Winning the War in Afghanistan

[Fuchs]

The basics.

Fundamental freedoms and human rights.

When last did you read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and realise what is taken for granted in the US and yearned for across much of the earth?

Oh, you mean human rights !
The philosophical concept that was invented in Europe before the U.S. constitution was written !?

Isn't it strange how much Americans believe that's theirs? Sounds a lot like China discussing copyright infringement against their original Rolex production to me.

[Dayuhan]

I suggest that the US credits certainly the third world with enough intelligence to realise while the US turns a blind eye to the goings on in China, Saudi Arabia etc etc the message whatever it is will not be taken seriously... the aid money will be accepted (even demanded) but the message will be ignored.

I don't see how the goings on in China or Saudi Arabia are any business of the US, or what anyone would expect the US to do about them. The goings-on in Afghanistan didn't need to be any business of the US, until the people in charge started sheltering people who killed our people.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable for the US to deliver the message that attacking us or our allies or sheltering those who do will have immediate and horrible consequences. Imposing our principles or values seems (again, to me) a whole lot less reasonable, and a whole lot less possible.

[JMA]

Oh, you mean human rights !
The philosophical concept that was invented in Europe before the U.S. constitution was written !?

Isn't it strange how much Americans believe that's theirs? Sounds a lot like China discussing copyright infringement against their original Rolex production to me.

Its all about consistency of course. Once successive sets of spin-doctors (from consecutive Administrations) are finished with the issues little wonder that US citizens get a little confused. I learned early that one must take a jaundiced view of "official" statements and comment. Surprised by how the TV channels fall all over themselves to cover announcements and statements by head of state and cabinet ministers... and in the case of the US a "spokesman" from each Department.

The thing that really gets up my nose is that these "leaders" really expect their electorates to believe them. As far as China is concerned what has it got that the world needs (other than rare earth minerals)?

But you are correct different rules for different folks, China can kill as many "dissidents" as it likes but Libya can't. Bahrain can suppress its population while Syria can't. Russia can commit war crimes in Chechnya but Sri Lanka can't when suppressing the Tamil Tigers. I'm confused already.

[JMA]

I don't see how the goings on in China or Saudi Arabia are any business of the US, ...

You can't? Then you are beyond help.

... or what anyone would expect the US to do about them.

The US does as its national interest dictates.

[Steve the Planner]

JMA:

The US does as its political system dictates, some of which may be in the nebulous "national interest," and some of which may actually be very bad for the national interest (depending on the viewer and his vantage point).

The pursuit of the rights of man and individual property rights are, in fact, one of our western euro/US heritage which we know created great opportunities for civil and societal advancement.

Very important to me, but the Middle Kingdom, and the Shia Islamic States have a very different perspective of this whole system. One thing we do know is that all systems of human arrangements have inherent frailties, including the potential for corruption, ineptitude, personalities, to name a few.

Having spent time on corrupt and dangerous systems in and out of the US, I can say with certainty that our system, over time, has moved us forward, in general.

Whether our system is the only one that can do so, or is appropriate for all cultures and peoples at all times, would require too many speculative leaps for me.

If our practical goal is stability and freedom for US foreign and domestic interests, our values (whatever they may actually be), and their broad dissemination to other places, may be too often lost in translation, or, as you said about the three o'clock visits, lost in the local context: (ie: Enforce rule of law by way of reinforcing locally corrupt police).

[ganulv]

The thing that really gets up my nose is that these "leaders" really expect their electorates to believe them.

I can’t speak about any other nation’s voters, but as far as it goes in the United States you should never underestimate the gullibility and lack of understanding of the issues possessed by the modal American voter.

As far as China is concerned what has it got that the world needs (other than rare earth minerals)?

It does help prop up the coin of the realm. And it’s combination of a relatively educated and cheap workforce, ever-better infrastructure, and centralized decision making make it attractive to manufacturing companies.

[slapout9]

Way to take my strategic rant down a Slap-centric rabbit hole!

Sorry about that. I think we need a Cash or Gas Foreign Policy (nobody rides for free). War is the only thing America still has an export monopoly on....so let's get all capitalistic and start a professional protection business.

[JMA]

JMA:

The US does as its political system dictates, some of which may be in the nebulous "national interest," and some of which may actually be very bad for the national interest (depending on the viewer and his vantage point).

As an outsider I continue to be amazed that there is so little consensus in the US as to what constitutes US national interest.

I truly the outside world understands that the US will act in what it considers its national interest even though there will always be those who whine and complain about it. 9/11 was an act of stupidity where some idiots thought they could pull the sleeping lions tail and get away with it. Just a pity the US seemed to strike out like a drunken bar brawler. The initial action in Afghanistan was good IMO but thereafter it turned into a box of frogs. I lament the observable lack of consistency in such actions but have to accept that there are always nuances that may be be immediately clear to outsiders.

Yes there are method/approach/implementation subtleties which could be improved upon but essentially if the US needs to act, it acts. As an old soldier I am scathing of the politicians (not only US) who enter into conflicts rather like an athlete showing up at a track meet for a race and only finding out the distance after the race has started. The soldiers are committed and have to just soldier on (while the politicians just step off the track when they get tired).

The pursuit of the rights of man and individual property rights are, in fact, one of our western euro/US heritage which we know created great opportunities for civil and societal advancement.

Freehold property rights are but a dream for many in the world either because of the price barrier to ownership or that freehold is just not an option. You are correct though but here in South Africa where the "previously disadvantaged" get given basic houses by the government the majority are sold off as soon as possible get get cash in hand rather than viewed as a long term asset. In how many days/weeks/months are these poor people back where they started do you think?

Very important to me, but the Middle Kingdom, and the Shia Islamic States have a very different perspective of this whole system. One thing we do know is that all systems of human arrangements have inherent frailties, including the potential for corruption, ineptitude, personalities, to name a few.

And importantly just about everything is prioritised differently. Can be frustrating.

Having spent time on corrupt and dangerous systems in and out of the US, I can say with certainty that our system, over time, has moved us forward, in general.

This took some time and continues to take time to evolve. But the US continues to move forward and the rest of the world looks on and learns from every stumble and fall the US has along the way.

Whether our system is the only one that can do so, or is appropriate for all cultures and peoples at all times, would require too many speculative leaps for me.

It would be simpler and a lot less painful to accept that the US system is not a "one size fits all" condom type solution for everyone country and everyone. This is why I suggest human rights as the basis for countries to move forward. Support those who do and side line those who don't (other than where it is in the national interest to tolerate those with poor human rights records.

If our practical goal is stability and freedom for US foreign and domestic interests, our values (whatever they may actually be), and their broad dissemination to other places, may be too often lost in translation, or, as you said about the three o'clock visits, lost in the local context: (ie: Enforce rule of law by way of reinforcing locally corrupt police).

Don't force things on them. Let them prioritize their values and tick them off one by one as they progress. If they backslide you have to apply the diplomatic equivalent of "tough love". They will squeal and look to China and Russia for help but that's just tough. Africa's initial post colonial problem was the cold war and the ability for states to turn to the Soviets and China if they could not get their own way. Now it is much less Russia and much more China and what does China care about human rights?

[Dayuhan]

But you are correct different rules for different folks, China can kill as many "dissidents" as it likes but Libya can't.

Libya could, and did, for decades. That changed when Libyans held a revolution with an outside chance of success, and provided the option of intervention with an acceptably low level of commitment and expense. The Chinese haven't done that yet. If they do, maybe things will change, though it's unlikely that the commitment/expense level of intervention in China is ever going to be acceptable.

Nothing inconsistent or incomprehensible there at all. Libya provided an opportunity, China doesn't. There's no reasonable way for the US to impose its human rights standards on China.

Bahrain can suppress its population while Syria can't. Russia can commit war crimes in Chechnya but Sri Lanka can't when suppressing the Tamil Tigers. I'm confused already.

Syria can and does suppress its population, and Sri Lanka could and did commit war crimes when suppressing the Tamil Tigers. What's the difference?

The US doesn't decree what others can or cannot do. It may at times act to support those doing things it likes or oppose those doing things it doesn't like, but such action is always constrained by the size, expense, and potential for adverse consequences of the proposed action. Pretty obvious, really.

As an outsider I continue to be amazed that there is so little consensus in the US as to what constitutes US national interest.

In what democracy do we see consensus on what constitutes national interest?

"National interest" is an abstraction, rarely if ever agreed upon. Different factions within a nation have different interests and will naturally debate what the nation's interest at any given point. Perceived national interest is what is acted upon, and both interests and perceptions change.

Outsiders often find it difficult to grasp the extent to which foreign policy is a secondary consideration in US politics. There are times when it takes center stage, but those times are occasional and generally of limited duration.

This is why I suggest human rights as the basis for countries to move forward. Support those who do and side line those who don't (other than where it is in the national interest to tolerate those with poor human rights records.

The US doesn't have the capacity to "sideline" a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia. Their resources and/or capacities put them at center stage no matter what the US wants.

If they backslide you have to apply the diplomatic equivalent of "tough love". They will squeal and look to China and Russia for help but that's just tough. Africa's initial post colonial problem was the cold war and the ability for states to turn to the Soviets and China if they could not get their own way. Now it is much less Russia and much more China and what does China care about human rights?

China doesn't care about human rights at all, and that makes "the diplomatic equivalent of "tough love" even more ineffectual than it was before. They squeal and look to China for help, and they get it. Then they tell us to stick our "tough love" where the sun don't shine. The US can't compel others to conform to our standards of human rights, like it or not.

[Bob's World]

Interests, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. They are both very real and very theoretical at the same time. Both enduring and ephemeral. Both political and practical. Wise definition and pursuit can save a nation; foolish definition and pursuit can destroy one even faster.

Hitler thought it was a vital interest to defeat the Soviet Union, or internal to that, to seize Stalingrad. In that same era the US thought it was vital to prevent the Eurasian landmass from being dominated by any unfriendly state or coalition of states; and to establish and maintain a global market open for commerce. Germany was destroyed and America emerged on the backs of their dedicated efforts to pursue their interests as they defined them.

What today? What if the US dedicated ourselves with equal energy to the pursuit of the interests listed in our current National Security Strategy? Would it elevate our nation to a new level, or would it over-extend us in ways that weaken us so greatly that we end up a shadow of our former self????

If one reads the following literally, and takes it seriously, I would have to assume the latter is far more likely than the former:

"American interests are enduring. They are:

•• The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners;

•• A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity;

•• Respect for universal values at home and around the world; and

•• An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges."

Somehow "Everyday will be Christmas" did not make the final cut. Seriously though, read in its entirety, is this really what the US wants to sign up for as our guiding priorities and proclaim to the world that this is our intended agenda?? Breaking it down a bit:

•• The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners;

What exactly qualifies one as a "partner" and just how dedicated are we to securing virtually every nation on the planet????

By securing a partner, do we mean the nation-state as a package (Territory, populace and government); or do we also mean that we will help a friendly government suppress its own populace when they rise up in insurgency against them? This is a head scratcher gaining a great deal more attention of late as Arab Spring continues to expand across the Middle East. As the Saudis show little intent to implement true change, it will ultimately explode there, which will be the ultimate test for how the US decides to draw this line.

•• A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity;

Ok, this is actually much like the number two interest we carried into WWII; the big difference now and then is that then we were an emerging economy locked out of many important global markets due to colonial monopolies established by our European competitors. Famously FDR held a dinner during the summit in Morocco early in WWII, hosting Arab national leaders, promising liberty and asking for free trade; while Churchill chewed his cigar in frustration, complaining about the absence of alcohol at the affair. Sure we were saving England, liberating lands under Nazi and Japanese control etc; but for America we were also on a crusade to open markets from which we had long been denied.

Now it is we who suffer from a lack of market protections as our economy at home flags, unable to compete with far cheaper labor in foreign lands; and it is China and others who seek inroads with trading partners we have come to see as "ours." Perhaps we can better appreciate Churchill's frustration and could use a drink ourself as we think about the full implications of truly "open" economic systems.

•• Respect for universal values at home and around the world;

Ok, this one bothers me most of all. What exactly are "universal values" and who gets to decide what those are???

What if some organization or nation "around the world" opts to disrespect these "universal values" as we have defined them in favor of some historic or modern value system they find more appropriate for themselves???

Are they no longer an "ally or partner" and therefore outside our circle of security?? That's some bad news for the Saudis and many others if that is the case....

Are we going to levy economic sanctions to coerce such immoral characters back into line??
That seems to run a bit afoul of an "open international economic system" to me...

Frankly my position is that this entire position has no place in a short list of "enduring interests" for any nation. Particularly not for the United States. I believe we should attempt to set high moral standards for ourselves, and to then live by those standards to the degree and extent possible. But no one made us the setter or enforcer of global morality, and we come across like self-righteous pricks when we make such announcements; and expose ourselves as hypocrites later when we are forced to overlook morality where convenient in pursuit of interests that are truly vital.

Lastly:

•• An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.

An "international order advanced by US leadership" Really??? Will some pigs be more equal than other pigs in this order?? I'm all about the US acting in a manner that makes others want to follow us. I am all against the US telling everyone that we are the leader, we are defining an international order, and that (for their own good) we want them to follow us.


Getting our interests right is a critical task. We have not accomplished that critical task here. I give this list an "F" and send it back for a re-do.

[motorfirebox]

•• Respect for universal values at home and around the world;

Ok, this one bothers me most of all. What exactly are "universal values" and who gets to decide what those are???

What if some organization or nation "around the world" opts to disrespect these "universal values" as we have defined them in favor of some historic or modern value system they find more appropriate for themselves???

Heh, I'm not sure that really qualifies as a "what if". It's an American conceit that if we can just depose The Bad Guys' Leader (whoever that is this week--Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi), then the people will rise up and spontaneously create a western-style democracy with western, er I mean, "universal", values. One reason that's stupid is that we can't even agree on what "western values" actually entails, right here in the west. Example: what do Universal Values© have to say on the topic of gay rights? And yet this idea continues to be propagated and incorporated into planning, pretty much no matter who's in charge.

[Firn]

The only thing that's forced us into anything is the cabal of not quite genius in DC that decided we have to transform Afghanistan. Not that the Pak army/ISI haven't exploited that particular piece of stupidity, but people will do that, if we insist on making bad decisions.

And from an European perspective the error was to follow that strategy suit, even if the investment in effort and men was in relative terms mostly greatly inferior and some leeway could be made due to diplomatic issues.

Of course we don't have the alternative history present in front of us, so the criticism comes easier.

[Ken White]

The alternative history proposed by D. Rumsfeld was to leave Afghanistan by early 2002. Unfortunately, G. W. Bush, good Christian he, was convinced by a number of the humanitarianly inclined foreign policy 'elite' ( "fpe" - lower case, advisedly...) in Washington to stay and bring a failed State into the World Community.

In addition to Rumsfeld, there were others who thought that alternate history advisable and that the real history, staying, was a bad idea and said so. Unfortunately they were drowned out by the "fpe" who also insisted on bribing, cajoling and bullying NATO into doing something that is so far outside of NATO's interest (even inimical to it IMO) as to boggle even the Afghan's minds...

Thus yet another humanitarian military endeavor -- great contradiction in terms, that -- leads folks into the abyss. Backsight Foresight knew that as well...

[carl]

Ken:

Anything Mr. Rumsfeld says is primarily intended to make Mr. Rumsfeld look good. In this case it is "See! If we'd done what I wanted to do we wouldn't be in this mess."

There was no chance we weren't going to stay in Afghanistan in some measure after the anti-Taliban forces kicked out the Taliban with the help of US airpower. It was felt that one of the primary reasons 9-11 came was because AQ found a congenial home in Taliban run Afghanistan and one of the primary reasons Taliban was running Afghanistan was because we stopped paying attention to the place after the Soviets left. So we were going to stay on.

If we hadn't stayed on, the Taliban would have been back shortly since they just moved across the border. That would have amounted to trading a raid for a raid leading to more raids probably. Sort of medieval.

I don't think NATO's involvement is inimical to NATO's interests at all. It is critical if NATO is to survive as an alliance. Refusal of the alliance to support its most important member in the face of an attack would have meant the end of the alliance. Involvement in Afghanistan may be inimical to individual country's interests, but to the alliance, no.

[Bob's World]

15 Saudis, 2 UAE, 1 Lebanese, 1 Egyptian; planning and preparing in the sanctuary of Southern California and South Florida; launching attacks directed by an exiled Saudi citizen taking sanctuary in Afghanistan; Launching from multiple locations within the US to attack multiple locations within the US.

An event most Afghans have never heard of; that involved no Afghans; and that quite likely the Afghan (Taliban) government at that time was completely unaware of.

And now this is somehow a mission that demands an enduing commitment by the US and NATO to ensuring that no one associated with a 10-years gone Taliban government (who's primary sin was to not violate their cultural code of Pashtunwali and give up a guest to the demands of the US after the fact), ever rises to power again in a country they have historically ruled???

Their is no rational logic in such an argument. It is purely emotional in nature, and frankly is not Feasible, Acceptable, or Suitable.

We have created a monopoly of governance in Afghanistan, and then enabled the formalization of of that monopoly when we oversaw, supported, and protected a sham of an election that elevated our hand-picked man to the Presidency, and led to the production of the current constitution that vests all patronage from the District level and above in that same man. In this land, such a monopoly of governance and patronage means a corresponding monopoly on economic opportunity as well.

It was only once we had this in place that the revolutionary insurgency growing out of the exiled leadership in Pakistan began to seriously grow. it was only after we began to increase our efforts to suppress that revolution that the resistance insurgency among the people began to grow as well.

We have mis-defined the problem.

We have mis-defined our interests.

We have mis-defined the threat.

We have created and dedicated ourselves to the preservation of an illegitimate monopoly on governmental and economic opportunity in Afghanistan.

To hold NATO to supporting this folly burns the US relationship with those allies and degrades our influence.

To demand that Pakistan act counter to their own interests in the support of this folly burns the US relationship with that ally and degrades our influence.

Both of those actions have served to increase internal instability over the past 10 years in NATO countries and Pakistan.

Now we act as a conduit to bring an increased Indian presence into Afghanistan. Sure Karzai welcomes them, because he knows the US will ultimately depart, and he also knows that India will stay.

That knowledge enables Karzai to continue to avoid the one thing that must be done to bring any hope of stability to this region: Break down the monopoly on governance and allow legal competition for influence and political and economic opportunity in Afghanistan.

In 2001 there were no Afghans involved in the attacks on the US and the primary driving issues were perceptions of too much US influence over Arab countries in the Middle East. To continue the current course of action may very well be a self-fulfilling prophecy in creating the very terrorist sanctuary and dangers in South Asia that we claimed were there to begin with. It is far more likely that future attacks against the US will occur, and will involve issues and actors from the AFPAK region because of our actions there, not in spite of the same.

It is time to act smarter, not harder.

[carl]

Bob's World:

Who thunk up the idea and what were the countries they were hanging around at the time? Where did the money come from and maybe more importantly where was it directed from? Where was the guy who inspired the whole thing living at the time? He wasn't living in Orange County. It was perfectly reasonable for us to assist the anti-Afghan forces toss out the Taliban, especially since they refused to give up AQ after we were attacked, and by the way they were encouraged NOT to give up AQ by our reliable ally, the Pak Army/ISI.

If they had given AQ up, we probably wouldn't have assisted the anti-Taliban forces like we did. It doesn't matter if the Talib didn't know what AQ was up to, they knew after the fact and they didn't give them up. So in we come. That seems reasonable to me.

Now you talk about Pashtunwali. I believe it requires sanctuary be given. I don't believe it requires that the supplicant be allowed to use the house as a base of operations to carry on a war. Also if I remember correctly, if you stay on permanent like you put yourself at under the authority of the guy protecting you. All in all, I don't think the Pashtunwali thing washes.

You mentioned that the Pashtuns have historically ruled Afghanistan. Is that a justification for that pattern to continue? If it is should we not amend our foreign policy to reflect the belief that if this or that ethnic group has been on top they should continue to be on top and we should help them stay there? Besides, the Taliban has always gone out of its way to affirm that it is an Afghan group, not a Kandahari Pashtun group. They themselves don't profess to believe the Pashtuns should run the joint, they say Taliban should run the joint.

The Talib leadership didn't begin to grow because they burned with the desire to redress growing injustice in Afghanistan after they were booted out, it took awhile for them to recover and it took awhile for the Pak Army/ISI to get its nerve back and go back in. I would bet a lot that MO never ever thought he wasn't going to get back in the game as soon as he could.

Personally, I grow weary of appeals to see things from the side of the Pak Army/ISI. They got themselves into the worsening mess they are in and they could get themselves out if they cared to. They take our money and kill our guys with it. It is a little much to ask me to be understanding of the way they view the world and their loony view of Pakistan's interests. Our actions don't burn our relationship with this "ally", their murder of American soldiers does.

How do you figure we act as a conduit for Indian entrance to Afghanistan? How would we stop them? Why would we want to; because the Pak Army/ISI will be cross with us and stop being the reliable allies they are? If we tried to stop the Indians both they and Karzai would tell us to go pound sand and we would have to do it.

You're right it is time to act smarter not harder. It is time for us to force the Pak Army/ISI to decide whether they are friend or foe and act accordingly.

[Fuchs]

Bob's World:

Who thunk up the idea and what were the countries they were hanging around at the time?

Florida, enjoying the climate and learning to fly (not take-off or land ... just fly).

Hamburg, Germany, feigning to study engineering.

[ganulv]

Personally, I grow weary of appeals to see things from the side of the Pak Army/ISI. They got themselves into the worsening mess they are in and they could get themselves out if they cared to. They take our money and kill our guys with it. It is a little much to ask me to be understanding of the way they view the world and their loony view of Pakistan's interests. Our actions don't burn our relationship with this "ally", their murder of American soldiers does.

I am not an expert in the area’s affairs, but doesn’t any extensive military effort in Afghanistan necessitate a land corridor with a node in Karachi? That’s leverage the ISI is always going to have. And the ISI is so enmeshed in Pakistani political and social life that they aren’t going anywhere. I think you have to play ball with them or not play at all.

[Fuchs]

I am not an expert in the area’s affairs, but doesn’t any extensive military effort in Afghanistan necessitate a land corridor with a node in Karachi? That’s leverage the ISI is always going to have. And the ISI is so enmeshed in Pakistani political and social life that they aren’t going anywhere. I think you have to play ball with them or not play at all.

Actually, back in 2002 GWB received an offer from Iran to settle disputes. That could have opened a trans-Iranian route.

There's no 11th commandment "Iran is your enemy!"

[carl]

Ganulv:

The Karachi supply line is the key. If we are willing to give it up and make other arrangements, which we are well on the way to doing, we can exert huge pressure on the General sabibs. The will be in the game alright, but we shouldn't be playing by their rules. We should try to make them play by ours.