Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

**Lemur** · 09-23-2009, 19:06

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The real question is: "what is the correct action"

Looks like there's a lot of head-scratching going on. This makes sense, although it's deeply repressing:

“A counterinsurgency strategy can only work if you have a credible and legitimate Afghan partner. That’s in doubt now,” said Bruce O. Riedel, who led the administration’s strategy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan earlier this year. “Part of the reason you are seeing a hesitancy to jump deeper into the pool is that they are looking to see if they can make lemonade out of the lemons we got from the Afghan election.”

Or as Sully puts it:

You cannot fight a counter-insurgency on behalf of a government that is as corrupt as Karzai's. And you cannot fight a counter-insurgency without vast numbers of troops to protect a population in an extremely remote and ungovernable region. And you cannot fight either without tackling the real source of the terror — in Pakistan.

So we are left with this dire set of alternatives. We either pack up and go home. Or we double-down for a couple of decades to try to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan, knowing that, even then, we cannot prevent any single Jihadist plot or attack coming from that region. [...]

But if McChrystal is right, he is strategizing Afghanistan as a semi-permanent protectorate for the US. This is empire in the 21st century sense: occupying failed states indefinitely to prevent even more chaos spinning out of them. And it has the embedded logic of all empires: if it doesn't keep expanding, it will collapse. The logic of McChrystal is that the US should be occupying Pakistan as well. And Somalia. And anywhere al Qaeda make seek refuge.

Most troubling.

**Xiahou** · 09-23-2009, 19:37

Alot of the arguments we hear for getting out of Afghanistan should sound eerily familiar to you all. Most of them are just retreads of the arguments against Iraq.

'The population is against us'
'The leadership is corrupt and unhelpful'
'The country is too disjointed for a coherent government'
ect.

Afghanistan is definitely a different situation from Iraq, but I can't help but roll my eyes when I see the same people pushing the same arguments all over again. Maybe we can't pacify Afghanistan and allow a stable central government to take root... I'm not sure. But many of the critics and all of the anti-war Democrats in congress have long ago burned up any credibility that they had on the issue. (I'm looking at you Harry Reid)

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 09-23-2009, 19:42

It's seems a bit of a stretch to say that our options are to leave or to indefinately occupy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and any number of other countries. We clearly can't do that, so the way the author expresses the dilemma, there is obviously one true solution. That's a red flag that the author is distorting something.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 09-23-2009, 20:15

What Sasaki said. I'm not swayed by Sullivan's logic.

Also, weren't people always giving the US a hard time for divesting itself of Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out, instead of insuring some form of stable government took root? And now many of the same people are saying we should pull out again? That won't solve anything, and it is cruel to abandon the mess we made.

CR

**Lemur** · 09-23-2009, 20:54

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Most of them are just retreads of the arguments against Iraq.

And as we learned in Iraq, if we massively increase troop strength and spread the bribes liberally amongst the tribes, we can buy a temporary lull in violence.

Not sure that's such a great lesson.

There's no doubt that we can re-make Afghanistan into something resembling a nation-state if we invest heavily in men and money for the next ten to twenty years. Is this something we ought to do? Are there alternative strategies?

**Crazed Rabbit** · 09-23-2009, 20:56

Originally Posted by Lemur

And as we learned in Iraq, if we massively increase troop strength and spread the bribes liberally amongst the tribes, we can buy a temporary lull in violence.

Not sure that's such a great lesson.

There's no doubt that we can re-make Afghanistan into something resembling a nation-state if we invest heavily in men and money for the next ten to twenty years. Is this something we ought to do? Are there alternative strategies?

Are you saying you think Iraq is going to go back to civil-war level violence?

CR

**Lemur** · 09-23-2009, 21:15

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Are you saying you think Iraq is going to go back to civil-war level violence?

No, 'cause a great deal of the ethnic cleansing has already taken place, so a return to full-on civil war is unlikely while we are there. But who gets to control what has not been settled, and there are a whole lot of armed people who think their tribe/group should take over. Things should get very hot as soon as we are perceived to be minimized.

The surge/bribe was a great solution to a self-inflicted mess, but the underlying disorder is still there. We established security, fantastic. But until there's a political solution the whole thing can unravel. And that is entirely up to the Iraqis.

If anything, the political situation in Afghanistan is more troubling. Leaving aside the improbability of defeating an enemy who can fall back to a secure base (Pakistan), let's ask the big questions:

What level of political stability would be sufficient for our counterinsurgency goals?
If the Karzai government is too corrupt and ineffective, is there a replacement group in Afghanistan or not?
If not, what can we do about it?
How long might it take to achieve minimal political stability?
How long are we prepared to be there, and at what cost?
What will success look like? (Please be realistic, and don't say "A functioning representative democracy," 'cause that is not happening in the next decade.)

-edit-

P.S.: Since I answered your question, CR, could you do me the courtesy of answering mine?

**Crazed Rabbit** · 09-24-2009, 07:45

Originally Posted by Lemur

P.S.: Since I answered your question, CR, could you do me the courtesy of answering mine?

Yes, I could.

A little data for the much-dismissed racial angle:

A very little data. I'd like to see the questions they used to determine 'racial resentment' - is being against affirmative action being racially resentful? - and what fraction of their population was 'above average resentful'. And what fraction of the people who didn't want Obama's reform were also 'resentful'.

And back to Lemur's questions about Afghanistan.

I don't see your choices as the only possibilities - ie that we have to choose between a decade plus of occupation or pulling out. Or that Pakistan is completely secure for the Taliban. I think we should strive to make a functioning, stable, non-Islamist government. If we don't everything we've worked for is wasted. And the Taliban will return to power and continuing supporting al queda. Plus they'll be able to destabilize Pakistan easier. And so, likely, we'll have to go in there again.

I don't think it will take a dozen years of 100,000 troops or other 'the empire must expand or it will collapse' silliness from Sullivan.

As for Iraq - so far the 'lull' has been permanent, and paved the way for a political solution.

CR