RSS

Tue, Jul 14th 2009, 08:28

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (201)

The presentation by Preston in the Guardian is incoherent. Things are said to be “going wrong” and “none of the reasons for ploughing on” are believed valid. The problem is “three-quarters” in Pakistan. Afghanistan is said to be “an agglomeration of city states and fiefdoms” and the author seems to attribute the conflicts among the former to the rivalry between India and Pakistan. The author has broken up the conflict into an Afghanistan battleground and a Pakistan battleground, and has denied that the borderland is a significant part of the problem. He claims that Pakistan created the Taliban and installed it in Afghanistan. Now Pakistan wants an end to their Frankenstein. The Taliban will wither and die in Afghanistan, but will need to be destroyed militarily within Pakistan. A regional military confrontation is not the way to the hearts and minds of the people. So leave as soon as possible.

It is a mistake to break apart the struggles in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it is a mistake to ignore the facts of national boundaries and national sovereignties. We face one transnational enemy in no set location. If one chooses not to let it grow unhindered, where then should energies be directed? Winning hearts and minds is certainly part of the process, even a long-neglected part of the process, but there is no way to even address hearts and minds if they are under Taliban control. It is highly desirable to have a stable Afghanistan and a stable Pakistan, and for both of them to have governments that are responsive to their citizens. In pursuit of that goal, the freedom and safety of ordinary people need to be secured. People need to be brought to the point that they can guarantee the security of their own communities themselves, and they need the verifiable assurance that no Western nation intends to rule over them. Wishing will not make it so.

A grand strategy such as that proposed by Klaus Naumann , John Shalikashvili, Lord Inge, Jacques Lanxade and Henk van den Breemen, in "Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership" (Lunteren, Netherlands: Noaber Foundation, 2007) might decrease the level of importance of Afghanistan, but only by weighing more global matters more highly.

Tue, Jul 14th 2009, 11:12

Julia Follick, Georgetown University, Gold Contributor (129)

I very much agree with most of your points: of course breaking the conflict up into such insular pieces is an oversimplification; of course it is highly desirable to have a stable Afghanistan; and of course the entire effort would be much more successful if we could guarantee the security of the people in the borderland and throughout the country.

However, I think your last sentence sums up all the counter-arguments. The West has limited resources and must constantly weigh the importance of a particular mission against the costs. While securing Afghanistan is important, the costs over the last seven years have been incredibly high and are not likely to diminish any time soon. If there are other active steps the West can take that are equally or more important and less resource-intensive, we should be concentrating our resources there instead of slowly bleeding ourselves dry in Afghanistan. I don't think Preston is arguing that Afghanistan isn't important; rather, he's arguing that a shift in focus would get us farther with what we've got.

Tue, Jul 14th 2009, 22:53

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (201)

@ Julia Follick

The costs we face now are largely a result of opportunities lost, and mistakes made. What worries me today is that the needed global perspective on the problem will not guide tactical decisions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is also possible that an even broader perspective will be ignored and short-term goals having to do with the mangled economy will interfere with proper handling of long-term interests such as global warming, transnational conflict accelerators, etc. An abrupt cessation of operations in Afghanistan would be catastrophic. Playing the enemy's game in the area, which is what did through most of the last 8 years, would also be catastrophic. Getting hung up on defending a particular geographical region would also be a mistake.

Recent changes are a departure from failed policies and "start-up" expenses will be felt. There is a difference between a retreat and a rout. It may be that current conditions argue for leaving Helmand and its population to the Taliban, but that decision needs to be made by competent strategists with the best available operational intelligence. It cannot be made on the basis of a simple perception of pain. It hurts to lance an abscess, but it must be taken care of one way or the other, sooner or later.

As competency levels have risen, the strategy has moved more in the direction of protecting populations and influencing people using incentives rather than threats. I think the next improvement will be to integrate local troops with U.S. and other foreign troops and thereby minimize injury and killing of innocent people. The drones, in my opinion, are counterproductive.

Much of the opportunities lost and mistakes made were because U.S. policymakers tried to do things on the cheap.

Fri, Jul 17th 2009, 07:38

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (201)

Once a series of bad moves has created situations such as we now see in both Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, it is more difficult than ever to recover. A cogent tear-down of the battlefield situation can be found at http://www.counterpunch.org/spinney07142009.html

Spinney's analysis is devastating,and will leave many readers without hope. If we all wallow in despair, however, we only make the way smooth for disaster.

Fri, Jul 17th 2009, 09:08

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (201)

Spinney's devastating remarks may drive all to despair, so I offer some contrary ideas at:
http://itg.wfu.edu/wiki/fields/eastasian/index.php?n=Main.AvoidingCPP