On Distractions

I think Kevin Drum's being too kind to Fred Kagan here (and really "too kind" is not a difficult bar to pass when you're talking about Kagan), in semi-endorsing Kagan's argument that Iraq can't be a distraction from the "real" war on terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan because nobody wants to mount a huge invasion of Pakistan. That's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't really go all that far. For one thing, the "Afghanistan" side of "Pakistan and Afghanistan" is a place where there's a role for an increased U.S. troop presence, both directly and as a signifier to our NATO allies that we're actually taking this seriously and they ought to take it seriously, too.

But beyond that, the large American deployment in Iraq involves more than just the 100+ soldiers who are there -- consider our foreign language, diplomatic, and human intelligence resources. All of those things are in shorter supply than are soldiers per se, and all could be useful in Pakistan without any talk of an invasion. And perhaps most of all there's the question of high-level attention. From the President on down, there are a lot of busy people in the military, diplomatic, and intelligence chains of command and at the top level of the interagency process and having them make Iraq their own top priority, and a top priority on the agenda of every international meeting has real costs.

So, yes, it's true that I don't have a brilliant off-the-shelf "let's eliminate al-Qaeda in Pakistan in twelve easy steps" scheme, but it's still the case that everything we try to do there is made more difficult by the scope of our commitments in Iraq.

Comments

I learned from the hearings yesterday that our entire cumulative foreign aid expenditures in Afghanistan equal just three weeks of Iraq war.

Posted by bob h | April 9, 2008 9:14 AM

Well, the language skill needed in Iraq is Arabic. That's of some use on the Pakistan/Afghanistan front, certainly, but from what I can tell, Pashtun and Uzbek are really the key ones these days.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | April 9, 2008 9:24 AM

1) Mao noted that insurgents are fishes swimming in a sea of supportive people. If you want to separate out an elusive enemy from the people among whom he is hiding, then you need the cooperation and support of the people. Any man on the street can pick up a phone and tell you where an Al Qaeda leader is hiding. You need to convince him to make that call.

2) You don't do that by giving Al Jazeera and the Middle Eastern news media constant examples that you are a vicious, murderous, hostile predator similar to the Nazis. The British developed much of modern terrorist tradecraft to deal with someone like Bush/Cheney.

Posted by Don Williams | April 9, 2008 9:25 AM

not having a comprehensive plan to solve a problem is a good reason to devote fewer resources to that problem than if you did have a plan; i agree, who wouldn't?

given that, WTF are we doing in Iraq ?

Posted by cleek | April 9, 2008 9:28 AM

Don W. took most of what I clinked in to say.

There are of course other ways to distract or diminish such an effort. I am thinking of the willingness and ablitiy of the American people to engage in other international actions no matter how worthy they might be.

Given the current status of our military and intelligence personnel and capital, I find it hard to imagine that the needs of Iraq and the needs of Afghanistan are not part of a zero-sum game.

Posted by Keith G | April 9, 2008 9:52 AM

Its a said state of affairs that you have to constantly point this out, Matt, but without a chorus of voices no one will listen. Keep it up!

Posted by Adrock | April 9, 2008 10:09 AM

Ugh, "said" should be "sad."

Posted by Adrock | April 9, 2008 10:13 AM

Given that all the "busy people in the military, diplomatic, and intelligence chains of command and at the top level of the interagency process" are making such a clusterfuck of Iraq, perhaps its for the best that they are nowhere near Pakistan/Afghanistan. Sure Afghanistan is a mess, but there must be a risk that the best the brightest brains of the US Military/Foreign Service/ Intelligence agencies would do is turn Afghanistan into an even bigger mess.........

Posted by Andy | April 9, 2008 10:22 AM

There's a joke about a man who is searching for around on the ground under a streetlight for a lost ten dollar bill who explains to an inquirer that he lost the bill down the street, but that the light is better here. I always thought of that as a dumb Borscht belt joke. Now, via Kagan, I see that it is the principle of Bush's foreign policy.

I do wonder sometimes if the right is as miserably dumb as it seems to be. Is this a giant act? One assumes that the leadership is just cynical, manipulating the latent racism, sexism and fear out there in their deadend constituency - but by now they've worn me down. They actually believe this stuff.

Posted by roger | April 9, 2008 10:24 AM

You don't do that by giving Al Jazeera and the Middle Eastern news media constant examples that you are a vicious, murderous, hostile predator similar to the Nazis. Posted by Don Williams

Then you might favor targeted assassination of the Sulzbergers and other Leftists owning the US media that launched the anti-American propaganda that was atypical or false?
The Brits hanged Lord Haw Haw.
If "Pitch" Sulzberger was hanging by a rope, perhaps less anti-Americans would be willing to give Al Jazeera and the Middle Eastern news media constant false examples that you are a vicious, murderous, hostile predator similar to the Nazis.

Posted by chris ford | April 9, 2008 10:31 AM

Well, the language skill needed in Iraq is Arabic. That's of some use on the Pakistan/Afghanistan front, certainly, but from what I can tell, Pashtun and Uzbek are really the key ones these days.

But generally the people we're hunting in al Qaeda are Arabs and hence Arabic speakers. They just happen to be hiding out in Pashtun and Uzbek speaking areas, and most of them don't know Pashtun or Uzbek either and so don't communicate in those languages. To listen in on al Qaeda communications we need to know Arabic.

Posted by Stefan | April 9, 2008 10:58 AM

Re chris ford's comment "Then you might favor targeted assassination of the Sulzbergers and other Leftists owning the US media that launched the anti-American propaganda that was atypical or false?"
--------------
1) The "New York Times propaganda" that I REMEMBER is all those Judith Miller WMD stories that helped George W Bush lie us into Iraq.

2) If we accepted Chris Ford's policy of executing those who put out false propaganda that
hurts America, then --in my opinion -- most of the right wing movement would be swinging from ropes.

3) I doubt that it was US news media stories of Iraqi deaths that influenced the Middle Eastern people -- they are on the scene and damm well know what's happening.

When Bin Laden said one of the three reasons for attacking America was the deaths of 600,000 children in Iraq from waterborne pandemics due to sanctions, that news was covered up here in the USA after 911 but is well known in the Middle East.

4) Anyone who does the slightest research --or reads the news of our European and British allies -- knows that the US News Media Corporations are far more akin to Goebbals than to Lord Haw Haw.

Posted by Don Williams | April 9, 2008 11:22 AM

I'm certainly in favor of using any stick available to hit the Bush administration on the head with, but I have to agree with Andy above. I don't know what Afghanistan's and Pakistan's most pressing need is right now, but I'm pretty sure it's not guns and armies. Having spent several months travelling in that area, I had the distinct impression that the locals were totally disinterested in the West - unlike more cosmopolitan groups like Al Qaeda. Beating up tribes and the taliban serves no cause whatsoever: they're not dangerous to the West and won't become so, unless one wedding party too many is bombed to smithereens.

So withdraw from Iraq by all means, but not in order to waste the "blood and treasure" in Kandahar or Rawalpindi.

Posted by Hans B | April 9, 2008 5:24 PM