Home > Alex Massie

Wednesday 10 February 2010

Afghanistan: A Modest Case for Dithering

Tuesday, 27th October 2009

My old chum, and former boss, Iain Martin writes that time is, in fact, of the essence in Afghanistan and that Barack Obama needs to make a decision:

We cannot go on like this indefinitely - making some progress but never winning, especially when money is so tight. We need to either commit more troops and firepower, get a move on, surge troop numbers, take the fight anew to the Taliban and aim for victory. Or if we don’t fancy that we can slim down our presence dramatically, fund the anti-Talban forces and back them up with special forces support and airpower.

The worst option appears to be staying in limbo-land and sacrificing lives for years with no prospect of eventual victory. The choice is for President Obama. Contrary to there being no need to rush, it’s decision time.

Now there's obviously something to this. But I'm not sure it's entirely persuasive. Apart from anything else, I wonder if Iain is simplfying matters somewhat by presenting the options Obama (and NATO) face in this fashion. Choose either A or B, he says, but for god's sake choose. But the problem is surely that neither A nor B are terribly attractive options. Nor, significantly, does either come with any kind of guarantee of success.

Now perhaps it doesn't matter whether one chooses A or B. Perhaps both could be made to work. But it's not obvious which one will work and the consequences of picking the wrong one seem, potentially, quite severe. In other words, perhaps the negative consequences of making the "wrong" choice are greater than the benefits to be gained from making the "right" choice? That seems unpleasantly possible.

If that's the case then refusing to choose actually has a certain logic. The status quo may be imperfect but it is at least a known imperfection, not an uknown one. Iain suggests we need to put all our chips on red or on black and implies, I think, that it doesn't much matter which. But perhaps you don't have to play at all!

Holding or containing operations are not terribly satisfactory but they may sometimes be the least worst option. And until it becomes a little clearer what realistic options there are in Afghanistan it seems wise to wait and see for as long as possible. Caution isn't always the worst policy and among the most important rules of war is surely Avoid Defeat.

One other thing: yes, we've had troops in Afghanistan for eight years. But the war as it's currently being fought hasn't been going on for as long as that. Furthermore, Iain suggests that the cost in men and material has been "immense". In one sense, of course, this is true. But if the Afghan campaign is considered a matter of real national security - and even the "counter-terrorism" strategy advocated by the "slim down" side of the argument agrees that it is - then a) casualties are an inevitable consequence of state policy and b) in this respect the cost has not been immense.

That sounds cold-hearted I know and, understandably, can be of no consolation to the families and friends of fallen servicemen. But it's true nonetheless. Just as we understood that there was what might be termed an "acceptable level of casualties" in Northern Ireland so that brutal calculation applies to Afghanistan. It is not, for reasons detailed here, another Vietnam.

Muddling through doesn't sound very heroic and it's not a very noble thing to die for. But our Afghan policy is, in some ways, defined by negatives: it's hard to say what victory looks like, but defeat is easier to recognise. We may hope that our troops in Helmand can do some good but perhaps their main role is to prevent things from getting worse. As I say, none of it is satisfactory and much of it is pretty grim. But that's where we seem to be and it's not clear, to me at least, that the choices are quite so clear as some suggest, nor that, as others argue, the act of chooing is more important than the actual choice that's made.

Filed under: Afghanistan (125 more articles) , Obama (231 more articles) , War (75 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (13)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Rhoda Klapp

October 27th, 2009 1:28pm Report this comment

With a probable majority of the public against the 'war' it is inevitable that we will pull out eventually. Better to do it now, and save the lives of all those squaddies you are regretfully prepared to sacrifice.

ndm

October 27th, 2009 4:31pm Report this comment

After the fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq the United States perhaps needs a consitutional amendment forbidding Republican presidents from startting wars. The Republican mixing gung-ho jingoism with incompetence has proven a certain recipe for disaster.

I don't really see any good choices in Afghanistan given that the Bush Administration failed miserably in its principal rationale for that war - the capture of Osama Bin Laden.

I suspect there are two reasons why the war will continue. The first is that the ever-shrill Islamophobic, neoconservative ultra-right will scream blue murder if we leave Afghanistan. They, however, share the Bush Administration's blame for what has essentially become defeat. The second is concern over the fate of Pakistan which appears increasingly troubled. It is one thing for Afghanistan to be run be benighted souls and quite another for Pakistan. Afghanistan is clearly sufficiently proximate to Pakistan to form a pretty decent base for operations there.

However, the biggest problem we face is that after 8 years of neoconservative bloodlust with Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza Strip - and now perhaps Iran and Pakistan - Muslims can rightly accuse the West of being careless with the lives of Muslims. An attitude that is so racist and so careless that it constitutes a war crime.

Beefeater

October 27th, 2009 5:00pm Report this comment

ndm:

Muslims are even more careless with the lives of Muslims than is the West.
Bloodlust aside, the US - and NATO for what it is worth - should keep a permanent presence in Iran and Afghanistan. Between meals and TV shows, they can kill some insurgents, but the important thing is to be there.
Are you one of the Obama administration's "Blog Squad"? Every point you make here or over at Melanie Phillips blog, has a very familiar ring to it.

Rhoda Klapp

October 27th, 2009 5:04pm Report this comment

ndm, have the democrat wars been good wars? Or not ill-judged? Is the ultra right really able to stop Obama from pulling out? Has he no bottle? Or did he pick the wrong war to prosecute when he was campaigning?

ndm

October 27th, 2009 5:55pm Report this comment

Rhoda Klapp asks:

ndm, have the democrat wars been good wars? Or not ill-judged?

No and no. The difference is that Republicans are much more likely to start wars because they believe that demonstrations of military prowess show America to be the rooster of the flock. They forget that the roster is no less a stupid chicken than is the hen. The further irony is that a Republican party so disdainful of the ability of the Government to accomplish anything successfully so readily abandons that ideal whenever the matter comes to wars of choice - which so many of them are. Democrats who may be only slightly better in prosecuting wars are much more cognizant of the unforeseen effects of war and are consequently much less likely to initiate one.

She continues:

Is the ultra right really able to stop Obama from pulling out? Has he no bottle?

It is not a question of bottle. President Obama knows full well that if he orders a pull-out from Afghanistan the ultra-right media organs such as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed pages will go ballistic and spread their mendacity ever deeper into the the Republican hearts. The increasingly mendacious Washington Post will do the same as will the entire arsenal of hawkish magazines like The Weekly Standard, Commentary and even the liberal The New Republic. In the aftermath of the announcement the country would be awash in ultra-right propaganda condemning the decision. All these old biddies stuck in the house watching Fox News would have their heads turned. At the end of the day, Obama can only help pass a Democratic agenda if he remins in power so he must temper his desires with politics.

And ends:

Or did he pick the wrong war to prosecute when he was campaigning?

No. There is an enormous difference in the motivations behind the two wars and the American people are mostly aware of that. The country was united behind the invasion of Afghanistan as a response to the events of 9/11. What the country did not know then, but does now, was the extent of incompetence with which the war would be managed. No one thought we would still be fighting it and being asked for more troops eight year later. Yet that incompetence was understood by many Americans before the start of the war in Iraq.

Indeed, even the desire to start the war in Iraq was a demonstration of the incompetence of the Bush Adminisration to prosecute successfuly that or, indeed, any war. The country was divided with regard to the Iraq war in a division that only increased as more people recognized the Bush Administrations inability to fight the war to successful victory.

Furthermore, the troop numbers are significantly different in both wars with Afghanistan only having about one third of the troop numbers of Iraq. The impact on American life of the two wars has consequently been significantly different. We are constantly reminded of Iraq by the large numbers of deaths for a war that increasing numbers of Americans view as irrelevant and unnecessary.

To some extent, Iraq resembles Europe after WW2 in that some kind of society existed in Iraq before the war. This is not true of Afghanistan which has never really been a unified country. The society in Iraq may not be the greatest but it at least provides some kind of authority running the country when we leave. There is no authority in Afghanistan outside of that which we provide. Our departure could have hideous consequences.

So, no, President Obama did not choose the wrong country to leave. There is pretty much a consensus that our continued presence in Iraq is not doing much good. And there is no consensus about what to do with Afghanistan. It is a very difficult problem - as are many wars particularly the poorly managed ones - and the best way forward is not at all obvious.

Rhoda Klapp

October 27th, 2009 6:39pm Report this comment

How many troops would be needed to win in Afghanistan? I think the extra 40,000 would be nowhere near enough. I think an incoming administration has a chance to make a break, or at least take a reserved position., which chance was not taken. Obama may be considering the break now, rather than keep going when the public sours against the war. Right now I guess it is supported, but so was the dems poster war, once. The UK pubic have already lost its, not enthusiasm, more like acceptance, of the war, and our contribution is IMHO unsustainable in the medium term. THE US public will get to that point probably within Obama's current term. Then the pill must be swallowed like it or not.

Oh, and it's a stupid war, with no prize for winning even if we could. If the problem really is Pakistan and its nukes, why are we not fighting there? If the problem is Al Q, why don't we fight it in High Wycombe and Leeds, where they live? No reason why they and we have to drag all that kit to Afghanistan.

ndm

October 27th, 2009 7:18pm Report this comment

s Pakistan and its nukes, why are we not fighting there?

The US and its NATO allies can barely come up with the troops to "pacify" Afganistan which has only 25M people without contemplating going into Pakistan with its population of 130M. Sane people now recognize the virtue of the Powell doctrines strictures on overwhelming force - and, absent a draft, the US does have the force numbers required to invade and occupy Pakistan. Furthermore, doing so would have hideous consequences for the rest of the Muslim world.

It is not as if the West has even solved the minimalist Muslim demand that the West ends the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, we should not be surprised that those most keen on continued Western attacks on Muslim nations are the same people who are most insistent that the West not end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If the problem is Al Q, why don't we fight it in High Wycombe and Leeds, where they live? No reason why they and we have to drag all that kit to Afghanistan.

The solution to Al Qaeda does not lie in High Wyvombe and Leeds - it lies in the the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we eradicate the core of Al Qaeda there will be nothing there for people in High Wycombe and Leeds to claim allegiance to in order to boast about how powerful they are. They will then be nothing more than a bunch of violent nutcases - who have so far caused far less physical damage to the fabric of Britain but, through wanton political cowardice, much more virtual damage.

Rhoda Klapp

October 27th, 2009 7:35pm Report this comment

No, I do not seriously propose to invade Pakistan. But whatever the problem is it can't be solved in Afghanistan alone, for the border between the countries is irrelevant to the enemy. I don't think we can defeat Al Qaeda up there, because they can act according to the ancient convenetions of guerrilla warfare. I'd say Mao's way, but they have been doing it since long before him. If we start to win, they will evaporate. Over the border, or just go home and hide the tools of insurgency until it's time to re-emerge. Their patience is greater than that of the western public. Pretty much all of this has what you describe as hideous consequences. We are not in charge. And we cannot deliver a 'solution' to the Arab-Israli problem without such consequences for Israel.

Let's return for a moment to Obama. If his policies now and in the future are going to be determined by what the 'far right' say about him, he is not going to be much of a president. We have read here and elsewhere that the GOP is no more than a rump, and the old policies are discredited. Why should he be wary of what those people think? Or Fox News, for that matter. Does Steve Doocy now make US foreign policy?

ndm

October 27th, 2009 8:24pm Report this comment

We have read here and elsewhere that the GOP is no more than a rump, and the old policies are discredited. Why should he be wary of what those people think? Or Fox News, for that matter. Does Steve Doocy now make US foreign policy?

The GOP is a geographical rump party but it remains strong in the south and has an inordinate amount of MSM support. As I pointed out earlier, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post are all in the tank for it as are a whole host of regional papers. Obama has to be careful about alienating large swathes of the American public if he wants to implement policies he cares about rather than squander his effort fixing problems created by his predecessor.

The Bush Administration approach of invading Afghanistan on the cheap has been discredited but this policy has created an environment where there are not many good options. It is, to paraphrase an Obama campaigm statement, much easier to drive into a ditch than it is to drive out - and that is where the Bush and now the Obama Administrations find themselves. There are not a whole lot of good options available for dealing with Afghanistan.

Conservative Cabbie

October 27th, 2009 8:32pm Report this comment

Rhoda/ndm

Right now, Pakistan are engaging the Taliban on their side of the border. Does it not make sense for the allies to do the same in Afghanistan and squeeze Al-Qaeda and the taliban in a vice? Couldn't that have been co-ordinated between the Obama admin and Pakistan?

ndm

You left a comment at my place which unfortunately got lost in the spam filter. Would love for you to return, I always enjoy our debates.

ndm

October 28th, 2009 6:56am Report this comment

James Fallows, the great American commentator, gets to the heart of the matter in a post about Matthew Hoh's resignation letter:

The United States entered Afghanistan -- properly and with every moral and practical justification -- to disrupt, punish, and kill groups that had planned the 9/11 attacks. It is now in a mess in Afghanistan largely because of the crucial misjudgment nearly eight years ago to shift effort and attention to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Not everything in foreign affairs can be explained by logic. But as Hoh argues, if we're serious in thinking we can now eliminate terrorist threats with our troops in Afghanistan, then logically we must also send them to Pakistan and beyond. And if we're not serious, then how can we keep them there?

Rhoda Klapp

October 28th, 2009 10:42am Report this comment

Do we even have a contingency plan for winning? Do we believe in our hearts that the threat from militant Islam will go away? Won't it just give then (yet) another grievance?

I observe that carrying on with not winning and not pulling out seems to be our plan, for then we don't have to face the consequences of either action. I don't think dithering is much of a plan. I can't recall Sun Tzu or Clausewitz recommending it.

A. MacAulay

October 28th, 2009 11:20am Report this comment

Rhoda Klapp, Sun Tzu, Chapter I, Estimates: 1. "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life and death; the road to survival and ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied." Let's hope some thorough study is taking place.

But the military strategy is not the real problem. All these wars, post WWII, have ended in shame and ruin covered by a more or less ad Hoc, makeshift exit contingency presented as "solution". No US president seems to have developed a coherent political strategy whereby clear aims, honestly stated, with realisable goals has been presented either to the own electorate or to the political forces within the conflict. Might it also be pointed out that Afghanistan is a classic, demographic, "youth bulge" case, with time and territory on the side of the Taliban.

Post comment