What Is Obama Thinking?
By Robert Higgs • Tuesday December 1, 2009 8:41 PM PDT • 37 Comments
President Obama’s decision to send another 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan during the next six months does not seem to make much sense, no matter how one looks at it. Political actions often represent tried-and-true ploys to enrich the politician’s supporters at the expense of his opponents and the great mass of the people. And perhaps this action simply falls into that category. But even if it does, it makes little sense, because Obama would seem to have many avenues open for buying more support elsewhere with the additional $30 billion a year that will be spent on this Big Push.
Hardly anybody has real enthusiasm for the plan. Democrats and Republicans in Congress are both lukewarm, at most; some are stridently opposed. The military bigwigs apparently support it, but, again, it seems that the president can appease this powerful interest group just as readily in alternative, less politically risky ways.
We might go out on a limb and assume that the president is telling the truth about his reasons for sending the additional troops: he believes, as he declares in his speech today, that “we must deny al-Qaida a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum. ... And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government.” Why? Because “”it is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted.” If these statements express the president’s actual thoughts, then he is much less astute than he is usually given credit for. These reasons are so weak as to seem almost far-fetched.
Al-Qaida, if such an organization may actually be said to exist as anything more than a sprawling, loosely articulated collection of hyper-zealous, anti-American Muslims, does not need Afghanistan to plan and mount attacks against the United States and U.S. allies. Such terrorists may spring, as they have sprung, from many places in Asia, Africa, and Europe. They have emerged in Indonesia, Turkey, Spain, and Germany, just as they have emerged in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern venues. Even if U.S. forces held Afghanistan in an iron grip – an unachievable condition — the security of Americans in America would not thereby be appreciably enhanced. In short, subduing U.S. opponents in Afghanistan is a low-yield investment, at best.
Worse, it is almost certainly a losing investment. Opposition to the U.S. forces and their Afghan puppets arises for the most part from the deeply entrenched tribal character of the Afghan people and their implacable desire to rid the country of any and all foreign occupiers. One need not have studied the history of the place for a lifetime to have learned this lesson.
To make his Big Push idea even more impenetrable, the president promises that eighteen months after the buildup is complete, troops will begin to be withdrawn. Does anyone really imagine that the Taliban and other anti-American groups in Afghanistan are too stupid to sit tight and wait for the foreign devils to depart? If these groups are anything, they are in the fight for the long haul. They can afford to be patient.
As they have in other occupied countries, U.S. authorities declare that they will accomplish their mission by building up “legitimate” government troops and police, by training and equipping them until they are strong enough to whip the insurgents. This plan is no more promising in Afghanistan than it was in Vietnam – indeed, I would venture that it makes even less sense in Afghanistan than it did in Vietnam. The problem is not that the “legitimate” side is not strong enough or trained well enough to defeat the “bad guys.” The problem is that hardly anybody wants foreign forces in the country. The insurgents will keep fighting until the occupiers lose their stomach or their economic or political support for remaining, and as soon as the foreign forces take their leave, their local puppets will get themselves to Switzerland or another remote refuge to distance themselves from their countrymen’s vengeance. The problem is not that the pro-U.S. forces, such as they are (and nearly all of them are in their places for the money), do not know how to fight – in Afghanistan nearly every adult male knows how to fight. The problem is that nearly all of them — even in their heart of hearts those who have been tempted by the money to join the pro-U.S. side – want the Americans and the other foreign occupiers out of their country. U.S. policy makers talk as if they lack the wit to comprehend this elementary fact.
Which suggests, of course, that the president and other top U.S. decision makers are not telling us the truth about their reasons for their decisions, especially this Big Push, which seems like the military analogue to the basic economic mistake of throwing good money after bad. Bygones, economists insist, are bygones. The costs already born are not recoverable; the more than 800 American servicemen who have already died in Afghanistan cannot be brought back to life. The vast sum of money expended, so far with absolutely nothing of genuine worth to show for it, represents forgone opportunities forever sacrificed. The idea that because so much has been committed already, the U.S. forces must remain until they “win the war” is foolish in the extreme, indeed, irrational.
Above all, the president and the other big shots, if they really cared about the well-being of the American people at large, would steer clear of trying to accomplish the impossible. The war in Afghanistan is not winnable in any meaningful sense. It’s a pure waste, suffered at a time when the American people have a multitude of more urgent needs crying out for additional resources. Which brings me back again, empty-handed, to the puzzling question I posed at the start: what is Obama thinking?
Tags: Afghanistan, Economics, Imperialism, Middle East, Military, Pakistan, Politics, Presidential Power, The State, War 
Thanks Dr. Higgs.
It is heartbreakingly unfortunate that the well-being, oft the very lives, of millions depend on the mind of one man or on the thoughts of a small group of men.
Now it seems even the ability to discern coherency in the political apex is vitiated. Those that live by politics are immersed in such man-made perversity that it creates a dual inaccessibility, a ramping asymmetry. Maybe the powerful know this. Some may even cherish it.
The rulers are very well aware that they hold the brute force option and they are going to use it. That is their way of life. That is how they got there in the first place. That is what they know- maybe all they can know. That’s democracy.
But what can be done?
Can this social disconnect represented in Obama go on indefinitely?
Fallon | Dec 2, 2009 | Reply
Great article! I agree 100%!
Obama could end the undeclared wars in the Middle East right now! But we all know that he won’t!
Special interests control Obama’s foreign policy just as much as they ever did with Bush’s.
Now it’s just a big false debate! How sad for America.
Change Means Send More Troops | Dec 2, 2009 | Reply
His campaign received mega-bucks from the pro-war camp. The Sec of State is a pro-Israeli war monger. At no time has any of his team actually stated this admin will end the war. Look at where the oil fields and transmission routes are. Look at where the weak players are. Consider the vast riches and control that oil brings. So, what did you expect? But time is running out. Soon China and Russia will be militarily strong enough to oppose the USA empire. The USA had better act soon to steal what it can.
alzurzin | Dec 2, 2009 | Reply
This is what happens when a nation is run by narcissistic adolescents making decisions based on self-interest, emotion and greed.
God help us all, and keep our sons and daughters, sent to fight in hell for no good reason and without even a mandate to win, safe until we can try to fix this mess we’ve made.
azcIII | Dec 2, 2009 | Reply
Obama’s speech was so awful that I don’t even think he believes what he was saying. What passion there was seemed forced.
Udy | Dec 2, 2009 | Reply
Well Bob, it looks like Barack Oh Bomb Them has really stepped into it this time.
Early this year he escalated the war by 21,000 troops. The result of that escalation? The “insurgents” control much more of the country than before the escalation.
This escalation will be the equivalent of smacking a hornets’ nest with a stick.
Now back to your question, what was Barack thinking? His arrogance and myopia has resulted in his believing those in the District of Criminals can accomplish anything they want, and the rest of the world be damned!
Bob Bogus | Dec 2, 2009 | Reply
Sadly Obama is now playing dual roles:
The Swindler and The Emperor.
Hans | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Perhaps a subtle message from Obama to the Talban?
“Make my ‘surge’ look like it worked and we will leave in 18 months.”
Fred | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
I noticed that you spent considerable time is skirting the REAL REASONS we are there and why we are desperately trying to remain.
Oil pipelines and poppy fields. Plain and simple.
Keeping the dope and the black gold flowing is worth as many American lives as it takes.
William Borgstrom | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
How can Obama get out of Afghanistan without the label of “cutting and running”? Escalate the number of troops, but announce that they’ll be leaving in 18 months. (as he has just done.) The patient Afghans cool it for that time, Obama says the job is finished, and the troops come home. Big political points for Obama going into the 2012 election without the “Cut & Run” stigma, and the Afghans get their country back. There may even be some secret negotiations with the Afghans to de-escalate their attacks during this time to allow “victory” to be daclared. Seems sensible to me. On the other hand, if this isn’t the plan, then Obama and the rest of our leaders are just war mongering criminals who are going to oversee the destruction of our status as a superpower, and drive the US into bankruptcy at the same time.
Davidus Romanus | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
The Taliban have a saying, “You have the watches, but we have the time.”
Robert Reade | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Time to neuter Uncle Sam. Mr. Obama needs our help!! Have you called your elected representatives or written to your local newspaper how disgusted you are about our MIC and Mega-Corporations? Really, Obama has learned to dance to DC music very well. His first year has been much better than Carter or Clinton’s first year in office. What happened to JFK would happen again. Sell your stocks with dealing of MIC. Vote with your pocketbook! Wake Up...
R. Jon | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Thanks for sharing your acute insight and thoughts Doc. Higgs.
*************
Obama states: Because “it is from ‘HERE’ that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted.” (?) (Emphasis in caps, mine)
Poppycock!
There were fifteen Saudis, two men from the United Arab Emirates, one Egyptian, and one Lebanese to join in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings. (NO Afghans)
Grave questions are never to be answered, much less asked. It appears that the vast majority of Americans (You know, the addlepated booboisie that VOTE...) will roll over and accept the continued loss of treasure and life, all in the name of protecting “freedom, liberty and national security!” What crapola! There’s a signal sent when “rats” start leaving a ship.... The dumb, just get dumber.
This is, and always has been what rebarbative, prevaricating politicians utter, especially the recent American presidents (Clinton, Bush and Obama), to Americans: eat your day-old horse lunch, shut up and pay your tribute! And the same “majority” of Americans will continue to eat it up with relish! The “master’s” lash will continue to cut deep and the yoke will grow ever heavier.
C’est la guerre,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +1:00 CET
“Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn’t deserve to be.” ~ L. Neil Smith
Capt. A. | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
What do you think the real reason(s) are for Obama’s decision, and the basis for your answer?
I’m also wondering how is it you know that “nearly all of them — even in their heart of hearts those who have been tempted by the money to join the pro-U.S. side – want the Americans and the other foreign occupiers out of their country.”?
You’ve been there to interview a representative sample from which you have extrapolated such a seemingly overbroad statement?
Not that I disagree with you, just that it’s fairly important to me to know the factual basis of statements, overbroad or not, so I can better judge their accuracy.
Ann Grogan, J.D. | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Or, can it possibly be that president O’bama’s decision to send more troops into Afghanistan was on the advice of his crack economic advisors who feel that starting a full scale war is a way out of this depression. Each and every single decision these lightweight advisors have made is the exact opposite of what they should have been recommending. The Fed keeping interest rates artificially low (did you know there was very little inflation, if any until the fed was formed in 1913), forcing banks to lend money to high risk mortgagee’s (causing the panic and mortgage failures that started this mess in the first place). Bailing out the banks (stealing money from successful businesses to support failing businesses), etc.
Cheech | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Obama is a politician, which means he is
megalomanical,
which means he is
never wrong,
which means he is
omniscient (among other deified qualities the messiah possesses),
which means he can
do anything at all at any time to anybody he so desires,
which means that although he is not called such, he is, nevertheless,
a dictator,
which means America become amerika now only shines
the dark light of death the world over.
We have descended to the depths and seemingly like it there. So be it. Read history. It will not continue.
Kirk | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Thank you, Dr. Higgs. Obama does indeed appear to be amazingly wooden when it comes to understanding the implications of his words and actions.
His puerile rhetoric is not only incredibly wrong from a factual point of view, but belies an immaturity and arrogance that continues to astonish (but not surprise) me.
Anyone believing him to be a man of peace was surely in denial, as a simple examination of his voting record lay in stark contrast to his pandering campaign trail rhetoric.
kc2519 | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
The object is to break us.
They have to break us before they can have the complete control over us they need to establish unhindered their global government.
And with Copenhagen self-destructing before their eyes, this may just be their last recourse . . .
But that’s just a conspiracy theory, so the majority of “rational,” “intelligent” people will ignore reality until it’s too late.
Obama, et al., know EXACTLY what they’re doing.
But Americans “love” their “country” and their “God,” and their glorious wars of “democracy,” spreading “Christianity.” As long as they have “heroes” to send and “warriors” “defending our freedoms” to worship, hey, it’s all good.
Until, as in Katrina, those “heroes” and “warriors” point their guns at their worshipers, “defending” them against evil anarchic freedom — for their own good, of course.
Do you think those non-existent FEMA camps have hot running water?
Cat | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Most of the reasons given by the replies to Dr. Higgs for Obama’s move sound logical, if a bit strategic and indirect. But perhaps there is a more near-term, tactical reason. With 100,000 troops on the east side and an approximately equal number on the west side, perhaps this is just the pre-placement of assets for an attack on the real target – Iran. The drum beat for an attack on Iran is reaching a fever pitch in DC. Perhaps this is Obama’s opening move.
Jim Blacic | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Actually, poor Barack is a weak man desperately trying to look like he is strong.
xtrasystole | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Interesting! America has two close allies in that part of the world, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan! Most of the terrorist groups (and/or their funding) have somehow been linked to the citizens of both these nations. And, Afghans have rarely been involved in terrorizing others. How they treat their own, or their women and children is a question of cultural differences. And, I will not judge them on that basis.
Coming back to terror, fundings of most the these groups has been linked either to SArabia or Pakistan. And, yet the only reason pak exists is because of liberal handout given by America. Articles after articles have been published linking the pak military, American handout and the fundings of most the terror groups based in and/or linked with Pakistan. If America is really serious about stopping terror, doesn’t it make sense to stop pouring money in pockets of the pak military which has not only directly trained several terrorist groups but has also been consistently funding them. One wonders whether even the state pak could exist had it not been for the American handout?
Interesting | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
I’m with Jim I believe this surge does not bode well for Pakistan and Iran, nor our nation. The money makers need a huge conflict to silence the American people when our economy completely unravels. Maybe one of those Pakistani nukes will get loose and we’ll be forced to stabilize the entire region. Better to have our unemployed marching into Pakistan than marching on DC
Mike G | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Obama goes into Afghanistan to fish reasons to attack Pakistan.
The US are already fighting hard through secret CIA in Pakistan and so far they have not found a reason like 911 or the Weapons of Mass Destruction to go after Pakistan. Mainly because the head of the regime over there is rather US-friendly.
Within a few months, the US will come up with something that justifies international action into Pakistan. There is the good war, the one that will kill enough to fix employment in the US and will have the Americans forget about their petty problems.
Of course that war in Pakistan will give Obama another Nobel prize.
Why Pakistan? the state needs a war and Pakistan offers a perfect combination of bad morality (Muslim treatement of women and so on) and lack of international friends (not really inside the Russian of Chinese spheres of influence and ad odds with india...). Really, for bloodthirsty statists, 800+ millions of Pakistanis to slaughter to boost the defense industry in the US and have a good fun is a unique opportunity.
Very sad because there are so many very good squash players in Pakistan. And pretty girls too!
JCR | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Bob: Its about oil-gas pipeline to drain the xxstans to a port near Karachi, and 2. land for bases to keep Russia and China out of the mid east oil play. DUH!
Nobody talks about this; so the sheeple believe the Bush-Obama lies!! Yuk Google ‘Afghan, Unocal’ and ‘escobar, pipelineistan’ for an eyeful. Also here.
Dave Redick | Dec 4, 2009 | Reply
JCR is absolutely right. Obama’s surge makes no sense (particularly from Obama’s point of view) except for this: Obama’s prize target is Pakistan.
For some reason Obama has got a real hate on for Pakistan. Whether it’s internal Muslim rivalries or just that Pakistan is an ally of the US, Obama will find a way to spread the war.
Given how many jihadist wannabes have been radicalized and trained in Pakistan, he won’t have to wait long.
Johnny Knuckles | Dec 4, 2009 | Reply
He’s NOT. Like the brainstem media echo chamber, he’s engaged in DEMiserepublican reptilian-brained repetitive “rationalizing”.
Vic Anderson | Dec 4, 2009 | Reply
The world knows that the dollar is falling and must fall sooner or later, aggressive behaviour only accelerate that process. Dollar is floating only by the power of military, and when that myth is discredited the whole thing will fall with a big splash, crashing like a cow pat. Mark these words.
Rabi joe | Dec 4, 2009 | Reply
The decision to send in more troops was made a long time ago by the Military Industrial Complex. As a result, Obama had no say in the matter. The last thing he wants is become the next JFK by defying orders from on high. Do you think the “party crashers” were allowed into the White House on the eve of his big speech for any other reason than to remind him of how easy it is to have him assassinated at any time and place of their choosing?
minemule | Dec 4, 2009 | Reply
Bingo! On the second point.
john | Dec 4, 2009 | Reply
That would be to Davidus.
john | Dec 4, 2009 | Reply
Maybe he was just in appeasement mood to the industrial-military complex or accelerating the fall of the empire.
In any circumstance, is again the interests of the people of your country.
I’m just a follower of your history, and been from a small country (Guatemala), from time to time, receiving the “fall-out” of the actions of your government.
César Ruiz | Dec 6, 2009 | Reply
Great article. It will be prophetic in 18 months.
shill | Dec 12, 2009 | Reply
One must always judge a man by his actions. Obama may sound different than his predecessor, but his actions have proven to be the same.
Waterfront Realtor | Dec 12, 2010 | Reply
It’s amazing reading this blog post now, in 2011, when many of the things you said here are true!
Robert Wooden | Feb 3, 2011 | Reply