The steady stream of bad news about Afghanistan this week served to highlight two inescapable truths regarding the conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. First, Barack Obama is right that the ongoing commitment of American forces in Iraq is limiting the United States in its pursuit of Al Qaeda along the Pakistan frontier. Second, the Bush Doctrine - with its first tenet of “no safe havens” for terrorists - is still dead.
In Washington, President Bush acknowledged that June, which saw the highest U.S. casualties of the Afghan war, was a “tough month.” Bush, who is reported to have recently ordered U.S. intelligence assets and Special Forces to make a final push to capture Osama Bin Laden, then promised more soldiers and Marines for the fight. As Time rightly noted:
“We’re going to increase troops by 2009,” Bush said, without offering details about exactly when or how many.
The President would have done well to first consult with Admiral Michael Mullen, his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. On the very day that 2,200 U.S Marines learned their tours in Afghanistan will be extended by 30 days, Mullen admitted to reporters at the Pentagon that the United States could deploy more forces there only by drawing down from Iraq:
“I don’t have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq. Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there.”
Unfortunately, that “reduced requirement” in Iraq doesn’t appear likely to happen any time soon.As the AP reported last week, the Pentagon is preparing to rotate 30,000 troops in a move that maintain U.S. force levels in Iraq at 15 combat brigades through 2009. While General Petraeus may yet recommend further force reductions, American troop levels at 142,000 are currently slated to remain above pre-surge levels through next year.
Failing the commitment of additional forces by NATO members, the U.S. is going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul when it comes to choosing between the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. During his joint Senate testimony with General Petraeus in April, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker acknowledged to Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) that the Afghan-Pakistan border region was a higher priority than Iraq for the United States in its global fight against Al Qaeda.
Crocker’s trade-off is precisely the one advocated by Barack Obama throughout the 2008 campaign. As he has insisted repeatedly, the Bush administration let Al Qaeda off the mat in 2002 and with its solitary focus on Iraq, has taken its eyes off the prize. As Obama put it just two weeks ago:
“The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11…
…We had al Qaeda and the Taliban on the run back in 2002. But then we diverted military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic resources to Iraq. And yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this April that, ‘Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.’ I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of the facts, and a stubborn determination to ignore the need to finish the fight in Afghanistan.”
As it turns out, Obama is right, and George W. Bush and John McCain are wrong, on both counts. As Admiral Mullen readily admitted, overstretched American forces in Iraq are simply unavailable for the campaign against Bin Laden. And as a devastating account in the New York Times this week revealed, the Bush administration’s diversion of assets to Iraq and its confused policy towards the Musharraf government enabled Al Qaeda to establish a safe haven in Pakistan.
Dating back to the moments after the September 11 attacks, “no safe havens” emerged as one of the three pillars of the Bush Doctrine. (The other two – preemptive war and democracy promotion – rose and fell with the invasion of Iraq and the chaos in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.) In his address to Congress on September 20, 2001, a determined President Bush declared his “no safe havens” principle even as the World Trade Center towers still smoldered in lower Manhattan:
“We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
But seven years later, an Al Qaeda safe haven in the Pakistani tribal regions is precisely what the United States now encounters. As President Bush himself confessed in the wake of a July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate:
“One of the most troubling [points in the NIE] is its assessment that al Qaeda has managed to establish a safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.”
Little has changed since. As the New York Times detailed Monday, the new Bush policy of authorizing unilateral strikes against Al Qaeda leaders and the deployment of U.S. Special Forces into Pakistan remains stymied by disagreements within the administration and with the new government in Islamabad. (Ironically, John McCain attacked Barack Obama for the same aggressive posture towards Al Qaeda in Pakistan that President Bush belatedly adopted.) Despite the new-found willingness of the U.S. to act alone within Pakistan, Bush’s past dependence on Musharraf and Musharraf’s truce with tribal leaders sympathetic to Bin Laden and the Taliban had left Al Qaeda firmly entrenched:
“It is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world.”
For Barack Obama’s part, he’s still right when it comes to America’s unfinished business with – and the White House’s diversion of resources from – Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. As for President Bush and John McCain, they’re still wrong. And to paraphrase Chevy Chase from the old Saturday Night Live news sketches, the Bush Doctrine is still dead.
No Trackbacks To “This Just In: Bush Doctrine Still Dead“
So a person who is a complete fool and failure will suddenly turn genius?
Warmonger!
No offense to any ass-clowns, but this guy is a total ass-clown!
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07062008.html
Make Way for Field Marshall Obama
Hunkering Down in Afghanistan
By MIKE WHITNEY
“…None of the promises have been kept and none of the goals have been achieved. Besides, war isn’t an instrument for positive social change; it’s about killing people and blowing up things. Dolling-up military aggression as “preemption” can work for a while, but eventually the truth comes out. Democracy and modernity don’t come from the barrel of a gun.
“…[M]ichael Scheuer, former CIA chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station, made this statement at a recent conference at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC: “Afghanistan is lost for the United States and its allies. To use Kipling’s term, ‘We are watching NATO bleed to death on the Afghan plains.’
This is such an underdiscussed dimension of the Presidential race. Obama wants to withdraw troops as quickly as possible, McCain wants to stay until we “win.”
The facts seem to imply that longer occupation is simply impossible regardless of politics - there are no troops left. These TV pundits wax on and on pouring of the excruciating minutiae of Obama’s statements, but can’t spend three minutes talking about the inevitability of withdrawal.
Had he focused on Afghanistan instead of using 911 as an excuse to lie us into Iraq we might have won that conflict by now. Now we are loosing 2 wars thanks to BushCo and the GOP.
BOTCHED! BASTARD! BUSH!
.
Got Bin Laden?
Of course, one has to take into consideration that one can not hunt a dead duck…
.
Invading Afghanistan was NEVER about catching bin Laden - he was allowed to escape with his ISI handlers early in the conflict.
Invading Afghanistan was ALL about getting the poppies growing again.
The Taliban had wiped out virtually ALL poppy cultivation in Afghanistan.
Now opium production vastly exceeds pre-Taliban numbers. Each of the last several years have seen double-digit percentile increases. Afghanistan now produces over 92% of the poppies used in opium & heroin production.
“Skull and Bones” was founded by the Global Opium Cartel.
Connect the dots.
Northern California Dave @ 3:
I wasn’t offended. ;)
“The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice.”
Not everyone who died on 9-11 were American citizens. The loss of people from other countries should be recognized too.
Bush, who is reported to have recently ordered U.S. intelligence assets and Special Forces to make a final push to capture Osama Bin Laden, then promised more soldiers and Marines for the fight.
They needed new orders to do this? What were they doing up until now, lollygagging?
“This Just In: Bush Doctrine Still Dead”
Just like Franco (and recently Jesse Helms).
bush to serve out the remainder of his term leading troops in afghanistan?
let him go…we don’t want him anymore.
All thinking people already knew that the “Bush Doctrine” (and all facets thereof) was DOA.
“Did you enjoy your five tours in Iraq? If you liked Iraq you will love the six tours you will do in Afghanistan (it will help you prepare for your seven in Iran).
Emmanuel Goldstein has not left the building. He has proven to be an invaluable asset on the war of terror.
MountainMan23 @ 9:
interesting theory. one would be hard pressed to show how our actions in afghanistan have not helped the opium production.
but, personally, i see oil as the causus belli (shocking, i know).
consider the following:
U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN
REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998
Mr. Maresca. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s nice to see you again. I am John Maresca, vice president for international relations of the Unocal Corporation. Unocal, as you know, is one of the world’s leading energy resource and project development companies. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely. I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy.
I would like to focus today on three issues. First, the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources. Second, the need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements to the conflicts in the region, including Afghanistan. Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act………
…..The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.
I. HATE. THIS. MAN.
whoops, here’s the link:
http://commdocs.house.gov/comm.....8119_0.HTM
Samson- @ 18:
I don’t see a conflict. You have TWO sources for huge profits instead of one.
I concur with Jon.
My friends, It’s been 2,484 days since Bush said he’d catch the 9/11 Conspirator Osama bin Laden? I know that we are not supposed to talk about that thing that must not be talked about here on ‘Crooks and Liars’. The reason I question The War on Terror is because we no longer seem to be interested in bringing the cabal behind Nine Eleven and the U.S. Military Grade Anthrax Terrorist from Ft. Deitrick “To Justice”. Our Constitution has been trashed, the Military has been broken, the Government is bankrupt, the Economy is in a depression, the Dollar has crashed. The Military Government Media LIED to start a war of conquest. Last time I checked the rule of law, that was against the law. Somehow we have turned into a nation of cowards. Land of the free, home of the brave, not anymore. There is really no point in protesting anything anymore. The Government/Media doesn’t care. I’ve been calling Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) every week for the last SEVEN YEARS, asking about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and “Al Qaeda in Paksitan”. In seven years I’ve never, ever, ever gotten any response.
xoites defends Constitution @ 21:
But who are the profiteers? Retorical. Certainly not you and me.
i am no fan of the taliban–to the extreme–but… isn’t it thought of by many credible sources that OBL and AQ are in the “tribal areas” of pakistan? not afghanistan. if so, shouldn’t this change our strategy and question our continued operations in afghanistan? the afghani strategy, from day one, was flawed and we are seeing the fall-out now (and for years now). we were never really against the taliban (and, pray tell, how is taliban intolerance different from saudi intolerance? is it just a matter of degree?) and instead of winning the hearts and minds of the poor afgani population we handed off millions of dollars to warlords to buy their favor and temporary-alliance. these warlords… are they better than the taliban?
wasn’t our only reason for attacking the taliban their protection of OBL? and, if OBL is now in pakistan… what is our continued beef with the taliban, if they are no longer ‘harboring terrorists’? answer that without mentioning oil, or try to. and answer that, if possible, taking into account the numerous regimes we prop up across the globe (currently and historically) that make the taliban seem no that bad.
so much trouble in the world…
(why do our ‘efforts’ seem to just make things worse?)
xoites defends Constitution @ 21:
good point.
Post American @ 23:
I disagree with a small part of your statement. You may be protesting to the wrong people. The people who need to hear our protests are not deaf, dumb and blind elected officials. It is the American people. The ones who can turn off the money flowing into the hands of the lying media are the people who turn on their tv’s. We would do much better to educate Americans to change their behavior than wait for those promoted by the media to hold office to do so.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....Laden.html
pakistan or afghanistan
doggiebobo @ 24:
The ones who are attempting to consolidate total control of the planet, it’s resources and people.
MountainMan23 @ 9:
Also, the heroin made from those poppies is grist for the never-ending “War on Drugs” and will contribute numerous souls to the “Privatized Prison Bonanza(TM)”.
In 60 years we won’t be looking back and remembering Bush as being an awful president.
Probably because we’ll all be dead.
If they get a good medium, they might be able to have a seance for the long dead bin Laden. All the rest though, will simply be about making Bush and Cheney’s cronies richer (which is what this whole mis-administration has been about all along, IMHO).
The Democrats have set themselves up for failure by letting themselves inherit an occupation in Iraq. They should have given Bush a timetable with or without a Congressional bill. They could have done it 4 years ago and said they would give Bush 4 more years to “win” the war and bring troops home. They also failed because they let the neocons define “win” which changes definition with the wind; however, it is predominantly defined in the media as less troop deaths. That is easy to accomplish if you send drones and rockets to do the killing and keep you troops out of harms way. Win needs to be defined from the Iraqi point of view since after all, didn’t we go there for them? That means discussing refugees, water, housing, freedom of movement and press, healthcare…
xoites defends Constitution
Like JFK once remarked, “When Peaceful Revolution Becomes Impossible, Violent Revolution Becomes Inevitable.” Not saying that we are there yet. I think Barack Obama could go a long way to lifting up our image around the world, restoring the ideals set forth in the U.S. Constitution. When I see the local Peace and Justice Movement, four old people holding up Impeach Cheney signs, I just shudder. 4 people in a city of a million people, isn’t a movement. There is no peace movement. Like I said, the U.S. Military/Government/Media Lied to st