I hate to say it, but I’m coming to agree with VP Joe Biden, that the USA should start throttling down its military effort in Afghanistan instead of ramping up as General McChrystal recommends. When our troops first went there in late 2001, it made lots of sense. We had an easy-to-understand mission (shut down the al Qaeda operations there and overthrow the Taliban government that was supporting it), and found some committed allies on the local level – i.e., the Northern Alliance.
What ever happened to the Northern Alliance? In a nutshell, the USA decided to go with democracy and side with whomever could rig – errr, win a nationwide election. That would be Hamid Karzai and company. Unfortunately, Karzai appears to be corrupt and increasingly unpopular. Any attempt at central government in Afghanistan has a rough field to hoe; but a corrupt one is probably an exercise in futility. The provinces aren’t likely to be very enthusiastic about getting shook down in return for a national identity that they just aren’t interested in. They just want to grow their goats and opium, there is hardly any national economy to get involved with.
I don’t know the whole story about the Northern Alliance, but I suspect that they welcomed the US military because we were useful to them at the time. Al Qaeda is essentially an Arab tribe, and the N.A. represents the local Pashtuns and Tajiks who didn’t like having all those Arabs on their turf. But once we pushed them over the Pakistan border, the tribes grew weary of all those Americans lecturing about representative central government. The tribes wanted to go back to their old ways.
As such, the whole Afghanistan thing is moving closer and closer to Vietnam. The Taliban, like the Viet Cong, are a cruel, authoritarian bunch willing to make their own kind suffer. Given a better option, the South Vietnamese would probably have rejected the VC and their North Vietnamese supporters. But the USA never found a better option. The central governments we cobbled together were all corrupt military regimes, willing to play our “election day” games. The villagers became tired of big American soldiers mucking up their rice paddies and bamboo shacks. They preferred a despotism run by locals, over a corrupt American-sponsored democracy. I believe that the same thing is now playing out in Afghanistan.
The remaining question is, does American military presence in Afghanistan have important strategic value to our nation? The answer is yes. Although we probably can’t build a nation-state in Afghanistan, we can keep pressure on the Al Qaeda forces just across the border in Pakistan. Our troops, along with their drone attack aircraft, keep al Qaeda under cover despite the unofficial welcome granted by Pakistan. They haven’t gotten much done, other than an occasional pompous video. We shouldn’t give up on that, lest we risk more horror loosed in our cities in the name of a perverted Islamic ideal.
It sounds like Joe Biden wants to strike this balance; forget the Taliban in Afghanistan, let them have it if the people don’t want to resist. But don’t completely pull out of there, either; keep our special forces and our drone aircraft working in the eastern border provinces. Our failure to develop a strong central Afghan army would work for us; a hostile Taliban government couldn’t kick us out of the east. About all they could do would be to make a lot of noise in the UN.
So again, as a geopolitical realist I find it strange to side with a liberal Democratic element. But as to surging our troops and attempting to stabilize a central democratic government in Afghanistan, I think we’re wasting our time, money and manpower. It’s time to cut our losses, while leaving just enough resources in the right places (welcome or unwelcome) to forward our key interests.
PS – It’s interesting how the USA had success in nation-building efforts in countries where strong central governments existed. E.g., post-WW2 Japan, Germany, and now Iraq (hopefully). The previous governments there were TOO strong, but it got the citizenry used to big government and centralized economics. We had our worst fiasco in a place with little regard or tradition for central government and economy (Vietnam). So, if the USA has to go in and try to re-build a nation, it’s best to find one with a strong existing governmental structure.
Iran? Well, certainly not if we keep so many of our troops and resources tied up in a no-win situation, such as Afghanistan has become. No, we couldn’t think of invading Iran. And even if we were in better shape militarily, an offensive in Iran would be long and bloody; they wouldn’t go down as quickly and painlessly for us as Saddam Hussein did. And the new Revolutionary Guard regime has not yet reached the unpopularity with the Iranian people that Saddam did in Iraq. So we would still be the more-hated party. But if present trends in Iran were to continue and the USA got its military mojo back – it might be thinkable. Except for the nuclear wildcard. So, you see why they want nukes; i.e. so they don’t become the next plum for the US nation-builders to pick.
Jim,
I'd say I agree with you about 95% on this one.
My disagreements come with your comment that the US has had success with nation building–specifically in post-WWII Germany and Japan. Perhaps we were successful in those two countries because they both had been, for the most part, completely destroyed in every regard. So that when the Allies came in to take over the countries, the people there were completely unable to resist and/or were actually glad for help, even help from those who had destroyed them.
All the other countries you mention we have been unsuccessful in were not completely and totally destroyed with all the people within them destitute to the point of almost all of them being on the point of not surviving.
As to any advice the military gives the president: It seems to me that what is never considered is that the military is in the business of making war; if they would advise NOT to make war, to draw down troops, they actually put themselves out of business. What else would military advise but to make war?
Furthermore, how many countries have come into Afghanistan, been defeated one way or the other, and left? All of them as I see it. If we can't learn from our experience in Vietnam and from the experience of other countries, we are truly adolescent in our approach to world affairs. (No disrespect here to adolescents, but adolescence is the time of making a point of not following the advice of those who have had experience it would behoove an individual to consider carefully.)
I would say, however, that Obama's stated purpose as regards the terrorists who attacked our country: Obama said (and it seems the country elected him on partly on the basis of what he stated would be his policy regarding the attack on our country) that he would "get" Osama bin Ladin and al Quaeda.
I say stick to those two objectives, which most it seems can be done most effectively with the drones and/or special operations.
I do have to say that I worry seriously about the Taliban and the likely suppression of women that will inevitably follow any power they acquire in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan. Furthermore, I hear on the news today that al Quaeda and the Taliban have been joining together; it seems it is harder to distinguish one from the other the further on in time we go. This whole thing is becoming a terribly tangled knot, and Obama has a very difficult decision to make regarding Afghanistan. I still say he should stick to the purpose he originally stated before he was elected.
MCS
Comment by MCS — October 16, 2009 @ 11:12 am
Jim,
I'd say I agree with you about 95% on this one.
My disagreements come with your comment that the US has had success with nation building–specifically in post-WWII Germany and Japan. Perhaps we were successful in those two countries because they both had been, for the most part, completely destroyed in every regard. So that when the Allies came in to take over the countries, the people there were completely unable to resist and/or were actually glad for help, even help from those who had destroyed them.
All the other countries you mention we have been unsuccessful in were not completely and totally destroyed with all the people within them destitute to the point of almost all of them being on the point of not surviving.
As to any advice the military gives the president: It seems to me that what is never considered is that the military is in the business of making war; if they would advise NOT to make war, to draw down troops, they actually put themselves out of business. What else would military advise but to make war?
Furthermore, how many countries have come into Afghanistan, been defeated one way or the other, and left? All of them as I see it. If we can't learn from our experience in Vietnam and from the experience of other countries, we are truly adolescent in our approach to world affairs. (No disrespect here to adolescents, but adolescence is the time of making a point of not following the advice of those who have had experience it would behoove an individual to consider carefully.)
I would say, however, that Obama's stated purpose as regards the terrorists who attacked our country: Obama said (and it seems the country elected him on partly on the basis of what he stated would be his policy regarding the attack on our country) that he would "get" Osama bin Ladin and al Quaeda.
I say stick to those two objectives, which most it seems can be done most effectively with the drones and/or special operations.
I do have to say that I worry seriously about the Taliban and the likely suppression of women that will inevitably follow any power they acquire in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan. Furthermore, I hear on the news today that al Quaeda and the Taliban have been joining together; it seems it is harder to distinguish one from the other the further on in time we go. This whole thing is becoming a terribly tangled knot, and Obama has a very difficult decision to make regarding Afghanistan. I still say he should stick to the purpose he originally stated before he was elected.
MCS
Comment by MCS — October 16, 2009 @ 11:12 am