Marking the Anniversary of bin Laden's Death -The iPINIONS Journal

I’m on record not just opposing President Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, but calling for an end to it long before he became president. But the only thing I consider worse than his efforts to exploit the killing of Osama bin Laden for political gain is the patently disingenuous and hypocritical way Republicans are criticizing him for similar gain.

More to the point, though, since nothing surrounding the perverse marking of this anniversary is worthy of comment, I shall suffice to mark it by reprising What Now is the Best Way to Fight the War on Terrorism? – the commentary I wrote about the actual event a year ago (May 3, 2011).

————————-

The killing of Osama bin Laden has policy makers in the United States finally debating in earnest about what is the best way to fight the war on terrorism. And, in a similar vein, they are wondering whether this pivotal development provides an expedient pretext for President Obama to accelerate the timetable he has laid out for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

On this second point, I took a friendly wager with an old friend who was persuaded by all he was hearing from high-profile politicians and pundits about Obama seizing this moment to declare victory and bring the troops home. I knew better.

Among other things, I argued that doing so would force Obama to concede that he was wrong when he ordered a troop surge in 2009. And, sure enough, within 24 hours of making our wager, White House spokesman Jay Carney announced that there would be no change in Obama’s timetable. Obama himself then made a definitive declaration in this respect during an interview on 60 Minutes last night.

But, frankly, it has been patently clear to me from day one that killing not just bin Laden, but every member of al-Qaeda would have no material impact on America’s ill-fated mission-creep to build an Afghanistan that can “govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself” (against a resurgent Taliban).

Apropos of this, here are a few excerpts from previous commentaries which confirm the dissenting voice I sounded when, instead of changing course when he became president, Obama doubled down on Bush’s misguided strategy:

Accordingly, the U.S. legacy there will be distinguished either by a terminally wounded national pride – as American forces beat a hasty retreat in defeat (following the Russian precedent in Afghanistan), or by tens of thousands of American soldiers being lost in Afghanistan’s “graveyard of empires” – as they continue fighting this unwinnable war (following America’s own precedent in Vietnam)… More troops only mean more sitting ducks for Taliban fighters.

Not to mention the prevailing fallacy that America must wage war in Afghanistan because it (still) constitutes the central front in the war against al-Qaeda. After all, for the past six years the Bush administration prosecuted the war in Iraq as if it were the central front in this war.

Moreover, there’s no denying that the last vestiges of al-Qaeda are now so splintered that they are just as likely to be found in Pakistan, Somalia or, indeed, in the United States, which makes the strategy for taking them on in Afghanistan patently misguided.

Therefore, Obama would be well-advised to cut America’s losses and run ASAP; to let the Afghans govern themselves however they like; and to rely on Special Forces and aerial drones to “disrupt and dismantle” Taliban and al-Qaeda operations there [and elsewhere].

(“Without (or even with) more forces, failure in Afghanistan is likely,” The iPINIONS Journal, September 23, 2009)

Unfortunately, this means that troops are bound to be returning home in body bags throughout his entire presidency. Because, given the military quagmire Afghanistan has become, sending 20 (or even 40) thousand additional troops amounts to the proverbial tossing of a 50-foot life line to a man drowning 100 feet away.

(“Picture of Obama saluting war dead the defining image of his presidency?” The iPINIONS Journal, October 30, 2009)

Now, on the first point (i.e., about the most effective way to fight the war on terrorism going forward), Obama using Special Forces to take out bin Laden, as well as using drones with even greater frequency than Bush to attack other terrorists where they live, actually vindicates the following:

Instead of a surge in troops to emulate Bush’s strategy in Iraq, his new strategy [should] call for withdrawing most troops and relying on Special Forces and aerial drones to continue the hunt.

(“With or even without more forces, failure in Afghanistan is likely,” The iPINIONS Journal, September 23, 2009)

I hereby reiterate this as the best strategy for Obama to follow: let Special Forces go in and get the terrorists wherever they live and “then get the hell out” – as CIA Director Leon Panetta reportedly told the Navy Seals who went into Pakistan to get bin Laden to do. And it is not lost on me that – in as much as Obama is duly concerned about doing anything that might be used as a recruiting tool for terrorists – the sensational killing of bin Laden will be used as a terrific recruiting tool for U.S. Special Forces.

NOTE: This is one of those rare events that is actually deserving of all of the coverage it has gotten. As my related commentaries will attest, I have written quite a bit on the war on terrorism. Particularly noteworthy is a commentary I wrote entitled, Please spare us the al-Qaeda obituaries. In any event, this is my last commentary on this war … until (a reelected) Obama declares victory as scheduled in 2014.