Former Marine captain Matthew Hoh became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war. His letter of resignation echoes some arguments I have made earlier this year, namely, that what we are witnessing is a local and regional ethnic Pashtun population fighting against what they perceive to be a foreign occupation of their region; that our current strategy does not answer why and to what end we are pursuing this war; and that Afghanistan holds little intrinsic strategic value to the security of the United States.
In his own words:
The Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified….I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul. The United States military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategy message of the Pashtun insurgency.
Click here to read the entire letter.
So, what’s the situations like now? Afghanistan's second-round presidential elections scheduled for early November will do little to change realities on the ground. Counterinsurgency--the U.S. military's present strategy--requires a legitimate host nation government, which we will not see for the foreseeable future regardless of who's president.
What’s the political strategy? President Obama has painted himself into a rhetorical corner. He's called Afghanistan the "necessary war," even though stabilizing Afghanistan is not a precondition for keeping America safe. We must remember that al Qaeda is a global network, so in the unlikely event that America did bring security to Afghanistan, al Qaeda could reposition its presence into other regions of the world.
Should we stay or should we go? The United States must begin to narrow its objectives. If we begin to broaden the number of enemies to include indigenous insurgent groups, we could see U.S. troops fighting in perpetuity. The president has surged once into the region this year. He does not need to do so again.
This is the deadliest month so far, thoughts? Eight years after the fall of the Taliban regime, Afghanistan still struggles to survive under the most brutal circumstances: corrupt and ineffective state institutions; thousands of miles of unguarded borders; pervasive illiteracy among a largely rural and decentralized population; a weak president; and a dysfunctional international alliance. As if that weren't enough, some of Afghanistan's neighbors have incentives to foment instability there. An infusion of 40,000 more troops, as advocated by General Stanley McChrystal, may lead to a reduction in violence in the medium-term. But the elephant in the Pentagon is that the intractable cross-border insurgency will likely outlive the presence of international troops. Honestly, Afghanistan is not a winnable war by any stretch of the imagination.
Bloomberg News points out that President Obama needs a health-care crisis in order to impose a health-care "solution":
President Barack Obama returns to Washington next week in search of one thing that can revive his health-care overhaul: a sense of crisis....
“At the moment, except for the people without insurance, we’re not in a health-care crisis,” said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington. “You do need a crisis to generate movement in Congress and to help build a consensus.”
This administration has used Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine as a manual. Klein said in an interview that
The Shock Doctrine is a political strategy that the Republican right has been perfecting over the past 35 years to use for various different kinds of shocks. They could be wars, natural disasters, economic crises, anything that sends a society into a state of shock to push through what economists call 'economic shock therapy' – rapid-fire, pro-corporate policies that they couldn't get through if people weren't in a state of fear and panic.
Whether or not that's true about the "right-wing" policies that she purported to analyze, the Obama admininstration has taken it to heart. Rahm Emanuel said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And this crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before" such as taking control of the financial, energy, information and healthcare industries. Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the president himself all echoed Emanuel's exultation about the opportunities presented by crisis.
The financial crisis turned out to be shocking enough to let the federal government extend the power of the Federal Reserve, nationalize two automobile companies, spend $700 billion on corporate bailouts and another $787 billion on pork and "stimulus," and inject a trillion dollars of inflationary credit into the economy. But now people are balking at further expansions of government, and the administration is longing for just a little more crisis to serve as a further opportunity.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state who no doubt thinks of herself as "fourth in the line of succession," tells a European audience how the Obama administration will pass an agenda that Americans have previously rejected: "Never waste a good crisis ... Don't waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security."
As I've written several times, governments throughout the decades have taken advantage of wars and economic crises to expand their size, scope, and power. Bob Higgs wrote about "Crisis and Leviathan" long before Naomi Klein called it "The Shock Doctrine."
But the striking thing about the Obama administration is that they openly acknowledge that's what they're doing -- using a crisis to ram through their entire policy agenda while people are in a state of panic. Projects like national health insurance, raising the price of energy, and subsidizing more schooling -- the three prongs of President Obama's speech to Congress -- have nothing to do with solving the current economic crisis. But the administration is trying to push them all through as "stimulus" measures. And they keep proclaiming their strategy.
First it was Rahm Emanuel: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And this crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before." Then Joe Biden: "Opportunity presents itself in the middle of a crisis." Not to mention Paul Krugman and Arianna Huffington. And now Hillary.
Not since George Bush the elder told the media that his campaign theme was "Message: I care" has a president been so open about his political strategy. But these people are displaying a contempt for the voters. They're telling us that we're so dumb, we'll go along with a sweeping agenda of economic and social change because we're in a state of shock. They may be right.
But voters and members of Congress should remember Bill Niskanen's sobering analysis of previous laws passed in a panic.