There are innumerable opinions and analysis available on President Obama’s strategy going forward in Afghanistan. This is another; one that takes into account realities no one else is talking about. For one, that Vice President Joe Biden’s influence and expertise greatly influenced President Obama to take a more modest approach, for which everyone should be thankful. (So could a hit piece be far behind?) Biden’s criticism of Bush’s “Musharaff policy” came at a moment when few had the courage to offer it. Biden is the anti Cheney on foreign policy, but particularly military interventionism. So using Biden as a backdrop, what does Obama’s Afghanistan strategy mean and is it something deserving of support?
“Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.” – President Barack Obama
Tom Ricks asks “is this it?” But it’s important to note that Mr. Ricks, as experienced a reporter as you’re going to find on Iraq, believes Obama will be forced to a different exit plan in that country, having to keep more troops there than has previously been discussed, because the worst in Iraq is yet to come, according to Ricks. So he doesn’t see Afghanistan getting what’s needed and being talked about today. He’s focused somewhere else. Ricks has a question on Pakistan: Finally, what about the Pakistani military? The saying is that most countries have militaries, while in Pakistan the military has a country.
Analysis: It’s not a small thing to say that we have little or no options when it comes to Pakistan’s military influence at this point. The only hope Obama has is adjusting aid to Pakistan with conditions and benchmarks, but also making sure that the billions given goes to institutional and societal shoring up. Obama emphasizing the Kerry-Lugar bill, which “authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years — resources that will build schools and roads and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan’s democracy”, I’d contend, is saying something to the Pakistani military. The corruption angle inside Pakistan as the aid flow is, however, a daunting challenge, but that’s nothing new. See Iraq. (As an aside, the 82nd Airborne’s role alone should be reason enough to cheer.)
This brings me to a conference call that was held Friday hosted by the National Security Network (full audio here). Bullet points of the call:
1. Obama’s strategy moves outside and beyond Kabul.
2. While so many skeptics on Obama re-invigorating our Afghanistan policy stress the exit, Dobbins (former Special Envoy to Afghanistan and director of International Security at RAND) expressed appreciation for Obama not talking about leaving while he’s unveiling his strategy: Look at Haiti, Bosnia, said Dobbins, even Iraq. “Setting an end date is counterproductive.”
3. Dobbins and Their (director of the Future of Afghanistan Project at the United States Institute of Peace who just returned from the region) emphasized that Pakistan is now linked to Obama’s Afghanistan strategy. Their stating that Pakistan will no longer get a pass on aiding Afghan Taliban.
4. On Pakistan, Dobbins stated flatly that “Pakistan has been outed,” and they’re on the “international agenda” now.
5. India is now in the mix where Pakistan is concerned, a secondary reality in Obama’s Afghan strategy, obviously, with an understanding that for Pakistan India is a prime focus.
Analysis: Talk is cheap and this area of the world is a tough as it gets, which is why Ricks and many others are skeptical. The other reality is that as spring approaches, regardless of Obama’s strategy, Afghanistan is about to get bloody. Whether Americans are ready for this is a big question, especially considering our deep financial stressors that are anything but peripheral, is a real concern. Additionally, Dover policy on returning fallen soldiers could cause Obama problems. Presidents who are committed to action in foreign lands often lose public support quickly, which is a real danger for Obama in these economic times, but also with Mexico flaring.
Long War Journal’s analysis is very pessimistic, except when it comes to troop increase. But for those of you who don’t follow this blog, this is not unexpected analysis.
Analysis: On Pakistan, LWJ misses the point by a mile, while citing Lashkar-e-Taiba. Even as they mention Kerry-Lugar, LWJ completely ignores the new civil focus on aid. As for their analysis, the troop “surge” as they call it, though Gates does not, is the one bright spot they see, while they miss the importance of the central focus of Obama’s Afghanistan plan, which is a “civilian surge” that includes civil aid as well as focus beyond Kabul, to Pakistan, which comes with strings. Additionally, but predictably, Iran is seen as irrelevant, as their involvement before Bush put them in the “axis of evil” is unwisely written off.
This brings me to a story in the Times today: US and Iran open Afghanistan peace talks.
… Friday’s meeting was held under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a six-member regional security group including Russia, China and central Asian states, to discuss combating terrorism and drug trafficking in Afghanistan. Those present included Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary-general, the foreign ministers of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and senior British diplomats.
The US and Iranian officials spoke within minutes of each other. Akhundzadeh told delegates that narcotics represent a serious threat to the region and no country could fight the trade alone. He revealed that Iran seizes three tons of opium on its border every day.
The United States and Iran have not had full diplomatic ties for almost three decades. “We see this as a very productive area for engagement in the future,” said an American official after the meeting. [...]
Analysis: If the report in the Times is correct, this is the smartest way to begin our dialogue with Iran; using an issue of mutual interest and shared concern as a means to open up conversations that were closed under Bush-Cheney. It also is on a separate track from Middle East policy, not a minor strategy. A testing of the possible beginning at a shared point of great concern, Afghanistan. Nothing focuses the mind like mutual interests founded in preventing potentially catastrophic consequences. That Iran also has influences in Pakistan shouldn’t be ignored, though trust is a long way away.
The Washington Post has brought together several analysts of varied opinions. From Bacevich:
… Ask yourself: When it comes to American prosperity and security, which matters more — Afghanistan or Mexico? The question answers itself. So if the United States has billions of dollars lying idle that it wishes to invest in development and security assistance, why prioritize Afghanistan?
Analysis: This falls in line with what Col. Macgregor said at Cato, when he emphasized that the Caribbean basin is the most important area to America’s safety, with homeland security a more pressing challenge than the Af-Pak region. That is taking the long view, which is of great importance, no doubt. However, I find it impossible to view any arena of the world more pressing than Afghanistan, Pakistan, and by extension, India, with the Kashmir issue absolutely critical to be addressed and may go a long way to helping us inside Pakistan.
Abu Muqawama, with the comments also a must read. Katulis on this one: There are several must-read blogs out there – the COIN nerds have some interesting insights, but let’s face it, their musings tend to be a bit blinkered by self-referential navel gazing with an overemphasis on the U.S. military and what U.S. boots on the ground do.
This leads me to the cable talking heads, especially Mr. Matthews, who seem wrapped up in Halberstam’s “best and brightest” foreshadowing, seeing Democratic Vietnam escalation at every turn in Afghanistan. Like many of the critics on Afghanistan the concern for Obama owning Afghanistan is their paramount worry, wondering if it will become…. well, you know the drill. Talking about 9/11 as the reason we initially invaded Afghanistan, while sloughing off what happened to that country when Bush turned to preemption in Iraq.
In the final analysis what everyone seems to want is certainty. Good luck with that, because Obama’s strategy in the Af-Pak region offers anything but certainty. That’s what happens when you make war. As Amb. Dobbins said in the NSN call, leaving isn’t the issue right now and an exit strategy on the openings of a new strategy is “counterproductive.”
Bottom line: There is no exit from undeclared wars, no armistice, nothing, which we have yet to learn, so war remains too expensive on all fronts. You simply have to stop.
So to those critics of Obama’s strategy, regardless of details, there is only one question left to ask. What is the alternative to what we’re about to do and what outcome would we leave in our wake if our involvement simply ended, especially for the women, on whom any stable nation depends?
