| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Whither Afghanistan? |
| 2009-09-01 |
| by Steve White Will America cut out on Afghanistan? In a report leaked to the Guardian, the American commander of forces in Afghanistan, Lieutenant-General Stanley McChrystal, states that our current strategy in that unhappy land is not working. As he wrote in the report, "The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort." That sounds suspiciously like General-speak for, simply, what we're doing isn't working, so we need to do something else, something else that we're not doing and don't know how to do right now. Some in the blogosphere and media, left and right, are questioning whether this means that we will or should abandon Afghanistan. While blessedly few pray for a repeat of helicopters flying from the roof of the American embassy in Kabul, there is, to borrow an old New York Times phrase inappropriately applied to President George Bush in late 2001, "a stench of failure" surrounding our current strategy. The Taliban are launching new attacks in areas previously considered to be out of their reach. There are more, and more frequent, western military casualties. Civilians continue to die. The economy, such as it is, remains a wreck in those areas that the Taliban can control or threaten. Some suspect President Barack Obama will pull us out of Afghanistan, despite his 2008 campaign rhetoric arguing that it was Afghanistan, not Iraq, that was central to our effort to defeat terrorism. Liberal Democrats such as Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold are now calling for a "flexible timetable" for a withdrawal, and current public opinion polls show increasing concern over events in that unhappy country. The more trouble Afghanistan becomes, the more likely Obama is to wash his hands of the affair, blaming it (along with most every other troubling issue before him) on his predecessor. Before we castigate President Obama for a withdrawal, however, a question must be answered: What's the goal in Afghanistan? Answer that and you know whether or not we are failing. Answer that and you know what to say to General McChrystal. George Bush, that misunderestimated man, articulated our goals for our operations in Afghanistan in late 2001 -- First, to destroy as much of al-Qaeda as we could and deny them the use of Afghanistan as a base of operations for their large-scale terror and insurgency campaigns. Second, to remove the Taliban from power as a punishment for supporting al-Qaeda. We did destroy much of al-Qaeda, and while we didn't capture Osama bin Laden (a fact that Democrats subsequently seized upon as an American "failure"), he doesn't have the ability today to use Afghanistan as a base of operations. We removed the Taliban from formal power and reduced the territory they hold from 90% to, today, about 20% of the country. We certainly cannot claim "Mission Accomplished" in its entirety but we did what George Bush set out to do, and seven years later we have the responsibility to determine what to do next. So what is the goal in 2009? Are we there for "nation building"? Good luck with that; Afghanistan is firmly rooted in the 10th Century (AD or BC is a fair question) with the thinnest veneer of 20th century life in the cities. The people there are more tribal than on just about any patch of land on the planet. There is no nation to build. If nation-building a single Afghan republic within the current borders is our goal, we have already failed and will continue to fail for the next century. Having gone through our own nation-building in the Americas and Europe over the last five centuries we many times fail to understand that large swaths of Asia simply are not, and will not be for a long time, inhabited by people with a sense of national identity. Are we there to prevent the Taliban from seizing power again? If so the mission is to train those in that country who would oppose the Taliban. We are currently doing that by training the "Afghan National Army". But as just noted there is no nation, and so a "national army" is simply a first-derivative idiocy. If we had generations of time and a background of a more enlightened society, one could build a national army and nation just as our own country built West Point and, over time, a nation. That begs the question of whether there is a nation to build and a sufficient number of people who believe in it to provide critical mass. In Afghanistan today there is not. What might work instead is training the tribal militias so that they could, alone or together, fight the Taliban. That is what the various Tadjik, Uzbek and Herara tribes tried and failed to do before 9/11, but what we helped them to do successfully in the months afterwards. We could re-implement that strategy so as to have them fend off the Pashtun-based Taliban. The risk to that strategy is that these tribes might fight each other as much or more than the Taliban. Such a proposed policy not only rankles our own sense of how the world should be but also puts us in the position of favoring one tribe over another with the potential for blood on our hands. It also reminds us that tribal favoritism was a favored strategy of European colonial powers, perfected in places like the Congo, Rwanda, Burma and the Ivory Coast. But a more enlightened policy of favoritism would be a substantial carrot to dangle to the northern and western tribes in Afghanistan, and one that over time might build a series of proto-nation-states. One could couple military and civil aid to tribes that not only form a bulwark against terrorism and terror-friendly tribes but also commit to peace with tribes that do not threaten them (or us) and, over time, to more Western ideals. Such a strategy would require an intimate knowledge of the people and customs but is not beyond our ability. A realistic policy then would be to work with, train and arm the tribes that are friendly to us and are willing to side with us against terrorists and terror-friendly tribes in Afghanistan. That would require us to abandon the notion of an Afghan nation-state but would allow us to spend our time hunting down al-Qaeda elsewhere in the world. This might require an international mandate: someone would have to speak for the tribes at the international level. A protectorate might be established, much as the one established to look after Micronesia after the Second World War with its many islands and tribes. A NATO mandate would involve enough partners to ensure that no one nation, particularly Pakistan, took advantage of the Afghan tribes. Loose ends might remain: how one might regulate trade in the region, for example, and what one might do about opium poppies grown within the traditional regions of the participating tribes. Over time those problems could be managed as relative peace and prosperity took hold. A confederated government of tribes might stand for the tribes in international affairs. The role of neighbors such as Pakistan and Iran, both of whom would undoubtedly oppose such arrangements, would have to be settled, if necessary by threat of force. No solution is possible until we recognize that Afghanistan as we presently know it is not, and will never be, a nation-state. If we are not willing to acknowledge that cold reality, then we will end up leaving Afghanistan with our self-image and prestige in tatters, much like after Vietnam, and we will contend with yet another generation of thugs, tyrants and terrorists who, unlike us, have learned another lesson about the United States and the West. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #12 it would be a US military dictatorship for about a decade, but when it was over... Your estimate seems far too optimistic. It would take 2 full generations of this kind of dictatorship/colonization to turn a pesthole like Afghanistan around, and neither the USA nor any other power has the stomach to do that. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-09-01 23:34 |
| #11 Afghanistan cannot be 'won' so long the west continues to define victory by WWII standards. A success of ridiculous proportions if there ever was one. In my opinion, success is long attained. Victory is already secured. The only question now is how to not lose all the ground that was fought for. How to do that without imposing some western type standards or institutions is something I can't answer. It seems to me that we will eventually have to get the Afghans on board with some westernizing or warloards will turn it right back to what it was. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-09-01 14:16 |
| #10 Yeah, but it's like raking leaves, until you cut the tree down, it's a never ending job. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-09-01 13:43 |
| #9 Sweeping through a country killing all the terrorists you can find *is* nation-building. It certainly makes it a better place. |
| Posted by: Oldcat 2009-09-01 11:41 |
| #8 Whiskey Mike: I disagree. Iraq firmly established a principle, that every rotten system the US tried to preserve, out of "cultural sensitivity" was a failure, and every system we introduced from scratch had a better than average chance of success. But we discarded this discovery with Afghanistan, trying to make an inherently repugnant, archaic, and most of all, inefficient form of what passes for government, work. Instead, the very first thing we should have done is take every child from a peaceful part of the country, and put them in (US military government) state run boarding schools, with a western curriculum. Then take every educated Afghan we could find and send them to school to learn how to run a modern government. Then, because of the tiny national wage, we could have literally hired every unemployed adult male in the country for massive government projects. Their wages would have been about $1B every year, because the wages are so incredibly low, and entire towns and cities could have been rebuilt, along with water projects, farm restoration, etc. The country would have been led by an imposed, MacArthur constitution written for them, and to hell with Sharia law and tribal government. Any Taliban or al-Qaeda caught in mischief would be hung by the neck with little formality, the passable parts of the border would be heavily fortified by US forces, and anyone caught crossing anywhere else would be shot on sight. Yes, it would be a US military dictatorship for about a decade, but when it was over, those left in power would know how to run a government, there would be a young generation capable of modernizing their nation and protecting its security, and their economy would be growing at a tremendous clip. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-09-01 10:17 |
| #7 One key issue is whether, indeed, Obama has the will to stay. Another is whether he has the intelligence to listen to the smart people who are there or have been there and develop a new strategy. That's what Bush had to do in 2006 and to his credit, he did it. Dan Riehl (no link, sorry) makes that point this morning as well. Obama needs political room to manuever at home and dearly wants to ram a liberal, progressive progressive agenda through the Congress. That isn't going well (understatement) and he can ill-afford to alienate the Kos Kiddies further by hanging tough in A'stan. He might draw to pull out real soon and "Blame Bush". If he does, A'stan becomes ripe for plucking by the Taliban -- it's unlikely Obama would keep Special Forces in-country and B-2 bombers on-call. That in turn lets the TTP and al-Qaeda have the safe haven they need for future operations. And that takes us back to Spring, 2001. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-09-01 10:16 |
| #6 The Obama Administration is blaming Bush for the current problems in A'stan - because he neglected that part of the war by his wrongful invasion of Iraq. Eventually we may come to understand what I have been saying since we first invaded Iraq - we did so because we 'could' (we had a legal excuse) and it was a better place than A'stan to conduct a war against the Islamofascists. It allowed us to, effectively, declare victory in A'stan and get out. It's not exactly the kind of thing a government can openly state but I believe it is yet one more example of where America's 'elite' mis-underestimated GW Bush. Sadly, we will probably repeat Vietnam in A'stan. I am not confident we have the means to conduct a winning campaign in that logistical nightmare of a place and I am certain we don't have the will to do it. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-09-01 08:42 |
| #5 I firmly agree Whiskey Mike. Phase-II of your 'get out, mind our own business and stay at home' scenario, the following Course of Actions (COA) would follow: COA-A. If you create a situation for the US akin to PamAm 103, 9/11, etc, we will without warning or further discussion, END your civilization and those of your 'immediate 'downwind' neighbors. COA-B. If something dreadful happens to Israel, or anyone else we so designate either specifically or implied, COA-A shall apply. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-09-01 07:40 |
| #4 Good summation. I am most in favor of glazing/irradiating the most pustulent areas, and repeating as required. A-stan is worth no American troop lives, period. The country is a pest hole, and the people and their 'cultures' are by and large utterly repugnant. Nation building in a cesspit is insanity. Treat it like a recurring sore, nothing more. Same for Somalia and the rest. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2009-09-01 06:40 |
| #3 Steve, Great article however the same is true of north Pakistan. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-09-01 05:42 |
| #2 You can't change the nature of a People. So, no democracy ever. You can convince them not to mess with you---but not given the current idiological climate. Maybe, in post Obamid world... |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-09-01 04:11 |
| #1 Or you could treat it as a pit that you'll have to go into to clean out every few decades, but which won't ever be friendly. It isn't a tidy solution, and the survivors will always be thinking that they won since they "drove out" the Americans last time. |
| Posted by: James 2009-09-01 00:43 |