« Obama's Nobel Prize is richly deserved | David Seaton's Blog | India holds up a mirror for America to see itself »
Afghan slam bam, thank you mam
"I can't sing and I can't dance, but I can lick any SOB in the house.".
Jack Dempsey - AKA reality
"He is a very smart fighter; when he's fighting he is thinking all the time. But, all the time he was thinking I was hitting him."At this point in time the media are full of talk about the agonizingly thorough decision making process underway in the White House as President Obama analyzes his options in Afghanistan and decides whether or not to send the 40,000 extra troops that General McChrystal has requested.
Jack Dempsey
A lot of people are waiting for his decision:
Those Afghans who have thrown in their lot with the United States are waiting for his decision.
All of the NATO allies who are keeping troops there against the public opinion of their voters are waiting for his decision.
The men and women of the United States armed forces who are already there or may be on their way there soon and their families are waiting for his decision.
This decision should be easy, because no decision the president takes will magically pull America's chestnuts out of the South Asian fire or provide anything like a happy ending.
Why do such miserable alternatives simplify things?
Because, sometimes the more screwed up things become the simpler they are to deal with.
When no solution is really any good, getting to "less bad" is often not rocket science.
The solution is to send the troops.
The bottom line is that this war is no longer about oil pipelines or democracy or Afghan women's right to wear miniskirts and to learn how to read or supporting "moderates" or about defeating terrorism or catching Osama... it certainly is no longer about winning.
OK, so what is the war in Afghanistan now all about?
The war in Afghanistan is now about salvaging what little is left of America's "bella figura".
"Bella figura" (beautiful face) is Italian for looking good as opposed to "brutta figura" (ugly face) which is Italian for looking like a "schmuck", which is Yiddish for "dumb asshole".
After eight years of Bush the United States has been left with a bruttissma figura. Absurd, ugly, sinister, incompetent... mad, bad and dangerous to know.
Terrible for business.
Restoring America's bella figura was what electing Barack Obama was all about and, as I have already pointed out, was the reason that the Nobel Committee, at the risk of universal ridicule, awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize.
America's bella figura is what is known as a "public good", it represents a factor of stability in a turbulent world. It is going to diminish, but it should do so in an orderly fashion, not with people trampling each other on the way out the door.
My "inner Lenin" may be tickled to see this stability crumble, but my "inner poor slob just trying to make it to the end of the month" is horrified.
America will have to withdraw from Afghanistan, it is a hopeless cause, but the withdrawal must maintain some scrap of dignity and the troops that are already serving there must not be seen to be hung out to dry, to be exposed to uneccesary danger, because there are not enough of them to hold the ground.
No matter what is done, it is going to be ugly and cruel... it is too late for it to be any other way. Less ugly and less cruel are better than more ugly and more cruel... that is as good as it gets.
This is where intuition, "zen" or the sixth sense of one who is called to lead comes in.
To be perceived to be indecisive is the death knell of a leader.
Leaders are chosen for their ability to decide.
Much criticism was leveled at George W. Bush AKA "the decider", for his taking decisions "from the gut", but the problem wasn't that Bush acted on impulse, the problem was that he had such stupid intestines.
Mr. president, you have done your homework.
All the options stink.
Just hold your nose and do it.
Advertisement
This bella figura is what is politically feasible at this time? Is this the common wisdom? I am not so certain of this or anything when it comes to Afghanistan anymore. Would that the country were the proverbial tabula rasa, but my instincts tell me that Afghanistan may outlast us all.
October 21, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
About the best that the USA could achieve IHO is to return to giving air cover to a Afghan "army" (collection of warlords) as it did during the invasion. If the Taliban appear in conventional formation zap them. While this is happening the USA is withdrawing and reducing its presence to the point that when the whole thing falls apart most of the pro-American Afghans will have been evacuated to the USA, where they can dispute the streets of LA with the Cripps and the Latin Kings and ladies in burkas can buy sheep's heads at the local halal butcher's. Thus we could avoid the Saigon embassy-helicopter photo-op so damaging to the bella figura. During this period it might be possible to negotiate something with the taliban as to drugs and pipelines.
October 21, 2009 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can provide air cover from our permanent bases in Iraq, bases which showed we never had any intention of leaving Iraq in the first place, bases which will give an on-going impetus to recruit forces to fight against us everywhere.
October 21, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The USA has soooo many places it can bomb anybody from that where to bomb people from is never a problem for the US. The USA doesn't need Iraq to bomb Afghanistan from as it did it very effectively before invading Iraq if you remember.
The problem is that of an orderly retreat under enemy fire (taliban and Republican).
October 21, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This could quickly devolve into nit picking which I am not interested in doing but, different situations suggest different tactics and capabilities.
Enforcing the no-fly zones in Iraq and picking out fixed position targets such as anti-aircraft batteries or radar stations was a much simpler task than providing close ground support. One could be done from as far away as the continental United States if necessary, the other needs bases much closer so that smaller aircraft can arrive quickly and have time to loiter in the target area.
If bases near the problem areas didn't have a military purpose we likely wouldn't have hundreds of them scattered around the globe.
October 21, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, Dave; I keep hearing from some Pretty Smart Analysts that the Afghan people want the US out of there. Shouldn't we care about that?
Fareed Zakaria has had some great panels on the subject.
It is a black hole any way you look at it.
Orderly retreat. Hmmm.
October 21, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the Afghans want us out... everybody has always wanted us out of practically everyplace.
The question is how to extricate the USA from Afghanistan while maintaining some semblance of bella figura. That will probably require more troops in order to quiet things down a bit and force the taliban to keep their heads down. At this moment is looks like turning into a rout with the USA getting chased out of Afghanistan: bruttissima figura that.
October 21, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I try to picture your exit scenario with more troops, I fail to see how it would protect them. Someone has to be last out; what am I missing? Would more troops force the Taliban to 'keep their heads down'? I really don't know anything about military tactics, but if they knew what the tactics were for, would they conform to these expectations? And many say that even if Obama were to approve 40,000 more troops, it would take almost a YEAR to put them in place.
October 21, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Afghanistan is a very large place and the USA has only a skeleton force there now. The USA and NATO don't have enough troops between them to actually subdue Afghanistan, to do that, all our countries would have to bring back the draft and every American teenager for the next ten years could expect a tour of duty in Afghanistan. Obviously that is not going to happen, is it?
So the only thing that can be done IHO is to up the number of troops on the ground momentarily while creating some new version of the Northern Aliance, which, with American air cover, was able to defeat the Taliban. This should keep the Taliban with their hands full for a bit.
Under cover of that the USA withdraws its ground troops and reduces its diplomatic presence to a minimum.
The USA would then withdraw from an Afghanistan immersed in a civil war. Perhaps from a prudent distance America could broker a peace between the factions and finally get its bloody pipeline... Very messy, very bad, but I don't see any viable alternative.
October 21, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know there are people who figure out force depletions, oh jeez, what an awful term. Someone trustworthy would have to do the math. Er, calculations.
Would it help to pay off some indigenous people to help, or would they take the money and laugh?
I will have to say 'Uncle!' on this one, Dave. Troop afety is paramount t o me, and I don't like the idea of a thousand lonely outposts, being attacked in the dead of night.
October 21, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I underline that I envision this as temporary expedient to cover an orderly retreat, so that it doesn't turn into a humiliating rout.
This is why I have entitled my post using the elegant phrase "slam, bam, thank you mam".
October 21, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That is exactly the idea of bringing in more troops for a while, less "lonely outposts"."
That may be your idea but it is not the idea behind the current couter-insurgency tactics. The new tactics call for small groups of soldiers to be scattered eveywhere to work more closely with the population and protect it rather than larger groups of soldiers attempting to track down the enemy and destry it.
This was the idea behind Marine CAP teams in Viet Nam. After that conflict academics studied tactics used and someone wrote that the CAP teams were effective. That seems to have become accepted knowledge to many but every person I ever knew or heard from who had first hand knowledge said that it was horrible duty because the teams set up in a known position and could be attacked at the convenience of the Viet Cong. Many teams were over-run before American forces finally left.
October 21, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
They can say what they want, but finally it is only a cover for withdrawal.
October 21, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
My last word, at least for a while cuzz I'm outa here, but you are presenting as fact something not shown in evidence. That makes it just an opinion, one of the two things we both have.
I am for getting out so if the troop surge is just cover for that I am for it but it seems like the long way around.
October 21, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Afghanistan is a vexing challenge with no good answers, only "least worst" ones, but I disagree that our cause there is hopeless. In fact, I believe our limited goals are not only achievable but vital - to prevent the complete domination of the country by the insurgents, thereby threatening the stability of neighboring Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons coveted by terrorists. Our policy, as Obama understands, must be a combined Pakistan/Afghanistan policy, so that Al Qaeda operatives beseiged in either country can't find easy sanctuary in the other. This is one reason why the president, who is not an ideologue on this issue, is not going to disengage in Afghanistan until U.S./NATO forces can be replaced by indigenous forces.
As far as I know, there are no reliable public opinion polls in Afghanistan, but at least some individuals who know the region and the people best tell us that the Afghans do not want us to leave prematurely. Among these in Ahmed Rashid, a native of the region (he's Pakistani) who has visited Pakistan and Afghanistan many times over the past 30 years, and is a Taliban expert who has written extensively on them and even lived among them for a time. Rashid points out that most Afghans hate and fear the Taliban, and welcome us as potential protectors, while at the same time dreading the dangers that come from the crossfire between our forces and the insurgents. To the extent we can offer security, they are eager for it. What they fear is that we will start to form alliances with them and then depart, leaving them open to Taliban retribution.
(Rashid has also written recently on his perspective on reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. For his perspective, see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402277.html
Although our own national security (including security from nuclear threats if the region were completely destabilized) is paramount, we also have a moral obligation to the Afghan people. We enjoyed a quick, decisive, and easy victory over Taliban in 2001, and then squandered the advantage by blundering into Iraq and neglecting Afghanistan. The Afghan people, however, have not forgotten that for a time after that triumph, what we had accomplished was to bestow on them a respite from the cruelty and oppression of Taliban rule. They have not forgotten that for a time, girls could go to school. They have not forgotten that anyone who wished could listen to music, and that men could walk the streets without fear of death or injury because their beards weren't proper. We should not forget either, even as we pursue our own strategic interests, which must necessarily take precedence.
October 21, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred,
I think Afghan girls and Afghan beards are a problem for Afghans not Americans who have enough problems looking after their own girls and beards.
October 21, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we take McChrystal at his word, he would rather scrap than switch (missions):
As the new strategy places the highest priority on nation building and creating a civilian infrastructure, the new resources would mostly be for getting that work started and not used to try and destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Your scenario sounds more like the Biden plan, which emphasizes targeting bad guys and reducing our presence in the country.
October 21, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see a fundamental contradiction between McCrystal and Biden.
They are step one and two leading to step three: exit.
I think we need McCrystal to get to Biden and we need Biden to finally get the hell out with a few scraps of our bella figura left.
Let me be clear: all of this leads to defeat, but if done artfully some wishful thinkers may be fooled.
October 21, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Defeat is possible, but unlikely in my view, as long as it's not defined as the absence of a military victory. If our goal is to prevent the detabilizing effect of a complete Taliban takeover and its potentially dangerous consequences until we can be replaced, I think it's very likely we will succeed. It's not a certainty, but we have the capacity. It's no longer possible to achieve the same kind of decisive military triumph we achieved in 2001, but we don't need that to protect our interests.
I agree that Biden and McChrystal both see the need to stay engaged, and both envision success in the larger goal of averting a destabilizing takeover, but they represent opposite extremes of the spectrum of analysis currently under consideration. McChrystal wants 40,000 (or more) additional troops, while Biden, on the other end, wants our troop strength to stay at current levels after the buildup already underway. I'm not a mind reader, David, but if you believe that either of them even remotely considers the likely outcome to be a defeat, I think you're letting ideology trump the available evidence. At least, that's my perspective.
October 21, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should qualify the above by stating that I see no evidence that either Biden or McChrystal sees defeat as likely if what each considers the appropriate measures are taken. McChrystal may well consider an inadequate troop addition to be an invitation to defeat, although many disagree with the need for as many troops as he wants.
Afghanistan, because of its proximity to Pakistan, is not analogous to Vietnam, where we could safely afford to let go. That is why I believe our continued engagement is almost a certainty for reasons more important than simply appearances.
October 21, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the most perceptive take was Andrew Bacevich's, "we haven't got the money and we haven't got the troops". If either Biden or McCrystal think that they are ever going to defeat the Taliban without a half a million soldiers on the ground for a decade then they are nuts. The Taliban are grassroots, local folk, the boy next door... they are a genuine movement... they are never going to leave. Americans on the other hand are like Martians in Afghanistan; the United States has other more pressing problems much nearer to home.
All that is needed is a controlled withdrawal a winding down from Afghanistan so that it doesn't look quite as bad as Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia or Iraq.
October 21, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You continue to set up a straw man, David, by describing out goal as "to defeat the Taliban", which it's not. We did defeat them decisively several years ago, so they are hardly invulnerable, but our goals are to prevent a takeover, not to eliminate the Taliban. One of the reasons they are vulnerable is that they are widely hated by Afghans, unlike some insurgencies that enjoy widespread popular support.
There is no p"ressing problem nearer to home" than the need to avoid the acquisition of Pakistan's nuclear weapons by terrorists. We are determined not to let that happen, and while no-one can be certain, we will probably succeed. In the meantime, I don't think it provides any new evidence to continue claiming that we have actually conceded defeat and are pretending otherwise for the sake of appearances. That is almost certainly false, but we'll have to wait for events to unfold to ascertain exactly how things will turn out.
October 21, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There is no p"ressing problem nearer to home" than the need to avoid the acquisition of Pakistan's nuclear weapons by terrorists."
This is the rankest fear-mongering. No one with any standing in the foreign policy community thinks a Taliban takeover of Pakistan is even a remote possibility, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.
If no one who has first hand knowledge of the situation in Central Asia agrees with you, why do you insist on peddling this bullshit?
October 21, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me, but didn't the foreign policy community look like they had their heads up their rears when the Soviet Union collapsed? One one had the slightest clue...even the so-called Soviet expert Miss Condi Rice!
October 22, 2009 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think the FPC errs on the side of overhyping threats rather than underplaying them.
And even if they aren't correct in this instance, what makes you think Fred's in possession of better information anyway?
And aren't you a little tired of the domino theory being used to scare us into supporting more war? Vietnam didn't lead to a Communist takeover of the eastern hemishpere, and Iraq hasnt' led to a thousand democratic flowers blooming in the Middle East.
Read the Bacevich essay, and then tell me who you think makes more sense, a "professor of international relations at Boston University, former director of its Center for International Relations (from 1998 to 2005), and author of several books (Wikipedia)" or some guy commenting on a blog.
October 22, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the idea is to leave with less egg on the face, I don't see how pumping up the idea of the COIN strategy, spending billions and putting thousands in harms way, and then running out of the country like a circus in the night is going to do the trick.
The differences between the Biden and McChrystal proposals certainly are different in regards to acknowledging the limits of resources that Bacevich and others bring up.
If the argument between them is all overt theater to hide a covert plan, then we are living in that film named Brazil.
October 21, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean this is not rocket surgery.
October 21, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two recent articles provide a compelling analysis of recent events in Afghanistan and the need for vigorous engagement to avert potentially dangerous threats to our security. The first is a long article by Ahmed Rashid, describing the deterioration of circumstances in Afghanistan over recent years and the urgency of efforts to avert a collapse of security that would have potential repercussions extending far beyond the region:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=22320
The second relates to the threats to the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, as analyzed by several experts, and indicating the uncertainty about the current level of threat. Although the nuclear arsenal does not appear to be in imminent danger, a complete insurgent control in Afghanistan would threaten to destabilize Pakistan sufficiently to increase the threat significantly.
Security of Pakistan Nuclear Weapons Questioned
The two articles complement each other in offering a useful perspective on the dangers that will ensue if not adequately addressed.
October 21, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, your second link is one of those stories where the headline contradicts the article. The overwhelming consensus, even in the article you cite as evidence for the assertion that Pakistan's nukes are in danger, is that there is no serious threat to their arsenal.
For someone who presents a persona of a cooler head prevailing, you are very willing to distort the facts in support of your opinion regarding an issue of fundamental importance. We've been lied into two wars in the last fifty years, Fred. Why are you so eager to lie us into a third?
October 21, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"crickets"
October 21, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Readers can judge for themselves. My view about disagreements is that when original sources are available, most readers would rather make their own judgments than referee TPM arguments.
From the two articles I linked to above, I interpreted the evidence to indicate that there is an urgent need to address the dangers of the Afghanistan insurgency, or else face great instability in the region and beyond, and that there is current disagreement about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, but while they appear to be in no imminent danger, a completely destabilized Afghanistan under insurgent control would increase the threats to the stability of Pakistan, including its nuclear weapons. The two articles should be read in conjunction in order to judge these assessments.
October 21, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can dismiss this as argument "refereeing", but your reply is deeply dishonest. Even in the lengthy Rashid article, he doesn't resort to fear-mongering on the level that you do. He mentions the Taliban taking over Pakistani nukes exactly twice in a lengthy essay:
"Either the United States and Europe abandon the region to the forces of violence, extremism, poverty and the danger of loose nukes—with all its consequences—or they remain committed and prepare to carry out both counterinsurgency and nation building,": and
"However, the real fear is that under such enormous external and internal pressures, there are no guarantees that the army will stay committed to a democratic system. More so, the military may not remain as united as it has been for the past six decades. What many Pakistanis fear and constantly talk about is not a traditional generals’ coup that may end democracy, but a colonels’ coup that could bring in a pro-Islamist and anti-Western coterie of officers linked to Islamic groups that would then negotiate a compromise with the Pakistan Taliban. That could put Pakistan’s nuclear weapons into the wrong hands."
Never mind these fears are not shared by the American foreign policy establishment, and that this is only one float in Rashid's parade of horribles, including the Taliban overthrowing governments throughout all of central Asia.
The bottom line is that you are arguing for massive American military intervention in order to prevent the dominoes from falling yet again, this time by a movement that hasn't been able to take hold anywhere but rudderless Afghanistan and the government-free areas of northwest Pakistan. We've seen this movie too many times before, and it's never ended well for the American people or those foreigners we massacred to save.
Do you really think the governments of Pakistan, Russia, the "Stans", etc. are incapable of containing these ragtag militants? And what national interests are at stake here anyway? This is somebody else's fight, and we're only prolonging its ultimate determination by our presence.
The fact that you have to misrepresent the arguments even of those who share your desire for greater military involvement proves how weak the arguments in its favor are.
But I will not you let you post lies on this website without begin challenged. Like Obama was before he became president, I'm against stupid wars, and I resent attempts to lie America into them, whether those lies come Bush/Cheney or Fred Moolten.
October 21, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think others should read the articles (and also earlier comments in this post) and draw their own conclusions.
October 21, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't misrepresent me, though. In stating the need to remain engaged in Afghanistan, I said nothing about "massive military intervention".
October 21, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me? What lies?
Just reading the articles Fred provided has cleared up many inconsistencies I've read and scuttle butte I hear from rotating aircrews and returning deployed soldiers (Army, Marines, USAF, Navy, Special Forces, SEALS). The problem is far bigger than simply us against Al Queda and the Taliban - it's the whole region about to go to hell in a handbasket. And there's nothing any of the military forces there can do on the battlefield to stop it no matter how many soldiers they pump into the system. The fight has evolved beyond guns and tactics and may very well consume the entire region.
Wake up America! It's going to cost us a lot of money than we can't afford, but we have Bu$h and the republicans to thank. Unfortunately, there's no end game in the immediate future and the potter barn rules are in place...we broke it so we own it.
October 22, 2009 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
So we should destroy what's left of our country because Bush fucked up seven years ago? I hope this is a parody of the supporters for greater involvement in Central Asia's arguments.
For a more realistic take on these questions, without all the fear-mongering than your likely to get from Fred Moolten, I would suggest reading this:
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/11/0082687
October 22, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, the lies I'm referring to are his constant assertion that, if we don't stabilize Afghanistan, it will inevitably lead to the Taliban's takeover of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal.
No one in the foreign policy establishment treats this threat as anything but the remotest possibility (except some guy from Israel, and we totally know they would never hype up a threat from the Muslim world). That the foreign policy community doens't take this as a serious threat is in fact demonstrated in the first link Fred provided, as I noted in my initial comment.
This fear-mongering regarding Pakistani nukes is just a cover for a muliti-trillion dollar, multi-decade, neo-imperialist occupation of Central Asia.
It's the military-industrial complex's wet dream, and no one who has decried our government's actions over the last ten years should be supporting it.
October 22, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my experience, a clue that an argument for a position is weak is a tendency for its advocates to misrepresent those who disagree. For example, in the links I cited earlier, concerns about the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons were described, should a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan tend to destabilize Pakistan, leading to government weakness and increased factionalism in many areas (see the Rashid piece for some details). This was misreprented above as a claim that the instability "will inevitably lead to the Taliban's takeover of Pakistan", a claim that is not only false but not made by anyone I'm aware of. On the other hand, the possibility of a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan is real and dangerous, which is why the Administration will remain engaged - not because of a desire for a "neo-imperialist occupation of Central Asia" - although if evidence is cited documenting President Obama's neo-imperialist desires to occupy Central Asia, I will consider it respectfully.
In any case, I hope anyone interested will visit the two links I cited about 8-9 comments above this one, so as to draw their own conclusions. Meanwhile, the discussions continue in Washington over the risks and benefits of significantly escalating troop levels in Afghanistan, as opposed to continuing our engagement in Afghanistan by other means. For some of the recent news on this, see
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-23-voa2.cfm
As before, the article is available for readers who wish to draw their own conclusions, so I won't cherry pick excerpts from it.
October 23, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink