I wrote this two days ago, but wasn't able to post it until now. I am now back home in Colorado:
Afghanistan
We just landed in United Arab Emirates. Sorry I've been slow to reply on my Iraq posts, but it was because I was in Afghanistan the last two and half days. I wasn't allowed to announce it ahead of time but now that I am back on "friendly" soil I can share my experiences as part of a Congressional Delegation visit to Afghanistan.
We visited two cities in Afghanistan, Kabul the capital and Kandahar in the south near the Pakistani border. What a mess. What another world. No one can make sense of Afghanistan because it doesn't really make sense.
We hardly glimpsed the real Afghanistan. Through the bullet-proof windows of our van, we saw a few children playing, women in Burkhas, and men going about their daily business as we drove from the airport to the Embassy, but our briefings were all in military bases or government buildings.
I grew up loving Afghan food. My parents befriended an Afghan immigrant in the early 1980s in San Diego. My parents gave him our old pots when he started an Afghani restaurant in the area. Later, he opened an Afghan import shop next door to the restaurant and it was a special treat as kids when we would go there and I could pick out some little Afghani trinket in addition to having a delicious meal. A few years ago he moved his restaurant to one of the most posh areas of San Diego and it has been great to watch his success.
On this trip to Afghanistan, unfortunately not a single bite of Afghan food passed our lips. We stayed on the military bases and embassy compound, ate in cafeterias, and the only Afghani we even met with was the Minister of the Interior.
Thus, despite traveling thousands of miles and visiting the country itself, my context and understanding of Afghanistan is pretty much the same as the average American's--based on the same information that the Obama administration and US military have given us in making their decisions. If I had a few weeks I would love to really try to get to know some Afghans.
Despite our short stay and limited exposure, it was a great opportunity to learn from our generals, NGOs, and diplomatic officials as well as leaders of the Afghan government.
No one has any idea how many people live in Afghanistan. Intelligence estimates range from 22 to 32 million people. There has been no census since 1959. The Ministry of Education has no idea how many kids are in schools. Most likely more than 75 percent of the population is under 30 years old and has only known civil war their entire lives. 25 is considered middle-aged there because the average lifespan is only 46 years. One American soldier charged with working with local groups told me that when he arrived in a remote village he was assumed to be Russian because they hadn't heard that the Russians had quit Afghanistan (in 1989!). This is the kind of information gap we are talking about.
It is generally believed by us that the Taliban is not popular here. Whatever a poll means in this social context, apparently 80-90 percent of Afghans do not want the return of the Taliban.
President Obama has articulated a clear strategy for our presence in Afghanistan, which has been long awaited and is much appreciated by both the Afghans and our military: "Defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and prevent their return to either country in the future."
First of all, I commend Obama for not only articulating a strategy that is both concise and (in my opinion) correct. The reason that we have "chosen" Afghanistan is that it provides sanctuary to those who perpetrated 9/11 and still scheme to do our nation harm. With this new clear mission, however, I fear that our current tactics are not mapped correctly to our strategy.
The first aspect of our new tactics--a diplomatic surge--is indeed well suited to our goals. Not only do we have a senior Special Envoy to the region in the form of Richard Holbrooke, but we have an extremely capable Ambassador in Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry, a former 4-star general, and we also have Deputy Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone, Jr., who himself would be a senior Ambassador at any other post (he recently completed four years as Ambassador in Cairo).
We need all the high-level diplomatic support we can to master the diplomatic complexities of fighting against an enemy holed up in two countries, as well as navigating the complex regional politics. Iran, for instance, a generally a hostile nation that is currently attempting to develop nuclear arms, is helping with redevelopment in western Afghanistan even though we don't have direct dialog with them regarding it. This is the just the tip of the iceberg of the vast complexities our new diplomatic team will face, and I'm thrilled that we have a top-notch team that is ready and up to the challenge.
The second part of our new tactics--a military surge (more troops)--includes a renewed focus on the building effort. Building wells, schools, and promoting economic development are all nice things, but if the goal is merely to "do good and help people" we could probably bring Africa or Latin America ten times as far along with the same resources than Afghanistan. The real battle in Afghanistan and Pakistan is against Al Qaeda and we should gauge our actions with that in mind.
Our best estimates show there to be no more than 5,000 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Geographically, they operate out of the Pashtun areas in the south and east of Afghanistan and on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. The Pashtun tribe constitutes about 40 percent of the population of Afghanistan and is the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai is Pashtun, and there is a tradition of Pashtun leadership of the nation. Do we really need to occupy an entire country of around 30 million people to root out 5,000 enemies?
Unlike Iraq, there is no definitive time frame for our operations in Afghanistan to succeed. The general consensus of our military, NGOs, and diplomats is that "our mission" will take at least ten years and but probably more like a generation. Our international coalition is trying to advance Afghanistan from feudalism, through the industrial revolution, and into the information age--in just one generation. That's a tough challenge even if you're not battling terrorists at the same time.
I harbor a deep degree of ambivalence about the military surge. The diplomatic surge is good, increasing our covert ops and intelligence abilities focused on Al Qaeda is good, but adding tens of thousands of American troops for years doesn't necessarily get us closer to defeating Al Qaeda.
I don't see how the new troop surge follows from Obama's announced policy. We should engage "the enemy" (Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts) in the south and east of Afghanistan and the Pakistani border.
The only actual Afghan we spent significant time with was the Secretary of the Interior. He had one fake leg, having lost the other fighting with the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan. He was trained in Moscow, married to a Bosnian, and spoke fluent English. Extremely charming, if a little slick, he told us exactly what we want to hear on all counts.
While I was warned not to be biased to like officials just because their English is good and they are charismatic, this minister has received excellent marks so far from the US. He impressed me as a CEO would and sounded like an MBA.
His two biggest challenges are understaffing and corruption. To put things in perspective, most officers aren't literate, a requirement to be promoted to Sergeant. It's hard to imagine police officers who aren't literate, but that is to be expected in this nation. He told us that the ratio of police in Afghanistan 1.3 per thousand, far less than in major western cities, where it us usually around 4 per thousand. To retain staff, the minister is working on institutional reform and figuring how to better train and pay the police force.
The minister's other major challenge is corruption. Afghanistan produces a lot of opium, and the money generated from this illicit trade is used to buy politicians and police, as well as fund terrorist organizations. Rather than poppies, the US is trying to get Afghanistan to grow pomegranates (good luck). The minister is focused on building the institution of the police, which is a lot more than just training. Of the three players in Afghan security--the army, the intelligence force, and the police--the minister bemoans the fact that the police are the last to be built up by the allies.
In addition to our briefings from generals in Kandahar and Kabul, we got to spend an hour with troops from our home states in Kabul, and it was fun to visit with four young soldiers--two Air Force, two Army--from Colorado who signed up to meet me. I am happy to report that the troops are well fed, lodging conditions are decent, and safety is pretty good. In fact, one of their biggest complaints is that the military is taking too many precautions about their safety. For instance, one of the soldiers from Colorado trains police officers. He, along with other Americans and members of the international force, mentors Afghani police officers, usually 1 on 1. Mentor and mentee spend all day together, teaching and learning the importance of professionalism, service, and the many skills they need to succeed. This young man was invited by his mentee to dinner to meet his wife and kids. The military prohibits this kind of activity for security reasons, even though it would help build lasting bonds.
While the US government and military leaders have nothing but his safety in mind, I do sympathize with the soldier. I wish that we had more freedom on our Congressional Delegation trip (CODEL) and could have interacted with actual Afghanis, the men and women outside the bases and embassy walls. The only time we even went through the "real Afghanistan" was as we were being ferried between military bases with inches of bullet proof glass separating us from reality. I never even smelled the scents of the stores and shops we passed. I would have gladly taken on a reasonable level of risk to make the overall experience more useful and informative, but was prohibited from doing so. Maybe there is some way to empower individual solders to make these kinds of decisions subject to some ground rules. I would go stir crazy if, like these soldiers, I was living in a place for a year and could never go out and see the real country and get to know the people I'm working with during the day! Surely these kinds of interactions and relationships could further our cause of defeating terrorism.
One final note about our military is that they are an incredible and impressive fighting force. These men and women are consummate professionals and part of an expert military machine; I am amazed anyone would want to go up against our troops. And yet Mulla Omar, Osama Bin Laden, Zakari, and other terrorists are all still at large, along the Pakistani/Afghan border. I'm not sure that our occupation of Afghanistan will help bring them to justice, but our efforts along the Afghani/Pakistani border hopefully will, and I think it's only a matter of time until we find them and prevent Al Qaeda from taking innocent lives again.
Also, the people are referred to as Afghans, not Afghanis. An Afghani is what they call their currency.
Afghan is a mess, yes, and therefore we should never have invaded and occupied the nation, or whatever you want to call it.
Can someone explain how al Qaeda can be so large, pervasive, dangerous and powerful as to virtually bring the world's greatest military power to its knees? If Honduras decided to attack us today, for no more reason than we attacked Iraq, could we even defend ourselves after eight and six years of these ridiculous conflicts?
Does no one see anything wrong here? How could that little group of terrorists cost this country so much in blood and treasure and lost opportunity on the domestic front.? How did we ever win World War II when this little motley assemblage of primitive barbarians has fought us to a stalemate for what will be a decade soon, and will still be going and going and going like the Energizer bunny for another generation at least?
There is something wrong with this picture. What happens if we have to fight a real war, against something more than shadows?
"Extremely charming, if a little slick, he told us exactly what we want to hear on all counts.
...
He impressed me as a CEO would and sounded like an MBA."
Pot, meet kettle!!!
ENOUGH!!!!!!!
The irony is that Osama was being marginalized until he got Bush to respond to 911 with a bungled attempt to capture him and invading Iraq. Capturing or killing Osama and then leaving would have been optimal -- no insurgency to fight, a quick and effective retaliation against the people who actually attacked -- no "collateral damage" or long-term commitments.
Why do you through non-facts such as "currently attempting to develop nuclear arms" into your article?
It makes the whole story weak when you do that.
The road to EMPIRE always ends in the same place for ALL countries that have gone down the road of EMPIRE - a graveyard!!! Look at history!!!
The criminals on Wall Street, the warmongers in the Pentagon & the Military Industrial Complex & the corporate "owned" politicians have all caused & continue to cause "far more harm" to America than the Taliban & al Qaeda will ever do, our biggest enemy is WITHIN!!!
That is what has happened in Afghanistan time and again (and now, yet again). The result is the counter-enclosure on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that has been the only stable society in Afghanistan since it was first founded by fugitives 4000 years ago.
Perhaps the only thing that hasn't been tried in Afghanistan is encouraging it to unite with Pakistan across the geographical divide. If their mutual border becomes their mutual heart then they will have no choice but to integrate across the counter-enclosure. Sanctioning the assimilation of the two nations could be made pendant on Pakistan agreeing to relinquish its claim on Kashmir.
Certainly America is not going to achieve anything on its own.
Pakistan's interests must be addressed, yet we are already pitting India against Pakistan in order to get Pakistan to move more forcefully against terrorists. BIG MISTAKE. This tack will bring only bring unending war, eternal Pakistani emnity and is morally wrong.
The conflict over Kashmir left unresolved has a ripple effect over all of South Asia and indeed the world. The world community should immediately work to help India and Pakistan (and Kashmiris) to resolve that dispute.
It needs resolving chiefly because it is a case of human rights abuse, not only because of a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan
All countries in the region should have their interests addressed - including Pakistan. It is at our peril if we ignore that. Setting India and Pakistan against eachother to achieve our objectives is a dangerous and irresponsible policy and will blow-up in our own faces.
Read this article on the resolution of the region's conflicts by Barnett Rubin and Ahmed Rashid, "From Great Game to Grand Bargain":
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64604/barnett-r-rubin-and-ahmed-rashid/from-great-game-to-grand-bargain
if it's not like your country, it's " a mess".
8 years ago, I came to new york from a wealthy western country. Guess what - it, too, was and is a mess!
Little respect for the law, corruption everywhere, fat, lazy people complaining all the time, companies going broke, unemployment rising, xenophobia alive and well...I could go on and on!
So don't think you americans are any different to other peoples in other countries.
The only area where you excell is your arrogance.
As for those "fat, lazy people" etc, you've got them in your own "western wealthy country" and besides, there's plenty of overweight people who contribute more to society then you ever will. If people complain, whether fat or not, that's democracy kid, something some of you newcomers need a good lesson about.
http://real-politique.blogspot.com
By Sikander Hayat
If our goal is indeed to advance Afghanistan from feudalism through industrialization to information, then I believe that goal needs serious adjustment. Something similar occurred in Japan in the late 19th century, but it was driven by internal sources and had the advantage of a society that was extremely obedient (in word AND action) to authority.
It takes little imagination to have a good idea of the true feelings of a population the majority of whom have known nothing but war from both external and internall sources for their entire lives. They will become masters at telling those with the biggest and most guns exactly what they want to hear; not what they truly feel or know. They will be completely untrusting of authority no matter how well intentioned with their true allegiances localized, personal and, typically, hidden.
Combined with a poorly educated population and a country far from blessed with natural resources, you wind up with an entire country that you could likely best compare to the east Colfax area of Denver. When mere survival in a lawless area is your only source of pride you come to despise as "ignorant" the outside assistance you have learned to manipulate to your advantage but refuse to accept as needed.
Readers should also check out Brandon Friedman's article on VetVoice-also available on HuffPost-about Afghanistan.
You mentioned many observations and while I agree with many especially your query about the usefulness of more troops, one thought not yet mentioned is the role of education. If the people learn no other thought than that which provided by a closed society we are trying to change something we will never touch.