Oct 9, 2010

The Longest War

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road."
"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations"
~ George W. Bush, during the 2000 presidential campaign
Americans recognize a grim anniversary this month as the war that began in Afghanistan in October 2001 becomes the longest war in our history.  (Depending on who's counting; the Vietnam war arguably started with the authorization of conventional forces to fight North Vietnam in 1964, and withdrawal about nine years later.)

It's difficult to say whether or not the originally-stated goals of the invasion have been met.  But it seems to me that whether we failed or succeeded, the mission is over.  If 30,000 conventional U.S. troops and special forces haven't bumped into a 6-foot 6-inch man (taller, if you include the turban) attached to two kidney dialysis machines after nine years, they aren't going to find him in another nine years.

Some argue that we have to keep troops in Afghanistan until the Taliban are defeated.  I disagree, for four reasons: 

(1) The Taliban no longer pose any plausible threat to us.  According to a de-classified report, the Taliban view Al-Qaeda as a "handicap".  They have no plans to attack Americans outside of Afghanistan. 

(2)  There is no military solution to the Taliban.  The Afghan leadership realizes this, and so do our own generals.  Since 2007 the military has admitted the insurgency is winning.  The de-classified report says they can sustain themselves "indefinitely".  We simply cannot kill everyone living in Afghanistan who subscribes to fundamentalist Islam or hates foreign occupation.  Nor do we have any right to try.  American violence has proved as likely to kill the people we are "protecting", and boost recruitment for the insurgency, as anything else.  One U.S. officer said to his troops, referring to shootings by convoys and checkpoints: "There are stories after stories about how these people are turned into insurgents”.  Gen. McChrystal said: “We have shot an amazing number of people [this year], but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat.”

(3) The report I cited notes that the Taliban's main focus is to be part of a legitimate government; to win the population by providing security and protection.  Their "main effort" is not violence but an information campaign.  So the "grand peace jirga" proposed by President Karzai really could result in a peaceful compromise.  Perhaps Taliban regions will get some autonomy from the central government in Kabul.  As Sec. of State Clinton said, "You don't make peace with your friends".

(4) The cost, in dollars and blood.  Enough said.

President Obama said he intends to begin withdrawing combat forces in 2011, but his actions, and the consensus of the American and British establishment, cast doubt on this promise.  Since taking office, Obama has escalated the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to nearly 100,000 and continued the construction of massive, permanent bases all over the country. 

Why do both political parties favor continuing the war in Afghanistan?  What are we doing over there?

I think the reasons are pretty openly stated.  Two of the five goals of U.S. policy in Central Asia, according to State Department testimony to Congress, are "to increase the development and diversification of the region’s energy resources and supply routes", and "to foster competitive market economies".

What is meant by "diversification"?  The State Dept. official is not using the word in the ordinary sense, since it is U.S. policy to discourage pipelines through Russia or our "energy competitor" Iran, even though such natural arrangements would diversify the region's supply routes.  In this context, "diversification" means less control by the regional governments sitting on top of the resources, and greater control by foreign governments and businesses friendly to the U.S.

Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, said in April 2006:
"Energy: as you know, we have worked long and hard on various pipelines from Central Asia ... we are working with international financial institutions, working with U.S. investors ...  we are working with the Central Asian nations and Afghanistan to lower regional trade and investment barriers."
Again, this official is using highly technical language.  By "lower barriers", he means lower barriers for us; but we want to raise barriers for people we don't like (the Russians, the Iranians).

The Afghanistan war, then, is like the younger Iraq war, of which Alan Greenspan said:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
It's instructive to consider the fact -- at least in my reading of history -- that industrialized empires tend to lie to themselves in order to justify their power-plays.  Japan insisted its invasion of China was in order to protect thousands of Japanese citizens from instability.  Britain's greatest intellectuals talked of bringing civilization, order, and enlightenment to India, even though everyone today knows perfectly well India was dominated to secure markets for the Empire.  Today, Americans can swallow the idea that our military occupation of Afghanistan is to protect women from Islamists, even though these self-sacrificing motivations appear nowhere in our government's stated policies, outside the rhetoric of politicians and magazines stirring up public opinion.

So, in a sense, this is the same war to ensure access to resources, markets, trade routes, and cheap labor that has been fought by the U.S. for centuries, and by every great power for millenia.  This is not just the longest war in American history.  This is the longest war in human history.