Afghan Exit:why, how and more in country and beyond

[carl]

I don't buy it. A simple description of an act would be "a withdrawal of troops and other resources", or some such thing.

You parse the word as you like. I see abandon and I figure the rest of the world is most likely to see like that too.

There's no way the US can deal realistically with the Pak Army/ISI until we withdraw from Afghanistan: the need to supply forces through Pakistani territory is the single biggest constraint of the revision of that relationship. Absurd to say we shouldn't leave until we deal with Pakistan when we can't do anything about Pakistan until we leave.

We supplied the big force we have there now via routes other than Pakistan for months. If we reduce the force to the point where it can be supplied by air and the north route, we can sustain it indefinitely without Pakistan. We have never really tried. That bespeaks laziness, lack of imagination and being the mark for the sahibs in Pindi. The Afghans see that as does the world.

Even after leaving, of course, all the US can do is stop giving money and threaten various actions if they do things we don't like. Whether or not that will change their policies is debatable: they are not a vassal state and they are not required to bow to our will.

Did you ever see the movie The Servant with Dirk Bogarde? It is a dark and twisted tale about how man servent takes over the household through malevolent force of character that subtly overwhelmed the employer. The employer could have stopped things and ruled the roost at any time but he never even tried. Weak character you see. We're the employer.

And why should we not? It's pretty clear that the Afghan Government is not going to put any effort into defending or sustaining itself while the Americans are there to do it for them.

Yep, heard that exact same argument in 1973-1975.

I would personally have no objection to providing continuing military and civilian assistance, with some provisions. It should be clear that the assistance will be gradually phased out. It should be clear that any organization that doesn't make very visible progress on controlling corruption, meaning specific individual consequences, gets nothing. It should be made clear that if the people training the military get shot, military assistance will stop. I have no personal objection to taking in people who worked with us if they lose - which doesn't have to be a foregone conclusion - with the provision that anyone with a record of stealing public money, dealing drugs, etc is not going to be included.

Well that is a start. Good for you. But I note that you incorporate so many provisos that you would be able to leave any time you felt like it and could easily avoid taking those people with us by saying we haven't been able to fully investigate. IIRC, we did the same thing when we wouldn't take in all the European Jews that there were visa for before WWII because the powers that be said they couldn't be sure they weren't Nazi agents. (I recall reading that in FDR at War but I don't have the book here and I may be wrong.)

And the government on the receiving end has no moral obligation to make a visible effort to step up and carry their share? How long do you throw money and lives down a black hole?

Don't conflate the gov with individuals. In order to save those individuals, millions of them perhaps, we might have to put up with a bad gov. It wouldn't be the first time. If you insist on putting behavior of the gov foremost, that is presenting an excuse to bug out on the individuals.

I don't buy it. The Taliban aren't the NVA, not by a long shot. If Afghans want our help in suppressing them, they need to show that they have the will - they've been given the means - to step up and make real substantive effort to carry the fight themselves. We all they know how. If that will is shown, they deserve support. If not, they don't.

You ignore the outside influences in both cases again, the Soviet Union and Red China in the one case, and the Pak Army/ISI in the other.

There are no blank checks or open-ended commitments in international affairs. None. Never have been, never will be.

Maybe not, but if you make a promise, you should keep it.

[Dayuhan]

You parse the word as you like. I see abandon and I figure the rest of the world is most likely to see like that too.

What's the basis for this assumption about what the rest of the world will think? As far as I can tell from published commentary around the world, the prevailing opinion seems to be that we were bloody barmy to get bogged down in Afghanistan in the first place and that the sooner we're out the better. The idea of US intervention and armed nation building has not exactly been received with open arms around the world, in case you haven't noticed.

I have no problem at all with the world knowing that the patience of the US taxpayer is not unlimited. I have no problem at all with the world knowing that that the US will not provide unlimited to governments who steal from us or populaces who sit idly by and let their government steal from us without a visible murmur of dissent. I have no problem at all with the world knowing that we'll support those who work with us to the best of their abilities, but that our support is conditional. I have no problem at all with the world knowing that we are not a bunch of bloody idiots who will throw money and lives down a black hole for all eternity without revising a plan that is clearly not working. I have no problem at all with the world knowing that we are capable of recognizing and changing a dysfunctional policy, however belatedly.

We supplied the big force we have there now via routes other than Pakistan for months. If we reduce the force to the point where it can be supplied by air and the north route, we can sustain it indefinitely without Pakistan. We have never really tried. That bespeaks laziness, lack of imagination and being the mark for the sahibs in Pindi. The Afghans see that as does the world.

It all seems terribly easy to fix for people writing on the Internet, doesn't it? Any brilliant ideas floating around on how exactly to do this? You recognize, I assume, that the other routes we depend on are in the hands of governments and individuals who are every bit as capricious as the Pakistanis?

Did you ever see the movie The Servant with Dirk Bogarde? It is a dark and twisted tale about how man servent takes over the household through malevolent force of character that subtly overwhelmed the employer. The employer could have stopped things and ruled the roost at any time but he never even tried. Weak character you see. We're the employer.

We are not in a position to fire the Pakistanis. They are there. They will act in their perceived interest no matter what we do or say. The decision to try to build a nation of our liking in Afghanistan is what's responsible for this situation, not the Pakistanis.

The single worst decision we could make at this point would be to conclude that since we must fix Afghanistan and we can't fix Afghanistan without fixing Pakistan, we therefore have to fix Pakistan too. Follies of that magnitude are what bring great powers down.

Yep, heard that exact same argument in 1973-1975.

Yes, it was true then as well.

Well that is a start. Good for you. But I note that you incorporate so many provisos that you would be able to leave any time you felt like it and could easily avoid taking those people with us by saying we haven't been able to fully investigate.

Why should we take anyone with us when we leave? We're leaving them with a country, a government, and an army... not perfect ones, but it's not our job to make them work, it's theirs. If they give a rat's ass about their country, why would they want to come with us, instead of staying and fighting for their country? At what point would you expect them to take it over themselves? No nation anywhere was ever built or secured by any means other than the blood and sweat of its own citizens.

Don't conflate the gov with individuals. In order to save those individuals, millions of them perhaps, we might have to put up with a bad gov. It wouldn't be the first time. If you insist on putting behavior of the gov foremost, that is presenting an excuse to bug out on the individuals.

So you propose to save the people from their own government? How do you propose to do that? Take that government away and install a new one (worked ever so well in Vietnam)? We are a nation. We have a government. That government deals with other governments. Relations between the Afghan government and people are something Afghans need to work out.

I don't see these supposed millions out in the streets protesting corruption or begging the US to stay.

You ignore the outside influences in both cases again, the Soviet Union and Red China in the one case, and the Pak Army/ISI in the other.

You ignore the blue whale in the outside influence drawing room: us. The support we gave South Vietnam was orders of magnitude beyond what the North received from anyone. The support we've given the Afghan Government is orders of magnitude beyond anything the Taliban has received from Pakistan. If winning or losing was a function of outside influence, Duong Van Minh would have been strolling down a boulevard in Hanoi and the Taliban would have been exterminated years ago. Outside influence or support means squat if the people on the receiving end haven't the will to fight or are too busy stealing the money to bother fighting.

Maybe not, but if you make a promise, you should keep it.

What exactly was promised... to whom, by whom, and when?

[jmm99]

Not a difficult question to answer (originally asked by Jon Custis, I believe) - for which, there are three key documents:

2001 Future of Afghanistan Statement

Richard N. Haass, Director, Office of the Policy Planning Staff, and U.S. Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan, Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, December 6, 2001.

Technically, this was not a binding international agreement; but it does represent the US position in 2001-2005. It looks to three areas of strategic partnership: The Political/Diplomatic Front; Relief, Recovery, and Reconstruction; and The Military and Security Front.

2005 Strategic Partnership Agreement - Bush & Karzai (pdf file attached).

Again, this presents the same three areas of strategic partnership (in slightly different words): Democracy and governance; Prosperity; and Security.

2012 Strategic Partnership Agreement - Obama & Karzai (full text). The WH fact sheet notes the five areas covered: Protecting and Promoting Shared Democratic Values; Advancing Long-Term Security; Reinforcing Regional Security and Cooperation; Social and Economic Development; Strengthening Afghan Institutions and Governance; and further that:

The Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) is a legally binding executive agreement, undertaken between two sovereign nations. The President’s goal in negotiating such an agreement has been to define with the Afghan Government what's on the other side of Transition and the completed drawdown of U.S. forces. The agreement the President signed today will detail how the partnership between the United States and Afghanistan will be normalized as we look beyond a responsible end to the war. Through this Agreement, we seek to cement an enduring partnership with Afghanistan that strengthens Afghan sovereignty, stability and prosperity, and that contributes to our shared goal of defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates.

but that:

When it comes to an enduring U.S. presence, President Obama has been clear: we do not seek permanent military bases in Afghanistan. Instead, the Strategic Partnership Agreement commits Afghanistan to provide U.S. personnel access to and use of Afghan facilities through 2014 and beyond. The Agreement provides for the possibility of U.S. forces in Afghanistan after 2014, for the purposes of training Afghan Forces and targeting the remnants of al-Qaeda, and commits the United States and Afghanistan to initiate negotiations on a Bilateral Security Agreement to supersede our current Status of Forces Agreement. The United States will also designate Afghanistan a “Major Non-NATO Ally” to provide a long-term framework for security and defense cooperation.

To be clear, the Strategic Partnership Agreement itself does not commit the United States to any specific troop levels or levels of funding in the future, as those are decisions will be made in consultation with the U.S. Congress. It does, however, commit the United States to seek funding from Congress on an annual basis to support the training, equipping, advising and sustaining of Afghan National Security Forces, as well as for social and economic assistance.

In connection with timeframe and termination, the 2012 SPA is very specific:

2012 SPA - Obama & Karzai.jpg

Both parties have agreed that either party may terminate on 1 year's notice.

In this context, assertions flaunting the terms "abandon" and "cut and run" are a bit irritating and obnoxious - a mature flaming assertion would not be averse to such couplets as "coward, cowardice" and "traitor, treason".

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

Not a difficult question to answer (originally asked by Jon Custis, I believe) - for which, there are three key documents:

2001 Future of Afghanistan Statement



Technically, this was not a binding international agreement; but it does represent the US position in 2001-2005. It looks to three areas of strategic partnership: The Political/Diplomatic Front; Relief, Recovery, and Reconstruction; and The Military and Security Front.

2005 Strategic Partnership Agreement - Bush & Karzai (pdf file attached).

Again, this presents the same three areas of strategic partnership (in slightly different words): Democracy and governance; Prosperity; and Security.

2012 Strategic Partnership Agreement - Obama & Karzai (full text). The WH fact sheet notes the five areas covered: Protecting and Promoting Shared Democratic Values; Advancing Long-Term Security; Reinforcing Regional Security and Cooperation; Social and Economic Development; Strengthening Afghan Institutions and Governance; and further that:



but that:



In connection with timeframe and termination, the 2012 SPA is very specific:

2012 SPA - Obama & Karzai.jpg

Both parties have agreed that either party may terminate on 1 year's notice.

In this context, assertions flaunting the terms "abandon" and "cut and run" are a bit irritating and obnoxious - a mature flaming assertion would not be averse to such couplets as "coward, cowardice" and "traitor, treason".

Regards

Mike

Mike,

Politicians in general are the scum of the earth.

I would suggest that one does not go out on a limb and get all defensive about the actions of people you can trust about as much as you can a crack whore.

Read Perfidious Albion. The shoe fits the US (as well as most other countries).

Shrug your shoulders and live with it by all means (because its not going to change) but for heavens sake do not pretend it is not happening.

The US is going to dump its one time allies in Afghanistan and leave them to the wolves. Whether they do so in a hurry or with one years notice makes no difference... and the spin-doctors will come up with a justification.

[jmm99]

Mark:

You have posted five sentences of smoke - none of which address the simple question of "What Was Promised?".

Whatever you want to call them - "scum crack whores" in your terms - they got together this year and definitively agreed to the US withdrawal. Ain't no dumping when both parties agree to the terms.

I'll skip delving into Perfidious Albion. Not knocking your choice of reading materials; but I'm now into the BEF of WWI and especially the memoirs of the soldiers who fought in that war. As I've said elsewhere, I will be doing not much posting and much more reading.

Even your book, if my pre-publication order ever ships.

Astan's a done deal. Live with it.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Not a difficult question to answer (originally asked by Jon Custis, I believe) - for which, there are three key documents:

Well there it is, the piece of paper that we can wave at the ghosts when they come calling; saying "You promised." We can show it to them and say "Show me where?" They will stand silent but that look won't leave their faces as they fade away. We will go on and be a lesser people but we won't know it. We have that piece of paper you see.

In this context, assertions flaunting the terms "abandon" and "cut and run" are a bit irritating and obnoxious - a mature flaming assertion would not be averse to such couplets as "coward, cowardice" and "traitor, treason".

Regards

Mike

You know I tried to figure out how "mature flaming assertion" actually fit into that sentence. I had to think on it for a whole day before I could say "Oh I get it now."

[carl]

Dayuhan:

When we cut off the money to Afghanistan sometime after 2014 and we don't make provisions for those who trusted us and worked with us to get out, you tell yourself whatever you need to so even the tiniest thought of our country shaming itself doesn't cross your mind. The arguments you have presented here should work very well.

It all seems terribly easy to fix for people writing on the Internet, doesn't it? Any brilliant ideas floating around on how exactly to do this? You recognize, I assume, that the other routes we depend on are in the hands of governments and individuals who are every bit as capricious as the Pakistanis?

You made the point that there was no way around dealing with the Pak Army/ISI because of supply considerations. I responded that there was and said how it could be done and has been done. Then I get the catcall above. How do you deal with a catcall? I don't rightly know.

I would note that none of those capricious governments are sponsors and supporters of Taliban & Co. as is the Pak Army/ISI.