It’s hard not to be pessimistic about this country when we have to listen to every new report of disaster over there (especially when it is compared to our success in Iraq). The latest, for those who are concerned, is the increasingly bogus election results and the dirt bag that Karzai chose to run with. Analysis coming from the Foreign Policy article indicates that the Afghani government is pretty much “more of the same” from their Northern Alliance days. That is, warlords with about as much support and legitimacy as the Taliban. So even when we pump more supplies to get more troops into Afghanistan who will likely be highly efficient at killing more insurgents, we aren’t going to see any actual return from our Afghani “allies.” The reason we needed the surge in Iraq was to provide additional safe zones in order to allow the Sunni Awakening to do it’s magic. Absent the troops, the sunni militias would’ve been too weak to stand against Foreign Extremists, absent the sunni militias, we wouldn’t have had the local support that is necessary to go door to door and root out the enemy. Obama is attempting the surge without the “Afghani Awakening.” He is attempting to overcome this with massive deployment of civilian groups and aid but I doubt how effective this can be if it’s not coming from the Afghani gov’t. People need to “buy in” to their government in order for it succeed, no amount of aid can erase the crimes of a corrupt and ineffective government.
But we can’t forget what is at stake inside of Afghanistan. Besides the “terrorist safe haven” development that will occur if we pull out (but a concern we face everyday in the Sudan and Arabic peninsula), I think Afghanistan is the last gasp for the west in Asia. If failure is the inevitable conclusion for our mission, that it will result (if it hasn’t already) in a foreign policy for NATO that avoids any mission but the short, non-violent, and easily attainable mission. An overall strategic mission will be lost and those that would like to test the limits of this more defeatist alliance (i.e. Russia, China) will be emboldened.
If we can’t retreat but we can’t keep with the same, then Obama should do something that he has promised with every speech. He needs to “change” something, most importantly, he needs to do what he can to shuffle up the Afghani leadership. Not saying we should kill anyone like Kennedy a la Diem, but we should make it clear to those not in Karzai’s entourage, we’re willing to extend a welcome hand.
Tough question. As Karzai gives legitimacy to the universality (is that a word?) of the government by being ethnic Pashtun, it would be hard to find an improvement over him. Afghanistan is so highly tribalized, it would be hard to find anybody that has even the least bit of national support besides him. Maybe we pull a Joe Biden in Afghanistan, and let it go its ethnic ways. Set up shop in Kabul and Bagram (which would be run by one of the northern tribes a la Kurdistan) and pulvarize anyone making noises in the south.
ReplyDeleteOf course, then we'd be in the same position the Soviets found themselves, with the noteable difference that we really can pulvarize our opponents, whereas the Soviets couldn't.
I'm not saying it's a great idea, but it's an idea.
I honestly think Obama is doing the only thing he can do right now in Afghanistan (by surging as you describe above) and I support the current effort, even if I think there's not a high chance of success. Then, if/when the surge doesn't work, we pull a Biden.
The Soviets pulverized 1/4 of the population (and would have been nigh invincible since they lack humanitarian standards as we do), only suffering real casualties when we decided to pay back for Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteIt is almost a knee jerk response to the "tribalism" issue within Afghanistan to say, "well Iraq is/was too, and we sorted through it" and I would like to believe we could with something similar in Afghanistan. But Iraq has had a working, function, state for their entire state (even the Ottoman's gave them a great deal of local control). So while tribalism is strong, the state is stronger. This is not true at all in Afghanistan, with the concept of the state being an abstract notion that might be a concern to warlord, but is next to alien to an average farmer.
That leads me to go against the knee jerk response in favor of some partition plan on pashtun and tajik lines. Maybe even curry Russian and Central Asian favor by giving large swaths of the country to Tajikistan and funnel arms to their authoritarian government to bring the tribes in line (and also bring in one more government that has a vested interest in violently rooting out religious fundamentalism). This would not only give liberals a chance to protest abuses that are actually real (like people cutting holes in people instead of keeping them awake for long periods) but also give us a foot in the door to our new Central Asian allies.
Regardless, the point of this post is to identify that we can't simply "steady the course" in Afghanistan and expect it to get better. We need to acknowledge the differences in Afghanistan and adapt to them and not let our preconceived notions of what Afghanistan should look like inhibit our mission. But to wait for failure before we change strategies would be wasteful and also cowardly (we're cutting and running in the midst of defeat). Whatever governments moving into the vacuum would would not trust any American commitments in the area (if we made any) and would deal with the crisis from a Russo-Sino standpoint than a western one.
We need to shift gears and fast.
The fact that the Soviets took heavy casualties was my point in making the "Soviets couldn't pulvarize their opponents" statement. There is no one that is going to supply the Taliban with good enough weapons to inflict heavy casualties on us. When their opponents were supplied with effective weapons, the Russians were very vincible.
ReplyDeleteMoney and firepower buy the most influence in Afghanistan. I don't think Russia can be effective there at all, they have neither the money nor the firepower, though I suppose there's a chance China could buy their way into influence there. Anarchy/tribalism is my bet for what happens if we bail.
Not sure how waiting to see if a new tactic will work or not is cowardly. Possibly wasteful, but not cowardly. Surging is the exact opposite of cutting and running.
Not sure where you're suggesting we jump to though I do see that Gen McChrystal has called for a major strategy meeting, which indicates he may be in panic mode too.
Yes, when we gave the Afghans weapons the Soviets were vulnerable. That is precisely what I said. But this is how it relates to the argument about partition: if we gave Tajik portions of Afghanistan to Tajikistan (or create a weak state that will serve close to client status to Tajikistan) than they would likely be more successful at destroying the Taliban since massive ruthless force unhindered by humanitarian compunctions crushes insurgencies. My argument being, the Soviets were doing exactly this and being successful with it, until we intervened. But unless you want to get into a historical debate solely about Afghanistan you can also see similar allegories in:
ReplyDeletea) The British against the Boers and the Malaysians
b) China in Tibet and Xinjiang (UIghers)
c) Russia against the Chechens since 2000 (thank Mr. Putin for that)
d) Sri Lanka this summer against the Tamil Tigers
I still don't see how we can continue to pound away using "more force" without any other strategy as being effective. Seeing our mistake, and repeating it isn't brave but dumb. We've already more than doubled our troops in Afghanistan since 2004 and we have seen no more returns on our investment. Now we're about to do the same thing , again, and expect it to some how change (when nothing else has). I assert this is cowardly because underneath it all, it shows the administration is unwilling to do the "brave" thing, and that is to challenge the corrupt Afghani government or at least, discuss some other "hard" changes to our Afghan plan.
I'm not George Will, I'm not saying we should pull out and I certainly hope that other Republicans turn isolationist just because Obama continues to stay in this war. Afghanistan is important in numerous other ways than simply being a place for terrorists to chill. What I'm arguing is that we need a change, maybe even a Biden plan (which makes sense from a strictly realist/Nixonian sense), but the status quo is foolhardly and wasteful.
OK, I see your points (I assume you mean "...I hope that other Republicans DON'T turn isolationist...")
ReplyDeleteI think that's a not-unreasonable track to take. The downside is that we then lose any moral high ground, we'd be playing pure hardball there. Not sure that has a chance of happening with Obama. I also am not convinced that The Surge won't work yet. I think it needs more time. But, I agree if things don't turn around then you may have the right plan.