Jul 23 2008
Why adding troops to Afghanistan is not equivalent to the Iraq “surge”
These points are in no particular order, this is kind of a stream of conciousness thing in response to a fellow Twitterer because I didn’t feel I would be able to address it properly in 140 character spurts. This is by no means a complete list, they’re most just off the top of my head things based on the stuff I know about current events.
1a. First off, let’s be clear about what “surge” was supposed to mean in reference to Iraq. It was supposed to mean that troops would be added to trouble spots in Iraq for a period of six months. The addition of these troops was supposed to bring down violence so that political reconciliation could take place (as the violence levels were being blamed for the lack of political reconciliation). After the six month period, the troops were to be withdrawn, this was why the administration was calling it a “surge” and not what it really was, an escalation. (Keen observers might note that the “surge” has, in fact, lasted an entire year and that the ultimate goal – political reconciliation – is still very far from being achieved.)
1b. Obama has not called his plan for Afghanistan a “surge” he has merely said that he wants to add two brigades to Afghanistan. McCain is talking about having a surge in Afghanistan and several media outlets are calling what Obama’s strategy is a surge, but they’re wrong. Adding troops != surge.
2. The surge took place shortly after the 2004 mid-term elections, when the country resounding voted in Democrats over Republicans in what was largely perceived to be a referendum against the administration’s policies in Iraq and the (sadly unfounded) belief that the new Democratic majority would bring about an end to the war (you can argue about whether that’s actually why people voted for Democrats, but that’s certainly what the narrative was at the time). So, basically, everyone thought it was going to be the beginning of the end of the war, but the Bush administration gave us all a nice big “fuck you” by saying “I’m not bringing troops home, I’m sending more!”
3. Iraq and Afghanistan are not equivalent wars (or countries, for that matter). Many citizens and politicians (including Obama) supported the war in Afghanistan, but did not support the war in Iraq. So, even if he were supporting the same strategy in Afghanistan (which he’s not), the fact that he didn’t support it in Iraq doesn’t really matter. Other than being Arab nations that the U.S. is currently at war with, there’s little that’s similar about them. Believing that something isn’t going to work for one country, doesn’t mean that you must believe it won’t work for another.
4. Afghanistan has needed reinforcements for a long time as the forces there have, for many months, been losing the ground that was initially gained. Resources were directed away from Afghanistan when we went to war in Iraq and we’ve been paying the price for it dearly. This month will likely be the third month that U.S. casualties in Afghanistan are outpacing those in Iraq and considering we a much smaller force in Afghanistan, that’s really not good. Paul Reickhoff, Executive Director of the veteran organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America says that many soldiers that served there call it “Forgotistan.”
5. Obama’s plan for Afghanistan is not a “surge.” The purpose of adding more troops is because they’re needed, because the troops that are there right now have been losing their footing for months while the President and the rest of the world was watching Iraq. The Taliban has been resurgent in Afghanistan for over a year now. Current military officials have said that they need more troops in Afghanistan, they just aren’t available because they’re all in Iraq. Obama isn’t tying these two brigades he says he’ll send to political goals or saying that they’ll get to go home after a certain amount of time. That’s what a “surge” is, that’s what it was presented as a year and a half ago by the people that dreamed it up.
6. Obama believes that Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror and given that it’s been a Taliban home base for several years and given their proximity to Pakistan (the country that most experts widely agree is where Osama Bin Laden is hiding), it’s not hard to see why. There was a period where our soldiers had a decent handle on the country, but that was awhile ago and they aren’t going to get it back with the numbers we have there now.
I feel like I had more in my head, but I’m feeling kinda tapped and I should really go to bed soon. This was kind of a brain dump, so apologies for the sloppiness or lack of clarity. I just wanted to try to get all the points out.
Yeah, that so wouldn’t have worked over Twitter. 
