War in Afghanistan (3)

President Obama will speak to the nation this evening. He will tells us that he intends to begin the process of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. Reports are circulating that the number is between five and ten thousand soldiers.

If the reports are accurate, then President Obama has got it wrong - again. Afghan President Karzai, referring to NATO troops as occupiers, has made it clear that he doesn't want us there. The Taliban, pressured by the combat capability provided by an additional thirty thousand troops in 2010, has reduced its activity but has not been defeated in detail. Nor, even with thousands more troops, will it ever be. Mostly the Taliban is keeping its powder dry as it awaits our scheduled departure in 2014.

Worse, while our stated objectives are to support the Karzai government in its efforts to establish control over the entire country, current levels of corruption and incompetence make this unattainable. To describe Mr. Karzai now, and in 2014 if he is still President, as no more than Mayor of Kabul is not entirely unfair.

When the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, our objectives were to destroy al-Qaeda and to capture or kill Osama bin Ladin. Now, Osama bin Ladin is dead and the original al-Qaeda so severely weakened that it is effectively unable to attack us. Admittedly, the branches of al-Qaeda that have sprung up in other countries are a problem but they will have to be dealt with in those countries: our continued presence in Afghanistan certainly does not help to weaken them and may even provide ideological succor and support.

A year ago, your correspondent suggested that we take the advice of the late Senator George Aiken (R-Vt) by declaring victory and leaving. The deal that we would want to strike with the Taliban has barely changed and there is no rational reason, if the Taliban is serious about controlling Afghanistan, for them to attempt to inflict a humiliating defeat on us.

Our primary objectives in Afghanistan have been achieved and we have no further strategic interests there but, if the Taliban decides to shelter our enemies, we do have the ability to undertake devastating punitive raids. There is, therefore, no reason to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (which we do not have and can not afford) in the next three years only to find Afghanistan in substantially the same condition as now.

If Mr. Obama tells us that he is ordering the immediate return of twenty thousand troops this year and that all, except perhaps for a small group of advisers - if the Afghan government wants them, will be home by the end of next year, then he will have got it right.

Your correspondent, however, regrets that he only sees more good money (and lives) being thrown after bad.

Headscratcher (13)

Rarely does a week go by without Sarah Palin demonstrating her total unfitness to serve in any elected office - or even as an elementary school history and civics teacher. Her latest version of "history as she is wrote" is captured in this news report. According to Ms. Palin, Paul Revere's famous ride was to warn the British that they would not prevail.

That there is significant support f0r Sarah Palin's as yet unannounced campaign for President is a true headscratcher but an expanation may lie in H.L. Mencken's definition of democracy:

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Enough said.