A Plan for Afghanistan

Caroline Wadhams and Lawrence Korb say all's not lost (yet) in Afghanistan and propose a variety of steps the U.S. should take before we totally blow it there.

Comments

I hope the Atlantic's servers are up to snuff. You've been given the coveted Ann Althouse-o-lanch!

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/10/have-you-heard-rumor-about-mickey-kaus.html

The story is starting to spread even in the wing-nut-o-sphere.

By the way, have you seen my recent video with Ann and Carmela Hayersprai? http://www.cro-xp.org/tuning-video/video/dNnjmHGKTx8/Blabbingheads

Posted by Terrence Baga-Ruta | October 15, 2007 12:10 PM

The senior leaders of the Marine Corp obviously do not think that Afghanistan is lost or they would not be proposing that we turn Iraq over to the army and Afghanistan to the Marines. I bet they think prospects for success are better in Afghanistan then Iraq.

Posted by spencer | October 15, 2007 2:35 PM

Total bullshit. Here's why, point by point:

"The United States must achieve two objectives in Afghanistan:

1. Deny sanctuary to Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
2. Build a stable secure nation that is not threatened by internal conflict."

Next to impossible to begin with. Continue.

"This mission can succeed."

Nope.

"Afghanistan is not Iraq. Here’s why:"

Comparisons to Iraq are irrelevant in any case.

"a) Afghanistan has a legitimate government that is representative of its people. The majority of Afghan citizens are still supportive of Afghan President Karzai’s leadership."

Yeah - and the warlords and the Taliban do not. What the common poor slob on the street wants doesn't matter if he doesn't have any guns or organization.

"b) The United States is not alone in Afghanistan. The United Nations and NATO-ISAF (made up of 37 countries) contributes to the mission. The International Security Assistance Force provides almost half of the troops to the mission."

Irrelevant - not to mention that half of the NATO forces either think the US forces suck in their methods, or are so strapped they don't want to contribute any more forces than they have.

"c) The Afghan security forces are loyal to the Afghan government and not to a specific sectarian group, and sectarian strife is not dividing the country."

What are Pashtuns against Northern Alliance but "sectarian strife"? Okay, it ain't Shia vs Sunni, but there's not a big difference on the ground.

And the Afghan security forces aren't capable of dealing with the situation, or the NATO Alliance wouldn't be there, right?

So what's your point here?

"d) Polling of the Afghan people shows support for an international troop presence and little support for the Taliban."

Again, the people aren't relevant. They also don't like the US bombing them and shooting them at random like we do in Iraq. THAT'S an Iraq comparison that works.

"Violence has returned to 2001 levels and opium production is up."

Yup.

"More than 750 civilians have been killed in 2007 alone."

Note: Many by US military action.

"The following measures should be taken:

Increase international troop levels and equipment.

* Increase international troop levels by 20,000 and provide additional equipment. The United States should redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, and NATO member countries should provide additional troops without caveats. These should include Special Forces, as well as translators, trainers, and civilian affairs forces and be backed up with sufficient equipment and airlift."

Worthless. More troops will do nothing but slow the eventual defeat. Not to mention, as I did above, that many of the NATO countries are not happy that as many of their troops are there as there are.

"Focus on reducing civilian casualties, and improve the international community’s response when they tragically occur."

How do you reduce civilian casualties when you are using air power to fight an insurgency? You go in on the ground and take higher force casualties, that's how. Few NATA countries - or the US military - are willing to do this. The US does not do it in Iraq, and they will not do it in Afghanistan. It's that simple.

And apologizing for killing civilians afterward does absolutely NOTHING to help civilian anger.

"Provide greater oversight and training for the Afghan National Army, or ANA, and increase ANA’s salaries."

Couldn't hurt - but probably wouldn't seriously help.

"Unify NATO’s International Security Assistance Force and the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom under one NATO command."

As long as it's not the US commanding, that might help.

"Augment reconstruction assistance and support a Special Inspector General."

Whatever.

"Support the creation of a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, to provide needed oversight over U.S. funds."

Whatever. Not really relevant to the conflict per se.

"Improve reconstruction coordination among the Afghan government and the international community while placing the Afghan government in the lead."

Ditto.

"Increase assistance for reconstruction and development projects by at least $1 billion, including a focus on projects that create local employment opportunities."

A lousy one billion more? What's the point? Afghanistan would need tens of billions to get even up to the level of Iraq.

"Improve Provincial Reconstruction Teams by improving coordination and adding more civilians."

More civilians means more targets for the Taliban - which means more troops to protect them.

"Change U.S. counternarcotics strategy."

Yeah - get the CIA out of the business...

"Better coordinate U.S. counternarcotics strategy with the Afghan government and the international community and embed counternarcotics within the larger plan to bolster governance and combat the insurgency."

Buzzwords.

"Take aerial eradication off the table for now. Make clear that traffickers, not farmers, are the problem."

Definitely would be better.

"Target higher-end actors in the drug trade through prosecuting key drug leaders and increasing interdiction."

In other words, take on the people who are supporting the central government...including members OF the central government. Yeah, that will fly...

"Increase Alternative Livelihood Programs in all provinces and commit to assisting with these programs for the long-term."

Might help. Depends on what the warlords are demanding the people do in their territories.

"Address the insurgency’s safe haven in Pakistan."

Here's where these people are truly clueless.

"Pressure Musharraf to conduct more intelligence collection in the border areas of Pakistan and crack down on Al Qaeda and Taliban’s sanctuaries."

Read my lips: Neither Musharraf nor Bhutto have a snowball's chance in hell of ever controlling the Territories. In fact, given the increasing organization of jihadists in the Territories, they may have trouble staying alive and keeping the government intact over the next ten years.

"Alter U.S. assistance to Pakistan through increasing transparency around its use and steering aid away from conventional military expenditures (such as advanced combat aircraft) toward counterterrorism assistance and economic development. Allocate more funding to education and youth projects, such as exchange programs."

That would be good - but mostly irrelevant to the bottom line problem. In any event, you're looking at decades for this stuff to have an impact - and at any moment it could be wasted if the Pakistani government does something that muddies the waters.

"Increase support for greater regional diplomacy among the governments of India, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. "

Right - the US is going to help Iran get along with Afghanistan. Email me when this happens.

"Support the creation of a judicial sector strategy for addressing the absence of the rule of law in Afghanistan."

In other words, figure out how to get rid of the warlords. Email me when this happens.

"Address corruption through the development of a national anti-corruption strategy and increased vetting of senior officials."

Ditto.

"Increase rule of law through the reform of the Ministry of Interior and the Afghan National Police. Afghan National Police salaries should also be raised."

Raised higher than what the warlords can pay? Really?

"Create pockets of competence within the Afghan government through more training of individuals within the government."

Whatever.

As you can see, the entire approach - while eminently "reasonable" - has little to no chance of success, primarily for two reasons:

1) Corruption is the norm in Afghanistan. Always has been, always will be. Until you get rid of the warlords, who have the weapons, the manpower, and the organizations, nothing can be done. Getting rid of the warlords would essentially entail initiating a civil war similar to Iraq.

2) Ditto for Pakistan, which is where the Taliban and Al Qaeda are. The Pakistanis cannot control the Territories where these groups are. Therefore it is pointless to talk about winning against the Taliban OR Al Qaeda by relying on Pakistan - and equally pointless to talk about going around the Pakistan government and engaging in direct US military attacks on these areas.

Bottom line: there IS NO solution to Afghanistan, just as there is no solution ot Iraq.

The proper strategy is to pull out, then deal with Al Qaeda by cutting off its tentacles outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and by adjusting US policy to render Al Qaeda less interested in attacking the US. As for the Taliban they were never of significance except for their harboring of Al Qaeda. So who cares if they get back in power in Afghanistan? That's the Afghan's problem, not the West's.

As for the US Marines, they have no more clue about this than anybody else in the US government. We had to ship a bunch of them out-country because they shot up some Afghan civilians for no good reason. They just think they can "win" in Afghanistan because they think they're fighting fewer enemies there. It's stupid and simplistic.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 15, 2007 6:20 PM