Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

March 1, 2009
A Crazy Idea

The land supply route to Afghanistan through Pakistan is endangered and the political situation there will get worse. The new route through Russia Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan is, at least officially, only for non-military goods. The possible route through Iran is blocked due to Israel's interests. The supply by air will be less effective when, in five month, the Manas airbase 'hub' in Kyrgyzstan is closes down.

The U.S. military understands that it is impossible to wage a bigger war in Afghanistan without better routes. Swoop:

[D]eep concern has arisen at the Pentagon about supply lines, reflected in the following private comment to us from an official at the policymaking level in the Defense Department: “The idea that we can wage an effective military campaign in this landlocked country without safe and dependable logistical support is crazy."

I assume that the Pentagon policymaker will let Obama know of these concerns. The only realistic strategy then is to end the war. But U.S. public opinion currently still prevents that.

Maybe the carcass of a dead tall Arab man can be found somewhere in east Afghanistan to soothe the U.S. public urge to forever go after one Osama Bin Laden.

A crazy idea?

—
earlier coverage of Afghanistan logistics at MoA:
Iran Should Offer Fuel To DESC, Feb 21, 2009
The New Route Plus Iranian Jet Fuel Supply To Afghanistan, Feb 20, 2009
The Pink Route To Afghanistan, Feb 3, 2009
The Costly New Supply Route To Afghanistan, Jan 26, 2009
New Supply Routes To Afghanistan, Nov 19, 2008
Fuel for War in Afghanistan Aug 20, 2008
The Road War in Afghanistan Aug 16, 2008
Fuel Tanker Attacks in Afghanistan Mar 24, 2008

Posted by b on March 1, 2009 at 14:21 UTC | Permalink
Comments

Looks like the O’man is already talking about a quick way out. Similar to what he has said about Iraq recently.

US focusing on Afghanistan improvement, has no long term designs – Obama
WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (APP): President Barack Obama has said the United States is focusing on stemming the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan but has no longer term aspirations on the country as he also emphasized the importance of diplomacy and partnership with regional actors to ensure America security interests.
“One of the things that I think we have to communicate in Afghanistan is that we have no interest or aspiration to be there over the long term,” he told Public Broadcasting Service channel Friday.
“There’s a long history, as you know, in Afghanistan of rebuffing what is seen as an occupying force, and we have to be mindful of that history as we think about our strategy,” he added.
The U.S. goal in the region is to keep the American people safe. “And I think that the more we can accomplish that through diplomacy, and the more we can accomplish that by partnering with actors in the region, rather than simply applying U.S. military forces, the better off we’re going to be.”

Obama the peace-president?… hardly.
I think there are a couple of reasons behind this. First, Afghanistan is in a no-win situation. With the supply lines squeezed, and the taliban movement turning into a popular fight against the occupiers.
Secondly, with the current state of economy, the US is in no economic situation to fight un-necessary wars of occupation. Needing $2 trillion a year for the next two years for budgetary support. They are in kind of a situation the Soviet Union was in the late 80s. Hence the Iraq pullout too.
So what is likely in Afghanistan? The US is still in a position to make a graceful exit. Obama is definitely smarter then his predecessor. Lets see if he is capable of acting on logic rather hubris.

Posted by: a | Mar 1 2009 14:56 utc | 1

I assume that the Pentagon policymaker will let Obama know of these concerns. The only realistic strategy then is to end the war. But U.S. public opinion currently still prevents that.
b- Why do you think U.S. opinion is for continuing the war? You seem to read a broader section of news than I do but I don’t think it would be hard to convince the public to bring the troops home. Convincing G.E. and their ilk would probably be much harder.
The problem, yet to be addressed, is what to do with the soldiers if we bring them home? How many are still national gaurdsmen? Those folks are gonna want their old jobs back when Johnny returns from war, which will play havoc in a country already against the ropes with skyrocketing unemployment. America is set-up like a bowling pin, just as the soviet union was. Wasn’t part of the reason the soviets broke apart was the economic strain from the war, and then they dumped all those former soldiers on the streets… Now there’s a pleasant thought.
What should the O-man do? Bring the troops home and prepare for civil unrest or leave them landlocked and let them die in afghanistan to keep them off the dole ’cause that seems to be what’s coming.

Posted by: David | Mar 1 2009 15:03 utc | 2

The US game is not to set it self up for failure but set up the whole thing for status quo in the area. A little trouble in Pakistan, bigger troubles in largely remote pashtoon areas in Afghanistan, and occasional trouble in India all add up to create a situation where the US presence in the area is legitimized.
Pakistan army is fully in this game and India has joined in too…
It is like Iraq where only 50K will remain to maintain the status quo and the presence of the US army would be legitimatized by the puppet Iraqi regimes.

Posted by: Hoss | Mar 1 2009 15:13 utc | 3

First, Afghanistan is in a no-win situation. With the supply lines squeezed, and the taliban movement turning into a popular fight against the occupiers.

There is no evidence to suggest that the US wants to “win” in Afghanistan. A victory means leaving the area immediately after the mission accomplished. The US has never defined in concrete terms as to what it wants in Afghanistan. Is Alqueda the target or the defeat of the Taliban the objective? No one knows for sure. With such ambiguity, the only goal is to maintain a hold over Afghanistan and keep the army presence in the area.
The supply line troubles are really minor ones and the interruptions are cost of doing business. The games played in Pakistan are to keep that country unstable so that there are always groups that will continue to support the US presence in the area.

Posted by: Hoss | Mar 1 2009 15:28 utc | 4

@David – @2 – b- Why do you think U.S. opinion is for continuing the war?
Poll: Most back Obama’s troop plan for Afghanistan

Americans by 2-1 approve of President Obama’s decision to send 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan despite skepticism over whether they can succeed in stabilizing the security situation there within the next few years.
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday shows a reservoir of support for Obama’s first major military decision as president. Two-thirds express approval of his order to expand the U.S. deployment to Afghanistan by 50%; one third disapprove.
Half of those surveyed say they’d support a decision to send another 13,000 troops, which would fulfill the request by U.S. commanders to nearly double the U.S. force in Afghanistan even as troops are being withdrawn from Iraq.
Even so, there is measurable opposition. One of four Americans says Obama should reduce the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan or withdraw them entirely. That opposition is stronger among Obama’s fellow Democrats than among Republicans: 29% of Democrats, compared to 17% of Republicans.

Posted by: b | Mar 1 2009 16:01 utc | 5

@Hoss – The supply line troubles are really minor ones and the interruptions are cost of doing business.
No, they ain’t. Read up a bit on military history. All big campaigns with thin unsafe lines of communication failed.
The games played in Pakistan are to keep that country unstable so that there are always groups that will continue to support the US presence in the area.
I believe that’s false and you will see Zardari, the U.S. puppet, fall pretty soon.

Posted by: b | Mar 1 2009 16:07 utc | 6

The democrats have been spinning Afghanistan as the “good” war since the beginning and especially when the casualties and costs started adding up in Iraq.
You would be hard pressed to find anyone who vehemently opposes US involvement in Afghanistan. Even Ed Shultz says we need to go git ‘er done. Afghanistan was used as a hammer by the opposition who claimed bush screwed up by taking his eyes off the real threat. Fortunately (for the supporters of the Afghan occupation) no one has ever asked what the strategic goal is in Afghanistan. All measures of progress have not been met and in many respects the country is worse off now than it was under the Taliban. But, we won’t ever let inconvenient things like facts and reality get in the way.
Why can’t they simply admit that we need military bases in Afghanistan in order to better control Iran from that side and the ‘stans above. Everyone understands national interests and there is a big ole pool of national interest right there in the Caspian basin. A quick SOFA, couple of million per year lease for a base or two and everyone lives happily ever after.
the very limp excuse that we had to invade Afghanistan to capture bin Laden is and always has been pure BS. if a missile couldn’t get him, a special forces squad could have. the easiest solution, if a solution was ever truly wanted, would have been to pay any one of the local chiefs to turn him over.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 1 2009 16:32 utc | 7

DoS
Bases in Afghanistan that rely on somewhat parlous logistics arrangements are utterly useless for controlling any of its geographical neighbours. Furthermore, given that the bases In Afghanistan are in the East of the country, and the interesting bits of Iran are a good 1500km away, they’re really not that useful when compared to the possibilities that the high-quality Persian Gulf infrastructure that the US has access to are factored in.
I’d also add that the basing infrastructure that currently exists in Afghanistan is somewhat “austere” ( why do you think that they’re flying aerial refuelling tankers from 1000km-distant Manas rather than Kabul? The fun? ), which means that the higher end aviation assets can’t be based there. A good example is of the B1 bomber, flying out of the UAE, that lost an engine and had to do an emergency landing at, IIRC, Kandahar – it took 6 months for the USAF to figure out how to fly the damned thing out on 3 engines because they couldn’t do the necessary repairs in situ.
B
The issue of US-Iran relations is somewhat more vexed and complicated than just the wishes of the Israel lobby; for the US polity, Iran has been deeply traumatic, on a bipartisan basis, for three decades now – the hostage crisis “killed” Carter politically, whilst Iran-Contra came close to taking out a wide swathe of senior national security Republicans, and in the process, tarnished the reputation of the sainted Reagan. Neither of these episodes had that much to do with Israel, but do have a lot to do with the general inability of the US to construct any sort of policy vis a vis Iran.
Whilst an accommodation with Iran might well serve US interests, baseline requirements would be the complete dismantling of the US sanctions infrastructure – which can only be done by Congress and would be a tortuous and lengthy process ( we’re talking YEARS of internal US haggling ).
On the other hand, there’s an article in Iran’s constitution that expressly forbids basing/transit rights to foreign militaries – so don’t assume that Iran’s own “neocons” won’t be deeply antagonistic to such an idea ( altho’ I suspect that they’ll at least provide a toll-free number for bargaining sessions ). That’s not to say that some kind of contractual arrangement couldn’t be done, with, say the Bundeswehr paying an Iranian company to truck in supplies to it for delivery in Herat or Mazar – it’s just that if any military contingent in Afghanistan enters into such an arrangement with Iran they are sanctionable under the extra-territorial provisions of US law; whilst these laws are illegal under WTO rules and are challengeable, it’s going to be one hell of a diplomatic, foreign policy and legal tangle – and that’s before the usual suspects start bleating, crying and beating their oh-so-manly chests.

Posted by: dan | Mar 1 2009 17:14 utc | 8

No, they ain’t. Read up a bit on military history.
Christ.. you said the same thing about Iraq.
Dream on.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 1 2009 17:28 utc | 9

@ dan
so what do you think the reason for staying in Afghanistan is? and why would the Germans and Italians want to go there as well? Are they only going there because of pressure from NATO? or is it so their soldiers can a have a bit of fun hunting in the badlands?
Rick asked the same question some time ago and I don’t know that anyone ever answered it. Perhaps slothrop would like to give it a whirl. He/she seems quite content to tell everyone else their predictions were wrong….let us hear from the oracle.
odd thing about the engine on the B1. I have changed aircraft engines in the strangest places. If a C-130 could land, we could change the motor. there must be more to it.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 1 2009 18:01 utc | 10

I think bombing Afghanistan or Pakistan to get bin Laden and cohorts makes as much sense as bombing Murphy NC to get Eric Rudolph.
I am opposed, and I think we will see Afghanistan be totally destroyed like Iraq.
Pakistan, on the other hand, could end up much worse.

Posted by: Susan O | Mar 1 2009 18:03 utc | 11

also dan, they are probably flying the tankers from outside Afghanistan due to the difficulties in delivering JP8 to Afghanistan. If it has to be trucked in from far away it hardly seems economical to then load it on a tanker. just fill up the tanker on a base that has a nice pipeline feeding it….no?

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 1 2009 18:03 utc | 12

@dan – it’s just that if any military contingent in Afghanistan enters into such an arrangement with Iran they are sanctionable under the extra-territorial provisions of US law
Hmm – not sure about the law, but I am pretty sure Craddock checked with his superiors before he said this.
NATO says members may use Iran for Afghan supplies

KABUL (AP) — NATO would not oppose individual member nations making deals with Iran to supply their forces in Afghanistan as an alternative to using increasingly risky routes from Pakistan, the alliance’s top military commander said Monday.
Gen. John Craddock’s comments came just days after NATO’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, urged the U.S. and other members of the Western military alliance to engage with Iran to combat Taliban militants in Afghanistan.

Posted by: b | Mar 1 2009 18:12 utc | 13

Dan, I totally disagree with the last para of your post#8: Iran has been feeding Afghanistan for decades, especially the Persian-speaking feudal chiefs, and Iran (together with Russia and India) supplied the (later to be named) Northern Alliance and gave the U.S. Air Force overfly rights to bomb Taleban positions.
Iran is negotiating back-door with the U.S. as I write, as part of the Grand Bargain Obama is trying to establish, and he formally announced to the Vets last week that he would definitely negotiate with Iran to find a solution for Afghanistan.
Screw the Iranian Constitution. The most powerful unelected council is the Expediency Council which has sole veto right over parliamentary Law, and it basically means that ‘anything goes’ so long as it can help to prolong the life of the regime. It’s called the Expediency Council for a reason….

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 1 2009 18:31 utc | 14

@DoS – the B-1 had an engine fire and they couldn’t simply change the engine. The flew out on three engines after two month of discussions.
You are right on the reason why tankers are flying from Manas. That’s why it will really hurt to lose that base. There is no place nearby that can replace it. But there is also the issue with airport capacity. Kandahar and Bagram are both single runway and with already lots of traffic.

Posted by: b | Mar 1 2009 18:51 utc | 15

The only realistic strategy then is to end the war. But U.S. public opinion currently still prevents that.

More on the USAToday Poll:

Americans likely view President Barack Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan as unfortunate but necessary. Since mid-2008, a majority of Americans have perceived things in Afghanistan to be going very or moderately badly for the United States, and 70% currently think the Taliban will retake control if U.S. forces are withdrawn.
…
In fact, Americans are almost evenly divided about whether the United States should keep a significant number of troops in Afghanistan until the situation improves (48%) or whether it should set a timetable for withdrawal (47%). Those who support a timetable mostly favor getting troops out sooner rather than later. But at least 6 in 10 Americans either favor keeping troops in Afghanistan with no timetable, or favor a long-range timetable of more than two years.
…
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,027 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2009.
…
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Posted by: Jeremiah | Mar 1 2009 19:01 utc | 16

Mullen will get some very harsh words over this:
Sun Mar 1, 2009 12:49pm EST Iran has enough nuclear fuel to make bomb: U.S.
Sun Mar 1, 2009 1:39pm EST Iran “not close” to nuclear weapon: Gates
From the first piece:

The United States believes Iran has stockpiled enough nuclear fuel to make a bomb, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said on Sunday.
“We think they do, quite frankly,” Mullen said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program when asked whether Iran has enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon.

From the second piece:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Iran is not close to having a nuclear weapon, which gives the United States and others time to try to persuade Tehran to abandon its suspected atomic arms program, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday.
“They’re not close to a stockpile, they’re not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time,” Gates said on NBC television’s “Meet The Press.”
Gates’ comments followed a televised interview with Adm. Mike Mullen, head of the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told CNN’s “State of the Union” that he believed Iran has enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb.

Technically of course Mullen is right. The Netherlands has enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. So has Zimbabwe. It’s just not enriched enough to be used in a nuke.

Posted by: b | Mar 1 2009 19:05 utc | 17

Nice catch.
:: raises glass :: (of herbal tea)

Posted by: Jeremiah | Mar 1 2009 19:23 utc | 18

I think the poll numbers for the Afghanistan enterprise are soft and artificially inflated, and could change easily. Most of the pols have signed on to war in Afghanistan a long time ago in retaliation against AQ – and it’s (as pointed out above) been used ad-infintum (by dem/liberal interests) to make points against the Iraq occupation. If you take BL & AQ out of the equation I doubt whether there is much (popular) appetite left for pursuing neo-liberal “beliefs” in Afghanistan. Public opinion on this issue could turn on a dime, if the public is reminded about just how big the dime really is.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 1 2009 20:14 utc | 19

re the brouhaha with Iran and uranium and bombs and scary things from Adm Mullen, I looked up the Institute For Science And International Security which is quoted in the article as being the source for the interpretation of the IAEA report.
I am shocked i tell you, shocked to find their members were quite involved with the early propaganda in the invasion of Iraq. the people who fund them is revealing as well.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 1 2009 20:51 utc | 20

Scott Ritter did a take down of David Albright too.
we just need to keep shining a light on these roaches.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 1 2009 22:07 utc | 21

@dan of steel
and why would the Germans and Italians want to go there as well? Are they only going there because of pressure from NATO? or is it so their soldiers can a have a bit of fun hunting in the badlands?
In non recorded communications with a famous journalist, members of the Bundestag said, that the Bundeswehr is in Afghanistan, exclusvely because the USA wants it.
As well our minister for domestic issues Schaeuble said about the war in Iraq:
“Der Irakkrieg ist eine schlechte Lösung, aber eine noch schlechtere Lösung wäre eine gedemütigte Weltmacht USA.”
I attempt to translate:
“The war in Iraq is a bad solution, but an even worse would be a humilated superpower USA.”
Seriously, do you think an enviroment in which such a sentence is imaginable – and Schaeuble is e.g. in charge of the federal police and secret services now – there is need for another justification than ‘The USA wants it’?
Or serious newspaper journalists writing:
“Auch wenn die verantwortliche Terrorgruppe vernichtet werden könnte, so fehlte der amerikanischen Psyche doch das Donnern eines Gegenschlags, das allein das Selbstbewusstsein wiederherstellen kann.
Es liegt deshalb im weltpolizeilichen Interesse, dass die Verletzung des amerikanischen Ehrgefühls auf andere Weise kompensiert wird. Amerika muss sich als Hüter einer Pax Americana verstehen dürfen, innerhalb derer seine Bezeichnung als ‘Weltpolizei’ kein Schimpfwort mehr ist, sondern ein Ehrentitel. Insofern treffen sich hier zwei große Motive: die äußere Notwendigkeit einer Gewaltmonopolisierung und die innere Notwendigkeit der Genugtuung einer verletzten Supermacht.”
I think you underestimate the influence the US has with regard to foreign/military policy.

Posted by: Martin | Mar 2 2009 1:40 utc | 22

“The problem, yet to be addressed, is what to do with the soldiers if we bring them home? How many are still national gaurdsmen? Those folks are gonna want their old jobs back” (David)
This is exaggerated. Currently we are getting new monthly unemployed in the 600,000 range. There’s only 150,000 to bring back from Iraq. A bigger problem is where else to ship the armaments that will stop needing to be resupplied.

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 2 2009 2:01 utc | 23

Why are the Germans, et al. nato in afghanistan?
Perhaps it’s because they recall a moment stored fuzzily in the deep recesses of their minds of a time when the state of afghanistan harbored sinister morons who flew planes into skyscrapers.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 2 2009 2:46 utc | 24

My Euro-comrades! Free yourselves from dark force of American Imperialism! Free Yourselves!

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 2 2009 2:50 utc | 25

Anonymous poster-Thanks, I sometimes post without thinking (OK, more than sometimes) and didn’t think these number through very deeply, still I see major problems when johnny (and jane) come marching home from war.
Mostly I think america is gonna regress back to 1973, and that’s if we’re lucky. Seems to me there are a lot of loose historical parallels between then and now. If for nothing more than the war and all the human fall-out from the cost in lives, money, and in the health problems of returning soldiers (mental and physical) we as a nation still haven’t addressed.
Another question you bring up (in sort of a backdoor way in my strange mind), is what will america do if we make gun ownership illegal? Who will we sell our weapons to? Remington, Ruger, and their fellow gun makers would be in a world of hurt if the anti-gun crowd gets their way…
Afghanistan is the wolf’s bane of imperialist, and will be the undoing of imperial america as it was the soviet union and every other kook in history.

Posted by: David | Mar 2 2009 3:01 utc | 26

No, they ain’t. Read up a bit on military history. All big campaigns with thin unsafe lines of communication failed.

b,
The need to read the history would arise only if it is confirmed that the supply lines through Pakistan are really in danger of being permanently closed or are unsafe to the point that the repair work is impossible. No such situation exits in Pakistan.
Yes, there were scattered incidents but there is no trend to suggest that the supply lines would remain under threat. Those interruptions came when the Pakistan army was under pressure from both the US and India after the Mumbai carnage. Since then things have calmed down.
The US and the Pak army have worked with each other long enough to know how far they can push each other.

I believe that’s false and you will see Zardari, the U.S. puppet, fall pretty soon.

Zaradri might fall but how does that ensure that the next person would not work with the US? There is no political leader or any army leader in Pak who would go against the US.
Nawaz Sharif is not anti American. He is a Saudi puppet. He is financed by the Saudis and briefs them on his every move. Before Zardari dismissed the his government in Punjab, one Saudi prince spent plenty of time with Nawaz at his home in Lahore.

Posted by: Hoss | Mar 2 2009 3:59 utc | 27

Mullen: Iran has fissile materials for bomb (AP)
“Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appears on Rupert’s NeoZi propaganda ‘Fox News Sunday’ in Washington, Sunday, March 1, 2009. (AP Photo/FOX News Sunday, Freddie Lee)AP – The top U.S. military official said Sunday that Iran has sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon, declaring it would be a “very, very bad outcome” should Tehran move forward with a bomb.”
Yeah, Michael, and NASA has a probe to Uranus, so what? WTF are you doing in intel, where you don’t belong, and supporting the ZioNazi’s against your own President?
Obama should put a cork in that bottle. Fortunately, without funding, Der Admiral will be forced to rob Citi at gunpoint, or do a talk show tour in Hebron for payola.

Posted by: Johhny Jumpup | Mar 2 2009 5:56 utc | 28

This is really sad. Top Navy thesis on Afghanistan, showing how every occupation effort has failed, and the Navy brass won’t even read it, they’re going ahead and sending in the Marines to do exactly the same thing all over again:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA451373&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Posted by: Sherman Melville | Mar 2 2009 5:59 utc | 29

DoS
Why is the US in Afghanistan? Buggered if I could give you a decent answer, beyond the only ones that ever make any “sense”, which are as a “spoiler”, which I can kind of understand, and “we’re there because we’re there, and we can’t leave ‘cos our dicks’ll shrink if we do” – ie superpower demonstrations of testicular fortitude is a reason in and of itself.
I think that the rest of the NATO contingents got suckered in either out of fear, or in the vain hope of building some leverage with the Bush administration, or are just rampant sycophants ( ie Tony Blair ). In private there are an awful lot of contingent commanders lamenting at leisure what their political masters were so hasty to enter into.
But let’s not make the mistake of assuming that the US actually knows why it does what it does in the sense of any overarching grand strategic design.
B
Well, insofar as US extraterritorial provisions wrt to sanctions on Iran have no legal force in non-US jurisdictions, there is of course not much they can actually do if a NATO partner were to formally contract with an Iranian entity – altho’ it would be fun if the Iranians insisted on US dollar denominated payments into their banking system that the US treasury then tried to stop under their current rules.
As I said, there’s an awful lot of bureaucratic, legal and legislative untangling to do.
I suspect that Craddock was dangling a carrot as part of the current Obama charm offensive – we just don’t know the quo to that particular quid.

Posted by: dan | Mar 2 2009 12:48 utc | 30

b,
What do we do about destabilization in Pakistan? What do we do when the Taliban takes over Afghanistan?
I don’t think the American people are against a new idea other than a massive military approach to Afghanistan, but I don’t think any politican in the US or Europe is for simply pretending like we can wash our hands of the situation either.
The key question is, what alternative strategies are there? I don’t see many ideas being forwarded anywhere that create viable alternatives to the military approach, and that seems to me to be the bigger issue.
The way the Taliban double deals and backstabs Pakistan in negotiated agreements makes diplomatic success look not only unlikely, but foolish. Hard to negotiate with folks who don’t follow through on what they say.
Its a tough spot, I don’t know the answer, but I don’t think you are crazy for suggesting we need to find a way to end the military campaign, the problem is that doesn’t end the problem and no viable solutions have presented themselves. Until we can get both Iran and China to share the problem with us, I don’t see a successful conclusion in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Galrahn | Mar 4 2009 18:10 utc | 31

@Galrahn – welcome at MoA, you are a daily read for me.
What do we do about destabilization in Pakistan?
Pakistan was and is unstable since it was founded. The tribal areas (FATA) always had their own rules and are constitutionally more or less independent. Clashes between them and the Punjab/Sindh center follow a cycle. The state asserts itself, the tribes rebel, they clash, truce, the center withdraws. It has been so since the Brits and even Alexander the Great tried to get a foothold there.
The North Western Frontier Province of which SWAT is a part is quite similar. SWAT had its own laws and justice system until the 80s/90s. Now they protest over the inefficient system pushed on the by the center. (From the leading academic capacity on SWAT history this (pdf))
Both FATA and SWAT just want to be left alone. Traditionally they have shown zero interest to take over the center.
The U.S. is pressing the center to fight those autonomous regions because from there 3.5 million Afghan refugees wage war against what they perceive as a U.S. occupation of Pashtun lands in Afghanistan.
What to do? First leave Pakistan alone.
What do we do when the Taliban takes over Afghanistan?
Make it clear that while the international community may allow a Pashtun/Taliban government but will hit hard if that government allows any foreign force or group on its soil. Stick to that.
The key question is, what alternative strategies are there? I don’t see many ideas being forwarded anywhere that create viable alternatives to the military approach, and that seems to me to be the bigger issue.
The military approach can not work. The only alternative is try to calm down the conflicts as much as possible and then leave. There is nothing to “win” in Afghanistan.
Read Lester W. Grau at the Foreign Military Studies Office and in his books. He is the expert on the Soviets in Afghanistan. Their military was competent and did their best – they still lost. So why waste the resources and copycat them? Let the Afghans fight it out and whoever comes up at the top will have to play by the international rules or be dead.
The way the Taliban double deals and backstabs Pakistan in negotiated agreements makes diplomatic success look not only unlikely, but foolish. Hard to negotiate with folks who don’t follow through on what they say.
That’s a bit a-historic. On SWAT for example there was a deal in the late 1990s that gave them back their original justice autonomy. The government in Islamabad didn’t stick to the deal. It now promised the same thing again buts is not implementing its part. With regards to SWAT and FATA, it is usually the center in Pakistan that doesn’t stick to its deals.
Today’s government in Pakistan condemns U.S. UAV flights put gives its airports for that. Can anyone trust such a lying and corrupt entity in any case?
Until we can get both Iran and China to share the problem with us, I don’t see a successful conclusion in Afghanistan.
Well – both are sharing the problem. Those two countries are the ones that are hurt most by the drug production in Afghanistan. Both would argue to get the ‘western’ troops out and then use softer instruments to influence those in Afghanistan who come out as victors in the sure to follow civil war to cut back on drug production.
You forgot one important country. India is currently doing a lot in Afghanistan and that does not mean it does a lot of good. (sidenote: Karzai was educated in India.)
The Pakistanis security/military folks fear with some justification that India, its traditional enemy, wants to make Afghanistan an ally and prepares for a two front war against Pakistan. That gives them good reason to sponsor certain, well defined, parts (Mullah Omar, Haqqini clan) of the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan.
If the U.S. wants to stay in Afghanistan it could do a lot to lower the temperature there by urging the Indians out. Maybe that would be a good start for some new strategic thinking.
My advice to the U.S., if it wants to see some progress in Afghanistan:
Lower the temperature by making the situation simpler.
– Stop hitting with UAVs in Pakistan because that only increases the problem by a whole dimension.
– Kick India out of Afghanistan.
– Start REAL cooperation with Iran and stop threatening it.
– Learn from the Russians.
– And then leave.
Sorry no role for LCS’ in their at all, but that’s not my fault 🙂

Posted by: b | Mar 4 2009 19:34 utc | 32

B,
Thanks for the response. I am not as well versed as you are on the specifics, your insights are most welcome. It helps me frame the tidbits I do know to understand the bigger picture.
I agree with these points:
Stop hitting with UAVs in Pakistan because that only increases the problem by a whole dimension.
Could not agree more. CIA run operations in weak and failed states promote conditions for weak and failed states. Pakistan and Somalia are examples today.
Kick India out of Afghanistan.
I know nothing about India activities in Afghanistan, but I think you may want to consider your position. This would be like China telling us we have no interest working with Canada or Mexico, or us telling Russia they have no interest in Georgia. I believe our policy in the 21st century is to promote rising great powers to take interest in weak and failed states on their border, because ultimately I believe that is the solution for North Korea (China), Afghanistan (India, China, Iran), and many regions in South America (Brazil).
Start REAL cooperation with Iran and stop threatening it.
Agreed. Will not be easy. First many have to accept them as a nuclear power, a tough sell. Iran is selling high tech weapons to our enemies in the Pak tribal regions, which is not useful to their position. We need to demonstrate maturity, and so do they. Right now both Iran and the US are acting like children who disregard good behavior.
Learn from the Russians. And then leave.
I think this is the goal, but war games continuously show that if we leave without splintering the Taliban leadership and breaking up the Al Qaeda network, Pakistan breaks down. They are simply too organized and have too much reach into Pakistan already. That intelligence assessment will almost certainly drive whatever policy the Obama administration comes up with.
While it scares the holy crap out of India, building Pakistan out of its weak state status is a critical element to the long term strategy, and I think getting the CIA the fuck out and bringing in China is a good way to do that. Building up the government in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the long term solution in my opinion… because a failed nuclear state is the problem that drives policy.

Posted by: Galrahn | Mar 5 2009 4:35 utc | 33

One more point.
When I say CIA run operations in weak and failed states promote conditions for weak and failed states, and cite Pakistan and Somalia as examples, I note that I believe there are better alternatives.
The DoD does this better due to how it they do it. For example, when a covert war is required, footprints at sea and not on land removes the political pressure domestically on places like Pakistan. I’m not convinced that the tactical action of striking high value targets in Pakistan is worth it at all, but if it is net gain, we don’t want to do it while destabilizing domestic governments in weak states like we do when we put UAVs on an airfield in Pakistan.
It is much easier politically to simply let Pakistan ‘blame America’ (they will anyway) then to blame both America and their domestic political leadership.
A better example: the overt DoD approach is very effective, and Columbia is a good example. SOUTHCOM has done a really impressive job in Columbia, but very few really understand the extent. We operate in Columbia in the open, rather than by covert means, and in conjunction with the Colombian military and with the support of the Colombian people.
The important strategic concept that works for the US is that deception is destabilizing, but visibility is not.

Posted by: Galrahn | Mar 5 2009 4:44 utc | 34

I know nothing about India activities in Afghanistan, but I think you may want to consider your position. This would be like China telling us we have no interest working with Canada or Mexico, or us telling Russia they have no interest in Georgia.
The examples you give are states that share borders. I see legitimate interests there. But India and Afghanistan have no common border nor any common culture or language. I see no role for India in Afghanistan. It only threatens the Paks.
Iran is selling high tech weapons to our enemies in the Pak tribal regions,
Huh? Any source for that?
A good paper about weapons in the triabal reason is this (pdf). Most come from Pakistan’s corrupt weapon factories, some from China and some are made locally. Where are the reports of sophisticated weapons used against U.S. forces in Afghanistan? Where are the MANPADs and RPG-27 if Iran is delivering such weapons?
but war games continuously show that if we leave without splintering the Taliban leadership and breaking up the Al Qaeda network, Pakistan breaks down.
I don’t think so. The Taliban are a quite diverse group (there are at least 7 or 8 groups active now). The unite when they have a common enemy. They split as soon as that is gone. Their common enemy is not the Pakistani government, but the U.S. forces in Afghanistan. I see no danger for Pakistan if Afghanistan settles down after the foreigners leave.
Building up the government in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the long term solution in my opinion
The U.S. did its best to first keep Musharraf as dictator and when he was no longer holdable to install Bhutto/Zardari. Has that helped building the Pakistani government? I don’t think so and I don’t think that the U.S. has the capacity to do such.
A better example: the overt DoD approach is very effective, and Columbia is a good example.
I’d disagree on that. Columbia is a good example of what? But that’s another discussion.

Posted by: b | Mar 5 2009 7:22 utc | 35

in the interests of precision, it’s colombia w/ an “o”
and the stmt “We operate in Columbia in the open, rather than by covert means, and in conjunction with the Colombian military and with the support of the Colombian people” is not correct
just one specific instance – there was the immediate official denial of any u.s. role in last summer’s rescue of kidnapped u.s. defense contractors(? engaged in covert ops) and which later turned out to not be the case.

Posted by: b real | Mar 5 2009 15:55 utc | 36

Back to Main