Why A Maximalist Af-Pak Policy Will Not Work
It's unbelievable, really. The US military is holding up Iraq as a model for Afghanistan. They'll tell you it took a few years to get right but by golly, Iraq is at peace with itself, with a large armed forces, a democratically elected government, and commerce flourishing. Let's replicate that "success" in Afghanistan.
Iraq is remarkably more peaceful than it was in 2006. Baghdad is safer than many U.S. cities (but, given the sad state of our inner cities, is that a good barometer?). And the government has reclaimed its monopoly on the use of force, important for any government trying to claim legitimacy.
So let's turn to Afghanistan. There is a weak and corrupt government, little to no standing armed forces, and parts of the country entirely controlled by the Taliban. Okay, so Obama is expected to move in an additional 30,000-plus troops (I'm told he will make his decision before heading to China but not publicize it until afterward and that he will give McChrystal nearly the numbers he asked for, probably in the 30,000-35,000 ballpark). Then what? We stabilize Afghanistan, weed out corrupt elements in the government, squeeze the Taliban, and "clear, hold and build" the provinces. What then? Are we buying ourselves time to stand up the army? Creating space for political reconciliation? These are all buzz phrases carried over from the Iraq experiment -- just change "Sunni Arab" to "Pashtun" and "Anbar" to "Helmund" and it's basically the same set of challenges, right?
Except for one thing. Those who attacked us in 9/11 are safely ensconced in a remote part of Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Oops. Seems no matter how swimmingly our nation-building experiment goes across the border, that simple fact does not change. Nor is the Pakistani army willing to really take the fight to the extremists (though their recent assaults near Swat Valley are a welcome sign). As long as standing up to India is more important than eradicating terrorists, Pakistan will never become a reliable partner worthy of billions of dollars of aid. To the Biden types out there who ask: Why are we spending only $1 on Pakistan for every $20 we spend on Afghanistan? The answer is not to spend more on Pakistan but to spend less on Afghanistan. As Boston University's Andrew Bacevich has eloquently put it: "A sense of realism and a sense of proportion should oblige us to take a minimalist approach. As with Uruguay or Fiji or Estonia or other countries where U.S. interests are limited, the United States should undertake to secure those interests at the lowest cost possible."
I just returned from Sri Lanka, where a maximalist approach worked to eradicate a nasty insurgency. It was a mop-up operation that squeezed the Tamil Tigers onto a tiny swath of territory the size of Central Park. The army mowed down the top few tiers of the leadership but killed thousands of civilians in the process. The government was successful at splitting the Tiger leadership (A former Tiger commando leader is now a minister on national integration), a lesson for us as we contemplate trying to pry away moderate Taliban or include them in a power-sharing arrangement in Afghanistan. But the bigger lesson from the Sri Lankan is this: Colombo was pilloried abroad for its human rights violations and alleged war crimes. It faces a potential humanitarian catastrophe in the north, where hundreds of thousands of Tamils remain corralled in overcrowded camps. And the EU, US, and UN have called for Gaza-style investigations into what happened. Sri Lanka is lumped into the camp of nasty regimes out there: the Sudans and Burmas of the world. It will take years before its good name is restored.
So what does this mean for our Af-Pak policies? If Sri Lanka, a tiny spit of land in South Asia, was so widely denounced for its use of overwhelming force, imagine the outcry if the US tried a similar tactic to pacify Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan or Pakistan. We could wipe out the Taliban leadership probably in one fell swoop but it would not wipe out Pashtun aspirations or the other root social or economic causes of anti-US resentment. In fact, a mop-up operation of this magnitude, which would kill untold numbers of civilians, would only create more resentment. For this reason, I believe that a maximalist approach cannot work. The costs are too high. And it's not in our security interest. Better to spend the money to secure the US against a future terrorist attack, which, let's face it, is more likely to come from some sleeper cell in London, not from some bearded guy in a cave in Waziristan.
What Obama will propose is a politically expedient yet worst-of-both-worlds solution: just enough force to piss off the locals and lose their "hearts and minds," but not enough force to eradicate the threat, resulting in a slow but "acceptable" trickle of violence, enough to put Afghanistan out of mind, out of sight, at least in the eyes of most Americans. Insurgencies take time, we keep being told. It took Sri Lanka 25 years to defeat the Tamil Tigers. We should hold up neither Iraq nor Sri Lanka as an example of effective counterinsurgency. Instead we should be leveling with the Afghan government and making preparations for our eventual drawdown, not surging blindly into a conflict where we have no real vested interest.
Alfred W. McCoy: How America's Wars Are Systematically Destroying Our Liberties
Think of our counterinsurgency wars abroad as so many living laboratories for the undermining of a democratic society at home, a process historians of such American wars can tell you has been going on for a long, long time.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There is a way out of this mess. We as Americans demand the Taliban give us the heads of Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and apologize for the attacks of 911. If they don't agree then we declare they will never rule in peace and we will hunt them with our remote weapons forever- It puts the solution in their hands. If we don't (demand honor) then they will see us a weak and they will continue to be a threat. Our feckless allies won't help us significantly except maybe the English. So until NATO can offer up say 100,000 troops, we should consider leaving NATO- it's suppose to be a two-way partnership, after all.
Considering all the facts i guess you can say the American foot print on Afghanistan must be the drugs the money must make causing deaths and injury's to our soldiers all worth the effort!
For everyone popping champagne over Iraq....le
Obama will not be the first President to voluntarily withdraw forces from a war zone. He will need to be chased out like we were in Vietnam. He will be drawn into this because either way he goes....he loses. He will be seduced by the Pentagon that there is a victory to be had. They will point to Iraq....bu
You could start writing the history now because we have seen it all before....
He will not be to blame.....
The President "changed reality" with his election. He needs, we need, to find a way to do likewise with regard to AfPak. There has got to be an unconventional way around that doesn't simply lead us down the same old path of war and occupation. Almost any alternative solution would be preferable to where we are now, and where we know we'll end up if we don't radically change strategy.
I truly hope you are wrong about what Obama decides we will do, because I agree - as bad as it is over there, we may not be able to sustain the effort of trying to make it better, without actually making it worse, while diverting attention and resources from direct self-defense. A choice between bad and worse.
There's an excellent oped in th NYT by the illustrious Bob Herbert:
http://www
You know, as I reflect, it seems like Obama is running around doing patchwork.
1.Kinda got healthcare reform.
2.Kinda took care of the economy.
3.Kinda took care of AfPak
The audacity of "whatever"?
Obama is an eloquent speaker of progressive rhetoric, who happens to be corporate owned. The neocons & the military-industrial complex are high fiving Obama's imminent order to send 30,000+ troops to Vietnam II. As we count the increasing number of flag draped coffins arriving at Dover, perhaps some parent can ask Bush's replacement what Cindy Sheenah asked of Bush: "For what noble cause did my child die for?" How would you answer that question if you were Obama?
For keeping nukes out of the hands of terrorists, ostensibly. Still more of a reason than Iraq.
Iraq was Vietnam II. Afghan would be Vietnam III. The answer to her question of why did her son die is simple. For corporate interest. For Isreal. For oil. For expanded power. For many reasons, none of which are ethical. The truth is they, including the Democrats and Obama, don't care about the soldiers at all. To them, a soldier is nothing more than a tool. Regardless of what they say on the old tele, they don't care.
Spot on. Any comparison between Iraq and AfPak is a false equivalency. In 2003 the US was healthy financially and could undertake its little adventure in Iraq. Now we're one foot in the financial grave, and simply cannot afford this new experiment.
The sentiment "look after our own" now has real meaning.
There's no there there.
Why is Obama sending more troops?!
He always said during the campaign that he would. Many of us worked for him and voted from him in spite of not because of this.
Sure, but now that he's in...
Not a single one of us would fault him for extracting them.
What we're seeing is a textbook example of "Any Excuse to Keep This Thing Going Indefinitely". And people are disappointed because they thought Obama was better than that.
Obama was supposed to be better than that. But maybe no-one can reign in the MIC which must have it's wars.
Maybe you're correct. Imagine the peer pressure. He's literally surrounded.
And yet the same mistakes made in Iraq will be repeated.
The only ones who will be happy are the military industrial complex, including Haliburton, KBR, and XE. Because they make money from the unending war on terror.
Oh ya, the Taliban and al qaeda are also going to be happy while America spills its blood, wealth, and name while killing civilians along with the few real enemies. Mind you when you kill innocent civilians, it will only fuel the anti-American hatred.
So those are the people that benefit. The ones who will suffer are the innocent civilians killed by American drones and the US people. For a country that wants to prevent another 911, we sure seem to be doing all to fuel anti-American hatred and increasing recruitment by these extremists.
And on the home front the United Corporations of America are suffocating the middle class while the rich prosper.
Only in America.
Yup. Obama seems to want to save face for the US. I think the case can be made that Bush screwed it up so bad that the only choice we have is to skedaddle. Sure the jihadis will pound their chests, like the Viet Cong did. But we'll get over it. And save lives and treasure, which is the true defeat of al qaeda.
We do seem to be a nation that gets stuck in a rut, and takes a long time to learn a lesson.
What we have to do is just leave. Leave. Get out. Walk away. The vast majority of Afghans do not want a foreign army to occupy them. They will fight us tooth and nail, killing as many of us as possible at every chance they get. This sort of behavior would be called patriotism if it were Americans acting against a foreign occupation of this country. Why are we unable to see patriotism in others as anything but evil when it conflicts with the interests of our ruling elites? We deserve whatever horrible things happen to us because of stubborn insistence on harming others in preference to helping ourselves (healthcare). We have no business telling others how to "build" their nation until we finish rebuilding our own infrastructure, educational system, banking system, health care system, and industrial base. Our actions in Afghanistan are immoral, stupid, and harm our own nation as much as it harms Afghanistan. Anyone who can't see that has been drinking the ruling elite's Kool-Aid.
Latest military assessment report of the situation in the Middle East:
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe: all mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe. ..."
13 American soldiers are killed for no particular reason at Ft. Hood and the nation grieves. One million Iraqis are killed by American soldiers for no particular reason and the nation shrugs.
"One million Iraqis are killed by American soldiers for no particular reason and the nation shrugs."
I know, isn't that weird? It's almost as if the majority of Americans are largely self-centered and uncaring in regards to the welfare of others. O.o
Beware the Jabberwock, my son,
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch --
Beware the Jubjub bird and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!
Plenty of all three dire species in Afghanistan, I think....
I am sure that you were against the Surge also.
As we learned during the Vietnam war, generals cannot admit the situation to be beyond their ability to control, however bad it is. We are now in the same situation. Everyone in the Pentagon thinks with enough troops and equipment, they can overcome any problem. As a military leader, you cannot admit a situation is beyond his capability. The civilian leaders have to decide but Democrats cannot decide to bring the troops home because that will be used by Republicans as weakness. As a father of a soldier, I would like to see our country use the military as a last resort but unfortunately it has not been the case. Most of the politicians think only their chances of reelection. Lives of the soldiers are not their concern. As was the case in Vietnam, after more deaths we will leave Afghanistan and the Afghans are going to decide what kind of country they want. We will and should not be able to decide it for them.
My best to you and your son. Just a quick point. This is not Obama's Viet Nam. The debate here is about how deeply we need to be involved in Afghanistan. I agree with you. Bring the troops home.
Of course we're going to do the wrong thing. We'll stay, because we're to arrogant a country to admit we can't win and leave. How long did it take for us to realize that in vietnam?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
