Secret Pentagon Report: Training Afghans is hopeless … and dangerous

I wholly agreed with candidate Barack Obama when he argued during the 2008 presidential campaign that Afghanistan was “the good war.”

For me, however, this only meant the US had a just cause (namely, avenging 9/11) to launch it – juxtaposed to Iraq (the bad war) for which it had no just cause.  After all, I was convinced that, even before Obama announced his candidacy, President Bush’s neglect (by diverting key resources to Iraq) had already turned Afghanistan into an unwinnable war:

Not so long ago, some of us considered the war in Afghanistan as much an unqualified success as we deemed the war in Iraq an unmitigated failure. But a new crop of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are beginning to surpass die-hard insurgents in Iraq in their ability to undermine US efforts to “stand up” a democratic Afghan government… Alas, victory in Afghanistan may prove another casualty of the war in Iraq.

[Meanwhile over in Afghanistan: snatching defeat from the hands of victory, September 18, 2006]

This is why I was so puzzled when, instead of cutting US losses, a now President Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan by ordering the deployment of an additional 47,000 troops:

I appreciate of course that Obama is merely fulfilling his campaign promise to fight and win this war.  But the political mess has changed circumstances on the ground, so much so that it would compromise even a perfect military strategy. This makes his decision to follow through on that promise almost as foolhardy as Bush’s decision to follow through with his invasion of Iraq (i.e., even after it was clear that there were no WMDs there).

[Obama escalates Afghan war: the die is cast on his presidency, TIJ, December 2, 2009]

Nevertheless, I retained some hope that Obama’s decision was informed by the classified reports he received during his (Hamletian) strategy review last year, notwithstanding my informed view that he was giving these additional troops a truly impossible mission: to train an Afghan army to defend the country and a police force to maintain law and order by July 2011 (when he has vowed to begin withdrawing US troops).

Therefore, imagine my shock and dismay last week when leaked Pentagon Papers revealed that the situation in Afghanistan is not only every bit as unwinnable as I’ve argued but even more dangerous than anybody could have imagined.

For here, in part, is how Richard Engel, NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, reported (on the December 29 edition of the Nightly News) what these papers say about the chances of American military success:

… The main mission of the United States Army, all of the different forces that are there, is to train the Afghan security forces so that American forces can ultimately leave. That is the No. 1 priority… The ANA (which is the Afghan National Army) above company level is not at war… Nepotism, corruption, and absenteeism among ANA leaders makes success impossible…

It’s more than sobering. It says that this is a serious challenge. It goes on to say that rehabilitating the Afghan security forces will not take one year, it will take a long time…  [By July 2011?]  That is impossible according to this study…  Another key finding in this report says that the numbers of Afghan troops and police on the ground are inaccurate, that some battalions will over-report by 40-50 percent, inflate their numbers.

This clearly begs a few critical questions, most notably:

1. Did Obama have access to this report during his strategic review?
2. If not, why not?
3. If yes (which seems more likely), how could he possibly justify deploying more troops given these findings? and
4. Does this not vindicate my assertion that his decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan is just as foolhardy as Bush’s decision to invade Iraq?

Meanwhile, if this report were not sobering enough, just consider all of the other recurring reports about desertion and drug use among army recruits, as well as those about the incidents (and looming danger) of “trained” Afghan soldiers intentionally killing US and other coalition forces….

The US legacy in Afghanistan 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)…. And more troops only mean more sitting ducks for Taliban fighters.

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.

[‘Without (or even with) more forces, failure in Afghanistan is likely’, TIJ, September 23, 2009]

Frankly, these Pentagon Papers (part II) convince me more than ever that, instead of closing Gitmo, Obama should have made withdrawing from Afghanistan the first major military decision of his presidency.

Because the only instructive precedent here is the one President Johnson set in Vietnam, which should warn Obama not to allow a military quagmire to doom his presidency the way a similar quagmire doomed Johnson’s.

[Karzai submits to runoff election, TIJ, October 21, 2009]

Ultimately, though, one has to wonder how many more American soldiers will die in vain between now and July 2011 just so that Obama can establish his commander-in-chief bona fides.

This means that troops are bound to be returning home in body bags throughout his entire presidency. Because, frankly, 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?  TIJ, October 30, 2009]

Related commentaries:
Obama escalates Afghan war  (which contains all of the above TIJ quotes)