The Forgotten War

Rep. Ike Skelton's office sent me this smart statement on Afghanistan the other day:

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the House Armed Services Committee today that ‘In Afghanistan, we do what we can; in Iraq, we do what we must.’

This striking statement highlights the strain Iraq is placing on our force and how this affects our ability to achieve strategic victory in Afghanistan, the primary front of the fight against Islamic extremism. I find it troubling that our ongoing commitment in Iraq prevents us from dedicating resources in Afghanistan beyond what is necessary to prevent setbacks, as opposed to what is required to realize success.

I have often said that Afghanistan seems like the forgotten war. I was assured by our witnesses today that the war in Afghanistan isn’t forgotten, but it’s clear that the stress on our military elsewhere has limited our ability to succeed in Afghanistan and has taken our attention away from this critical operation.

All true. The Iraq debate often proceeds as if Iraq just exists in a universe all its own, hermetically sealed off from events inside the United States and around the world. Thus, while the specific structure of the Iraq debate whirls this way and that with the course of events, the basic thrust is that we always need to try one more thing or just wait a few more months and hope something better's around the corner. In the real world, though, this endless patience with Iraq has real costs. I liked Matt Stoller's observation that there's something odd about this: "After going over thirty pages of polling data at Polling Report on Iraq, I noticed that the lines of questioning are mostly organized around military tactics and strategy - are we winning, should we pull out troops, is Bush doing a good job.

Comments

Afghanistan, the primary front of the fight against Islamic extremism.

A shaky premise at best.

Posted by JA | December 13, 2007 12:41 PM

Afghanistan, the primary front of the fight against Islamic extremism.
A shaky premise at best.
Posted by JA | December 13, 2007 12:41 PM

What makes you say that?
I mean maybe there are no fronts, maybe the monitoring of imams in America is equally as important, but the Taliban is extreme and it is Islamist and it does want to re conquer afgahnistan by force, hence the term 'war', so...

Posted by Northern Observer | December 13, 2007 2:12 PM

Confusion squared. The Taliban did not fly jetliners into the WTC. What they want to do in Afghanistan is arguably no business of ours. You can't worry about every ant in the forest.

Posted by serial catowner | December 13, 2007 3:09 PM

In November and December of last year, I frequently posted comments in blogland saying that the first two things the Dems needed to hold hearings on were (a) post-Katrina reconstruction (to illuminate the extent of the Bushies' unique combination of incompetence and mendacity), and (b) Afghanistan (to remind people, before we got around to Iraq hearings, of what the Iraq war was costing us in Afghanistan).

I didn't get either wish, unfortunately.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 13, 2007 3:36 PM

Northern Observer, you could say the same thing about Somalia, Chechnya, and the Philippines. What distinguished Afghanistan was Al'Qaeda using it as host and launch-pad.

To be clear, Afghanistan is a front against a broadly defined war against Islamic extremism. But in the war against Islamic terrorism against America, which is the only war I care about, the Near East -- which includes Iraq -- is by far the most significant front.

Posted by JA | December 13, 2007 4:56 PM

serial catowner says: Confusion squared. The Taliban did not fly jetliners into the WTC. What they want to do in Afghanistan is arguably no business of ours. You can't worry about every ant in the forest.

Up until sometime in 2006, my counterargument would have been that the Taliban hosted AQ, which did fly jetliners into the WTC, and would be likely to do so again if they regained control of Afghanistan.

Since it's become clear that Pakistan's military isn't willing to uproot AQ from the tribal areas of its Waziristan provinces, I'm not sure that matters any more.

However, I disagree with JA when he says that it's a shaky premise that Afghanistan is the central front in our war against Islamic extremism. That's because IMHO it's our only front in that war. (Possibly excepting our support of Musharraf in Pakistan, I guess, but that's shaky.) All sides in the civil war in the Arab-dominated portions of Iraq are Islamic extremists, just of different sorts, so we're not fighting Islamic extremism in Iraq in any meaningful sense.

Also, none of the Islamic extremists in Iraq show any propensity for crossing the oceans and attacking us at home: they want to control their homeland, and given the kaleidoscopic nature of the Iraqi civil war, that struggle should keep them busy for generations without our involvement.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 13, 2007 5:10 PM

serial catowner | December 13, 2007 3:09 PM

Arguably. But wasn't Al Quaeda their best buddy roomates? Aren't they still hanging together over the border in Pakistan? America can be nosy but if there was a patch or real estate it was justified on this is it. And it ain't about just the USA anymore, frikken NATO is there, that raises the stakes considerably. And it's not like we're demanding unconditional surrender, Gordon Brown reached out to the talibs that are willing to live in peace with Kabul just yesterday. If I sincerely believed that not being there would help all parties then sure, frak em, let them stew in their hell hole, but the hell hole reached out and got our attention. You can't go back and forget about it.

JA,
Saddam Hussein looks damn good right about now. Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reason. But now that it's been blown up real good leaving ain't so easy. But America will have to leave sooner rather than later, if only for budget reasons. Everything the commanders on the ground are doing is predicated on leaving.

Posted by Northern Observer | December 13, 2007 5:17 PM

The problem is that the fact that Al Qaeda was in some sense "safe harbored" in Afghanistan makes Afghanistan and the Taliban irrelevant then and irrelevant now.

Then, because the Taliban were considering handing over bin Laden if Bush could provide any evidence he was involved. Bush couldn't and he wanted to invade for PR reasons, so he did.

Now, because Al Qaeda isn't in Afghanistan, it's in Pakistan, and it's not going to be run out of Pakistan, most likely. So the Afghan war is pointless.

With Brown calling for discussions with the Taliban, which is a major break with the US, the end game there is coming closer. The Taliban will eventually get back into power - to some degree at least - in Afghanistan, so trying to keep them out is a complete waste of time.

Attacking Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda was a stupid concept from day one. Al Qaeda could have have been dealt with in a much less expensive manner.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 13, 2007 5:21 PM

"Saddam Hussein looks damn good right now" because he's dead. If he was still in power, he'd most likely be carrying on his long-standing and irrefutably documented drive to dominate the crucial Persian Gulf region, in part by engaging in a nuclear arms race with Iran and Saudi Arabia.

States matter. We invaded Afghanistan because it was in the process of becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Al Qaeda. This is no longer the case, and helping this traditionally hostile and backward basketcase nation achieve some stability and development is a fine job for our NATO allies. Anyone who's serious about this should start with declaring an armistace in the "war on drugs", which by attempting to shift responsibility of drug abuse from people in rich countries making bad choices, to dirt-poor Third World farmers, is the cause of civil wars around the world and the leading source of support for enemies of friends like Hamid Karzai.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 14, 2007 6:27 AM

Powell, could you, like, trip and fall down a flight of stairs for us?

If Saddam were alive right now, he'd be doing the same local crap he did before - except he wouldn't be developing any nukes since the IAEA would have a monitoring program in place to prevent that after having cleared him of having any in 2003.

So nobody would care what he did.

And Afghanistan was not being "owned by Al Qaeda". In fact, Pakistan isn't being "owned by Al Qaeda" now. It's being "owned" by the Pashtun who have owned those hills for the last X thousand years, probably.

You are, amazingly, correct that the "war on drugs" is stupid. I'm guessing you threw a dart at a board to get that one right, yes?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 14, 2007 7:06 AM

More hilarious Nostradamus impersonations from the Amazing Hack. For some actual data on what Saddam would be doing right now, check the huge deals signed just before the invasion with Total/FINA/ELF and Rosneft. The sanctions were collapsing, and it was soon to be business as usual, which business was beavering away at wmd's with a view to dominating the region which is the effective fulcrum of the world economy. The idea that all would have been saved by the IAEA is too silly for words, especially coming from the corner that doesn't think sixteen violated Chapter VII SC Resolutions important. Only such idiots would continue to be unconcerned about "what he did".

And please, keep the fact that you recognize the "war on drugs" to be counterproductive to yourself. Support from your ilk for any policy change only makes it more difficult to achieve.

Posted by robert powell | December 15, 2007 6:36 AM