Political commentary
usually suffers from the emphasis on politics over analysis and bias over
impartiality. Concentration on these
qualities, whether on a speech, policy or document, avoids the deeper aspects
of a problem and obscures for others the truth of the matter. Such is the problem yet again with the
commentary after President Obama’s speech at West Point. It seems the proper time
to comment after all the punditry is complete and the topic is no longer a
prime news topic, yet still a very important issue.
The pundits
concentrated on the President’s delivery, the character and behavior of the
audience, why the decision took so long, how Congress would pay for the new
deployments, the timetable, why the President is not supplying all the
requested troops and other issues that bear little on the problem. There was little or no substantive analysis
of the true challenges to operations in Afghanistan. There was little
discussion about a realistic end game for this war torn nation.
No matter the bias of
the media establishment, all of them seem to see a resurgent Afghanistan as the
goal for all the U. S. effort in the region. However, the very basic question
is whether the United States and its allies can establish a stable government
supported by the majority of Afghans that would have the will and ability to
control the Taliban threat and by extension al Qaida before July 2011. The answer is certainly no.
However, it is a NO,
with a caveat. One of the aforementioned
requirements could compensate for a lack of progress in the others…control
through the Afghan Army. This security force has been nearly eight years in the
making and still does not come close to providing the security required by a
government held hostage in Kabul and other larger cities. It is an important element to long-term
security, yet received small mention in the President’s speech.
The hazard in
building a reliable security organization (Army, Police) is the creation of a
force that would not only overcome insurgent elements, but also provide more reliable
governance than the current civilian government. There is no history of democracy or civilian
control of the military in Afghanistan. The hazard in not building a competent
security force is the potential to lose to the Taliban.
The training of the
Afghan Army and Security Forces must increase in intensity and direction. Combat skills, of course, but also training
to overcome cultural and tribal problems that will fracture the Army with
pressure from outside as well as inside.
The Afghan Army must be able to withstand the Taliban, drug lords,
tribal factions and a corrupt government. The current pace of training will not
achieve the goal of between 150,000 and 200,000 troops by the President’s
deadline. The long term problem is how to sustain such a
force in a nation with less than GDP of Delaware.
President Obama’s Speech at West
Point – 01 December 2009
Comments