Eight years after George W. Bush infamously proclaimed “Mission Accomplished” in the Iraq War, President Obama seems ready to say the same thing in Afganistan. With the death of Osama bin Laden, will history prove the president right?
Andrea Mitchell, chief foreign affairs correspondent at NBC, moderated a June 2 panel discussion on this question at the Aspen Ideas Festival 2011, and the answer, not surprisingly, was not a simple yes or no.
Importance of Pakistan
Panelist and former US ambassador to Iraq, Christopher R. Hill said the death of bin Laden could bring an end to Al Queda, but that’s only part of the story. The Taliban is still a force to be reckoned with in Pakistan – one strong enough to defy the Pakistani army and provide safe haven to Afghanistan’s insurgents.
Rajiv Chandrasekaran, senior correspondent and associate editor for the Washington Post, shared Hill’s views, and went further: American activity in Pakistan has a “direct bearing” on what happens in Afghanistan. Elements of the Pakistani military are supporting the Taliban. US drone attacks and unilateral military strikes in Pakistan have weakened the US relationship with the Pakistani government, limiting its influence over Pakistan’s military. The result? No real crackdown on safe havens for Afghani insurgents.
Mismanagement of Funds
Aside from Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan’s stability, the panel took serious issue with America’s long-term strategy in the region.
While Obama’s 30,000-strong troop surge has increased security in some parts of the country, “we’re far from mission accomplished,” said Chandrasekaran. Many parts of Afghanistan are still unsafe, or will be as soon as the US withdraws. Unfortunately, said Chandrasekaran, we’ve seen no indication that the Karzai government is ready to take the baton, or that today’s security is in any way sustainable.
David Rohde, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times, also saw problems with the long-term American strategy in Afghanistan. Of the roughly $1 trillion spent on the war to date, he noted, the vast majority has gone to military efforts; the US spends nearly $1 million per soldier in Afghanistan. Instead, it should be concentrating on civilian efforts, building Afghanistan’s own infrastructure and government.
Former Iraq ambassador Hill agreed that civilian development was essential for long-term success, but he reminded the audience that the Iraq War saw disturbing examples of America’s mismanagement of civilian funds: “On the civilian side, it’s not so much a surge as it is a splurge,” he complained. The US has done a poor job, he said, of stabilizing regions before beginning pricey civilian development projects. The result is a huge waste of money: Schools, government offices and power plants in insecure areas often go unfinished or unused.
Is “Mission Accomplished” Moot?
In Christopher Hill’s mind, the debate is no longer about whether the US has done what it set out to do in Afghanistan; it’s about what it can do now. At a time when Americans are having trouble finding funds to build new public schools at home, how will they feel about building schools in Afghanistan?
Whether America accomplished its mission or not, the bottom line, according to Hill, is that right now the desire to keep tens of thousands of Americans in Afghanistan “just ain’t there.”
The post Aspen Ideas Festival 2011: Mission Accomplished in Afghanistan? appeared first on The Conference Channel Blog.
