Afghanistan has the potential (4.00 / 1)

to be far hairier than Iraq.

First off, Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, has never been what you'd call a "nation-state". At best it has been a patchwork of warring tribes. So any attempt to reach a political settlement will be very difficult, and any realistic peace will be very far from what Americans, inclined to getting their way in all things, will accept.

Second, if we double down on Afghanistan, we run the risk of igniting a war with Pakistan--a nuclear-armed nation in a border dispute with another nuclear armed nation, both of which have non-negligible populations of religious fanatics. The targets of US missile strikes have been expanding from the autonomous regions to regions under the control of the central government of Pakistan. Further expansion would destabilize the situation, and might (in the very worst case) even lead to an overthrow of the government by a Taliban-like regime.

Third, tensions between India and Pakistan are very high right now. Throwing more soldiers and guns into the situation is not wise. Certainly there are extremists on both the Indian and Pakistani sides that would be happy to draw the US, with its overwhelming military might, into the conflict and give them an advantage over their opponents. We can't allow that to happen.

I wish I saw even an inkling that Obama and the people around him see any of this, but they appear to be content with claiming that Afghanistan is the "true front of the war on terror" and doubling down with troops and weapons.

We've replaced dumb cowboys with slightly cleverer cowboys. But the situation is so volatile that "slightly cleverer" won't cut it.

---

by: limpidglass @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 18:06:15 PM CST

You're hitting on some crucial points (4.00 / 2)

I would like to elaborate with a few links.

Pakistan is a real problem now, especially after Mumbai. The recent attacks that destroyed over 150 vehicles headed into Afghanistan from Peshawar (that's how 70% of our military logisitics gets into Afghanistan, through the Khyber Pass) show our own LOC (Lines of Communications--logistical lines) are extremely vulnerable. We can't keep launching air raids and missile attacks and expect to be able to resupply our troops through PK, can we? A brief take on this can be found here:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com...

The Mumbai attack may be intended to increase friction between India and Pakistan, as a means of taking PK troops out of the NW Territories by causing a war with India in Kashmir. This will make Obama's foreign policy in western Asia largely moot if successful. Thus far it doesn't look like it's going to work, but this is a huge problem for the Liberal Interventionists and Neo-cons who still seem to think the US enjoys some level of operational independence. Fact is, we've hit not one, but two hornets nests with failed policies both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I have no idea how to work this one out.

Two posts very much worth reading:

http://www.newshoggers.com/blo...

http://www.newshoggers.com/blo...

Jason C says Obama has painted himself into a corner and I tend to think this is correct.

How do we have a new Surge into Afghanistan whilst supplying them through Pakistan? Can we do this through Russia and at what cost? What are the other options that won't constrain us into an actual trap, logistically or strategically?

This whole deal looks worse every week. Given Obama's selections for defense and foreign policy posts, it rather seems his policy proclivities will shortly be overtaken by events. The hawks are about to get pwned, in other words. Indeed, my own friend who just got back (wounded in an ambush, though only minorly--thanks to Kevlar) suggests Afghanistan is "pretty well fucked."

These links are not intended to be exhaustive, but merely intended to give a "taste" of the problem.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 23:34:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is OT to Afghanistan but since you did bring up the intent of Mumbai (0.00 / 0)

If corroding and destabilizing the civil society of India was one of the goals of this attack, it appears they scored on that too.

Blogger indscribe writes:

When 300 real estate brokers held a meeting in Surat [India] and decided to stop buying, selling or renting any property to Muslim, it was not an ordinary event. [The meeting was held last week.]

Further, those renting their shops to Muslims have been asked to get them vacated. They took out a rally and an oath was also taken. The fact that they were 'passionate' enough to hold a conclave and take the pledge that they would henceforth not deal with Muslims, illustrates the growing problem of communal segregation in India.

It's more serious than lot of other frivolous issues, which the national media keeps discussing. It is something that ought to be taken up in Parliament. It's again a hate crime and more than that it is anti-national and divisive activity.

It was more extraordinary that they had the audacity to publicly spell out their prejudice. So what's their problem with the Muslims? Because the name of Muslims of India are similar to those involved in terror activities from the other side of the border.

Is it rational? Who they are taking their revenge upon? It's on India. Across North, Central and Western India, builders and real estate agents are busy making colonies that are 'free of Muslims'.

---

by: johnalive @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 00:42:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

some context (0.00 / 0)

you're talking about the upper classes in Gujarat, the most Hindutvaized state in India, the one that had state sponsored pogroms against Muslims and others in 2002 under and with the complicity of Narendra Modi's government (who has since been reelected).  The anti-Muslim sentiment in India is not the result of Mumbai, but is a long building movement (and directly connected to anti-Christian violence (in Orissa currently, but all over the place) - it is part of a virulent Hindu fundamentalism - imagine McCain-Palin on steroids with a mass base, and you get some sense of what it's like.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 15:33:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Key to What's Coming (4.00 / 1)

In my opinion, this is probably the most astute sentence in the whole thread so far:

Given Obama's selections for defense and foreign policy posts, it rather seems his policy proclivities will shortly be overtaken by events.

Frequently during the campaign, and even more so lately, I've wondered if this might not be exactly what Obama expects. To me, his boilerplate comments on Afghanistan, and his unwillingness to challenge the military and foreign policy establishment's definition of the GWOT -- at least not directly -- would make a lot of sense if he wanted to secure their agreement on the Iraq withdrawal.

Certainly the more thoughtful of them, particularly the Joint Chiefs, are already leaning this way, but he'll still have to deal with Petraeus, who has a legacy of his own to protect, not to mention future political ambitions which are rather ill-defined at this point, but still ominous. Obama as president will also still have the neocons on his right wing, salted throughout the foreign policy establishment and the right wing of both parties in the Congress.

In any event, if I were he, I use the I'm a tough guy, trust me line until I got us out of Iraq, and then wait until the military comes to tell me themselves that we're fucked in Afghanistan, as they will soon enough, if what we've been reading about the deteriorating situation there is correct. Of course, they'll preface their report with an unless... and that unless will be more troops, bigger budgets, etc., etc.

At that point, the economic crisis will seem a lot more real to most voters, and he can simply turn out his pockets and tell the generals, the Republicans and the Blue Dogs that he's too poor for such grandiose rescue plans. He can also enlist their expert help in coming up with a Plan B. When the assholes get around to asking who lost Afghanistan? it's very likely that no one but they will care.

---

by: William Timberman @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 10:02:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

when you say "Pakistan is a real problem now" (4.00 / 1)

Can you specify what you mean?  I'm not attributing any ill intent here at all, but as an Indian-American who has had to  listen to and respond to a lot of bullshit about "Pakistan" and what a problem it represents, I've come to believe that it's very important that people specify exactly what they mean when they say things like this.  The Pakistani military?  The Pakistani state?  The ISI?  The nationally ungoverned areas of Pakistan like FATA?  The civilian government?  The instability of the civilian government?  The nuclear weapons?  The Islamism?  The courts?  The sectarianism?  Etc.

There are 15 different directions at least you could take it in - and it's important to specify as the drumbeats for war with Pakistan increase both in the U.S. and in India.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 15:30:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're right and it's a fair question.. (4.00 / 1)

There is no bad intent here. The entire region is incredibly complex and each of the three countries in question here, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan all bring their own elements (challenges?) and they all also relate to each other.

So here's what I was referring to (trying to say this concisely):

Pakistan has a new civilian government that doesn't seem to have much control (I'm not faulting them, here, that's just the way it seems to be) over its military and almost certainly has no control over ISI. They also have the tribal areas which are largely not governable by the central government. They have an energy crisis, a commodity crisis and a general economic crisis. Put simply, this is a country on the verge of a breakdown of sorts, or so it seems from a distance. Of course, the biggest problem of all is they have a nuclear arsenal which could become vulnerable and there's no need to explain why the entire region might find that notion disturbing.

I don't really understand (something I hope to correct) where the military sits in all this. They don't like Taliban and assorted other elements, as is evidenced in the casualties they take every time they try to assert some authority in the NW territories. But they also (understandably) take offense at US aggression, even on the soil that houses those who kill Pakistani troops. They are there to defend their sovereignty, after all.

ISI, on the other hand, uses the Taliban (just as it has for decades now) to assert themselves in Afghanistan, which they view as their own sphere of influence. They really don't like India and especially dislike the fact that India is trying to establish a diplomatic presence in Afghanistan. In their work undermining Indian peace of mind, they work with groups (so as to maintain some degree of plausible deniability, though it's not so plausible anymore) who carry out attacks both within India and Afghanistan. ISI would much rather have the Pakistani military exchanging artillery with India in Kashmir than shooting the place up in the tribal territories, no?

After the recent attacks on NATO logistics in Peshawar, now Pakistani contractors are refusing to transport materiel to Afghanistan. So NATO had better find new Lines Of Communication  (LOC) pretty quickly.

You are most likely (unfortunately) correct in asserting some in the US would like to go full bore on Pakistan. It also seems the nationalists in India are ready to make some gains in the next elections, with troubling possibilities implied (not really implied, they're pretty blatant about threatening Pakistan at the moment) there as well.

I shudder to think of what will follow if Indian nationalists and American neo-cons get their way. Horrific is a word that leaps to mind and that seems woefully inadequate.

So to round this off and get back to Obama's foreign policy team, someone in that mix of people had better start understanding right away  that any notions of American dominance in that region is just a silly dream. It can't be realized and trying to at this point will prove terribly costly for pretty much everyone involved. As I said before, events will overtake their current desire for American hegemony in that region.

The priority at this point, in my own mind, is to simply try to find the peace, work on stabilizing Pakistan (assuming that's possible) and try to keep the killing to a bare minimum. It's already gone way too far.

I hope this answers your question.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 22:30:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama has really painted himself into a corner (0.00 / 0)

For some reason, he seemed to often paint his opposition to the Iraq war by contrasting it with his support for Afghanistan (the "central front" in the "war on terror"). Now his problem is: the war in Afghanistan may very well not be "winnable." When this becomes obvious, Obama will have two choices:

1. admit failure and pull out of a war you said was very important and that you said you would win

2. continue to fight an unwinnable and increasingly unpopular war

and those are shitty options.

The only way I can see Obama coming out all right on this is if Afghanistan somehow miraculously ends up being turned around. I sincerely hope this is what happens.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 18:10:19 PM CST

Breaking News! "The new center-left governing coalition!" (0.00 / 0)

You heard it here first! There's a "new center-left governing coalition" in Washington!

Just one question...

How did "the new center-left governing coalition" get rid of Obama and his mob of right-wing and center-right appointees?  

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 18:14:40 PM CST

Different issues (0.00 / 0)

Speaking in the most abstract language stripped of culture, religion or nationalism, people who have demonstrated superior ability to inflict indiscriminate violence on a mass scale on us are in Afghanistan. There is a genuine security issue present. There never was any threat to our safety from Iraq. For an American, it's pure destruction of innocents.

Now I don't know if war is the right answer in Afghanistan, or if this war with the heavy toll of collateral damage it seems to be bringing to the Afghans is the way to address that threat or if it makes it worse. I really don't know. But I do know that I would go so far as to support coercive millitary force being used to prevent terrorist training camps and new sanctuaries for planning mass casualty attacks against us.

Or to put it another way, I would - and have - marched against the Iraq war in Washington DC, but I would not go to protest the Afghan action.

---

by: johnalive @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 18:16:45 PM CST

where is the evidence (4.00 / 3)

that the current leadership of the Taliban is plotting another terrorist attack on US soil?

Yes, they're fighting our soldiers. But that's because we're now an invading army. Why would they not fight back against a foreign occupation?

There was initially a rationale to justify unilateral military action in Afghanistan--namely, as a defensive action to prevent another terrorist attack. But that rationale can no longer be used to justify the war in Afghanistan.

Seven years have gone by. The original Taliban has scattered. New leaders have risen to prominence. And their priority is to drive out the US and NATO. The hope that we will be able to "get" bin Laden or the leaders of the original Taliban by launching missile strikes into random villages is growing dimmer by the day.

If you strike a match and light a fire and watch it grow, at some point you will be unable to put out the fire by extinguishing the match. The problem is no longer the match, it's the fire. And that's what's going on in Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan may have started out as a legitimate defensive action, but it has become another war of occupation. At this point, we need to reevaluate just why we're in it, and if we find that we no longer have a legitimate reason to be there, we need to leave.

---

by: limpidglass @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 18:29:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not saying that I think the Taliban are planning international attacks, but the people they graciously host do. (0.00 / 0)

Usually, I don't say anything here unless I'm advocating, activist, disagreeing or reporting information about something. And even if I don't have good ideas or information to promote, I promote proceeding from progressive values to solve an unsolved problem. Leaving would be the solution that proceeds from progressive anti-war values, but I'm not convince that is a good solution, but i could be convinced  

With Afghanistan I'm completely at a loss - which makes me officially a passive consumer of enlightened leadership, and I really hope Obama is going to be the change agent to bring on that enlightened leadership. If he says more troops, I'm willing to try that. If he says leave, then I'll support that. (Is it 'Dear Leaderism' to ask that our leaders function at pay grade and come up good solutions to difficult problems?).

What concerns me there though is that Obama has surrounded himself with neo-con lite people and "liberal" warhawks, who when they proceed from their values and formulate policies - well, it seems like recent history shows that everything these people touch turns to bloodshed and chaos.

And the various nations where they've initiated kinder, gentler less obviously violent policies of cold-war style siege-sanctions and embargoes to strangle antagonists into compliance with US policy goals have failed to reform, even after a long time. Walling off Afghanistan from the world, like with Iran, Cuba, Iraq, Hamas, and North Korea will fail too.

---

by: johnalive @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 11:40:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

How do we win Afghanistan? (4.00 / 1)

There's a wide perception in Britain that it is impossible to win a war in Afghanistan. This largely stems from some ill-advised imperial adventures (especially the disastrous First Afghan War) but it also stems from a particular viewpoint of what winning a war is.

We can't subdue Afghanistan like Germany was subdued in WWII. The only three guys I can think of who managed that were Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and Nadir Shah. To do this they needed sustained campaigns of genocide and what successes they had were mostly the product of co-opting and infiltrating rather than replacing local power structures.

And these all took place before the arrival of weapons like the RPG and AK-47, which democratise warfare by putting the capacity to uye appalling force into the hands of more or less anybody who wants it.

Plus, Afghanistan is mostly a highland region with dodgy soils and poor infrastructure. It's hard enough keeping our troops in supply as it is.

So your ultimate objective is to keep the violence to a minimum, promote development, education and infrastructure, prevent violence spilling over the borders (easier on the Iranian, Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajik and Chinese borders, incredibly difficult on the Pakistani end) and make the local population not want to kill you much. And if we really want to push the boat out, not to grow vast quantities of opium or kill more than the occasional neighbour.

This needs a lot of troops, but it also needs them to be sensitively used. Airstrikes on wedding parties have to stop. Special forces can't call in airstrikes at will any more - they kill far too many civilians. Intelligence needs to be checked to make sure that our artillery is taking out Taliban, not settling a vendetta that goes back to sheep theft in the 1920s.

In fact, it's probably best not to kill more than is entirely necessary for self-defence. This is a clan culture, and if you kill a member his brothers, uncles and cousins (including quite distant ones) are going to feel a social imperative to take revenge.

So we need less killing, we need apologies when it happens mistakenly (and no attempt to cover it up by claiming that women and children were insurgents) and we need to consider paying blood money to settle disputes.

Then you need to bring the Taliban's soft support on side. And this is going to mean development aid as bribery and probably turning a blind eye to certain amounts of low-level crime. Advances is women's rights, I'm sad to say, might also have to slow or be halted, although we shouldn't tolerate regression.

And then there's a need for more transparency in governance, and a need for clean water and good schools, and a host of other problems.

But that's enough work to keep us there until 2050. So we need clear realistic aims, and we need a definite end date that can be prolonged no more than six months if benchmarks aren't met.

Because you aren't going to win a conventional war in Afghanistan. You can only make a few small steps, which your great-great-grandchildren will probably still be trying to build upon.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 07:54:19 AM CST

this whole dialogue reveals that the premise of the post is wrong (4.00 / 2)

The question of withdrawing troops or not is thus mainly a moral question for the country, and only secondarily one of efficacy of the war. If people do not approve of the war itself, then they want to withdraw troops almost no matter "the situation on the ground." If people approve of the war, they want to keep troops, almost no matter "the situation on the ground." This is a moral issue for Americans, and the focus on the efficacy of the war has always obscured that central point.

The whole discussion has always been "wrong war" not "war is bad."  It's not moral, but self-interested, though I can imagine how the two would overlap given the complete absence of criticism of the military industrial complex, the use of war to further U.S. economic and military interests, etc. in any kind of sophisticated way.  I am guilty of this too, but we need to stop and recognize that virtually every aspect of American foreign policy is dedicated to maintaining a very unequal system of resource distribution in the world and getting the support of Americans to do so - it's heinous and flies in the face of the word "progressive."

---

by: dr anonymous @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 15:40:31 PM CST