Obama got it right – but does it matter?

Barack Obama faces a skeptical Congress, an impatient citizenry, recalcitrant allies and an implacable foe

December 2, 2009

By Jesse J. Leaf
Senior Editor
Troy Media

Jesse Leaf

NEW YORK, Dec. 2, 2009/ Troy Media/ — The tsunami of political change that was expected to sweep over the United States after the election of Barack Obama calmed to what appeared to be a tropical wave of deliberate and reasoned, even timid action.

Obama’s speech about the new Afghanistan strategy demonstrated that the country is being softly led — kicking and screaming — into a new era. An important measure of his success will be the state of Afghanistan when he leaves office.

The morass that is Afghanistan illustrates what is wrong with the United States and why we may continue to spiral down from our lofty ideals into ill-conceived and disastrous foreign policy. Tuesday’s speech was delivered amidst a cacophony of criticism and second-guessing, most of which was, at best, self-serving, at worst, ill informed and wrong-headed.

Most comment centered on the so-called escalation of troops in Afghanistan — an Obamian  “surge” if you will. This is the kind of shallow, shoot-from-the-hip interpretation that characterized the previous administration and led to the current mess.

Former US Vice-President Richard Cheney called the timing of the speech an “agonizing” delay, mistaking thoughtful deliberation for timidity. Some people never learn.

A mind-boggling web of issues

What Cheney and his cheerleaders fail to understand is that the decision of what it will take to extricate the U.S. and its allies from Afghanistan cannot be taken lightly. It involves a mind-boggling web of political, religious, social, tribal, economic, and military interests and intrigues involving Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, India, Pakistan, Russia, and the former Soviet states neighboring the region. The players are politicians (honest and corrupt), tribal leaders, terrorists, the military and militia, drug growers and dealers, peasants and merchants and wealthy elite – all with their own fiefdoms and self-interests. Their goals are power (in all its incarnations) and wealth – powerful motivators for corruption, terror, and duplicity.

This cast of characters doggedly unfolds a plot set amidst a background of illiteracy, ignorance (they are quite different), hate, and fanaticism rooted in history, religion, culture and clan. Most Americans did not understand this cultural difference when I served in the Central Intelligence Agency in the 60s and 70s as chief Iran analyst – and it is not understood today. But it is understood by our multi-ethnic President and his advisors. And it is against this background that Obama’s speech must be judged.

Why are we there?

The thrust of the Obama argument is that we will never accomplish our goals in Afghanistan with more troops. The operative word here is “goals,” which are to put a devastated country on the road to peace and independence, as well as economic viability by defeating a terrorist opposition and building infrastructure.

This administration knows (unlike the previous) that an occupying army can never hope to accomplish these aims. All efforts have been and will continue to be self-defeating as the populace grows to hate the invaders even more. 

That’s why Obama has called for a small increase in troops over a period stretching into 2011. The mission is to help build and train an indigenous security organization of soldiers and police. No small task in a nation where 90 per cent of the population is illiterate, and tribal and religious factionalism overwhelms national pride.

Given this, it is vital that Herculean efforts be made to forge agreement among the various factions of the country. Obama has learned from history.

A Somalian nation couldn’t be forged because it was impossible to unite feuding warlords. The result is an anarchic state of competing fiefdoms and a national industry based on piracy.

Afghanistan could look like Somalia  (with the additional horror of being an international capital for terrorists) in five years if the world stands by and lets it happen.

Obama’s complex and thoughtfully forged strategy

Obama’s complex and subtle strategy was thoughtfully forged to include as many interested and competing parties as possible – members of his own party (many of whom disagree with his conclusions), European leaders and Afghan tribal warlords. He has even cunningly directed that aid and training be channeled around the corrupt central government and go directly through local Afghan administrators and influential mullahs.

All of this is directed at reducing or eliminating the influence of the Taliban, whose destructive presence has grown over the years since its ouster from power (and who George W. Bush declared “out of business” in 2002). The organization now controls large areas in southern Afghanistan — governing, holding court and collecting taxes. This indigenous parallel government cannot be defeated by an external army, no matter how large.

Winning the hearts and minds of the people is the only answer, and that will take time, money and patience. Lots of it. And these virtues are not within the psyche of Americans. We play checkers while the Eastern world plays chess. They will wait 100 or 1,000 years for an opportunity to present itself; they have long memories and patient souls. We do not have the stomach for — or understanding – of this mentality.

This is what Barack Obama has to face at home and abroad: a skeptical Congress, an impatient citizenry, recalcitrant allies, an implacable foe, and a resistant beneficiary. He has charted his course through dangerous and unpredictable waters with a history of sinking even the most skillful. That tsunami may propel or sink him. Only time will tell.

Jesse Leaf is former U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Chief Iran Analyst and senior editor for Troy Media Corporation.

The Canadian perspective: Deployment of US troops takes Canadians out of brutal pressure-cooker

Channels: The Portage La Prairie Daily Graphic and Flin Flon Reminder, December 4, 2009