The "Goldilocks Principle" and Afghan War Options

A piece in yesterday's New York Times by Peter Baker and Helene Cooper reported that all of the U.S. military options for Afghanistan that President Barack Obama is currently contemplating include some kind of troop escalation. "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates appears to be supportive of the middle option," they write. This search for a military option that nestles agreeably between too much force and too little has a familiar ring to it.

During the debates among President Lyndon Johnson's top advisers about whether to escalate the U.S. military commitment in Vietnam, Undersecretary of State George Ball famously invoked the Goldilocks principle: One military option would be too hard, one too soft, and one just right, yet all of them increased the United States role in the war. The Goldilocks principle seems to have infected the current discussions now going on between Obama and his advisers regarding Afghanistan.

Option A: Give General Stanley McChrystal everything he wants including 40,000 to 80,000 more ground troops -- Too Hard.
Option B: Listen to William Polk and other experts and begin extricating U.S. forces to end what most Afghans view as a foreign occupation -- Too Soft.
Option C: Pour in 25,000 to 30,000 more U.S. troops while emphasizing "political" and "economic" development, "anti-corruption" measures, and the possibility of negotiations -- Just Right.

George Ball later reflected on this period when escalating U.S. military power in Vietnam seemed like a good idea:

"I have always marveled at the way ingenious men can, when they wish, turn logic upside down, and I was not surprised when my colleagues interpreted the crumbling of the South Vietnamese government, the Viet Cong's increasing success, and a series of defeats of South Vietnamese units not as proving that we should cut our losses and get out, but rather that we must promptly begin bombing to stiffen the resolve of the corrupt South Vietnamese government. It was classic bureaucratic casuistry. A faulty rationalization was improvised to obscure the painful reality that America could arrest the galloping deterioration of its position only by the surgery of extrication." (Quoted in George McT. Kahin, Intervention: How America Became Involved in Vietnam, 1986, p. 275)

Maybe the Iraq debacle has dulled our senses but there should be something stunning about a general at this late date requesting 40,000 to 80,000 more American soldiers to be sent to Afghanistan. General McChrystal's recommendation for more troops and material has a distinctly Westmorelandian flavor to it. If approved, it could create an additional $40 to$80 billion per annum in war costs relating to the American effort in Afghanistan. The Congress has not only bequeathed to the Executive Branch its war powers but has apparently handed over its purse powers as well. If President Obama approves McChrystal's maximal request, as John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and other war hawks demand, it will be an enormous drain of resources in a time of great economic hardship. And it will be rammed through without any significant public debate even though polls show the American people soured on the Afghanistan project long ago.

Any argument that states that American military "success" in Afghanistan is dependent upon some type of action taken by the "Afghan government," such as "weeding out corruption" or "taking responsibility for its own internal security," etc. should not be taken seriously.

What we call "corruption" they understand as normal operating procedures. Training an Afghan security force to serve as a proxy for American and NATO troops, like Nixon's "Vietnamization," is not only expensive and time-consuming but it is destined to fail because among the recruits will be people who are opposed to the foreign military presence. They'll work hand in glove with "the enemy." It's already happening. According to Juan Cole the Pashtun majority in Afghanistan is already put off by the Tajik minority's strong presence inside the security forces.

Last month, Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Rand corporation that recruiting security personnel from the ethnic regions to police their own people is desirable but he didn't say whether this arming of various ethnic groups could produce clashes between them. William Polk, in his "open letter" to President Obama, compared Afghanistan to "a rocky hill sliced by gullies and covered by 20,000 Ping-Pong balls" each representing an "autonomous village-state," and urged him not to escalate the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. A recent forum in The Nation magazine presented pragmatic ideas about where U.S. policy should go if we wish to avoid getting bogged down in a debilitating conflict that could last for decades. Among the panelists Robert Dreyfuss advised Obama to enlist the diplomatic help of "Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to bring key elements of the three interlinked insurgency movements -- the Taliban, the Hezb-i-Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Haqqani network -- to the bargaining table."

(In the 1980s, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's group received more CIA cash than any other mujahideen outfit fighting against the Soviet occupation. Today, his paramilitary guerrillas are killing Americans. If we could arm him then we can negotiate with him now.)

Along side the "options" calling for varying degrees of military escalation there must be at least one that calls for withdrawal. The public and the Congress must become more actively involved in the Afghanistan debate and demand that the Obama administration formulate an exit strategy that can be implemented quickly after the current "surge" inevitably fails. The Vietnam years demonstrated that Goldilocks options will go on for as long as the public tolerates them. At some point we must demand that Congress use its power over the purse to apply the breaks to this runaway train.

 

Follow Joseph A. Palermo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/N/A

Comments

[Doofus]

'Unfortunately, we cannot 'just walk/march away' from a war we sort
of already won, years ago, especially when there are a lot of allies
involved also. Geopolitically, this would be horrible, even worse
than staying.'

Ok, I take it back. Staying is more horrible. The Soviets left in total
disgrace. Maybe we can get out before that point.

' ...accordi­ng to the Nation ... the U.S. is paying off insurgents to prevent them from attacking U.S. supply lines.

In this grotesque carnival, the US military's contractors are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount of money for the Taliban. "It's a big part of their income," one of the top Afghan government security officials told The Nation in an interview. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of dollars--consists of payments to insurgents. ...'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/karl-eikenberry-dissents_n_354657.html

[Doofus]

What to do: (since you haven't been able to figure this out on your own.)

Instruct all 'Coalition Forces' to leave, then head for the exits ourselves.
(Thanks for all your efforts, allies.) Afterwards, there will still be 'attractive
options'. We can supplant the bribery described above with strategic air
drops of cash bundles from B-52s. We should carpet-bomb opium poppy
fields with Agent Orange. We can continue unmanned drone missions
from Pakistan, until we have to leave there also, which should be soon.

Thanks for the memories! Hasta la vista & vaya con dios!

[Macready]

I just have to add . . . the US never seems to learn from its foreign policy mistakes ever . . .at the moment there are 3 Vietnams . . . . Iraq, Afghanistan and israel . . . . all inherited yes but our congress continues to fund all three . . . .

[Macready]

great article . . totally agree Joseph . . . in Afghanistan and Iraq there is only one option . . . get the troops out now . . . there is no way America can win . . . US soldiers are only causing more problems and angering the civilian population of both countries

[David Campbell]

I couldn't agree more. We should pull out of the entire Middle East. It is hopeless and not worth one American life or dollar. These are not nation states but ancient tribal societies. We will lose if we stay; that is for sure.
(I am not a fan of anyone)

[S1m0n]

What we concistently ignore is the fact that the Taliban initially rose to power precisely because the largely tajik northern warlords, having 'won' the war against the soviets, remained in the Pashtun south engaging in a campaign of rape and robbery so severe that the locals cheered the Taliban's arrival into Kabul, because it meant they had driven off the warlords.

These warlords, then, are the folks we brought back to power in Afghanistan - men so cruel that the sophisticated Kabulis welcomed the harsh rural sharia of the Taliban instead.

[Raster]

On war matters, the Congress handed over its war powers and accompanying fiduciary responsibility to the Executive eons ago, right after WW II.

[progressiveconnie]

GOOD MORNING!!! MY FELLOW HOMO SAPIENS WHICH MEANS THE SPECIES WHO IS WISE.
40,000 more troops in Afghanistan is not the change we voted for, the people who voted for Obama wanted him to get America out of these insane wars that waste precious lives and enormous amounts of taxpayers funds. 80 billion more for this insane war could instead create alot of jobs in America and getting out of all these 3 wars would create enough money to put all the unemployed in America back to work rebuilding America.
Obama has unfortunately picked some really god awful advisors both foreign and domestic and that includes those generals that were selected by that war criminal, he must get rid of these advisors and those generals if he is ever going to achieve real reforms and change in this country.

[davidallan]

Should President Obama decide to stay in Afghanistan to fight an unwinnable war he must fund it with a WAR TAX. A tax that every working American has to pay for, on a sliding scale so the rich,everyone over 200K per year bear the brunt of the cost. If we as a country decide we must fight a war we have to share some of the burden that is put on the shoulders of our Armed Forces and their families. It is nor patriotic to fight a war and punt the cost on to our grandchildren.

[wildedge]

Will Marshall recently made the case for continuing to fight in Afghanistan on the presumption that the Taliban and Al Queda qform a united front - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-marshall/the-talibans-ties-to-al-q_b_348584.html. As I pointed out in a comment to that post, this presumes that Afghanista­n/Pakistan­/Taliban/A­l Queada all form one problem requiring a uniform strategy. This is simply not so. As is implicit in your own cogent argument here, we have a multi-faceted set of problems requiring multiple political strategies that would tolerate a major draw-down of US forces in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, Mr. Marshall's is the logic understood by Beltway insiders, and I fear no one - including Obama - is paying attention to alternative voices.
Afghanistan will not prove as bloody as VietNam - until some jackinape Republican president decides to escalate into Iran and Pakistan, after which it becomes horrific. Still, until it reaches that point, 4 or 8 years from now, the low-level loss of American life will leave most Americans unphased.
Alas, I'm afraid there's no stopping it, and few, right now, willing to challenge it.

[oamir1]

As an Afghan-American, I want to add my opinion. I want to remind everyone that the Red Army had 150,000 communist soliders and 100 thousands of members of the Afghan Democratic Party (Parcham and Khalq). However, they did not achieve their goal to control any parts of Afghanistan after 13 years of war and loss of 8900 Russian soldiers and many Afghan communists. So, why Mr. Obama does not learn from the history? With the corrupt-nerco government in Afghanistan and Pakistan's participation as a terror partner, this war is un-winnable. If the US wants to stop this war then Mr. Obama needs to stop at source, Saudia Arabia, American arms dealers and Pakistanis. Lets not kill more innocent American youths (soldiers). Mr. Obama, stop this war and get out of Afghanistan. There is not danger to Americans if the Tabliban take power in Afghanistan. Stop lying to the American people.

[artgurrl]

NO MORE WAR. We cannot afford it. Bring the troops home. We did enough damage in Afghanistan. End Empire, close bases and lets fix our own country which seems to be losing the war that Capitalism has waged on our Democracy.

[sposton]

Read

Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam by Gordon M. Goldstein

Bring them all home now!

[GeneralChe]

Time to bring back Country Joe and the Fish-- hot damn Vietnam, here we go again.

[krazyhorse]

So, the ‘talking heads’ in Washington appear to favor the middle option for the force increase in Afghanistan; that is—30,000 troops. Assuming counter-insurgency operations and the need to target the vital areas of Paktia, Paktika, Uruzgan and Khost, the new combat troops will be required to take up the slack at a ratio of one soldier to every one point seven square kilometers of mountainous Hindu Kush! These provinces, populated by over two million people, are heavily influenced by the Taliban whose operations have struck deep into the territory controlled by Hamid Karzai's government, reaching targets in Kabul. If the US wants to end the war in Afghanistan and not become mired in a civil war, its military should deploy sufficient troops (at least 150,000) into Afghanistan to secure all borders—vital to this would be the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan—and conduct search and destroy operations against el Qaeda over a period of 180 days to achieve Enduring Freedom’s mission, after which all troops should be pulled out—in win and get out quick. With PSYOPS propaganda and construction engineers in the cleared villages following up the search and destroy missions, just watch the Taliban give up on el Qaeda. I touched on this in my book http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/AClaytonsDefense.html

[Greg Petty]

Sad news , send everybody home, time to take care of our citizens and heal this country, We have had enough war,