Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
This may surprise some of you, but within the walls of 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., there is a pretty lively debate among the scholars and staff who work here about whether or not we should continue a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan when we might instead be focusing on preserving our energies for rising powers. Obviously enough, those of us who work on Afghanistan and counterinsurgency feel one way (more or less), while those who work on China and the rest of Asia feel another way (again, more or less -- it's not a black-and-white disagreement). Bob Kaplan, in today's New York Times op-ed on Afghanistan and China, articulates a lot of the debates that take place around the water cooler here at CNAS:
In nuts-and-bolts terms, if we stay in Afghanistan and eventually succeed, other countries will benefit more than we will. China, India and Russia are all Asian powers, geographically proximate to Afghanistan and better able, therefore, to garner practical advantages from any stability our armed forces would make possible.
Everyone keeps saying that America is not an empire, but our military finds itself in the sort of situation that was mighty familiar to empires like that of ancient Rome and 19th-century Britain: struggling in a far-off corner of the world to exact revenge, to put down the fires of rebellion, and to restore civilized order. Meanwhile, other rising and resurgent powers wait patiently in the wings, free-riding on the public good we offer. This is exactly how an empire declines, by allowing others to take advantage of its own exertions.
Of course, one could make an excellent case that an ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan is precisely what would lead to our decline, by demoralizing our military, signaling to our friends worldwide that we cannot be counted on and demonstrating that our enemies have greater resolve than we do. That is why we have no choice in Afghanistan but to add troops and continue to fight.
But as much as we hone our counterinsurgency skills and develop assets for the “long war,” history would suggest that over time we can more easily preserve our standing in the world by using naval and air power from a distance when intervening abroad. Afghanistan should be the very last place where we are a land-based meddler, caught up in internal Islamic conflict, helping the strategic ambitions of the Chinese and others.
A question posed earlier, and in more detail at the recent post "Off-Shore Balancing Before Coffee" (Visitor @ 6:36 PM):
Are we, in our endeavors in Afghanistan, trying to "make the world (the region) more safe for India;" this, so that India might be better able to meet our objective of balancing against China?
Thus, by employing "our energies" in Afghanistan, are we -- actually and indeed -- taking direct action re: rising powers (specifically China)?
Stated another way:
Our job being to "fix" the problem of Af-Pak" for India -- so that India can better stand against China for us.
Irak, Afghanistan, all these are the results of an Israeli-Firster policy. After 9.11 what was needed was a strategem to keep Al Qa'eda's head down and to try to put down the fires that fueled its recruitment 1US troops on Muslim lands & 2) backing of Israeli occupation of Gaza, West Bank & Golan, etc.
Instead, Dubya, doubled down the bet by 1) invading Afghanistan & Irak ( a country which neither desired war w/ us nor was a threat to us nor was connected to 9.11) and 2) gave Sharon a free hand w/ the Palestinians Further, he picked a fight w/ Iran by greenlighting a massive bombing of Lebanon and use of milliions of dud clusterbombs as de facto landmines on Shiaa farmers.
All this was an alternative to targeting UBL and staying on his case and a Palestine centric policy. Eight years later, UBL still lives inot in Afghanistan b/ in a more radicalized Pakistan, Netanyahu laughs at our face at a settlement freeze, Gaza is still a giant open air prison camp, & the Gulf Arabs & the BRIC countries are planning on dropping the dollars for trade.
When Saddam H.announced he was dropping the dollar for the Euro for petro trades he was promptly invaded and thereafter hanged, b/ China is our banker holding about a trillion of our debt. We are not going to coerce them.
Perhaps what is needed is a Palestine-Israel Centric Education Policy instead of COIN. You can tell where the media and the Agitprop in this country is when more sheep people support war with Iran than reinforcements for Afghanistan.
IMHO, we have no choice b/ to go in & win in Afghanistan. Go in & briefly surge. Give the appearance of winning. Then get the hell out. Similar to the case of Germanicus & Tiberius. Recover the standards of the lost legions. Regain the pride, then order to be w/drawn behind the Rhine.
Classic Kaplan!
1) Since when is Central Asia the site of "continuing unrest?" Or did Kaplan really mean "the southwest corner of Russia" (AKA the Caucasus) when he referred to "the Islamic southern tier of the former Soviet Union?" Because they're not the same thing, like at all. Also, I'd to hear how he describes sub-Saharan Africa, other parts of Asia, or Latin America.
2) So everyone else gains from us being in Afghanistan, so our solution is to stay longer? If everyone else has such clear interests, shouldn't they contribute substantially to the stabilization and reconstruction? And if they're not, why aren't they?
3) But wait, they also win by us leaving? I don't get it. Which is it?
4) I totally dig his call for a return to mercantilism. Because the world was a better place with rampant protectionism and economic colonies.
Really, Andrew, I hope the CNAS water cooler discussions are a BIT more coherent than this rambling mess.
About time you hired some Navy folks.
"Since when is Central Asia the site of continuing unrest?"
Since Brzezinski said so in The Grand Chessboard (1997):
In Europe, the word `Balkans' conjures up images of ethnic conflicts and great-power regional rivalries. Eurasia, too, has its `Balkans,' but the Eurasian Balkans are much larger, more populated, even more religiously and ethnically heterogeneous. They are located within the central zone of global instability . . . and that embraces portions of southeastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of South Asia, the Persian Gulf area, and the Middle East.
In the second chapter, entitled "The Eurasian Chessboard," Brzezinski puts forward a vision of a "global-zone of percolating violence," that can be skillfully manipulated to stop Eurasian integration. This plan is larger in scope than his earlier "Arc of Crisis" doctrine, that had been based on a plan of British agent Bernard Lewis, according to which he gave U.S. support to the Afghansi to create a "Vietnam War" crisis for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
According to a map of this region in The Grand Chessboard, this zone of "percolating violence" includes all of Central Asia, extending westward to include Turkey, northward to include southern Russia, and eastward to touch upon the western borders of China. It includes the entire Middle East, where Brzezinski claims it is imperative for the United States to retain control, especially in the critical Persian Gulf. And, the zone extends eastward to include Afghanistan and Pakistan, up to the latter's border with India. "
It seems the entire reason - that is to say, the only reason - Kaplan can think of for the US to stay in Afghanistan with an "onshore," increased troop presence is credibility and reputation. As Stephen Walt notes
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/07/another_afghan_counterfac...
today on his blog, those arguments have been thoroughly debunked. (And yes, I knew of the works before I read Walt's blog this morning.)
Take away the arguments about reputation and credibility, and by Kaplan's own admission, one comes to the conclusion that the United States is doing the bidding of its adversaries. To do the bidding of its adversaries* doesn't seem like a very good reason for the US to be in Afghanistan.
I'm reminded more of Paul Kennedy - has anyone at CNAS thought of a way to determine whether this is imperial overstretch run amuck? What are the guns-and-butter tradeoffs, and third- and fourth-order effects, at the highest level - Pentagon R&D, civilian R&D and education, etc., etc.?
ADTS
* This assumes, of course, one is a realist in the IR sense of the term, versus a constructivist or liberal. If one is a liberal, then cooperation and mutual benefit should follow from the provision of public goods. Natural inclinations to free ride notwithstanding, that does raise the question of how much cooperation the US receives, and how much it should expect to receive, with respect to its efforts in Afghanistan.
** Thomas PM Barnett, noted in a previous comment as the best strategist (or one of the best strategists) around today would be the first to point out, I think, my first asterisk. Assuming what's bad for China is good for the US is a questionable assumption. The same goes for India or Russia.
A new SSI report on Provincial Reconstruction Teams: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=911
"Based on over 2 months of field research in 2007 and 2 months in 2008 by a CNA team with 4 different PRTs—Khost, Kunar, Ghazni, and Nuristan—plus interviews with the leadership of 10 others, the authors recommend that the United States give the PRTs the lead role in reconstruction activities that accompany any surge of military forces into Afghanistan."
Joshua--
And the world is better off from global capitalism than mercantilism? Give me a break. Have you paid any attention to the impact of NAFTA on the American economy? Just how many Americans have been made permanently redundant economically as a result of free trade?
EMN
"Nuts and Bolts"
Perhaps the troops being held back from AfPak are simply needed for Iran. If diplomacy and sanctions fail, then a light bombing may follow. Iran could respond by holding back petroleum. The US could respond to that by seizing the oil fields. No need to install democracy, just split off the oil patch from the rest of Iran. But it still requires troops. I think if Ali Khamenei looks these options in the face he will rethink his options.
Once we have oil to distribute, friendship will appear from all over.
One wrinkle I haven't seen discussed (and maybe I'm just way behind on this region's geopolitical manoeuvres) is the relationship between China and Pakistan. In the past it was comparable to that between the US and Israel. I don't know (but would love to be educated) if that relationship still exists, if it has been strained by the influence of ISI-backed guerrillas rubbing off on/inspiring Uyghur combatants etc. But it's one more example of how the war can't be seen in terms of an Afghan map surrounded by white space dotted with the odd supporting airbase. Everyone in that region has an interest in the way this evolves.
As for 21st century gunboat diplomacy, using that crutch can limit American abiity to influence events to regions in range of buddy tanks, or making perpetual compromises to gain access to inland/ landlocked airbases. Which is fine if you're only interested in world's littorals, but concedes central Asia and central Africa to someone else.
There are pros and cons to that too.
1. What are the potential benefits of a stable Afghanistan to Russia, China and India? At the worst period of Afghan instability, Russia had the 201st ID in Tajikistan dealing with the occasional cross-border muj raid, but that's peanuts compared to the Caucasus; China's Uighur problem is not going anywhere regardless of the situation in Afghanistan, though it could conceivably become a lot worse in the worst-case Afghan scenario (say, an Islamic State of Afghanistan.) The only real benefit China might draw from stability is a slightly larger market for their consumer goods; nothing overwhelming. India gains nothing from a stable Afghanistan; yeah, it might eliminate some training camps for the muj fighting in Kashmir and Ladakh, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the resources supplied by Pakistan; If I'm missing anything, please tell me.
2. Since the US makes its living off its position at the head of the global economy, how well we're doing correlates to the state of that economy; a chokepoint like Afghanistan, clogging up the whole system, is going to have a disproportionately large effect on us.
3. The security dividend from the defeat of the Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan would be global-if anybody would gain disproportionately from it, it would be the US.
4. "history would suggest that over time we can more easily preserve our standing in the world by using naval and air power from a distance when intervening abroad."-what empire's history is that? The history of the British empire, which at its prime spent huge amounts of capital and human resources on direct intervention in places like Burma, Northern India, etc.? The history of the Francophonie? The history of the Romans, who did well with a forward lean, from the Republic to Marcus Aurelius, and collapsed as soon as they leaned back? You get what you put in-how are naval and air power going to allow us to exert any influence besides threatening objectionables with a punitive bombardment if they don't behave? That mindset failed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1990's-why would it work in the future?
Interesting article from today's Roll Call (Capitol Hill newspaper):
White House Moves to Clarify Biden War Stance
Oct. 7, 2009, 4:03 p.m.
By Keith Koffler
Roll Call Staff
Vice President Joseph Biden told lawmakers during a White House meeting Tuesday that he did not advocate a strategy focused entirely on battling al-Qaida, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday.
Biden reportedly has advocated a strategy that would pull back U.S. troops in favor of precision-targeting of al-Qaida members using special forces, drones and other methods. But Gibbs suggested Biden sought to push back on the stories during Tuesday’s White House session with President Barack Obama and senior lawmakers.
“The vice president, himself, made the point yesterday that nobody — including himself — was talking about exclusively a counterterrorism strategy, which in the parlance of the military planners, would be to extract large numbers of troops that are there [and] use primarily mechanics and special forces,” Gibbs said.
Gibbs suggested Obama is headed down a middle road in this thinking, saying that Democrats as well as Republicans are likely to be disappointed by the president’s decision.
“I think the president said in this meeting that whatever decision he makes is not likely to make everybody happy. I think that’s probably safe to say on either end of the political spectrum,” Gibbs said.
While saying Obama’s announcement of his new strategy is still weeks away, Gibbs indicated the process is moving steadily along, saying troop levels could be discussed as early as a national security meeting scheduled for Friday. The White House has said Obama wants to get a fix on his strategy before he entertains troop levels.
Another meeting — one that could be the final of a series of marathon sessions between Obama and his top advisers — is scheduled for next week.
Lacking viable allies to help us -- and lacking a viable host government to work with -- one thinks that Atlas may just have to shrug this one off.
US has other options. Screw NATO &invite Indian troops to help in Afghanistan. Pakistan will complain. But there are eternal complainers. Can't think of a time in last 60years they were grateful. Not that they should be, the relation was based on mutual self-interest since our interests diverge, time to dump them. Afghanistan aligned with India, will counterbalance China. India will be occupied with pacifying/rebuilding afghanistan for a long time, so it won't become a threat itself. Giving China alternative oil route is bad for world balance of power.
For Iranians, watching their enemies-the United States and the Taliban- duke it out senselessly in a never ending war of attrition, is yet another sweet revenge for the role the US played on the sidelines of the Iran-Iraq war. Like the US debacle in Iraq, this time its Iran's turn once again to be in the comfortable position America was in during the Iran-Iraq War.
Who is the most immediate winner in the US-Taliban struggle? Isn't it perfectly obvious to the simplest of folk? It's neighboring IRAN!
The view spread by US hawks is that the Iranian regime is irrational. Well, I'd like to remind them that in 1998 the Taliban seriously provoked Iran by killing its diplomatic corp in Afghanistan. Iran mobilized its military for war, but you know what? They ultimately exercised restraint and did not invade. They realized they'd probably end up in a seemingly endless quagmire. Not so for the good old USA! Nine-eleven baby! Hell bent for leather, invade, war, thousands of casualties, hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, contributing to a bewildering massive public debt owed to foreign banks, agonizing over basic strategy now eight years and running, no end in sight, no political escape for America's leadership...
And they dare call Iran's leadership irrational!
Yeah, that Kagan, he's a regular "super" genius. And he's got plenty of company. Just incredible- isn't it?
'light bombing' - i love it.
like being slightly pregnant.
"So everyone else gains from us being in Afghanistan, so our solution is to stay longer? If everyone else has such clear interests, shouldn't they contribute substantially to the stabilization and reconstruction? And if they're not, why aren't they?"
This is my favorite pet argument for the AF-PAK issue.If China stands to gain from Copper mines in Aynak while the US pulls security:...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/63452.html
...then surely one of our conversations needs to be with the Chinese about them stepping up to the rising power table and actually putting their boys in harms way. I've argued before on this blog that a op-for ranged against the various models of the Taliban that has less white faces robs the fundamentalists of one of their 'western crusade' talking points. Its allows US forces and allies to have a rest and shows the world that powers like China are willing to walk the beat in the bad neighborhoods while they profit from the new connectivity (or possible exploitation of natural resources)
"So everyone else gains from us being in Afghanistan, so our solution is to stay longer? If everyone else has such clear interests, shouldn't they contribute substantially to the stabilization and reconstruction? And if they're not, why aren't they?"
This is my favorite pet argument for the AF-PAK issue.If China stands to gain from Copper mines in Aynak while the US pulls security:...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/63452.html
...then surely one of our conversations needs to be with the Chinese about them stepping up to the rising power table and actually putting their boys in harms way. I've argued before on this blog that a op-for ranged against the various models of the Taliban that has less white faces robs the fundamentalists of one of their 'western crusade' talking points. Its allows US forces and allies to have a rest and shows the world that powers like China are willing to walk the beat in the bad neighborhoods while they profit from the new connectivity (or possible exploitation of natural resources)
David;
In the early 1900's and immediately after WW1, the west invited another rising East Asian power to support stability operations in lawless and insurgent-ridden areas. Once the camel got its nose under the tent flap, things progressed according to their own internal logic, until we had a Japan that reasonably felt that it had a right to conduct military operations in their own back yard whenever THEY decided it was called for. Do we need to repeat that mistake with China?
But the US is not an empire, and if others gain from our actions, it doesn't cause us any harm. In simple terms, suppose "success" in Afghanistan costs us 50 and gets us 60. The fact that it costs China 0 and benefits them 15 is irrelevant to whether we should proceed.
And, unfortunately, it's close to irrelevant from a negotiation perspective, since no matter how nicely we ask them, China has no real incentive to chip in on the cost since it knows our incentives indicate we will still go it alone if we have to. And we don't exactly have lots of other stuff to hang over their head. I doubt snubbing the Dalai Lama is gonna induce them to send anyone to get killed in Afghanistan.
Likewise, I don't see much incentive for India to stick its nose in this business, and lots of reasons they should run like hell from the suggestion.
"Thus, by employing "our energies" in Afghanistan, are we -- actually and indeed -- taking direct action re: rising powers (specifically China)?"
No. Not unless we're simply looking for ex post facto rationalizations of why we're there or what we're doing.
I suggest we get all our forces together in Ukraine (RISK-allusion).
Seriously, one might want to think of a way to help the chinese with their ecological problems in exchange for military aid. Thats a win/win situation.
@B - Look there are always risks involved in asking another country to step up and pull security, it emboldens them and maybe, just maybe they start to look at securing resources further afield. But really, I think the Chinese are more concerned with just how much freakin money they are making off the US and the rest of the west to worry about expansionist military actions.
I just don't see China as a realistic military threat.
So why no co-opt them now, in their ascendancy, when we may have a better chance of fostering good mil-mil relationships, a chance to mentor their forces and make lasting relationships. The next crop of Chinese military leaders went to US schools, they get it, so let's get them on board.
If they are there,. and making bucks, they should have boots on the ground.Last time I checked it was US troops pulling security around their copper mine, not the boys from the Australian SFTG or our reconstruction teams.So you have a vested interest here.
"“The vice president, himself, made the point yesterday that nobody — including himself — was talking about exclusively a counterterrorism strategy, ... would be to extract large numbers of troops that are there [and] use primarily mechanics and special forces,” Gibbs said"
Let me get this right. Biden's big idea is to leave enough troops in Afstan for the Taliban to continue to monotonously pick off with relative impunity? That is, more of the same? Standby for the formation of the Talli wing of the Joe Biden fan club.
1. The central problem facing the United States in the 21st Century is that it (the United States) must galvanize support for an objective of opening up and modernizing the Third World; this being required so that the hard-won gains of the Cold War (to wit: China, Russia, et. al. come over to the market/capitalist side) might be sustained.
2. Specifically what this requires is that the Third World be tamed and transformed to better meet the needs of these new (and the old) market nations.
3. Lacking this, the new market nations might easily fall back into communism or something worse; thereby, erradicating the gains of the Cold and the other World Wars.
4. Thus, the question that must frame the current debate re: Afghanistan is: Is Afghanistan where we should be "employing our energies" -- now, first and foremost -- so that we might meet the objective identified above?
The Chinese are a bigger threat to the Afghans than the Americans ever will be. Godbless the Afghan Mujahideens and their heroic actions.
No one can defeat the Afghans. not the Russians, not the USA and definitely not the Chinese. The NWO will fail to take over AFG. Godbless all Afghan Mujahideens.
Add your comment