Last year I suggesting it was time to think about pulling out of Afghanistan as one has to balance the positive effects of Western forces on the security situation with the negative effects on Afghan opinion of having foreign troops there for so long that they start looking like occupiers rather than allies.
However the Taliban has shown that it is not quite ready to lay down and die, as the various reports over the last few days have demonstrated the fighting is far from over. Nevertheless there is no real prospect for a Taliban return to power and in most of the country the security situation seems tolerable.
And yet… I worry what the actual objectives are in Washington and London. If the main strategic goal is to produce a stable Afghanistan (by local standards) in which the Taliban has no significant chance of being more than a minor insurgent irritant, then that is almost certainly an objective well within reach. That will leave the bulk of the country divided up between sundry (narco-)warlords and the ‘government’ of Hamid Karzai (or the ‘Mayor of Kabul’ as many call him), which in Afghanistan seems to be the natural order of things and, most importantly from a western view point, is hostile to the Taliban.
But if the objective really is a unitary nation-state run from Kabul, with a strong central government capable and willing to eradicate Afghanistan’s large drug cash-crop economy, then the planners in the Pentagon and Whitehall are, to put it bluntly, out of their collective geo-strategic minds. To recap the obvious, unlike Iraq which was invaded by large US/UK forces without any local allied elements, Afghanistan was largely ‘liberated’ by an alliance of Afghan warlords with massive US air support and an important but numerically small force of US/UK/Canadian/Australian spec ops and light infantry units… in other words the great majority of the manpower to overthrow the Taliban was provided by the same warlords who now run most of the country in loose feudal vassalage to Kabul.
Whilst Afghanistan is hardly a human rights paradise (the Abdul Rahman apostasy case comes to mind), it is still a great deal better off than it was under the Taliban. Provided the western objectives are not really ‘nation building’ but simple ‘tyranny wrecking’, I see no reason why this cannot all end up going down in history as a highly successful episode just so long as the dementing influence of the unwinnable ‘war against drugs’ is not allowed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Right on the money, Perry. I would add that the “war on drugs” has not only, indirectly, helped terrorism, but it has also bolstered various thugs in places such as Latin America, parts of SE Asia, Africa, and so forth. To beat terror, we have to give up the idea of telling people about what substances they may ingest into their bodies. To do so is obviously beyond the mental capacities of most people, including the current political establishments in London, Washington, etc.
I concur wholeheartedly. The Taliban has been pushed to the margins and may need periodic culling but as long as we do not try and remake Afghanistan in our image, this is a very winnable situation. In fact we more or less have won and are just keeping it that way, but we really need to make sure we do not keep trying to “win better” until we lose!
Spot on, Perry
I’m with you, particularly regarding the war on drugs, but there are other things at play. The reason we (or rather the Bush/Blair alliance) do not plan on leaving Iraq or Afghanistan no matter how well things go is because we have unfinished business in the region, primarily the nation in between these two concentration of forces. Iran is every bit of an issue where our presence in these countries are concerned. The sooner we said so, the better so that we can stop with the “exit” strategy tripe. There is no reason to think Iraq isn’t modern day Germany with Afghanistan playing the roll of perhaps Italy or Turkey. Not until Tehran has fallen (preferably by internal means) can we be “done.” Its feasible that we can have forces there and play the tyranny wrecking roll instead of the nation building roll (sense we haven’t had a say in Germany or Japan’s affairs in what, 50 years?). Still, we need to keep all the parts of the geo-political puzzle in mind. Iraq and Afghanistan are located in a hot spot of the world and are great launching points for military forces should other problems in the war on terror arise (Islamists take over Pakistan for instance). You either believe the War on Terror (which is really a war on Islamist fascism) is a Cold War redo or you don’t I suppose.
You’re right Perry. We won the war years ago. The idea of trying to turn the ‘stan into a civilised society is an impossible dream. One day, maybe, the ‘stanis might sort themselves out but expending more US/UK etc blood and treasure on this is a complete waste.
Great post, Perry, but you should have mentioned the fact that Australian SAS were involved along with the Brits, Yanks and Canucks.
ed: true… added
As a drug user (Alcohol) I suppose I’m stupid in thinking the ‘war on drugs’ is a monumental waste of time & billions of whatever currency comes to mind. Swiggers of peaty Malt who think that drugs should be banned are nothing less than the worst of hypocrites. It has, for many years, amazed me that fretting holier-than-thou governments don’t simply buy whatever drug-crops that become available for a market value price. They could then, stupidly, destroy the lot at their leisure or, if they had any nous at all, cleanly process the stuff and sell it, like alcohol, to users (who will always be with us) for a reasonable price (Excise & VAT incl.)
Happy & legal farmers. Third world countries actually earning money & thus creating (better) social services. A far better political climate between the ‘have’ & the ‘have-not’ nations. Burglary & theft cases dropping like stones with the concurrent effect of emptying public-school-fee-expensive prisons. Drastic reduction in gang warfare & violent crime. Redeployment of Armed Forces to cope with the real international & ‘cultural’ threats which threaten our very existence………..and the saving of untold billions of Dollars.
“Drug” users have always been & will continue to be with us. So too, unfortunately, will be our incredible stupidity.
Hi, I’m Russ, and I’m a coffee addict.
I don’t get it. What’s wrong with slowly propping up a weak but decent government, while using that as an excuse to kill Pakistan’s more extreme elements wholesale?
Talk about draining the swamps:
1. The Saudis fund the madrassas
2. The nutbags in the madrassas go west, young man, and then get thoroughly blown away (seriously, we’re stomping them flat)
3. Fewer nutbags left to breed and make trouble in Afghanistan, Waziristan, and Kashmir.
4. Profit.
I think that’s a great business plan, m’self…
Perry’s on the right lines, but misses an opportunity. Why not pull the official forces out of Afghanistan, but licence and encourage British-controlled mercenaries to stay behind to keep the never-ending low-level inter-Afghan tribal fights basically tilted “our way”.
Sandline International? Executive Outcomes? Surely this is a case for them, rather than a British army freighted down with unrealistic political outcomes. Almost certainly it’d be a lot cheaper too.
Good idea, Michael, but of the usual type – no chance of being adopted !
I don’t get all those seeking an “exit startegy”. What you want is a staying strategy. If the number of troops isn’t great, and the expenses tolerable, it pays to keep a military presence in Afghanistan, just to make sure those warlords behave, and the Taliban stays down.
The air bases there are also useful from the geostrategical point of view.
But those are two seperate and quite probably incompatable objectives! The US/UK has a vested interest in keeping the Taliban down but that means leaving the alternative… the warlords whom the Taliban want to displace… to just get on with running their slice of the ‘stan.
Read your history. Nobody keeps a military presence in Afghanistan……who would be crazy enough to want to. Folks who considered themselves invincible, from Alexander to the Soviets, gave it a try.
Sheesh!……just buy their opium crop & let them become a little richer……….and we talk about bringing democracy to probably the most bloody-mindedly independent- thinking people on this globe whose way of life, which they stringently defend, has been the same for millennia.
In answer to a question I posed earlier in another thread: Ghana’s budget consists of 60% foreign aid. I am too lazy to do the arithmetic but am pretty sure that the annual figure multiplied by the years of independence would bring tears to the dryest eye.
Liberation is one thing, but I have yet to figure out why western nations insist that real life must conform to a map that the British drew in the early 20th Century. We look at a map and see “Afghanistan”. Afghanis look at a map and say “What the hell is “Afghanistan?”.
There are many ethnic groups all over the Mid-east that have their own maps that are more in touch with reality. The Kurds, for instance, see themselves not as part of Iraq, Iran, or Turkey, but living in a country called Kurdistan. Furthermore, they have near-autonomous control over the areas they claim (with the possible exception of the Iranian areas) which probably makes Kurdish maps far closer to reality.
Similar situation exist in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghanistan is a collection of provinces individually controlled by local tribes and warlords that don’t recognize the authority of any central government.
The Pakistani government only truly holds sway in about 1/2 to 2/3 of the land-mass you see on a map. When it comes to hunting our enemies I really don’t see why the US is so damn “sensitive” about Pakistani claims to the northern mountainous regions as the Pakis don’t even have an official prescence in the damn place!
The west fell in to a similar trap in the former Yugoslavia. The west has spent trillions of dollars trying to maintain the imaginary lines we see on a Rand McNally map when it would be so much easier and less costly in blood and money to simply… oh I don’t know… let the people that inhabit the area decide whos land it is perhaps. What a novel concept.
Permanent expat (and other like-minded commentators): It occurs to me that drug warriors aren’t exactly stupid – rather, they themselves are, well, addicted to the dream of a world without drugs or other vice, to the point where they can’t even countenance any alternative strategy. You might say that the wisdom of repugnance has pre-empted more genuine wisdom.
Aside from that, I concur that Perry is spot-on here. As a presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush disparaged nation-building projects, and for a good reason: The U.S. isn’t very good at it. Granted this was before 9/11, but his refusal as President to take his own advice as a candidate is coming back to sink its teeth deep into the West’s nether regions.
Your point is taken, Joshua, but the drug-warriors are stupid; incredibly so. Just how soi disant intelligent folk can be so ridiculously blinkered leaves me breathless…..& seriously out-of-pocket. They are not of this world and, what is more relevant, don’t deserve to be in it, let alone force their ignorance on mankind. Gahd! I have to have another couple of fingers of Laphroaig and (raise the hurt eyebrow) on ice.
“But those are two seperate and quite probably incompatable objectives!”
When I said: “just to make sure those warlords behave” I didn’t mean they stop selling drugs. I meant: they refrain from supporting terrorists. The warlords aren’t dumb, they know who the strongest dog is, and they’ll avoid a conflict with it. In the absence of the USAF they might switch to the Taliban, and we don’t want that.
The military presence should not be seen (and should not be used) as a nation building endeavour, but rather as a tyranny and terrorism prevention measure. There might be some overlap between the two objectives -but I support the second one.
I think that the premise of the article is all wrong. Go back to Bush’s 2nd inauguration. A democracy that conforms to that speech in Afghanistan would be a highly loose confederacy with a “mayor of Kabul” running the external show and refereeing the friction. Nation building in Afghanistan in conformance to local needs is a very minimalist understanding and we should certainly not ram more government down Afghani throats than what they themselves want.
If presented in this way, the idea of the article might actually have a chance in hell of happening. Maximalism is betraying President Bush’s wonderful ideas laid out in his 2nd inaugural speech. Now what kind of Republican is going to go against that?
“tyranny wrecking”… now that’s a meme I kinda like.
The warlords, despite their description as such, have enjoyed their respective fiefdoms for centuries. That loyalties chop & change occasionally along with a few ‘terminations’ now & then is part of a long established way of life which does little harm to those who are uninvolved. Shooting at strangers is the national sport & helps preserve the status quo. For sure they don’t like ‘furriners’ and/or those who would change the way things are. Hell, would you?
The Taliban are as much anathema as not really helpful Americans, Canadians, Germans, Brits et al. They all want to “change things for the better”…..and it can’t get much better than being left alone, as folk living in The Septic Isle should have realized by now. Just let these guys do their thing, sell their opium at a fair price on the market, & live their version of a quiet life. They should however be assured that we are happy to bomb the shit out of any aggressive Muslim fundis stupid enough to creep out of the rocks.
Afghan is a huge training and intelligience base.
Iraq has other functions.
Neither are ends within themselves, merely steps in a process.
It is necessary to think in longer time frames and larger strategic contexts.
Two problems with that veryretired.
First morality: why is it OK to regard the lives and lifestyles of people in other countries expendable, and legitimate to subject them to arbitrary control by state violence for state ends, if it isn’t OK at home?
Second: the US plainly hasn’t taken the clue about grand strategy, has in panic let wild dogs off the leash that should have been chained up, and is attenpting to revert to the “our bastard” model which it has badly undermined. Those of us (me included) who initially supported the Iraq adventure for strategic reasons (an alternative, potentially cosmopolitan, to Saudi, as a pivot for the region) are revealed to have been self-deceived.
The Afghans are not going to passively sit by whilst the US plays The Great Game with whoever. Time is the one thing we do not have in Afghanistan. Leaving a base there for a few years until the situation is more stable and Iran is ‘sorted’ one way or the other is one thing and as long as the locals get paid off hansomely to host it, I doubt that would be a problem, but we need to disengage from day to day security as soon as we can safely do so.
The warlords can be trusted to follow their open best interests and they have a vested interest in keeping the Taliban out (which is why they were fighting them long before 9/11). Moreover they seen that the US can come from the other side of the world and weild the hammer of God on their enemies and that is not something they will forget in a hurry.
Actually, we’ve got all the time in the world on Afghanistan. The Afghan govt is happy with us there, and even the Dems in the US consider it the main war-on-terror front. Veryretired is entirely on the money. We’re wiping the walls with the guys we don’t like, among various extensive civic projects, the saffron cash-crop end run around the poppy fields is going to start soon, and our presence in Afghanistan provides us with numerous geopolitical advantages. What’s not to like?
Russ: What’s not to like is that our respective hypocritical gumments may take it into their addled heads to destroy the opium crop. Saffron is very nice & also fetches a good price………but to destroy the Afghanis’ main crop would undo any good work already done & be a classic example of the Captain Cook Syndrome.
Unbelievable. The “Afghan Government” barely controls Kabul and if you think the Afghans who are currently either our allies or neutral have given us a blank check to just hang around as long as we like, well no wonder the USA sucks at counter insugency war if that is what people think.
Truly you are delusional of you think it is within our ability to stop them growing drugs. It has never ever worked anywhere. ANYWHERE. Let alone when the drugs are being grown by heavily armed local governments whose support we need and great deal more than they need us.
That we are even contemplating messing with the incomes of the very people whose help we need there shows the depth of stupidity in the Washington DC area. If that really is what the people who make the decisions think, man are we fucked.
We are moving closer to an alliance with India. Afghan is an operational base for any future action to control the threat of a Pakistani Talibanish type turn, which is very possible. Pakistan is a potential threat much more significant than Iran.
Afghan and Iraq sit on opposite sides of Iran, if that situation deteriorates any further.
I’m sorry you are disillusioned, Guy. Maybe the harsh choices required of any state which finds itself involved in a world wide conflict are often bad and worse, not good or bad.
If the real world ever gets good enough for you, I’m sure we’ll all be that much the better for it.
Rationalist: Endlich ein einigermassen vernünftiger Mensch………(Clemenceau)…….und AMEN.
Permanent Expat: Yes, that’s true. I take the saffron move as a sign that our current crop is getting a little bit smarter than the last bunch of guys who decided they could rewrite the Afghans’ culture for them.
Rationalist: Dude, if all you’re going to do is refute the words you put in my mouth, then there’s really no point in getting upset… high blood pressure is bad for you… 😉
Spot on veryretired!
It was also said that we would surely fail in our arrogant experiment to bring democracy to Germany and Japan some 60 years ago.
As for Afghanistan, notice how so many Afghans want their children (both boys AND girls) to attend school and notice how the freedom fighter Taliban particularly target schools for destruction. It is disturbing to see Perry and Guy fall for the BS of the hapless Western Media; that the dusky skinned types just aren’t capable of democracy and rule of law.
If we bail out of Afghanistan, then the corrupt and uncivilised acolytes of eigth century barbarism will insure that defeat is snatched from the jaws of impending victory.
Good article Perry.
Sadly “nation building” (rightly attacked by candidate Bush in 2000) has for some years been in favour again.
The neocons (for want of a better term) may be divided over whether the United States should do the “nation building” or whether it should be the U.N. (supported by the United States) as Francis F. (and others) want, but they are united in their desire to have governments that provide education, health care and (of course) engage in the “War on Drugs”.
The fact that (unlike Prohibition before the 18th Amendment was repealed) there is no Constitutional basis for the War on Drugs does not bother them.
The elite (whether Democrat or Republican) have long broken with a “primitive” “literal” reading of the Constitution.
Largely because they hate the principles of strictly limited government on which it was based.
Still the wars may still turn out O.K. (rather than degenerate into an unwinnable crusade on drugs or an effort to build Sweden in Iraq) – my guess is that Donald Rumsfeld at least is too much of a realist concering the abilties of government to fall for this stuff.
It depends on how the midterm elections turn out.
If the Republicans keep both the Senate and House we should a gradual handing over to local forces (and unlike Vietnam there is no vast N.V.A. to take advantage of such a policy).
However, if the Democrats take Congress there will lots of “investigations” into such things as why Afghan drugs are still on the market and why water and power supplies are so unreliable in Iraq.
In short whether the United States wins the war depends on domestic politics.