out now.

"After the death of Bin Laden the president should have announced that we've won the war, the war is over and we are going to start bringing our troops home."

He's contemptuous of the argument that they need to stay to train Afghans.

President Barack Obama meets with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, left, at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan, Sunday, March 28, 2010. President Obama says Afghans now need to take charge of their own affairs

"They've had 10 years. They say they're trying to train the Afghans to be soldiers and police. Give me 10 years and I could train a monkey to ride a tricycle."

If the president did turn around and announce a total pullout it would delight not only Congressman Jones, not only Democrats but, according to polls, the majority of voters. But he's not going to do it.

The Republicans would attack him for cutting and running. The military would agree. And so would most foreign policy experts.

Ahmed Rashid, possibly the most perceptive observer of the conflict, has a new book out.

It makes depressing reading and laments Mr Obama's lack of grip on the war. He told me it was a mistake to set a deadline for a pullout.

"Certainly it was a very big mistake when he announced it when the surge first happened back in 2008/9, and he has to live with this albatross around his neck.

"But now there is talk of bringing the date forward and the troops could be out by next year," the Pakistani journalist said.

"I think that could be a huge mistake. One problem with President Obama has been that his policies have generally been supported, but none of them have been followed through with consistency. We don't want to be fumbling around with new dates.

"So far the administration has been sticking to 2014. If you pull out earlier you are really signalling that the Americans are collapsing and can't maintain their troops any longer - that would be a very negative signal to send. "

'Air of gloom'

After some debate with allies like Britain, the White House does seem firm. President Obama's deputy security advisor Ben Rhodes says the Nato meeting in Chicago in May will be the next milestone.

I asked him the same question the mutilated marine asked Congressman Jones: why was America still at war?

"The United States is meeting its core objective which is to defeat al-Qaeda and deny it a safe haven. Secondly we have a plan in place to wind down the war responsibly," he said. "So we are working on a plan that does bring the war to a close."

"That involves 33,000 US troops coming out by the end of the summer and a full transition to the Afghans by 2014."

"What we don't want to happen is the international community leaves and the Afghan government is not able to secure itself - then you have a situation where al-Qaeda can re-establish itself and the Taliban is over-running the country."

Start Quote

Ten years ago the Americans went into Afghanistan to topple the Taliban. Now, they seem desperate for a solution that includes the enemy they are still fighting. ”

End Quote

But isn't the president only sticking to this because he's trapped by internal American politics?

"The president has had criticism from some Republican candidates who don't want a timeline to bring the war to a close," Mr Rhodes replied.

"He made a clear statement last June when he moved faster than some of his generals wanted him to do, so I think the president was comfortable saying 'we do need to bring this war to a close, we need to do so as fast as we responsibly can but we have a commitment to the Afghans and to the alliance'."

Although some recent assessments say the war is going better than you might think, there is a general air of gloom about the eventual outcome.

Indeed, it struck me forcefully that the recent Taliban decision to suspend talks was greeted with real dismay.

Think about it. Ten years ago the Americans went into Afghanistan to topple the Taliban. Now, they seem desperate for a solution that includes the enemy they are still fighting.

End game

Ahmed Rashid is insistent that this is the only sensible way forward.

"Obviously things are deteriorating very fast in Afghanistan. It's not entirely his [Obama's] fault, but where he should be pulling out all the stops is in these negations with the Taliban," he said.

"These negotiations have been going terribly slowly, the president seems to be hedging his bets here in case he gets too much Republican criticism that he is soft on terrorism.

"The danger is these negotiations are becoming hostage to the American electoral calendar. Now that would be a disaster for the Americans, because what we need is an end to the civil war."

I ask Ben Rhodes about the talks: are they important for the end game?

"Absolutely. We believe if you look at the history of insurgency there is a military component in bringing them to an end but there is always a political solution as well.

"Ultimately Afghans are the ones who have to reconcile with one another and determine how they are going to live in their country together," he said.

"What this process can do is give a path to those Afghans who want to give up violence and don't want to be associated with al-Qaeda. They can come into the government and come into society again and give up the fighting that has gone on for so many years.

"The President has made it clear he is supportive of a political resolution but ultimately the Afghan Government is the lead.

Whether Barack Obama wins or loses the election in November, the end of America's longest war will be part of his legacy.

Long after 2014 the impact of the war will still reverberate in Afghanistan and throughout the region. It is hard to see a happy ending.

 
Mark Mardell Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell Presenter, The World This Weekend

Is Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy about to bring back Blairism?

Those on the left think new Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy could be about to take the party back to the days of Tony Blair, says the BBC's Mark Mardell.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 159.

    155.Curt Carpenter - Since Godwin's law has already been validated in this thread: According to your logic, the Germans weren't our enemy in WWII, just the Nazis. Do you see the problem with that? In war, innocent suffer. Whether it's war or peace, life ain't fair. However, attacking the Talaban was just, just not fair for the rest of the Afghans. But then, was 9/11 fair? hmmm...

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 158.

    Oldloadr (153),

    “143.AndreaNY
    "Somehow I seriously doubt you'd be any more open to the opinions of our military members than you are to anyone else who doesn't agree with you."

    … CC has admitted to a brief relationship with the US military in the 60s (I believe). Apparently it wasn't a pleasant relationship for him. Oh, well.”

    One euphemism is “It didn’t agree with him”.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 157.

    AndreaNY@143"Somehow I seriously doubt ..."

    Having spent some time as a "military member" (good one!) AndreaNY, I suspect that I'm a whole lot more "open to opinion" than you'll ever be -- particularly where sending somebody else's kids to fight your enemies for you is concerned.

    If the Afghan war is such a hell of a good thing -- why haven't you joined up? Sunshine patriot?

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 156.

    Social Development Revolutionaries (152),

    “... I will search and research for the precise quote maybe you could pull your finger out too and think for yourself in the meantime ...”

    I didn’t really expect that you would be able to substantiate your claim.

    Into the bin it goes!

    LOL!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 155.

    Oldloadr@150"As to your point, you are confusing the people of Af'stan with the enemy, which is Al Qaida and the Taliban..."

    No, sorry but it was Bush, Cheney and all his pals -- like Congressman Jones here -- who were confused when they decided to start their ten-year discretionary war against the Afghan people (rather than showing some discretion and focusing on that "subset" you mention).

 

Comments 5 of 159

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.