Galbraith: ‘It Makes No Sense To Ramp Up’ Troops In Afghanistan
Galbraith: ‘It Makes No Sense To Ramp Up’ Troops In Afghanistan
Last week, the United Nations fired its number two official in Afghanistan, U.S. diplomat Peter Galbraith, after he wrote a “scathing” letter accusing the U.N. mission leader of concealing election fraud that benefited Afghan President Hamid Karzai. On ABC’s Good Morning America today, Galbraith stood by his complaint. “The flaw that took place in Afghanistan was preventable,” he said, adding that the U.N. “did not exercise its responsibility” in ensuring a fair election.
Later in the segment, Galbraith argued strenuously against flooding more troops to Afghanistan:
GALBRAITH: In the absence of having a credible Afghan partner…it makes no sense to ramp up. On the other hand we cannot afford to pull out. … At this point, no surge. … [W]e also don’t have unlimited resources and unless those troops can secure an area in a way that then Afghan partners, the government, the Afghan army, the Afghan police can come in and fill in after them, we’re going to be there as an occupying force for a very long time and that to me doesn’t make sense.
Watch it:
Those such as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are urging President Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan, citing the “lessons of Iraq” (i.e. President Bush’s troop “surge” there in 2007). But Galbraith dismissed McCain’s logic, noting that the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same:
GALBRAITH: Unfortunately, there is no analogy between what happened in Iraq and what’s going on in Afghanistan. In Iraq in the Sunni areas of the country, the al Qaeda element, the fundamentalists, moved from attacking the Shiites to attacking the tribal sheiks themselves so this was a matter of their self-defense.
In Afghanistan the tribal elders, many of them are supporting the Taliban, they are the Taliban or and this is the more common situation, they are neutral. They see no reason to choose a government which they experience as inexperienced, corrupted and abusing power.
Despite this obvious disconnect, McCain accuses those who disagree with his “surge” call of “playing politics.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
They see no reason to choose a government which they experience as inexperienced, corrupted and abusing power.
Exactly. By propping up Karzai, who controls most of Kabul, during the day, we are painting ourselves as occupiers.
We all know what happens to occupying powers in Afghanistan.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:36 pmThe radical right is out there claiming that the President must go along with whatever the military wants. This is upside down, the civilian leadership directs the military and what the policy of the country should be. The president should fire those who went around those who leaked the recommendations before the president decided the approach. Truman fired McArthur, Obama can fire these guys.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:40 pmWhat? You mean the US backed another toady, tinpot dictator type? And the general public isn’t happy with it?
How many times do we have to do this before somebody (other than Galbraith) realizes this is not a good idea?
October 5th, 2009 at 12:40 pmOur current policy, such as it is has all the hallmarks of our policies in Vietnam. and we know how that turned out.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pmAfghan elections were as ‘honest’ as those in Iran.
Different Muslims, same corruption.
And McCain, just STFU. It was the AEI Stink Tank that dreamed up the surge. Of course you want to take credit for it. Of course you think War is the only answer.
The only thing we can gain in Afghanistan is good will, and so far we’re not even close to achieving that.
As I asked earlier, what would ‘Victory’ look like?
October 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pmGalbraith is spot on, and I think Obama, McChrystal, Gates, and the other players are well aware of the problems we have with Afghanistan. The Karzai government looks like a re-run of the Diem government in South Viet Nam, as performed by the inmates of a high desert hell hole; the only advantage we have is that the Taliban and alQaeda are nut-frack crazy, as bent on alienating and buggering the population as Karzai and company.
It should not be a surprise that so many “tribal elders” are sitting on the fence. The ones who support the Taliban have very little choice in the matter if they want to keep the head bone connected to the neck bone.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:44 pmRight on, Mr. Diplomat.
It makes no sense to send more troops into a thoroughly unwinnable war. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Other nations in the region had a vested interest in providing for (some) stability in Iraq (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Syria)…Iraq still has the natural resources to rebound.
Afghanistan is a black hole. It’s greatest natural resource is one we’re hell bent on eliminating (opium). Its neighbors are desperate NOT to get involved (Tajikistan is too weak, Pakistan too fractured, China too apathetic), its terrain makes fighting a nightmare, and invading forces have a very poor track record.
Don’t get me wrong…I think an immediate withdrawal would be a horrible idea. The Afghan army/police force is too weak and corrupt to fight back the Taliban/remaining muhajedin. A balance can be struck though…if we focus our efforts more on rebuilding infrastructure, training the Afghan forces, and combining counter-insurgency methods with tribal cooperation, we can get the country into a position where we can leave with good enough odds that the Taliban won’t seize Kabul.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:46 pmI remember Bush and Cheney were bragging about how we were training new armies in both Iraq and Afganistan by the battalions. That was over four years ago. And that being the case, both countries should have several hundred thousand troops under arms.
That is, unless our former leaders were lying and bulls*itting us. No one dared to question those statements in fear of being unpatriotic, like the Dixie Chicks.
We had our shot at Bin Laden at Tora Bora and let him escape, now we are thinking fighting the war we should have done six years ago. I have to ask: Is it too late?
October 5th, 2009 at 12:46 pmThis is what you get with a policy that’s more concerned with pipelines than people. Naturally, that’s Bush’s fault initially, but Obama should have made sure the elections were properly monitored if we’re going to be there. Now we’re completely quagmmired. If we pull out, the Taliban will regroup and overrun the country again, and we all know what that resulted in last time. If we “surge” now, we’re supporting a government of, shall we say questionable legitimacy, which we historically know just breeds more chickens to come home and roost. And “muddling through” won’t work either.
The Afghan constitution should make the tribal councils an intrinsic part of their democratic process, rather than an adjunct or completely ignored. Giving people representation works, but it has to be in a form that matches their cultural structure, or else nobody will “buy in” to it.
I’d also like to add that John McCain’s approach to talking about Afghanistan shows all the depth of understanding of a teaspoon. It’s one thing in politics to have a simplified message. It’s completely another to have a simplified understanding of the situation.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:48 pmShorter solution to Afghan problems:
Buy all their Opium production.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:48 pm9, ElBruce says:
Well said, my friend.
By the way, I’d much rather have Galbraith in the UN than John Bolton.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pmI know this is off topic, but Jesus! If I hear another word abour Dave Letterman, I’ll scream! Between Dave and that Anchor who was stalked, I think I’ll go nuts. This is just like when Spears and Hilton were on 24/7. Why? There is plenty of scandal going around. Ensign, Sanford, Perry… All last week MSM was screaming how Obama ‘Lost’ and how ‘Humiliating’ it was, but barely mentioned how the ‘Conservatives’ were practically foaming at the mouth with glee. Could it be that Americans were turned off how the GOP reacted when Chicago lost out? You Betcha!
October 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pmIt is time to bring that classic wartime tune. “We did it before and we can do it again” And again. And again.
Someone should set up a scoreboard of all of the countries we have ‘helped’ since 1950 by supporting stooge leaders, either openly or clandestinely. I’m willing to bet we can rival Bloody Bill in the success column.
In fact, can anyone name a country where this stuff actually worked?
October 5th, 2009 at 12:58 pmThe lessons of the bu$h regime were: incompetence. Period. bu$h dropped the ball in Afghanistan early in the war to attack Iraq for personal reasons. That is another bu$h failure. he didn’t provide enough troops to win control and secure the country. he sent troops to Iraq for his quagmire to be remembered by.
The time has come to get the best in the business of war together and figure out a path OUT of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I think we will face all of this again under different time. It’s far from over.
I fear Pakistan is still on shaky ground. Pulling out of Afghanistan will buy some time. We have to secure the area with Pakistan and maybe Iran. At the current time, Iran is out of the picture.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pmHoodathunk @#13
October 5th, 2009 at 1:05 pmRaytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics…Oh, wait, those aren’t countries, those are defense contractors….
Why do we think we can succeed where so many others have failed? NOBODY has triumped over Afghanistan. The terrain is unhospitable, there is no infrastructure, and their entire economy is centered on herion. The politicians are corrupt, the election was bogus. What can we possibly do? We’ve been there for 8 years! We made progress when we fisrt went in, and all that failed because of the war in Iraq. Enough is enough.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pmAfghanistan will bleed America dry and leave its military battered, bloody, scarred and broken.
The Afghanis have been, historically, one of the most indomitable people on the face of the planet, helped in no small part by the mountainous and cave-ridden geography of their land.
It’s idiotic hubris to think the US can accomplish there what Alexander the Great, the UK, the USSR and others have failed to.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:26 pm#18 flagged and reported for spam
October 5th, 2009 at 1:36 pmP.D. says:
Why do we think we can succeed where so many others have failed? NOBODY has triumped over Afghanistan.
I think that we could leave behind a stable and democratic Afghanistan, provided that we did so in a thoughtful and careful manner that respected their unique situation and culter. You can bet that no past Imperial power ever tried that approach.
.
Gridlock says:
Afghanistan will bleed America dry and leave its military battered, bloody, scarred and broken.
Sounds like a Bin Laden quote there.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pmJeffboste, not for you to worry your little head over. Intelligent people will address it now.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pmAfghanistan a strategy or lack of troop problem?
Or a really bad idea on so many levels it isn’t worth expending US lives or dollars. If you are gonna spam poll, how about some decent choices?
October 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pmEven better, how about we convince American companies to set up factories so that the Afghanis can know the same prosperity the Pacific Rim countries enjoy with sweat shops and cheap labor?
October 5th, 2009 at 1:43 pmMessage from Rudyard Kipling to all the countries that have tried to occupy Afganistan:
If your officer’s dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it’s ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
October 5th, 2009 at 1:44 pmAnd the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier.
Sheila Johnson is the main proponent of the bad behavior. And unfortunately, she is a staunch Democrat and usual Democrat supporter.
Yes, McDonnell should have said something, but to be fair, I think most people in those situations do exactly what he did: ignore it (mainly because they don’t know how to respond at the time) and let the speaker look like a fool on her own.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Sorry, I put the above on the wrong thread. Feel free to vote it down. My bad.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm“Sounds like a Bin Laden quote there.”
No, it sounds like freaking REALITY. Learn from history, and pull your head out of your own ass.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pmThere is no reason to be in a “NO WIN” situation in the first place.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:10 pmGridlock says:
Learn from history, and pull your head out of your own ass.
I think I addressed the substance of your position sufficiently to merit a better response than that. But Britain was overstretched, and if you recall, we were arming and supporting the muhajadeen during the period that Russia was trying to invade. And both of them underestimated the country, going in like unthinking imperialist bullies. None of those factors need to apply to this situation, if we don’t let them.
Obviously, it’s arrogant to think that we can just use overwhelming force to try to make them fit some mold of our choosing. But it seems to me that it’s also arrogant to write them off as being some kind of historical throwbacks who can’t advance into a responsible nation at all. There is a third option, and that is to assist them into developing into their own unique form of a responsible election.
There is a very, very important principle that’s being lost in much of the discussion here, and that is that there is a very significant difference between a just war, and an unjust one. Iraq was unjust; we had no good reason to go there, just lies. Afghanastan was just; we had every reason to attack them, and having done so, every responsibility to remove the cause. If we say that Afghanistan isn’t worth doing because it’s too hard, then we might as well say that Iraq was worth doing just because we could. The distinction between what makes a war just or unjust is important, and it cuts both ways. As an aside, I wonder what the discussion would have sounded like shortly after 9/11 if as many people had been saying that Afghanistan couldn’t be beaten.
But the fact that this war is just is another difference between ourselves and historical invaders. They had no good reason to be there, other than their own hubris. And I think that could be the most important difference of all.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:26 pm“Afghanastan was just; we had every reason to attack them, and having done so, every responsibility to remove the cause. ”
False.
You should have bombed the shit out of Saudi Arabia.. Bin Laden was Saudi, along with most of the crew on those doomed flights.
But, that would contradict the pretty reality that’s been drawn up since that day.
Also, the US underestimated Afghanistan from the outset. Despite advances early on, the situation has reversed itself and only tiny fortified areas are currently held by occupying forces propping up a corrupt government.
The situation is ridiculous, and no amount of predator drones are going to make a lick of difference without a massive sustained military presence on the ground and THAT will never happen.
So why bother at all?
October 5th, 2009 at 2:37 pmGridlock says:
You should have bombed the shit out of Saudi Arabia.. Bin Laden was Saudi, along with most of the crew on those doomed flights.
The Taliban was in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were in Afghanistan. The Taliban were formally requested to extradite them for trial. They refused. This sequence of events is all well documented.
I suppose we could have gone after Bin Laden by attacking his family and the community that he originated from instead; that’s how Israel would have handled it, huh?
.
Gridlock says:
The situation is ridiculous, and no amount of predator drones are going to make a lick of difference without a massive sustained military presence on the ground and THAT will never happen.
It could have if Bush didn’t want to invade Iraq instead. Also, “we are not interested in nation building” was probably the stooopidest decision ever made by a President since Lincoln decided to go to the theater.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:54 pm“ElBruce says, Afghanastan was just; we had every reason to attack them.”
The elected officials of Afganistan didn’t order an attack on America. Afganistan’s army never attacked America. The people of Afganistan never attacked America.
Most of the people who attacked America on 9/11 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Some of them were citizens of Egypt. The attackers were financed with money from Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia.
We invaded the wrong damn country. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia not Afganistan.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pmdelafield says:
The elected officials of Afganistan didn’t order an attack on America. Afganistan’s army never attacked America. The people of Afganistan never attacked America.
The Taliban was in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were in Afghanistan. The Taliban were formally requested to extradite them for trial. They refused. This sequence of events is all well documented.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:06 pmWe really know how to pick our enemies and point the finger of blame. Afghanistan, barely recovering from years of war with the Soviets. A real player.
Face it, blaming Afghanistan for terrorism is like giving the 3rd graders a timeout for disrupting the Senior Homecoming.
There are three nations on this earth right now that carry 90% of the responsibility for the political unrest worldwide. The US, Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Soviets are gone and the Russians are in love with American gangsterism that tends to be a home grown phenomenon. The Chinese have wised up.
The US controls weapons production, the Saudis have oil locked down. It is time to face reality and quit looking at the distractions.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:16 pmThe radical right and Republicans are going to use national security as an issue in the coming elections. It is no surprise that they want to use Afghanistan as the point in the debate. McCain is talking like Bush the cowboy tactic as it relates to foreign affairs. I could easily forsee a Republican sending more troops just to prove they are tougher than everyone else. They don’t care how many people get killed by their blustering.
Galbraith is correct. We need to reassess and withdraw rather than prop up a corrupt government. This will not end well if we stay. We, along with our allies, should give Karzai an ultimatum to leave office. If he doesn’t then we need to get out quickly while providing aid to the country.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:17 pmI think that going after every country that’s supposed to be “the root” of terrorism is stupid anyways. Very Bushian. You end up fighting the whole world that way.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:20 pmelBruce, there is a difference between ‘going after’ and recognizing the source of a problem. As long as both the US and Saudi Arabia are going to play the proxie war thing, it would behoove all of us to realize that is what is happening.
Afghanistan is a backwards country that has been kept in that state as a pawn, a fall guy. The big game is money and arms.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:27 pmWe’re in a very tricky situation, and I think Galbraith hits the nail on the head. While its important to ensure that Afghanistan doesn’t turn into another base of operations for al-Qaeda and the Taliban, putting both our and nuclear Pakistan’s security at risk, we’re very close to bogging ourselves down in a seemingly endless quagmire, in a land where the corrupt regime conflicts with the democratic message we’re trying to promote, and where the Taliban now controls nearly 80% of the territory
An overarching policy solution is going to be very difficult to come by, but focusing on smaller, more obtainable solutions might be the best way to go. A Roosevelt Institute Campus Network student from Columbia University came up with an idea to substitute saffron production for poppy production as part of a US strategy to reduce the Afghanistan drug trade, reduce funding for insurgents and the Taliban, and to help stabilize the region. The policy solution can be found here
-Rory, George Washington University
October 5th, 2009 at 3:54 pmRoosevelt Institute Campus Network
Hoodathunk says:
elBruce, there is a difference between ‘going after’ and recognizing the source of a problem. As long as both the US and Saudi Arabia are going to play the proxie war thing, it would behoove all of us to realize that is what is happening.
Absolutely. But having identified that source, one must also recognize that the appropriate solution to that problem is not military.
I still feel it was necessary to go into Afghanistan, as a very straightforward matter of international law. Nobody disputed this at the time, certainly not the U.N. or world community, and hardly anybody at all at home.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:55 pmCan someone tell me why we are there except to protect the pipeline? We are not there to nation build. We are not there to protect the citizens. It’s their country. Leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.
Bring OUR troops home now!
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana
October 5th, 2009 at 3:58 pmI’m with ElBruce on this one. Yes, Afghanistan didn’t attack us on September 11th. But they knowingly harboured the people who did. They described Bin Laden as an honoured guest in the country and refused to extradite him. They refused to allow him to face charges in a court that didn’t operate under Sharia law.
The invasion was supported by most progressives (Kucinich, Sanders) and extreme isolationists (Paul). Even Barbara Lee, the only congressperson to vote against the resolution, didnt object to the invasion, just how Bush would interpret the Congressional mandate (she was right).
Point being, we had enough justification to go in there and, if we had a Commander-in-Chief with any rationality, logic, or intelligence, we would’ve never gotten distracted in Iraq. We would’ve pinned the Taliban into submission.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:01 pmI agree with the analysis which says we should be focusing on re-building infrastructure and win over the hearts and minds of the leaders and people in that manner rather than killing their cousins, uncles, etc. The Taliban will remain a force as long as “western” forces are seen as bring death and destruction to the average citizen. Right now that’s our game…it simply will not win out. We would be better off to concentrate on destroying poppy fields and controlling the borders.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:19 pmelBruce, if the dog bites your a$$, do you kick the cat?
October 5th, 2009 at 4:26 pmIf the US wants to be perceived as a force of democracy and freedom in this world, why are we the major arms producer?
If the US wants to help people find independence and freedom, why do we send out military in first?
If the US wants world peace, why do we have so many weapons of mass destruction?
October 5th, 2009 at 4:32 pmThe best way out of Afghanistan is to talk to the people and their tribal leaders rather than the government. Aid to the country should be strictly controlled since we cannot trust anyone in or outside of the government. Our rebuilding efforts need to be directed to projects that improve the average citizens life as well as security. Discussions with some of the Taliban would go a long way toward stabilizing the country.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pmMy thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the 8 soldiers who were killed this past weekend in Afghanistan. They were from the 4th Brigade Combat Team from Fort Carson located in Colorado Springs.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:41 pmGalbraith: ‘It Makes No Sense To Ramp Up’ Troops In Afghanistan
That is why Obama will do just that. Ramp it up.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pmBut all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. kol germe estetigi
October 9th, 2009 at 10:04 amThank you for your sharing.!
October 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pm