"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 campaignAmericans 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.
Welcome Freyguy. It’s good to have you back. Okay, enough pleasantries.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think the Taliban, per se, ever posed a threat to the US. From my point of view the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were both aimed at crippling the enablers of war and terrorism. In terms of what to do after removing the evil doers (yes, George got that right) that is a dilemma. One of the oft repeated refrains from the Left is that we helped the Afghans drive out the Soviets and then abandoned them and the Taliban filled the void. Bad US, bad. But do something and you are interfering with their internal affairs. The Left loves writing history from the rearview mirror of ideology in a way that whatever action the US takes, it’s wrong. No wonder Michelle Obama was never proud of her country.
There was no military solution to Iraq either until there was; and the war was lost, until it wasn’t. But you may be right about Afghanistan. Our military is in a tough predicament. The Novice in Chief has identified victory to mean getting out as soon as possible without being accused of losing the war and he has set a timetable. It’s stupid beyond stupid to announce a timetable if you don’t really mean it. And frankly it’s not too bright even if you do.
Both parties supported the war in Afghanistan, but to be fair the majority of Democrats oppose it now, even if the Democratic president supports it, kind of. It was the ‘good war’ until it wasn’t. It’s like being for something before you were against it.
War is expensive and seriously, I too object to the US being responsible for fighting everyone else’s wars (for instance Yugoslavia). On the other hand, if there were more democracies out there, war might actually start to go away. But I think I have a solution. We know that this administration likes new tax ideas. Maybe we could tax the other countries in lei of begging them to contribute militarily. And since we would then need more US soldiers maybe it could be considered a jobs program.
I am not certain about the longest war in American and human history, but the Hundred Years War (116 years) had three distinct conflicts within it that lasted longer than the war in Afghanistan. And the Korean War (police action) is technically still going after 60 years.
Another thing, it isn’t that we don’t like Russia and Iran. These are countries with nuclear weapons (or ambitions to obtain them) that are hostile to the core values of the West. They are not ‘live and let live’ kind of guys. They are brutal regimes with territorial ambitions that extend well beyond their borders. As such they pose an existential threat. Not wanting to put ourselves or our allies at their tender mercy seems like a good idea.
Finally I find your reading of history off-putting. To me it seems similar to the world view that saddened me years back when many of my fellow college students saw the Soviet Union as the moral equivalent of the US, but with a different philosophy/economic system. In fact the Soviet Union was truly an “evil empire” (yes, Ronnie got that right). Likewise the Empire of Japan did not delude itself (and it cared nothing about what its people thought) about raping China. Protecting Japanese citizens was a pretext to justify their ruthless subjugation of what they considered to be a subhuman race. The British, on the other hand, may or may not have deluded themselves about India although missionaries had similar world views and their intensions were (usually) honorable. As for the US, yes many times our actions seem ill considered or turn out to be wrong. But I hope that, even with your arguments, you can embrace American exceptionalism. It is a powerful and I think necessary force for good in the world even if our own president cannot bring himself to acknowledge it and even if Spell Check does not recognize it as a word.
Hey Fred! Great to hear from you. Thanks for your reply, you raise many excellent points.
ReplyDeleteLet's suppose that you are right that the war in Afghanistan was aimed at "crippling the enablers of war and terrorism". I think the point I made in paragraph # 2 still stands: nine years and several thousand casualties later, we have either succeeded or we have failed to do this. Either way, the mission is over.
Even if we are worried that Al Qaeda or the Taliban remain, my (perhaps naive) feeling is we should withdraw our troops and let any "enablers of terrorism" come out into the open; take away their most effective weapon, the IED. If they pose a real threat to us we'll bomb their asses back into the stone age, and the battle will be a conventional war on our terms, as it was in 2001-2002, instead of a guerrilla war being fought on their terms.
I suspect that the U.S. does not favor this approach because it would mean relinquishing control of Afghanistan's strategic energy supply routes. This is a mode of thinking that I am inclined to oppose. I do not believe anyone has the right to control, or that anyone even has a well thought-out selfish interest in controlling, foreign resources by coercion.
The surge in Iraq is a moot point because there's no indication the factors which conspired to help it "succeed" in Iraq exist in Afghanistan. However, it's worth considering that among intelligence and military experts, there is controversy and debate about which factors reduced the violence in Iraq, and to what extent this can be called "success".
In terms of U.S. casualties, the violence would clearly have been reduced more by withdrawal than by a troop surge. In terms of greater Iraqi and regional responsibility for the mess, again, this is what was expected from U.S. withdrawal anyway. In terms of Iraqi casualties, before and during the surge, Shiite death squads succeeded in their brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Sunnis. When one side wins and the other side is exterminated, violence goes down. But this was precisely the outcome we hoped to avoid by increasing troops instead of withdrawing them. Now that we have what many American advisors call "little Saddams" in the Iraqi army, there is a return to less sectarian violence, as there was when the entire country was controlled by one "big" Saddam. To call the reduction in violence in Iraq a success of the surge alone, or even to call the failed state of factions and warlords in Iraq a "success", therefore, is misleading.
On the surge in Iraq, see for example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/07/AR2008090701847.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/02/05/DI2009020502774.html
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63398/steven-simon/the-price-of-the-surge
-Freyguy
Fred,
ReplyDeleteI agree that "if there were more democracies out there, war might actually start to go away". However, I disagree that religious fanatics can be made to embrace democracy by violent means, or that we have the right to use such means. Bob Woodward has alluded to the assassination squads which summarily executed suspected insurgents in Iraq. The press has amply covered the predator drones which we have used to kill Al Qaeda members, along with their wives and children, across the Pakistan border. I don't think democracy is accomplished by executions without trial and covert wars carried out without popular/local consent or oversight.
I didn't mean to say that the Afghanistan war itself is the longest war in history. I meant that the "war to ensure access to resources..." is the longest war in history and Afghanistan seems to be part of that same war.
While no sane observer is a fan of the regimes in Russia or Iran, I disagree with the implication that we need to teach the world how to contain their territorial ambitions by expanding our own territorial ambitions. Russia's nine-year war in Afghanistan already taught them a lesson about meddling there; I don't think they've learned anything new from our nine-year expedition. As for Iran, I'm not aware that Iran has engaged in an offensive war of "territorial ambition" in the past century. Nor am I aware that Iran engaged in a proxy war with the U.S. until we surrounded them by deploying our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the Persian Gulf. Combine these "existential threats" as perceived by Iran with the threat posed by the Israeli nuclear arsenal, and it's not terribly surprising that the Dept. of Defense describes Iran's military strategy as "deterrant".
See for example: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=58833
-Freyguy
Fred,
ReplyDeleteThe Empire of Japan certainly deluded itself about raping China. This is a topic that I have found extremely interesting and educational.
It has to be admitted that there were indeed many Japanese citizens in Manchuria and Shanghai, and China was divided among factions and warlords. This is not to mention the Communists, who threatened Japanese businesses and private property.
Second, the Japanese political scientist and WWII veteran Masao Maruyama writes in "Thought and Behavior in Modern Japanese Politics" (1963):
"What our wartime leaders accomplished by their moralizing was not simply to deceive the people of Japan or of the world; more than anyone else they deceived themselves."
Maruyama quotes the commander-in-chief of the Japanese expeditionary force in Shanghai:
"The struggle between Japan and China was always a fight between brothers within the 'Aisian family' ... It has been my belief during all these years that we must regard this struggle as a method of making the Chinese undergo self-reflection. We do not do this because we hate them, but on the contrary because we love them too much."
Other Japanese generals and leaders speak of restoring "peace and order" and saving Japanese citizens from "annihilation" by the Chinese "bandits". The U.S. ambassador to Japan is quoted saying:
"The great majority of Japanese are astonishingly capable of really fooling themselves ... Such a mentality is a great deal harder to deal with than a mentality which, however brazen, knows that it is in the wrong."
As for American exceptionalism: Yes, I do believe we should hold ourselves to exceptional standards, and I expect Americans to rise to those standards. This means not resorting to violence except in self defense, and only after peaceful means have been exhausted. Our policy in Afghanistan, therefore, ought to conform to the standards of American exceptionalism.
-Freyguy
I guess the Grad Student feels that the “longest war” deserves the longest blog.
ReplyDeleteHowever, he got the threat part wrong. Neither the current president nor the last one said that the threat was the Taliban ruling parts of Afghanistan. Rather, the threat is the insurrection of extremist Muslims having a whole country, with a supportive government, from which to plan and launch murderous missions against innocents (as they have done). Further, it is the threat that these extremists move across the border into Pakistan, and rule or cooperate with that shaky government which has nuclear weapons.
The Iraq war being about oil is, simply…silly. There is no evidence that American oil companies or the American government benefitted by larger oil revenues or control of Iraqi oil reserves. Oil is a fungible commodity, traded worldwide. Without an increased ownership financial interest, which hasn’t happened, there is no benefit. Perhaps his new wife, with her degree in finance and economics, can explain that to him…if anyone can reason with a physics grad student. A reasonable goal of the Iraq war was to allow the establishment of a semi democratic, free enterprise society in a large Middle Eastern country. Democracy, coupled with free enterprise, creating a growing and more affluent society, is the best bulwark against state sponsored (or state allowed) terrorism and/or subjugation. Just look at Viet Nam, China, and South Korea as examples.
I agree with the Grad Student that the current president doesn’t seem to have any goal or strategy in Afghanistan. He just seems to be saying “we’ll fight for another year and then leave”. Why not start leaving now, then? Why give up any more lives for another year? What does he say will be different in a year? Same Generals, same wars, no strategy...is this “change we can believe in”? (oh, by the way, how’s that Gitmo closing going almost two years later?)
The Old Man
Old Man,
ReplyDeleteBut according to our top intelligence officials and the de-classified report I cited in my blog post, the Taliban are not plotting "murderous missions against innocents"; not in Afghanistan, and certainly not abroad. Here again is the report:
http://www.defensestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/isaf-state-of-the-insurgency-231000-dec.pdf
You mentioned the "shaky government" of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. According U.S. admiral Mike Mullen: "We can't deny that our success may only push them [the Taliban] deeper into Pakistan." But, he added: "Pakistan is further away from being totally destabilised than a lot of people realize."
There goes the "we need to stabilize Pakistan" argument.
Concerning oil and the Iraq war ... okay, oil is a fungible commodity. Just like wheat, gold, and silver. Yet countless wars have been fought throughout history either to control or to secure the flow of these resources. Alan Greenspan, chairman of the federal reserve from 1987 - 2006, cites contemporary examples of conflicts over the security of crude oil in his memoir "The Age of Turbulence":
"What do governments whose economies and citizens have become heavily dependent on imports of oil do when the flow becomes unreliable? The intense attention of the developed world to Middle Eastern political affairs has always been critically tied to oil security. The reaction to, and reversal of, Mossadeq's nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil in 1951 and the aborted effort of Britain and France to reverse Nasser's takeover of the key Suez Canal link for oil flows to Europe in 1956 are but two prominent historical examples. And whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensible for the functioning of the world economy.
I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
Vietnam, China, and South Korea are examples of development **without** the assistance of foreign occupation and violence.
No, Obama's policy in Afghanistan is not "change we can believe in", in my opinion, although it is basically what I expected based on what Obama said in his book and during the campaign.
Closing Gitmo is moving along in spite of efforts by hysterical Republicans and 'moderate' Democrats to block it. Frankly, I find it adorable when conservatives successfully block and oppose Obama's initiatives, and then pretend to be scandalized on behalf of liberals by the broken campaign promises they never supported in the first place.
-Freyguy
The quote from U.S. admiral Mike Mullen was from this article:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/22/us-troop-afghanistan-taliban-pakistan
-Freyguy
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteI love dichotomies. Yep, nine-years; we have succeeded or we haven't; let’s leave. But the reality is that war, like life and education, has no natural time limit. Liberals least of all should feel confident in their conclusions concerning a surge. Even as it became clear that the surge in Iraq was succeeding, Liberals insisted it was not. The ideological prism of the Left colors and distorts reality.
You keep coming back to energy as though a country, this country, never fights for principals. Get past that. The Left is maliciously wrong that we are solely driven by business and greed - which to them is redundant - because that is the default narrative. And I believe that’s the heart of the matter, the NARRATIVE, this difference in perspective that you and I have.
Some narratives are harmless. Some, like the popular narrative in the Muslim community that the US is out to destroy Islam, are not. Contained in this narrative is that the US (with the cooperation of the Mossad) purposely destroyed the Twin Towers as an excuse to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. As absurd as this narrative is it none-the-less has tremendous credence among Muslims throughout the world, even well educated Muslims. (And Western wackos like Rosie O’Donnell.)
I grew up with the narrative of Germans being a heartless people (The Holocaust). Yet Germany continues to come to grips with its role in crimes against humanity, seeking to make amends through reparations, building memorials to the victims and most importantly, teaching its children about its Nazi past. And Germans continue to excise their demons. This past Thursday a German commission put to rest a narrative of more than 65 years: that German diplomats actively resisted the Nazis. The commission found by and large the diplomats were fully complicit. Germany will always be a sore spot with me, but at least they are trying.
The Turks, Japanese, Chinese and Russians however, choose to not examine their narratives (myths) whether it’s genocide against the Armenians (Turkey), against the Chinese (Japan and then the Communist Chinese) or against the Ukrainians, Jews, Muslims and other enemies of the people (Russia). You are free to believe whatever Nippon nonsense you choose, but the Japanese believed (still believe?) they were the superior race as did the Germans. And a superior race is pretty much free to do whatever it chooses, including denying responsibility.
In the narrative of the Left there is no US exceptionalism. The US is like everyone else with one slight exception: we are responsible for any world problems that cannot be directly attributed to natural disasters… and some that can. In this narrative, if we did it, it was wrong and if we didn’t do it we should have. Therefore it is necessary to apologize to everyone for everything. Thank goodness Obama does it with such élan
You are right about the Russians not learning from us… or from history either. They recently attacked Georgia and are up to their collective (or maybe capitalistic) asses in Chechnya; I can only assume for noble reasons. The Iranians have been waging a proxy war against the Israelis through Hezbollah and Hamas because the Israelis don’t have the decency to just die and disappear. If you think the Iranians do not seek nuclear weapons as part of a strategy of hegemony in the Middle East then… well, never mind. You did point out that it’s our fault they are doing so.
You want us to hold ourselves to a higher standard and suggest that this is an exceptionalism you can believe in. (Hey, there’s a 2012 slogan.) Our exceptionalism began with the vision of our founding fathers and flourished in our immigrant history, our willingness to defend our principals and in our generosity of spirit. Call it corny (why not), but personally I cannot imagine another country in our position that would have done – or is doing - better.
"The ideological prism of the Left colors and distorts reality."
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that any ideology, whether of the Left or of the Right, not only "colors and distorts reality", but tends also to leave it's adherents willfully ignorant, pragmatically stupid, and intellectually ridiculous.
At least, I believe I see that sort of result vividly manifested each time I happen to read the comments on the large political blogs.
Adhering to an ideology vary seldom seems to promote a fair and balanced view of the world.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteYes adherents to ideology can leave one “willfully ignorant, pragmatically stupid, and intellectually ridiculous,” (wonderful cadence) which is why this blog has real value; misguided is as far as I would characterize any positions here. Hopefully it will get more traction.
While it’s hard to disagree with your premise, ultimately I don’t know how one can be truly ideologically neutral. That said, I personally prefer picking on the Left because, while tenets of its self image include being open and intellectually honest, the reality is often otherwise.
The point of my post that I care most deeply about is American exceptionalism. I see it as a fact in which we should take pride, not as a myth or an excuse for what we do wrong. I realize that to those who disagree, my belief in American exceptionalism may seem naïve or dangerous and may brand me as a Neanderthal or a Conservative, whichever is worse. But it also puts me in the company of many, like Franklin Roosevelt, who hardly fit that stereotype no matter through which lens one sees the world.
Fred R.: "...this blog has real value; misguided is as far as I would characterize any positions here. Hopefully it will get more traction."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on all three points.
By the way, you might know the two most effective keys to gaining traction are (1) frequent blog posts, and (2) link backs to the blog left on other blogs.
"...ultimately I don’t know how one can be truly ideologically neutral.
That's an excellent point, Fred. I think it's very difficult to be "ideologically neutral". Perhaps it is easier to be ideologically indifferent and simply not care at all.
Of course, there is an effective counter to ideological bias, and that is to rigorously pursue the truth. Or, as Spinoza somewhere says, "I have striven not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, nor to hate them, but to understand them." And, as he also points out, the reward for "understanding" (as perhaps opposed to the reward for ideological purity) is freedom: "The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free."
In truth is intellectual freedom. In ideology, intellectual enslavement.
Yet, the trouble with such an easy formula is that it tells us nothing about the costs of pursuing the truth, which can be severe and include everything from emotional pain to public ostracism, and beyond.
I happen to disagree with you on some issues, Fred, but I've got to admit, I like the fact you are willing to reason. I don't want to sound like an old grouch, but I think it's all too infrequent these days to encounter someone who is willing to put in the time and effort to reason well, as you do. Thank you for that.
I might be back to address American exceptionalism, depending on how much time I have.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteFor the record, it was Georgia that attacked and started the 2008 war, not Russia. I am not trying to defend the Russian government; I am only defending the facts.
I am interested in finding out what we should DO with the idea that America is exceptional. In other words, what is it about being exceptional that makes it sensible to spend another 9 years in Afghanistan shooting "an amazing number of people" who pose no threat (as Gen. McChrystal put it)?
-Freyguy
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteSorry, to belabor the longest blog after a new subject has started. I meant to get this in last week, but it didn’t post.
Yes, you are correct (oh, that’s painful). Although both sides were clearly involved in escalating the tensions, it was Georgia that initiated the fateful attack that made a Russian response virtually inevitable. Memory is one of the first things to go when you get older and I can’t remember what the other things are.
As to American exceptionalism, maybe I am wrong about that as well. Perhaps when we become just another one of boys the world will be a better place. In any case your sarcasm in parsing the words rather than addressing the idea (although I assume you feel that you did address the idea as well) leads me to conclude that a further investment of time in this conversation, on either our parts, is not warranted.
I know you feel strongly against the war. Why not? Even just wars are ugly and this one is certainly ambiguous. For my generation it was Vietnam and we felt personally vulnerable. Most of my generation still use this touchstone in assaying world events, having invested so much of our ideological selves into arguments made for or (mostly) against. Please try to avoid falling into a similar mode with Iraq and Afghanistan.