The Obama timetable on Afghanistan is unrealistic, as is his expectation that the country's government will be able to manage its internal affairs any time soon.  

Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth I'm amazed that anyone has ever considered him to be intelligent. His latest foray into dealing with the current war in Afghanistan is another one of those examples of someone who is so far in over his head that it is surprising that the political cartoonists don't have him submerged with three fingers showing above the water's surface.

It was about three months ago that General McChrystal asked for an additional forty thousand troops to be deployed in Afghanistan for suppression of the Taliban and other terrorist allied organizations in the region. The fact that it took three months to decide whether or not to honor the General's request is a testimony, in itself, to what was going on in the mind of the man making the decision; "What will be the political fallout if I take one course or another?" It wasn't a question of winning or losing or of the national defense priorities. It was a personal matter grounded in partisan politics. What was good for the nation was certain to be off of the table.

In the end it is almost certain that Obama had forced his own hand by his incessant harping on Afghanistan during the 2008 campaign, and this meant that he had to provide some troops. He probably also figured that he would pick up some support among the pro-military voters by doing so. But because his electoral base is hard-core anti-military, as he also appears to be, he couldn't go with the full force as requested. He also failed to do one other very important thing, which was to take the handcuffs off of the soldiers in the field. He has not changed the rules of engagement to something reasonable for wartime. This does not bode well for the soldiers who are sent to help out those already there.

To make matters worse, he set a political timetable for the withdrawal of these new troops, and probably for the remainder as well. Any fool knows that you never tell your intentions to the enemy; any fool except Barack Obama, who probably believes that the Taliban are simply misunderstood, and can be brought round to a more western way or thinking, or perhaps he secretly sides with them because they were able to exercise a level of power over Afghanistan that he has, so far, failed to achieve.

As a number of critics have pointed out, the timetable for deployment is extremely short. It is likely that in the roughly one year of operational time available due to the harsh winters in central Asia, that they will be able to do anything of significance, unless they are allowed to use any and all forms of hardware in their arsenals. Meanwhile, the terrorists have only to wait around quietly for about a year until the foolish American declares victory and leaves. Then they can take up where they left off, with the rest of the world again seeing the USA as an unreliable paper tiger.

The major reason why this foolish 14 month timetable has been instituted appears to be the belief that the Afghan government can be swiftly cajoled into taking a firm hand with the nation and turn it into a western style operation with civic institutions in place and the drug trade reduced to a minimum. In fact, Afghanistan is a region, which is dominated by local politics, and the people do not generally identify with a national entity. It is too far away and too impotent in the outlying areas. Local tribal interests and the influence of the drug lords are too powerful and too pervasive. To create a national identity, as we understand it in the United States or Europe would require replacing the current situation with something completely different and, in fact, alien to what is currently "normal" to the region.

To make matters worse, local interests might not take lightly to the disruption of their current way of life. It would be a simple matter for them to replace a westernized version of the Karzai government as soon as the foreign presence departs. It is very likely that a Taliban / drug lord alliance could develop quite easily absent sufficient outside influences. The situation is not one where we can expect the current government to "stand on its own two feet" and turn the region it is supposed to be governing into a western style democracy complete with a loyal population, western style civic institutions, and a true national identity any time soon.

This is the problem that the decision making people in Washington DC do not comprehend. They think that the rest of the world is just like our part. That if the people "in charge" do the right things then all the rest will fall into place. It doesn't work that way.

We have not eliminated the Taliban, and Bin Laden is still out there as well. Afghanistan remains a potential training ground for terrorists and the potential that jihadist forces may use it as a base from which to capture Pakistan's nuclear weapons is real. Many people in that part of the world tend to follow what they perceive as a "strong horse." Right now the jihadists are the strongest horse in the region when there are no outside forces to hold them in check. Eliminating the influence of Islamists in central and western Asia will require either an extremely lengthy process, decades long, or a short, genocidal campaign in which millions are killed. The latter option is not going to be acceptable due to the loss of life involved. This leaves us with only one option. To take the time and expense necessary to change the nature of the society in the region into one that does not allow itself to be dominated by drug lords and terrorist organizations. Our national survival may depend upon it, and it is certainly worthy of the expense. If the legislature thinks that it is too expensive, I suggest budget cuts somewhere else. Maybe they could start by having Nancy Pelosi fly coach on a commercial airline instead of on a personal jet. She should be willing to "share the sacrifice," as Congressman Obey puts it.