Afghan Buffer?
by John Ransom
Issue 126 - February 18, 2009

Vice President Joe Biden has been bravely telling the US to get ready for more troop casualties in Afghanistan as troops bound for Iraq move to Afghanistan instead. He and the Democrats, aided and abetted by the news media, have it exactly wrong.

They are wrongly risking progress in Iraq, which has always had strategic significance, to chase a pyrrhic victory in Afghanistan, which is strategic to no one but Afghans and maybe Iran.

We invaded Afghanistan in order to destroy operationally the Al Qaeda bases from which they planned the attacks of 9/11. We stay there today, all chest thumping and rhetoric aside, in order to keep the pressure on the Al Qaeda leadership and prevent them from operating. In this we have been very successful.

However, the Obama administration has taken the same attitude towards a troop surge as they have toward stimulus packages. More troop surge, like more stimulus, is obviously better, no matter what the cost or the likeliness to succeed.

Having declared Iraq a lost cause over a year ago, Obama was surprised to see the surge work so well in Iraq. So like most politicians who see something work, he decided to get some "surge" of his own. Having opposed Iraq, Obama's surge logically will go to Afghanistan, the only war still convenient to the US under his administration.

The consequences will be disaster for the West and for those that have to fight the Afghan war.

Suddenly, the fair prospect of one huge victory in Iraq has vanished to be replaced by the prospect of two defeats, one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan. Troops sorely need to keep a fragile peace intact in Iraq are being drawn down to chase an elusive victory in Afghanistan which won't serve any strategic goal of the United States even if achievable, which is highly doubtful.

Why is it doubtful?

In two words: Russia and Britain.

While the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan in the 1980s has been largely viewed as the last throes of the collapsing Soviet dynasty, viewed historically and strategically, the Soviet decision to withdraw could be chalked up to basic common sense.

Firstly, there is nothing in Afghanistan worth fighting for. Afghanistan is a landlocked country with few raw materials or basic resources, virtually no industry and very little agriculture. It is dominated on its borders by larger, much more powerful neighbors. Neighbors who have much more at stake in keeping Afghanistan peaceful than the US has.

The country is also dominated by warlords, who did not get the name "warlord" because they live in peace. They'll never stop fighting.

The British, who, in the 19th century conquered practically everything worth having, knew this and turned up their nose at Afghanistan after their defeat at the hands of the Afghans in 1842. Thereafter they mounted nothing more than large-scale raids into Afghanistan, using it as a buffer against Russian designs on their Indian empire.

Afghanistan should not serve as Obama's nation-building experiment, but only as buffer between the West and the Al Qaeda terrorist we invaded Afghanistan to destroy.

We too, should leave it that.

John (Bam) Ransom is a freelance writer in Denver, Colorado who advises on computer security for a company that works in defense and intelligence.