Iraq, Afghanistan: Lessons From the Pros
The Iraqi and Afghan military interventions have caused the death of over a million people, have cost trillions of dollars, have greatly weakened the US military, have increased the budget deficit, have hurt the dollar, have resulted in much greater terrorism in the Middle East (now expanding into Pakistan), and have fortified Iran's position as the strongest regional power determined on its quest for an atomic bomb. In short, it's been a disaster. As a result, while calling to an end of the intervention was the home of "the weak" (i.e. the Dems, according to the Republicans) now "the brave" as well are asking for withdrawals. As criticism of the US and European policies in the Middle East grows, this article looks at how the failed policies in the region could be reshaped by learning from those who have managed to do surprisingly well for themselves in this troubled part of the world: the Israelis, the Iranians and the Afghan drug lords.
Lessons From Israel
First, allied forces should emulate the strategy of Israel to deal with terrorism -- by ending the occupation of South Lebanon and Gaza -- by ending the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, while keeping key bases in the region from which to retaliate should it be necessary. Israel tried and failed with occupation. It found it too costly, inhumane and inefficient. In the end it withdrew, or separated with a wall, from all occupied territories. Israel's new strategy is to stay away from areas where terrorists are, but to always stand ready to retaliate when attacked from them. As controversial as it is, retaliatory, short-lived invasions such as the ones of Lebanon and Gaza, rather than permanent occupation, work best at deterring Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel has not solved the conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah, but the death toll has dwindled to the lowest levels ever on both sides in 2009. History has shown again that military interventions are much easier than occupations. Why insist?
Lessons From Iran
Secondly, the US and EU should learn from Iran and emulate its tactics, but, of course, in favor of peace. What Iran does best is to influence Middle Eastern nations by proxy. Iran provides key donations and training in areas that improve people's lifestyles and wins their approval for their own objectives, which, unfortunately, are not peaceful. Many Lebanese and most Palestinians now love the Iranians for the help they receive for schools, hospitals, job creation and a vision for the future. We should emulate the Iranians but finance an alternative Muslim lifestyle that is compatible with peace. We should also fund better schooling, housing, jobs and health, but along the proposals of Jordan not Iran. Our opportunity here is to work with the very able King Abdullah II and Queen Rania of Jordan. If we only endowed a foundation led by the King and Queen with a fraction of what we are spending in the war efforts we could outspend and outsmart the Iranians at their own strategy and win good will for a future based on cooperation. The GDP of Iran is a third of that of Spain. We can do much better if we help our allies in the region help everyone else.
Lessons From the Drug Lords
Lastly and sadly, in Afghanistan we must learn from the Afghan drug lords -- the only ones who seem to thrive in this horrible conflict. Allied forces in Afghanistan must understand that the war in that country is mainly about drugs, which make up 1/3rd of the country's GDP. We should also accept the unfortunate truth that if it were not for European and American drug consumerism, drug lords would have no income. It is our mental health problems that finance their drug traffic. We are mainly responsible for it. Drug lords finance their wars against us with our money. How? They buy drug crops at very low prices and collect market prices from consumers of drugs in Europe and the USA through their mafias. What is the solution? What we should do is buy all the drug crops from Afghan peasants directly, outbidding drug lords and cutting them out of the value chain. After we have the crops we should simply destroy them. Interestingly, peasants in drug producing nations -- such as Colombia or Afghanistan -- get a tiny fraction of the end value of drugs; drug lords make a living by collecting the spread between what they buy the crops at and what they sell them for as drugs on our markets. But we must get in that market and neutralize their income without hurting the peasants. Another similar solution -- costly but very "European" -- is to imitate the Common European Agricultural Policy of subsidies to Afghanistan. By paying a surplus for each Afghan sheep and cow, we will make it more profitable for Afghans to raise cattle than growing drug crops. This would have the appeal of ending drug cultivation altogether. But whatever we do, we can't fight the livelihood of most of the population if we want to stabilize the country. People must make a living, and the drug lords provide one.
Follow Martin Varsavsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martinvars
Bob Burnett: Afghanistan: What are We Fighting For?
The operational definition of our enemy has shifted from "terrorists" to "Islamic militants."
Malou Innocent: Myth v. Fact: Afghanistan
Our attempt to transform what is a deeply divided, poverty stricken, tribal-based society -- while our own country faces economic peril -- is nothing short of ludicrous.
Robert Naiman: Team Obama Divided, Public Strongly Opposed, to More Troops in Afghanistan
Since we're all about promoting democracy, let's have some democracy here. Since the American people are opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan, let's not do it.
Derrick Crowe: Afghanistan: Where This Is Going
If anti-government violence breaks out in Helmand and other Pashtun regions, there would be absolutely no room to argue against the conclusion that counterinsurgency has failed.
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
A million dead.
A million killed for no better reason than because American pride was bruised and because America's president was both stupid and corrupt. I don't why the people in the rest of the Islamic world continue giving americans the time of day; you certainly don't deserve it.
But the final sneering, hobnailed boot to the kidney must be having to listen to ignorant, braying American jackasses droning sanctimoniously that islam is a bloodthirsty religion that holds human life cheap. Think about how insulting that must be to someone who's seen their nation destroyed and their relatives murdered for american pride and greed.
RE: Bloodthirsty Religions and Failures of Intelligence have reaped the Militarization of Christianity
"The Crusade for a Christian Military: Jesus Killed Mohammed" by Jeff Sharlet in HARPER'S May 2009 edition is a chilling clarion call regarding the entrenchment of Christian fundamentalism in the USA military beginning during the Cold War that accelerated during the Vietnam era which has wrecked havoc on the very soul of our nation...
http://www.opednews.com/articles/-Our-problems-stem-from-ou-by-Eileen-Fleming-090903-208.html
"Interestingly, peasants in drug producing nations -- such as Colombia or Afghanistan -- get a tiny fraction of the end value of drugs; drug lords make a living by collecting the spread between what they buy the crops at and what they sell them for as drugs on our markets."
Errr... Barney Frank's question is good here. Do you think the Iowa farmer raising soybeans gets a large fraction of what the cattle-feed company pays for the beans down the road? Anyway, your proposal is too facile. I agree buying the crop is a better option than trying to destroy the crops and the farmers' living, but drug lords are not easy competitors. Besides money, they have other incentives to offer -- like the farmers' lives. They aren't going to just throw up their hands and say, "Oh dear, I should have offered a higher price." Then again, why should we destroy the crops if we do buy them? What's wrong with lowering the price of medical pain-killers?
It's too late. The opuim price has crashed because they've been able to grow so much the market is saturated. Opium keeps, and the players are sitting on a stockpiles large enough to go keep them solvent whatever happens to the fields and the farmers.
The US has worked well with the drug lords over the past 50+ years, so Afghanistan is a fit. The CIA can get better sources of funding than this, so get us out. The survived our leaving Vietnam, they will survive our leaving Afghanistan. No more excuses, get us out now.
Many become perplexed by US policies.
Many ask, why is the US doing what it is doing if they want to catch Bin Laden, nation-build, stabilise the region, eventually withdraw, spread democracy, beat AlQaeda, etc.?
Well, I think that goes about it the wrong way. They are taking the public spin about US policy and trying to match the actions to the words.
What they should instead be doing is determining the policy from the actions.
So if they haven’t caught Bin Laden, it’s because there aren’t particularly trying to.
If they aren’t building hospitals, schools, and bridges, it’s because they are not nation-building. If they are building permanent bases and fortress embassies, it is because the intend to stay. If they aren’t withdrawing, it is because they don’t intend to. If they are torturing prisoners and overseeing rigged election, its because they aren’t interested in spreading democracy. If they are destabilizing the region, killing civilians, and fighting insurgents, militants, radicals, Taliban, dead-enders, Baathists, it shows they aren’t there just to fight ‘AlQaeda’. If they aren’t eradicating the drug trade, it’s because they deem it favorable to themselves.
The ‘enemy’ is all who oppose US military occupation. The nations invaded are key to domination of energy supplies. The military bases are permanent. The bases are located to increase global dominance. The primary spending goes to the military and contractors. Local allies are corrupt, unpopular, but subservient.
Good points. Add the American people have been sheep, blindly following the talking points of the DNC and RNC that avoid any discussion of the war. The people need to step up and let them know we are tired of the wars. No more excuses, get us out now.
Mr. Varsavsky:
You, and others, are wasting time making recommendations that are based on faulty notions about the purposes of US interventions and occupations.
(1) The so-called 'war on terror" is NOT about defeating AlQaeda, stabilising the region, nor nation-building. That is all spin for the public. Geopolitical goals, military bases and profits, pipelines and energy control are what motivate US policy and actions.
(2) The US military is not "weakened" as you allege. Funding is up, the military is enlarging, its global presence is increasing; in short, the military and military contractors are rewarded in every sense meaningful to them.
Your idea of long-range 'surgical retaliation' won't be considered because as Secy Gates has already explained, it does not allow for the kind of war and intervention 'necessary to defeat AlQaeda' (or more accurately, for conquest). I may well add, the long-range idea is wrong-headed anyhow.
Your proper nation-building idea won't be considered because it is contrary to what the overall goals require, namely, destabilising countries in order to install a (necessarily corrupt and quisling) client government to do US bidding. It is just more profitable to spend on armaments.
Your drug ideas won't be considered because the monies fund our our own 'allies' (Karzai et al) and also the CIA.
Yeah right. Emulate the behavior of the biggest thugs on the planet. America can do with that like it can do with another term of Bush.
See Martin Varsavsky's Profile
Billy would you be surprised if I argued that many people around the world think that USA is the biggest thug on the planet? But let´s not call people names.
The issue here is that USA is spending an incredible amount of military and financial resources fighting to wars without a clear objective nor a clear withdrawal date. This leaves America without resources in other places that can also harbor Al Qaeda and other enemies. I believe that Obama is losing a historical opportunity to change the flawed military strategy of the previous administration. Sticking to old plans is making him part of the failure. USA should keep bases in the region from which to intervene but not occupy Afghanistan and Iraq for close to a decade now. Occupation is too costly, ineffective and in my view also immoral. This we can learn from Israel who even under Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza. And while Gaza is still very unstable at least on a day to day basis it is freer to choose to improve. Overall I think that somehow military power is greater when not used. The threat of occupation deters. The reality of occupation enrages.
Your perception of Gaza's freedom to "choose to improve" is , to say the very least, questionable.
Be that as it may, US policymakers do have relatively clear goals. If anything the presumed 'liberal' Democrats just like to be more evasive than the PNAC neoCons. Long-term control of markets and energy, full spectrum global military dominance.
Short-term continuance of profits for lobbyist-represented corporations.
"Financed with U.S. aid at a cost of $1.5 million per mile, the Israeli wall prevents residents from receiving health care and emergency medical services. In other areas, the barrier separates farmers from their olive groves which have been their families' sole livelihood for generations." [Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Page 43, Jan/Feb. 2007]
In 2009, USA TAXPAYERS have provided Israel with at least $7.0 million each day and a Conservative Estimate of Total Direct U.S.A. $ to Israel: $114 Billion
http://www.ifamericansknew.org
The 'disengagement' from Gaza was nothing more than a RE-Deployment, for Israel maintained total control of air, land and sea borders.
it time for our troops to come home, now.
I'd like to know what is un PC about stating to use sheep to clear land mines? It's been done all over the world.
Not sure which is more expensive in that region but based on experience in other areas, they may want to start with REALLY BIG FLOCKS OF SHEEP. They are indispensible for land mine clearance, readily edible IF you can reach the carcass safely and less waste than a large cow considering availability of refrigerators or freezers.
I argued that very point about the drug crops while I was in Afghanistan, but it seems like no was listening then as no one is listening now.
Very illustrative; excellent post. Too bad we don't have this kind of sense anywhere in D.C.
Excellent read.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
