President Obama’s Afghan Trap
Sergio Abranches
President Obama is on a hazardous trail in Afghanistan. Since the campaign he showed conviction that the US public supported the Bush doctrine of homeland security. He also made all efforts, and continues to go too cautiously not to alienate his conservative following, at least as far as military policy is concerned.
As a result, he adopted a policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan that has more continuity than change. This policy is everyday a bit farther from the expectations of the domestic, and the global majority that saw Obama’s election as a promise of change.
Like in Iraq, and before that, in Vietnam, US policy in Afghanistan has lost hold of the values that inspired most US citizens to support foreign military incursions. It has always been a real problem to separate ideology from real threats in the justification of military to promote freedom, democracy, and to defend the US against clear and present dangers to her security. War escalation has more often than not led to a growing estrangement between values and actual action. War engagement became increasingly dirty and aimless, values were lost on campaign, goals became blurred and were never met, at the end. This is a brief synthesis of the painful and long history of US engagement in Vietnam. In Iraq, ideology has been a stronger inspiration, than real values, from the beginning. Although soldiers showed bravery and endurance no matter how justifiable the intervention was, as a military operation, it has always been devoid of true meaning and sound values.
In Afghanistan, the first incursion, after 9/11 met widespread support. The breakdown of the Taliban grip on Afghans was celebrated by everybody supporting freedom to all, women liberation, and equal rights. The continuation of US presence, though, lacked a truly justifiable target, and its value-base was, to say the least, frail. The failure to create an autonomous way for the Afghans to move away from the Taliban and build a more open society, has turned the policy into a trap. The circumstances of the electoral campaign led Obama, understandably, to adopt a cautious standing. But the electoral campaign is long gone. The government so far has been unable to propose a new policy. Soldiers continue to die from Taliban attacks. The Afghan government is conceding more and more to Taliban values and impositions. The real risk is for the US to contribute to the consolidation of a fake democracy, that will serve as a cover to the hegemony of Taliban ideas, even though under a supposedly anti-Taliban government.
The numerous cases of electoral fraud favoring Hamid Karzai stand as clear evidence of how easily Obama can loose track in Afghanistan. These elections are hopelessly tainted by Taliban voter intimidation and blackmail. Electoral fraud by Mullahs decided not to admit the possibility of victory from a more liberal opposition on a run-off is widespread and indisputable, on the light of the evidence already collected.
Is Obama willing to put the lives of his soldiers on harm’s way to support a fraudulent, Taliban-influenced government, supported by Mullah tyrants, and corrupt local chieftains willing to threat, oppress, and deceive to prevent truly competitive elections? There is no democracy, where the opposition does not have a fair and equal chance of winning power through free and honest elections. Karzai’s rule will be unavoidably marked by electoral corruption, violent oppression, corruption, and concessions to the Taliban regarding women’s right. Will US soldiers fight and die for it?
Tags: Afghanistan, foreignaffairs, Iraq, Obama, war