Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
Alternate Strategies for Afghanistan
I rarely go to middle-of-the-day think tank events, but I made an exception this afternoon for an excellent panel discussion Caroline Wadhams and the Center for American Progress set up involving Afghanistan experts Gilles Dorronsoro, Michael Semple and Joanna Nathan. The topic was the prospects of reconciliation in Afghanistan, and as I had just finished Michael's new book on the subject
I suspect, though, that if we asked all three of the panelists what we -- the United States and its allies -- should do in Afghanistan, we would get a variety of opinions. I am going to lend some space to three strategic alternatives to the one advanced by Gen. McChrystal. I obviously have my own preferences, but having said that, I have been greatly impressed by the three arguments advanced below. The first, written by a Special Forces officer, makes the case for foreign internal defense and has been highlighted on Steven Pressfield's blog. The second, which I found the most thought-provoking, offers a kind of counterinsurgency strategy with a much smaller footprint than the "Go Big" plan advised by the current ISAF command. And the third is an older paper written by Dorronsoro, an honest-to-goodness Afghanistan expert, explaining why reducing the Western troop presence in Afghanistan is smarter than increasing it.
Okay, enjoy. You can find these documents and more, by the way, by following me via scribd.
Oh yes, honest-to-goodness Afghanistan experts really do offer insights, don't they :-)
Major Gant would certainly not injure his understanding of imperial technique of by a brief investigation of indirect rule. Unfortunately, the classic is a year too late for Google Books. But there are always, you know, libraries...
As a minority of the blog's readership who follow Navy issues, I thought I'd point out an interesting article in this month's Naval Institute Proceedings. T.X. Hammes and others take on 6 "perceived assumptions" on Afghanistan -- and offer alternatives. Not sure I buy them all, but thought the readership might find the article interesting, especially given Col. Hammes reputation in the small wars community.
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=2070
You're pretending like I can help it. I can't -- honest!
The difficulty and distinction, I think, is that some approaches do not provide for what is actually being sought.
What actually is being sought is not just a temporary solution, to wit: the defeat of the Al Qaeda and the Taliban; which, as argued by some, could and should be achieved using a much smaller foot print.
Instead, what is actually being sought is a more permanent solution; this being the foundation for the arguments of nation/state-building and societal transformation.
We don't want to have to come back to trouble spots like this again and again, spending countless amounts of blood and treasure, without ever fixing the underlying problem (which is: these folks are not like us).
We want to fix this underlying problem once and for all, so that we can provide for the rapidly expanding global economy, and, thereby, our national security and that of the rest of the market-oriented world.
"The difficulty and distinction, I think, is that some approaches do not provide for what is actually being sought.
What actually is being sought is not just a temporary solution, to wit: the defeat of the Al Qaeda and the Taliban; which, as argued by some, could and should be achieved using a much smaller foot print.
Instead, what is actually being sought is a more permanent solution; this being the foundation for the arguments of nation/state-building and societal transformation."
Sought by who? I have no desire to reform Afghanistan, nor does the majority of this country, though the self-perceived Masters of the Universe in Washington may. The fact many of the alternatives do not attempt to do the impossible is a feature. Not a bug.
Visitor @ 7:08pm:
Sought by who?
These features: "A more permanent solution" and "a desire to not have to come back to trouble spots like this again and again, spending countless amounts of blood and treasure without ever fixing the underlying problem (which is: these folks are not like us)." This, indeed, is the logical solution that is being sought by our national leaders.
Thus, the Third World-centric aspect of our stated foreign policy direction (Development, Diplomacy and Defense-in-Support-of-Development [COIN, et. al.]).
Stated another way: Third World nation/state-building and societal transformation is THE new name of the game in international affairs. It is within this context (transforming the Third World) that national security is now perceived and, accordingly, it is within this context that wars will be fought and people die -- in both the Third World -- and in the so-called international communtiy.
As the global economy expands to accommodate 3 billion new capitalists (those of China, Russia, India), trouble spots like Afghanistan/Pakistan (adjacent to these new capitalist nations) will have to be dealt with sooner rather than later -- and not just with a bandaid this time -- but now with reconstructive surgery.
If we come to understand this, to accept these new facts-of-life and to recognize this new dominant and controlling paradigm, then we will be better able to see and understand (1) where we will be focusing all aspects of our national power in the 21st Century (toward transforming the Third World) and (2) why (to provide for our national security -- and that of the expanding market-oriented world -- in this, the next age of globalization).
Bill,
USG is quite simply incapable of advancing a Third World country to First World status. By my count, the last country which experienced any advance in civilization from American tutelage was the Philippines. That was before WWII, and it was the result of applying European imperialist techniques.
Postwar American development assistance, basically missionary in inspiration, has had the opposite effect. The "Third World" is the result of applying these policies and techniques to the former European colonies. When America broke colonialism, it bought the colonies. Results? Find any Third World capital and compare photos of it 50 years ago to photos now. Nairobi, say. There's your AID.
The goal, of course, is meritorious. But doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results, is the definition of insanity. With its present tactics and policies, USG cannot even pacify Afghanistan, much less turn it into New Jersey. Time to leave.
Bill,
I'm sorry but you're mistaken if you believe that developing Afghanistan is meant to accommodate the needs of the new capitalists (China, India, Russia). In reality, America was seeking to extend its influence from Afghanistan to the rest of Central Asia (as well as Pakistan) in order to prevent China, Russia, and India from getting ahold of all the available untapped natural resources in Central Asia (oil and gas). It wanted to keep these resources flowing to its allies in Europe so that they wouldn't come to depend exclusively on Russia for their energy needs and prevent China (and to a lesser extent India) from devouring all these resources by itself for its developing economy. That's what the purpose was all along; look up the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline project (TAPI) for more info as well as the Nabucco project (as you may know right now these projects are only on paper because the war in Afghanistan is going so badly). Also you shouldn't be quick to assume that those "Third Worlders" will easily allow foreign Western corporations to take over their natural resources without putting up resistance (which will continue this low level insurgency for decades afterwards) no matter how much we try to appease them through social development projects (schools, clinics, etc) and other forms of aid.
Mencius Moldbug:
My apologies if I left the impression that the goal was to turn Afghanistan Pakistan into a First World country.
By my "these folks are not like us" I mean something like: a safe and secure, self-sustaining state, which is organized around a culture, government and institutions that enforce and accommodate capitalist and free-market values and which support the requirements of the global economy. (Taken mostly from Fukuyama's "State-Building.")
Visitor @ 1:17am:
The future, I believe, depends more on the success and economic growth of China, India and Russia than it does on whether our allies in Europe must depend more on Russia for their energy needs.
Accordingly, "making the world safe for China, India and Russia," in my mind, would seem to be the more important task.
Fukuyama's "State-Building" (advocating Third World nation/state-building and societal transformation?) was written before the global economic crisis.
The global economic crisis is now the dominant and controlling feature and paradigm of international affairs today.
Thus by this reality, the focus on transforming the Third World -- like the initiatives regarding the F-22 and FCS -- must be reconsidered, replaced, scaled back and/or curtailed.
Accordingly, a "permanent solution," possibly contemplated in earlier days, must be considered a fantasy today.
Bill
Again if it's true that we have to make the world safe for "China, India and Russia" then why aren't we including them in coming up with a regional solution for crisis in Afghanistan then in us going it alone? China and Russia offered to help through SCO but we chose to ignore their offer. And if we're ready to allow China and India consume more energy resources (and allow Russia to monopolize it) then why are we dogging them over limiting their greenhouse gas emissions? Why aren't we appeasing them and reducing our own emissions (as well as our allies) like they want us to? And if we allow Russia to monopolize all the gas reserves in Central Asia and build the South Stream Pipeline, which is in opposition to the planned Nabucco project, Russia can use this advantage to "divide and conquer" the European allies, thereby rendering NATO a much weaker coalition. We should really just stop with pretensions and notify the American public this whole war is about securing energy reserves for our own use and profit.
But Bill, your definition is the definition of a First World country! Or at least, of a First World government.
Afghanistan spent most of the 20th century under a government that met none of your standards. It was not particularly advantageous to humanity, unless you were a hippie with a strong taste for blond hash. Nor was it a threat to anyone. Can you seriously explain to an American taxpayer, let alone a Gold Star mother, why Washington should be spending hundreds of billions and thousands of lives failing to turn Kabul into something agreeable to the Kennedy School of Government, when with a wave of its hand it turn the clock back and give the place back to Ahmad Shah?
I can explain why. My explanation is that the New Jersification of Astan is now one of the Beltway's largest jobs programs, and Beltway jobs don't like to go away. Which of these explanations do you think said taxpayer would find most convincing? Hm.
Mencius Moldbug:
Would you consider South Korea as a post-WWII country that has advanced under American tutelage? Could this be something of a model for Afghanistan (recognizing the differences in the way things were done)? What do you think of Visitor @ 1:17am and 6:04am's pipeline / making the world safe for Europe (as opposed to your Beltway Jobs Program and my China, India, Russia) argument?
Visitor @ 1:17am and 6:04am:
If our goal in Afghanistan is to make the world safe for Europe (and, thereby, ourselves) -- as opposed to my making idea of making the world safe for China, Russia and India (and, thereby, ourselves) -- then why, in the European case, also, are we pretty much "going it alone?"
Thanks guys.
@ Visitor 7:28 who I'm assuming is Bill,
I'm not quite sure I understand your question about "going it alone". I don't know how you can ask that when it's pretty clear our European allies are helping us through the NATO alliance. Granted they're not contributing as much as they could, but I would say it's because they're being more realistic than we are. I agree with Mencius, that trying to turn Astan into a First World state will take years upon years. It took many years for us to help Japan and Germany to redevelop and they were already industrialized states before their defeat and occupation. And I don't see how we can seriously pursue COIN strategy with an openly corrupt and sleazy government like Hamid Karzai's. Our European allies have already seen the writing on the wall on this one and are ready to bail out as soon as they can (non European allies Canada and Australia are already claiming to want to decrease their forces by next year). And Mencius may have a point. Astan and Iraq both have been massive feeding troughs for private contractors who have no accountability for their work. Who bets these pigs will give their trough that easily?
Visitor @ 2:09am:
Roger, Visitor at 7:28pm was me (Bill).
Based on Europe's past and current very meager contribution and, as you have noted, their soon expected bail out, I would say we have been -- and will be -- doing Afghanistan like I stated: pretty much on our own. This lack of interest by the Europeans would seem to cause harm to your "pipelines" argument; that says we are making the world safe for the Europeans. They seem (by way of their lack of support) to have no such significant interest or concern with getting the TAPI pipeline.
What do you think of my South Korean example above (a 50 or so year commitment; often having to get in bed with some very shady characters and with democracy having to be curtailed, if necessary, at times along the way; the ultimate goal of a more "Western-like" state, thereby, being acheived [for whatever purposes])?
I believe a "making the world safe for India, so that India can help stand against China for us," is a better argument for fixing Af/Pak.
Visitor,
I think Korea mainly advanced under Japanese tutelage. Ie, it was the Japanese period during which it, like Japan itself, went from a hermit kingdom to a modern industrial state.
There has certainly been a lot of development in Korea and Japan over the last 60 years, perhaps largely because these fine countries are inhabited by Koreans and Japanese. On the other hand, if we ask where Korea and Japan would be had the US not interfered with either since Commodore Perry, I suspect we would see at least an equivalent state of development. So I am not sure we can claim a net plus.
Whereas in the Philippines - and in Haiti - the US really did some fine imperial work. The latter is back to bush; the former got caught up in an American war, so you can argue that the total involvement was not a plus if the '40s are included, and the place would have been better off sticking with Spain. But that was not the fault of the Taft Commission!
As for Europe, perhaps Europe could take a turn at making themselves safe! Better yet, since we've been securing them for 50 years, perhaps we could doze off and they could handle the watch for the next half-century. I mean, now that they have a Lisbon Treaty and all, there's really no excuse.
I just don't think the US has much use for conventional ground forces, at least if they're not allowed to conquer and occupy a country. If you cannot occupy a country, all you can do is devastate it. We can do that just fine from the air, or even from orbit. If American soldiers were allowed to win, that might be a different thing. As it is, I see absolutely no reason why good Americans are blown up every day, just because the Pentagon felt that if it didn't send them stumbling around the Afghanistan National Minefield with 80 pounds of Bibles on their back, they wouldn't have anything else to do.
If the only way USG is allowed to fight is with precision aerospace technologies, those whose conscience involuntarily concerns them with the security of their country should impel them to get a joystick and learn to fly a drone, or better yet actually build a space-based missile defense. Obviously, USG is not at present capable of effectively occupying a foreign country, perhaps the most basic task of every military ground force throughout history. When General McChrystal decreed that if American soldiers were shot at from a house, they could not shoot back, he decreed the end of a tradition that started with von Steuben.
Essentially, America has now become too left-wing to employ an infantry force in any capacity. It has no choice but to rest all future defense operations on gadgets. And who knows? Perhaps, in the long run, this is for the best. The gadgets are certainly quite potent. They do not (yet) enable us to occupy Afghanistan, but perhaps they could enable us to not have to. It is unbelievable to me, for instance, that you can still enter or live in the US without getting your retina scanned and your DNA printed. $1000 on securing the border is more effective than $1M spent on ruling the world. Mais non.
Add your comment