Center for a New American Security

All due respect to workload and whatnot, but aren't people crowing for you to answer these questions?

That's a wonderful initiative, and I look forward to reading the entries of all those who take The AbuM Challenge (tm). But with all due respect, shouldn't the first entry be yours?

El mestengo negro: While many of the things you say are true, I think that's a bit too gloomy. Brooks and Wohlforth, in World out of Balance (http://www.amazon.com/World-Out-Balance-International-Relations/dp/06911...) lay out a pretty convincing case that the United States isn't going away anytime soon. That being said, the issues you cite DO need to be addressed. . .

Okay, I'll take a stab:

1. Regrettably, not at the current price (at $65B, five times AFG GDP in US military expenditures alone).
2. The costs are too high when they far surpass sustainability by the host government should the U.S. ever need to turn elsewhere, and/or when they distort the local economy past all recognition. There is no economic value in Afghanistan to ending the war, because then their current economy (and army, and education system) goes away, too.
3. Key limitations are the public's increasing reluctance to lose Western (not just US) life in COIN-type wars, and an inability to define a reliable method of building indigenous COIN forces in a timely and cost-effective fashion to compensate. A related issue is the cost relative to what it costs to conduct an insurgency, with COIN efforts in Afghanistan outspending the insurgency by at least 100-to-1 but still making limited progress (Not a new problem: "Five thousand pounds of education, felled by a ten rupee jezail", as Kipling put it).
4. Reduce efforts in Afghanistan to a limited but sustainable amount, accepting a higher risk of failure in Afghanistan proper. Trust the non-Pashtun majority to defend their own interests in a pinch. Back up with targeted counter-terror activities with the support of local governments. Across South Asia, invest the funds in measures that promise to bring higher security value at less cost: if one accepts the Biddle argument that we're in Afghanistan so we don't have to be in Pakistan, there are other higher-value propositions there, in terms of modernization and economic development but also in support of security sector reforms, for an equivalent investment.

If the American Century isn't over, then why am I learning Spanish?

People need to give up their well-paying jobs as silk-suited beltway bandits and get out to see what's happening elsewhere in the country. We are rapidly depleting or destroying our natural resource base even as demand is increasing. No one's yet proven Malthus wrong.

My best guess is that the 21st century will be the Chinese Century--that is, if the Chinese don't run out of water too.

EMN

I'm traveling this weekend, but I will try to send you something Andrew. In the meantime, I think you've asked the wrong questions, or at least asked them in the wrong way. War is a means to an end, and is never an "interest" for any nation unless that nation is called "Oceania." The second problem is that not all war is created equal. There are obviously different methods to wage warfare. You happen to think in this case that a COIN-based war is the only option that will lead to success.

So instead of asking if the war is in our interests, you should ask whether a COIN-based war is the best or only means to defend our national interests/goals/whatever. If I'm able this weekend, I will argue that it is not and that more can be done with less.

EMN,

I'm not convinced that America is doomed yet, though, as Wedman pointed out, America has plenty of ecological issues that need to be dealt with.

That said, while you clearly say that you don't support the current Afghan campaign, you don't provide a single alternative. You don't support the war? Fine. What exactly do you think we should be doing about the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and extremism in South Asia more generally???

Focusing on pressing problems at home doesn't make problems over seas go away.

I am counting the days until Ex gives his post saying he has turned to the dark (Bacevich) side. It is like he knows he should, but he has put his whole career in the other camp. I bet this will occur within the next 6-18 months.

@ bw:

Ex is how old? 30 maybe? While he is certainly associated with the counterinsurgency "camp" as a Fellow at CNAS and prominent COIN blogger, I don't think he has staked his career--as you seem to imply--on the successful execution of counterinsurgency doctrine in order to solve America's security challenges. Ex, I think, has been honest on this blog expressing the limitations and deep costs of prosecuting a counterinsurgency campaign. As he wrote at the end of this post, his new "Afghan Strategy" forum is his first dabble in the strategic/political issues underlying the Afghanistan conflict. If he comes to the conclusion in the next 6-18 months or 5 years from now or tomorrow that Bacevich's camp is correct, then so be it. This is a blog and while Ex has developed quite a reputation in his young career, he is merely one voice of many. He's not a national security policy-maker. Does his commentary on this blog influence national security policy-making? I don't know; probably not.

Bottom line--finally--is so what if Ex decides Bacevich is right? So what if he decides that there are limits to American power and that anything we try to do in Afghanistan is outside our limits of power? At least he honestly and publicly came to that conclusion. Remember that the COIN luminaries, most notably Dave Kilcullen, opposed the Iraq war. But they knew America had a moral obligation to fix what what we broke and helped do so. The question, I think, for Afghanistan is not whether it's broke and needs fixed (because it is and can't be) but whether a broken Afghanistan threatens our national security.

To make this work better, I suggest that we just tackle the one most important and controlling question first, to wit:

1. What are the U.S. and allied interests in Central Asia and how should we secure them?

Once we answer this question, we can determine how and if the other questions are applicable (or not) and then answer them accordingly.

1. What is essential for US national security?
2. What are the U.S. interests in Central Asia?
3. What are allied interests in Central Asia?

A visitor wrote:

"That said, while you clearly say that you don't support the current Afghan campaign, you don't provide a single alternative. You don't support the war? Fine. What exactly do you think we should be doing about the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and extremism in South Asia more generally???"

Sadly, this is exactly the way of thought that has brought the US all the problems.

When I read such comments I am under the impression the vast majority of US inhabitants isn't able to realize there are OTHER ways to coexist with other nations except war and meddling in the affairs of others.

Of course war is sometimes neccessary but as long as US policy makers don't understand that there is NO NEED to "do something" about "extremists", there will be "extremists" for exactly this reason of the US "doing something" or rather forcing something on other nations.

Have you seen a single "Islamist terror attack" on a country that isn't in any war against a Muslim country and isn't interfering in Muslim domestic affairs? Not supporting the Afghan war is already a solution if the US also rethinks its other tactics to secure resources.

By putting up opressive regimes unneccessarily the US is constantly fighting a war against the population of half the middle east. Of course, if the US just stops its Afghan war but continues its other policies there will be another attack coming out of Afghanistan. 9/11 was just a question of time and "where" and "how". You can't support torturing dictatorships for decades and expect to be always an exporter of state terrorism but never get some of it imported.

----War in Astan as a means to an end --- the end being it is not used as a staging area politically, diplomatically, financially for attacks on the USA and our allies. So yes it's in our interests. In particular with the 100 loose nukes next door.

COIN as the method - well if COIN doesn't work, there's always horrific punitive measures.

It's worth any expenditure of resources to save a city from the fate NY suffered. This is why militaries exist, Hell protection from outside attack are the first and prime reason for government.

Bacevich is great at criticizing from a certain POV - the one where our enemies are absolved of responsibility for their actions, and we are on the hook for everything. Has anyone looked at his solutions? Make NATO, nay indeed the UN work. Bring back the draft (!!! LOL if I saw Congress even debate that!). Make it a better world.

People proposing coexistence -- and that 9/11 was some kind of justified retaliation -- they don't want to coexist. The Qutb brothers didn't want to coexist. They want to destroy. As did their star pupil-- UBL.

I fail to see the point of our presence in Afghanistan, unless the strategic purpose is to maintain a sizable military and diplomatic footprint in that part of the world. On the other hand I can see any number of reasons for not being there, such as the presence of Christian heretics in the middle of the Muslim world. We went in to capture bin Laden. He moved on, we should too. al-Qaeda is properly an intellingence/police/SF operation, capture or dismantle the operative aspects of the entity, police up the rest. Afghanistan is a state that we could help in a number of ways; eg: training school teachers, engineers, doctors and lawyers in the US and trusting them to carry the word, but there is no evidence that 63 thousand grunts, or a hundred sixty-three thousand grunts, or two hundred sixty-three thousand grunts will turn that country into an area hospitable to us. Iran wants to use our troops as a punching bag and will spend prodigiously on armaments for Pashtun militants, under the guise of the Taliban, to fight against us establishing ourselves there.

Our great ally, Pakistan, doesn't want Afghanistan built up as anything other than and ISI client state, they want to nullify any possibility of Afghanistan allying itself with India and they will spend many billions of our money to ensure no such thing takes place.

If I read the literature clearly, what Karzai wants from us is enough protection and money to enable his faction to rule well into the future, but we must understand his sensitivities and not embarrass either he or his brother. Nor does he want us pulling operations on our own, so other than keeping him alive and well fed, why are we there?

Abu Muqawama, I perused through the different proposals in the comment section above. The best "answer" I saw was "Comment by BruceR on August 7, 2009 - 11:38am"
Its a partial answer, so let me also give you a partial answer.
Yes, this war is worth it. If the Afghan people win and are seen to be successful, it will be a huge blow to the global Takfiri movement, and will lead to a substantial reduction in global terrorism over the medium to long run. It will also have salutary affects inside Pakistan by encouraging and heartening Pakistani civil society. If you don't believe me, then consider how the victory of the elected Iraqi government and the ISF has coincided with massive damage to the global popularity of AQ linked networks and Takfiris among the Ummah (global muslim community.) {I will concede that correlation does not causation make, and that this assertion is debatable.}

To summarize, there are three reasons why the risk of global terrorism drops:
1) Global ideological, outlined above
2) Salutary affect on Pakistan, via the long term positive affect on Pakistani civil society and the Pakistani economy; and this is the politically incorrect part . . . giving the international community a capable and motivated partner in the ANSF if military operations inside Pakistan become necessary
3) Reduces the risk of a 9/11 or larger scale terrorist attack on civilians in North America, Europe, Russia, China, India, Shia land (Iran/Iraq), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Australia:

This has attended benefits in lower risk premiums, lower insurance rates, lower global long run steady state military/law enforcement budgets, more business development/technological innovation, and higher global living standards.

Admittedly, this is an incomplete answer. Helping the Afghans defeat the Taliban Queta Shura, Hekmatyur, Haqqani, and the Punjabi Taliban, is not worth any expense. Therefore, it might be useful to outline different resourcing possibilities, and discuss which of them we should choose.

Lowest cost option:
The international community gives Afghanistan $150 billion in grants over 20 years, conditioned on difficult economic, governance and ANSF reforms and performance metrics. In addition, the international community sends a surge of thousands of civilians to embed in Afghan civilian agencies, even if only in the safer parts of Afghanistan.
ISAF limits itself to only advisers, and special forces. All these forces are embedded into the ANA and ANP, and fights through them. All international PRTs are assigned to ANA units and their battlespace.

This option should be enough to allow the ANSF to hold the North (including Mazar), the West (including Herat), Kabul, Jalalabad, and large pockets of the east, and practice COIN in these areas. Much of the South, including much of Kandahar and Helmand province, would be partially ceded to the enemy. The ANSF and GIRoA will probably be able to recapture all of Afghanistan within 5 to 10 years and win the COIN fight within 15 years. Afghanistan might be able to average 5% per capita GDP real growth over the next 20 years.

Medium cost option:
The international community gives Afghanistan $250 billion in grants over 20 years, conditioned on difficult economic, governance and ANSF reforms and performance metrics. In addition, the international community sends a a large surge of civilians to embed in Afghan civilian agencies.

ISAF fights through the ANA and ANP. 1 ISAF division HQs is super embedded with the ANA ground force HQs. 1 ISAF division HQs is super embedded with the MoI operations command. One ISAF advisory brigade is super embedded with each ANA Corps and the Kabul 111th Division HQs. ISAF advisory brigades are also embedded with ANCOP, the Afghan Border Police, and provincial ANP. Over several years, these advisory brigades are drawn down to advisory battalions. The ISAF force continues to gradually draw down over many years.

Because ISAF and the international community fights through the ANA and ANP, and focuses primarily on increasing their capacity; current operations are deemphasized. The Taliban and their allies are allowed to make advances in the south and in some Eastern pockets. The ANSF focus on COIN, and only gradually expand the ink stain over many years.

The current ISAF surge; what you term "triage" so to speak, becomes a temporary "triage" to temporarily suppress violence and quickly transition all of Afghanistan's battlespace to the ANA. The transition to the super embedded ISAF force should be complete within two years. {Or maybe less, depending on how many resources ISAF is wiling to commit.}

When violence in Afghanistan drops sufficiently, excess ANA units can become "cost plus" paid UN peacekeepers, or NATO QRF in global hotspots. This allows for a gradual long term reduction in the ANA, and provides long term funding to maintain ANA capabilities to insure against the risk that they are required in Afghanistan again.

The target for economic growth for Afghanistan over 20 years is 7% real per capita. This should be enough to phase out all foreign aid to Afghanistan within 20 years.

High cost option:
I'll let you fill this in Exum . . . I tire of typing ;-) I favor the medium cost option, or a hybrid between the medium cost option and the high cost option.

"Have you seen a single "Islamist terror attack" on a country that isn't in any war against a Muslim country and isn't interfering in Muslim domestic affairs?"

Kindly shut the fuck up, you mendacious mongoloid. Are you seriously going there? Is your worldview one in which the universally poor, kind Muslims are being terribly oppressed, and have simply no other recourse other than to detonate a car bomb laden with HE into a crowded marketplace? Oh, America really was dipping her dick into the Muslim coffee before 9/11, right? And Spain, oh, Spain, how Spanish soldiers brutalized those Muslims. The Spanish so truly deserved that bombing that specifically targeted noncombatants, just like the ROE of NATO countries specifies we target noncombatants. Oh, and the Bali nightclub bombings. And all the bombings in Thailand. And the other ones in Indonesia.

Yes, the Muslims are to be left alone at all costs, lest we endure another bombing! Sound logic.

Don't forget the bombings in east Africa. And the assassinations in north Africa. Or the bombings in India. Or in Pakistan itself for that matter...

Will having tens of thousands of extra foreign troops in Afghanistan for years reduce global terrorism? If it does will the cost of the effort cause less damage than the terrorist acts it stops? I think the answer to both is no and it is in our interests both financially and in reducing enemy recruiting to lower our profile asap. The strategic goal should be to prevent Afghanistan from falling to Islamists at minimal cost. This was the goal in 2002 but NATO failed to build the ANSF needed to obviate the eventual need for foreign ground forces.

Our best course of action would be to stop the escalation. Immediately start to thin out unnecessary forces and personnel and increase funding of ANSF (I don't think an large expansion in number is doable or wise: quality is more important than quantity). I suppose you call this the CT model as opposed to the COIN model and I'm happy with that. We are at the point where the "Taliban" can't take over the state and we have achieved our primary goal but are failing to admit it.

I came across the blog from which I excerpted What One Afghan Had To Say in random reading this evening. It presents a point of view which, it would seem, many who comment hear may never have encountered before.

I don't think that immigration can in logic be called a centrifugal force. Wouldn't it precisely be emigration that's centrifugal, while immigration is centripetal?

But no doubt I'm biased. My mother and father were born in the County Cork. And while the Southwest may be suffering a drought, we here in the Northeast have been enduring something like the Flood. Don't fret: it will all work out. ("How will it work out?" "I don't know--it's a mystery.") America has been in desperate straights ever since I was a boy, and I was born in 1931. Yet somehow every generation has it better than the one before--and every generation is convinced that the end is nigh. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

"elf loves STFU" wrote:

"Prior to 9/11, what was our meddling in their internal affairs?"

-directly after WW2 the Truman Doctrine and support of Turkeys fight for secularism and against "Islamism"
-President Trumans immediate recognition of Israel not even 15 minutes after its formal creation
-US backing and enforcing of the UN partition plan of Palestine
-installation and support of the Saudi regime that is more than well known for torturing and power abuse
-Removal of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953
-Support of the Shah who many Iranians considered an enemy of the Iranians and an US puppet. Without US support the Shah had neither come to power nor been able to hold his position
-landing of US troops in Lebanon in 1958, slaughtering the Lebanese population in order to protect the installed pro-Western government
-support of Saddam Hussein in the 70s and 80s. It is even said by reliable historic sources that the US embassador to Iraq told Hussein the day before the Kuwait invasion to proceed with his plan and that it was backed by the US.
-landing of US troops in Bairut, Lebanon in 1982, helping a christian militia slaughter several thousand Palestinian refugees

to name just a few, besides the backing of basically any oppressive and torturing regime as long as it is pro-Western.

You made read this one:

http://www.routledgepolitics.com/books/US-Foreign-Policy-in-the-Middle-E...

You know, you can either close the eyes and think the US was "just buying oil and friendly but then the evil guys came to do nothing but hurt poor innocent Americans", or open the eyes and see the corellation between basically any attack against US property (embassy bombings, hostage taking, ...) as a result of US policy.

US Bairut Barracks were bombed because the US interfered AGAIN in domestic agendas of foreign nations.

And tell me, where was the USS Cole bombed? Was the USS Cole bombed where it belongs, on the US coast, or was it on the coast of a foreign country where it doesn't belong?

I wonder what the Americans would do if a Yemeni destroyed (if they had one) was hanging around at NYC coast.

Abu Muqawama, forgive me for going off topic.

Monsieur, reasonable people can disagree on how big a threat AQ linked networks are, or how best to combat them. But you are going much further than that; and defending AQ linked networks and their Takfiri extremist allies. So let me yell at you a little. ;-)

Monsieur, are you American? Al Qaeda linked networks might be willing to form a partnership with America against Russia, Shia (including Persians), Afghans, Sufis, Europeans, Indians, Chinese, Indonesians, Thais, Philippinos, Israel and their other enemies. If we make a separate peace with the extemist Takfiris to save our own damn selves to achieve "peace in our time" then shame on us; and deservedly so.

Monsieur, AQ linked networks and the global Takfiri extremist movement is losing almost everywhere. They are the weakest they have been since at least 1996, when OBL and his allies moved to Afghanistan. The vast majority of the Ummah now hate the extremist Takfiris. Even in Pakistan, only 18% now have confidence in OBL. 87% think the Taliban should not use Pakistan as a base to attack Afghanistan. A similar public wave similar to what is going on now has never happened in Pakistan since 1947. Similar waves of public revulsion against Takfiri extremists (they don't deserve the epithet "Jihadis" they so crave for) are taking place in almost every other muslim country.

On the verge of a decisive defeat for the extremists, you want to make a deal with them? This is precisely the kind of mentality that is called "ugly American" around the world. Terrorists can kill hundreds of thousands of civilians; and American arrogant fools like Monsieur will defend them; because they are only killing "DARKIES."

Today the Indonesians foiled an AQ linked plot to assassinate their President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090808/ap_on_re_as/as_indonesia_terror_susp...
The Indonesian police also killed a top AQ linked leader, Noordin Mohammad Top. Monsieur might argue that Pres Yudhoyona was mean to AQ and to Noordin Mohammed Top, and therefore deserved it. In any case, AQ killing hundreds of Indonesian civilians isn't a big deal, because they are Darkies. Remember, only "WESTERNER" civilian lives matter.

Osama Bin Laden's (OBL's) first large terrorist attack that I am familiar with was when he killed hundreds of civilians in Gilgit, Kashmir, in 1988. Yes Monsieur, the Gilgit walis must have deserved it, or why would a good man like OBL want to kill them? They must have betrayed the Ummah (Islamic community.) No doubt they were Apostates, like AQ regards all Shia to be. To the minds of the Monsieur types, the deaths of Kashmiri civilians don't count, because they aren't westerners and because they must have provoked AQ.

No doubt OBL's massacre of thousands of Hazara Shia civilians in Mazar e Sharif in 1998 was only because the Mazaris misbehaved and deserved it. And in any case, the murder of thousands of Mazar e Sharif civilians are none of our business, because they aren't westerners . . . and because they must have provoked AQ.

No doubt Monsieur can come up for a similar justification for why AQ linked networks killing thousands of Thai civilians was "understandable." Thailand must have provoked AQ, In any case, it isn't any of our business because Thais are "DARKIES."

Similarly the AQ videos threatening terrorist attacks against China in the last week are "understandable" because China was mean to AQ and the Ummah. China provoked AQ. How? Monsieur has an answer for that too. Back in the 1990s, according to Michael F. Scheuer's "Through Our Enemies' Eyes'" China complained to America about Osama Bin Laden. China was going after poor old OBL for no good reason. And now AQ wants revenge; simple? See back then, America was ruled by the Monsieurs of the world. America ignored China's requests for help against OBL in the 1990s . . . and basically through our actions communicated . . . OBL is "YOUR problem," not ours. You Chinese must have abused OBL, or he wouldn't be after you." Yes, America use to have a lot of Monsieurs back them. Poeple who didn't give a damn about AQ killing hundreds of thousands of nonWestern civilians . . . after all they were only "DARKIES" and must have provoked AQ.

Sorry to pick on you Monsieur. But you were easy to pick on. Your comments fit the typecast caricature for the typical "Ugly American."

"Deus Ex" wrote:

"We are all well aware of America's quite sordid history in the Middle East. I would dare say that, for the most part, US actions of a grievous nature regarding the M.E. ended many, many years ago."

Thats plain wrong. If you open your eyes you can find literally thousands of examples of US meddling in foreign affairs.

No person with a sound mind and some basic knowledge of recent history will deny that there is not a single government in the Middle East which is at least tolerated by the US. This itself wouldn't be much of a meddling BUT if there are candidates the US doesn't like, the US actively attempts to remove the government even if it was democratically elected. See HAMAS as a recent example. Or the US pressure on Musharraf to step back. Or Egyptian elections. Or Jordan. Or $Arab_Country_in_Middle_East.

Then, there's a kid calling itself "anand" seemingly having a strong inferiority complex and sniffing "Takfiris" everywhere like a tiny sniffer police dog, which just wrote the West didn't back the Saudis. This is an extremely ridiculous claim, a brain-fail like rest of the kids mental diarrhoea. Saud conquered the land on command of the British Empire which paid him the money for his army and supplied him with weapons. In the 40s, the Americans took the role of the British. But I assume this is not taught in elementary school.

If you really want to understand the situation I advise you to learn Arabic and travel to at least five countries in the Middle East. After arrival, visit an average residential area (average=poor in most of M.E.) and ask people on the street if they think their government considers it more important to please its US masters than care about the well-being of its own citizens.

Right now the Pakistani army which was created to fight India (which is US allied/supported) is fighting a war against its own citizens on behalf of the US. And don't tell me that if the US really wanted it couldn't militarily force Israel and pursuade Egypt to open the borders to Ghaza, ending the blockade.

Writing "US actions of a grievous nature regarding the M.E. ended many, many years ago" is nothing but a disconnection from reality.

"We are all well aware of America's quite sordid history in the Middle East. I would dare say that, for the most part, US actions of a grievous nature regarding the M.E. ended many, many years ago." -Deus Ex

Thats plain wrong. If you open your eyes you can find literally thousands of examples of US meddling in foreign affairs.
-Monsieur.

Monsieur, you're being disingenuous. I was talking solely about US "meddling" (of a grievous nature) within the Middle East. I was not referring to the broad topic of "foreign affairs." The onus is now upon you to provide legitimate evidence of US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs in the 15 years before 9/11 (again, since you have proven yourself to be remarkably dimwitted, meddling of a grievous nature.). I do not wish to have my time wasted with conspiracy theories. You may return once you have compiled said list, until then, your presence is not warranted or sought.

And thank you Anand for the thorough debunking of our mutual friend. I did enjoy it. Anand, if I remember correctly you served as an Army officer, yes?

"After arrival, visit an average residential area (average=poor in most of M.E.) and ask people on the street if they think their government considers it more important to please its US masters than care about the well-being of its own citizens." -Monsieur

I could care less if you Arab pussies don't have the balls to sack up and overthrow your oppressive regimes. If popular opinion is that the government isn't serving the people, maybe a little lesson in US history could serve as inspiration. I admit that this last comment of mine is more emotional and far less thought out than the rest I have written, but I grow so tired of hearing Arabs griping and shifting blame. Instead of sacking up and fighting for real freedom, your pussy subconscious realizes that blaming America is the easier, less dangerous route.

Deus Ex, I never served. ;-(

Monsieur, I want to apologize for going so hard on you. Muslims and all foreigners have every right to disagree with what America does or doesn't do. However, the large majority of anti American muslims are horrified by violence against any civilian, and detest AQ linked networks. America becoming popular is unlikely to significantly affect the global Takfiri extremist movement, although its priority targets might shift to other countries and peoples. To repeat, anti-Americanism isn't primarily behind the rise of Takfiri extremists, who mostly murder muslim civilians, including anti American ones.

Perhaps it might be useful to examine what motivates the Takfiri extremists.

The Takfiri extremists don't see themselves as bad people. Rather they see themselves as enforcing God's will on earth by force. They see themselves as establishing global righteousness, as understood and interpreted by them. They are very worried by negative westernized (not western) values seducing and corrupting their young people. They are worried about their young people marrying outside the faith; or marrying Shiites, Sufis, Ismaelis, Bahais, secular sunnis and nonmuslims. They believe in the old aphorism, tell me your company and I'll tell you who you are. Therefore, their strategic objective is to cut off all interactions between the "faithful" and all lesser muslims and nonmuslims. This is why they demand that all multinational companies, global usury financial institutions, modern media, and westernized muslims (such as doctors, nurses, NGO workers, lawyers) leave the ummah. This is why in Afghanistan, muslim NGOs, health clinics, and girls schools are specifically targeted by the Taliban.

Why was NYC hit in 1993 and 2001? Why have financial centers in general been hit? Because the extremists hope to cause a global financial and economic crisis; thereby making it easier for them to attack the "Apostate regimes" that they call the "near enemy." This has been discussed in several OBL speeches. There is also their belief that all usury is immoral and needs to be banned. The attacks on London were aimed in part at the London financial sector. The Indian stock market shut down for a week after the 1993 AQ linked terrorist attack on downtown Mumbai skyscrapers.

Monsier, you seem to want America to make a deal with AQ linked networks, and truth be told many AQ linked networks might be open to a temporary ceasefire; which would delay the war between America and some extremist networks until a later time. America tried your way, Monsieur, and in the 1980s actually backed some extremists against the Soviets. This might have discouraged terrorism against America in the 1980s but ultimately made America and the world less safe. Do you really want to go back to making deals with extremist Takfiri networks?
_____________________________________
Back to the topic of this post, I would be interested in other perspectives on why involvement in the Afghan war is worth it. To emphasize there are many ways to fight the war in Afghanistan. One realistic option was mentioned by: "Comment by M Shannon on August 8, 2009 - 4:13am"
We could consider fighting the war in Afghanistan by withdrawing combat troops, and restricting ourselves to economic and military grants to Afghans, advisers, trainers and special forces. This is what we are in the process of doing in Iraq right now. {In Iraq the ISF has taken full responsibility for internal security from the MNF-I.}

Therefore the question perhaps shouldn't be whether the war as it is currently being waged is worth it; but whether helping the Afghan people, GIRoA and ANSF defeat the Quetta Shura Taliban, Hekmatyur, Haqqani and the Punjabi Taliban is worth it. On this question, I believe the answer is yes. I look forward to reading other nuanced and thoughtful perspectives.