Thinking about Afghanistan
As President Obama homes in on the Afghanistan decision, here are some articles you might want to read. I hope he has read them:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091130/roston http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/11/peril-in-pakistan-fb-ali.html#more http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/wp-content/themes/stevenpressfield/one_tribe_at_a_time.pdf
HT: Pat Lang http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
NYU’s Center on Law and Security had a well-attended conference last Friday, “Counterinsurgency: America’s Strategic Burden,” which I hope to write about later this week. The bottom line: many well-informed experts are not optimistic about U.S. prospects in Afghanistan. More than one of them offered the view that Pakistan was a far greater danger, and in the long run a far more difficult problem than Afghanistan.
UPDATE: Bill Moyers did a repris (Friday, November 20) of LBJ’s Vietnam decision making. Moyers captured the muddle and troubled moral considertions by rebroadcasing Johnson’s phone conversation with major players. Moyers was then one of his aides so we can assume that he knows whereof he has selected from taped phone conversations. Here in transcript form: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11202009/transcript1.html There is a video link as well: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11202009/watch.html
on November 23rd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Thanks for posting this and the conference last week. A couple of additional items that the media rarely focuses on:
a) the notion that the US must go to Al Queda bases and destroy them in order to protect the US is an outdated notion. If anything, there is a fraction of Al Queda in Afghanistan compared to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia. US can best defend itself with heightened security and interdiction covering many different regions of the world. The fight also needs to focus on financing; not just killing folks;
b) need to refocus from war thinking; even the standard definition of counter-insurgency; to policing efforts and a massive effort to re-build education, infrastructure, hospitals, etc. The fight needs to focus on education, government, health, economies – not on trying to control by using force.
on November 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
many well-informed experts are not optimistic about U.S. prospects in Afghanistan
Neither am I. . . . Not any more.
on November 23rd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
There are such ironies here. Whatever we can say about Rumsfield, and there is a lot of negatives, he clearly let the army know the White House was in charge. Now Generals are independently lobbying for more troops and unnerving the Oval Office. Obama has to make clear who is in charge. Mount a public relations battle and then get out of Afghanistan while keeping needed surveillance. As always politics enters into it. Health Care has a real chance now so the WH does not want Afghanistan to distract from that worthy goal.
on November 23rd, 2009 at 7:43 pm
After his basically following the Bush plan on Afghanistan until now, I am glad that President Obama is now preparing his own plan of action.
I do not know if he will press on with the war or not, but I think we should cut our losses and bring our boys home.
As for changing Afghani hearts and minds, it gives me no pleasure to say that frankly, Afghanistan and the Afghans simply are not worth the effort or the sacrifice. Even if we succeed in installing some government and ensure that all Afghans have the right to vote, and have clean wataer, what would that mean? It would mean we have just propped up an independent Opium State run by mafiosos, albeit Islamic mafiosos. Also, by then we would surely have many soldiers returning home as opium addicts, a problem from which as a society, we would then suffer for many decades.
India, Pakistan and China can handle things over there and culturally, we do not understand them very well at all anyway. In any case it is high time those countries tend to their own regional affairs.
No, Afghanistan is not worth one more American boy. I hope President Obama brings our troops home and turns his attention to things closer to home. Focus less on the international; more on the national.
on November 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 pm
The atrocities committed by the Taliban are well documented. They also destroyed ancient carvings of the Buddha and of course ran camps to train terrorists.
On March 24th, 1999, the United States and Great Britain launched a unique offensive in Serbia. The basis for the operation was the novel idea that there are some crimes committed by a state that are so serious and extreme that they may be subject to military intervention.
Whether you agree with the logic or not, there is precedent for proceeding in what is referred to as a “humanitarian war”.
I think that the rise of Islamic extremist fundamentalism in political movements such as the Taliban threatens basic human rights as enunciated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
As for Afghans not being worth the efforts, I would remind you of this:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me –
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.
on November 23rd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
George D – agree with your statement. But, would put Afghanistan well below any number of human rights national issues in Africa where we have documented proof of on-going crimes against humanity with deaths in the hundreds of thousands. That is not true in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan does not like the Taliban either but they do need to make up their own minds on this – it is not a nation in the way we think nationhood.
How would you decide the most pressing human rights area that needs military intervention? Is it the primary role of the UN to do this? Why the US? What happens to multinational interventions rather than any type of unilateralism? It is a complex issue.
My concern is that Obama will make a “political” decision at this crucial time and make a decision from the center – middle of the road troop increase; clear objectives; time limited; possible trigger for pull out if certain Afghani goals are not met.
on November 24th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Andrew Bacevich spoke at our parish in Newton this past Sunday evening. A very impressive presentation — clarity of expression and rigorousness of thought.
One point he made seems to echo Bill DeHaas’s series of questions: what are the governing principles that should guide any tactical (political) decisions?
On another (not unrelated note): he confesses to be a firm believer in original sin.
on November 24th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Not long I heard some commentary with which I tend to agree. In a certain sense, President Obama is in a similiar situtuation in which President Johnsons found himself.
Both men inherited on-going wars, and like Obama, LBJ also had relatively agressive social program goals. Johnson wanted Medicare among other things, but the war lingered in the background. Finally it all blew up in his face and probably to his dismay, LBJ found that Americans forgot all the good things he had done or tried to do, and put the blame for Vietnam squarely on him.
Now, LBJ did not start that war, but he made the mistake of letting it linger on and on and on.
Eventually we left, Vietnam fell to the communists, and many (millions) of Asians died. However MacNamera’s “domino theory” proved not to be valid, and so neither the Red Chinese nor the Soviets took control of Asia.
Certainly I have not given all the details; Vietnam was more comlicated to be sure. However it seems President Obama would do well to study old LBJ’s plight, and try to learn from his mistakes.
You make some valid point George, and believe me, I take no pleasure in my position regarding Afghanistan; I wish the reality were otherwise and that we had some chance of making things better there.
For better or worse, we Americans are not big on recalling history. Moreover, again for better or worse, our society has done its best to forget or somehow compartmentalize the events of 9-11. Our response was half-hearted at best; frankly it seemed many Americans were war-weary but about 9-18, and then we “went shopping” and slowly, we tuned back into the football games and reality shows. We slouched to a sort of victory in Iraq, and a democracy there might prove beneficial to us in the long haul, but it really does not seem we are up for another 8 years of a war in Afghanistan.
I know about those two ancient statues the Taliban destroyed; it was a tragedy. However most Americans do not even know where Afghanistan is, much less care what goes on there. They certainly will not tolerate their sons dying there for long, especially if the President cannot clearly explain why we (our soldiers) are there and what they are doing.
on November 24th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Typo – “…war-weary [by] about 9-18…”
on November 24th, 2009 at 11:03 am
When talking of soldiers we should remember that there are more women than ever in the US armed forces. In combat! It seems to me we are in for a massive education on this front. The depth and breadth of this seems to be a watershed that most of us do not appreciate.
on November 24th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Really Bill, have you never heard the old phrase “bring the boys back home”? It is from an old British song.
Most Americans realize that we have both men and women on active duty, in harm’s way, and that the terms “soldiers” and “troops” includes both men and women.
In any case, I will re-write the portions of my posts that so upset you that you found it worthwhile to take time to note them.
————————–
“…I do not know if he will press on with the war or not, but I think we should cut our losses and bring our boys and girls (by which of course I lieteraly mean the men and women who serve in our armed forces deployed in Afghanistan) home….”
And;
“…No, Afghanistan is not worth one more American boy or girl, by which of course I mean man or woman. I hope President Obama brings our troops (which of course include both men and women) home and turns his attention to things closer to home. Focus less on the international; more on the national…”
And;
“…I know about those two ancient statues the Taliban destroyed; it was a tragedy. However most Americans do not even know where Afghanistan is, much less care what goes on there. They certainly will not tolerate their sons and-or daughters dying there for long, especially if the President cannot clearly explain why we (our soldiers, who of course are both men and women) are there and what they are doing…”
———————-
Yes Bill, we need to be sensitive; we mustn’t forget the depth and breadth of our semantics.
Would you listen to yourself for a moment? We have people dying for nothing in some God forsaken hell hole with no real end in sight while our politicians play their usual games, and you wring your hands and worry over tiny matters like the wording someone uses on a blog?
Please don’t be such a prissy school marm. It makes you sound tedious.
on November 24th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Bill D
When you say something like –
“Afghanistan does not like the Taliban either but they do need to make up their own minds on this – it is not a nation in the way we think nationhood.”
It glosses over the whole moral dilema. If, in reality, our departure will lead to the Taliban taking over, whether the Afghan people like it or not, then is that an acceptable outcome? I actually agree with all you are saying about the necessity, at least in the short and mid-term, of staying in Afghanistan for national securty reasons. But I think if you take that position then you also have to say you are willing to accept that the Taliban at least possibly will take control, and that that is acceptable. Also, you have to be willing to accept the longer term risk that should another Afghanistan-like situation arise then a strategy in which we will go in neutralize and leave, and therefore not get any assistance from the population.
Another serious question is whether an undefeated occupying power may lawfully abandon a civilian population to be abused by an organized criminal group like the Taliban. The Fourth Geneva Convention places significant obligations on occupying powers to not only refrain from abusing, but to affirmatively protect civilian populations.
on November 24th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
We need to tell Pakistan that they have to do the heavy lifting on their border and we start to stand down immediately.
That no one in either party would dare propose a 5-10% war tax to finance some equality/universality in sacrifice is an inditement against American character. Asperations of being a world policeman on a shoe sting budget with a mercenary army is pathetic.Gen. Mc Crystal wants more village foot patrols with special care to avoid civilian casualties. A sure huge increase in US casualties. To say we already won in Irag is to forget about the Mahdi army which is in temporary stand down until we leave.
on November 24th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
The Fourth Geneva Convention places significant obligations on occupying powers to not only refrain from abusing, but to affirmatively protect civilian populations.
Sean,
This is America. What have the Geneva Conventions got to do with us?
on November 24th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
One point he made seems to echo Bill DeHaas’s series of questions: what are the governing principles that should guide any tactical (political) decisions?
Fr. Imbelli,
About a year ago, Fr. Komonchak posted for discussion a very provocative quote from John Courtney Murray which read in part:
I think I agree with JCM, but of course he doesn’t tell us what the answer to your question is. He more or less raises the question in a different way by telling us we can’t find the governing principles in Scripture.
on November 24th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
David,
FYI –
The US is the only nation in the World the regularly trains all of its troops on the Laws of War.
Every, and I mean every, major military operation and air mission is reviewed for compliance with the laws of war.
I believe any fair minded and reasonable person who reviews the record will conclude that the United States armed forces have been the most compliant with the laws of war and the dictates of the Gevenva Conventions than any country that has engaged in major military operations in the last 60 years.
In short – get a clue.
on November 24th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
We need to cut our losses and get out of there asap.
Afghans have been dying for eons over nonsense and will continue to do so whether we are there or not. If we routed the Taliban, does anyone really think the Afghans are about to dug up the opium plants, start raising olives or corn, and settle in for a coffee at the local Starbucks?
We need to be realistic and honest with ourselves about what we are willing to do. It is not right to ask our soldiers to lay down their lives for little or nothing.
Let the UN work it out with China, India, and Pakistan, so that those states put the pressure on Afghanistan. That is what the UN is supposed to be for anyway.
on November 24th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I agree with Sean, David.
Your cynicism notwithstanding, while we certainly are not perfect, we Americans are just about the fairest and most decent group of people on the planet.
Compare with other nations and what they do with prisoners. I just read about some Chinese man sentenced to jail for criticizing the Chinese government over their incompetence in dealing with a storm that killed some 90,000 people. Nobody went to jail for criticizing the US government over how the mistakes made in dealing with hurricane Katrina.
Governments in other parts of the world routinely brutalize people on a scale and frequency you and I simply cannot imagine or believe.
Of course we follow the Geneva Convention as appropriate, and we also follow any other applicable laws of war.
on November 24th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Ken said:
Would you listen to yourself for a moment? We have people dying for nothing in some God forsaken hell hole with no real end in sight while our politicians play their usual games, and you wring your hands and worry over tiny matters like the wording someone uses on a blog?
Please don’t be such a prissy school marm. It makes you sound tedious
Although I almost always disagree with Bill (and the exceptions are for me happy occasions), I must say I believe your attack on him is rude and unwarranted. Bill has, I suspect, a heart as big as the Pacific Ocean, and he is inclined to speak in what Peggy Steinfels refers to as “prophetic” speech. I (think) I know where he comes from; it’s a good place, and he expresses it well.
on November 24th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091130/roston
This is posted above and I post it again to suggest that the complications are immense and intertwined. The picture here is of an Afghan elite that is a kleptocracy now very much intertwined with contract work for the DOD and very much paying protection money to the Taliban. Apart from any military issues, there is a vicious cycle to the mere presence of the U.S.
on November 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I believe any fair minded and reasonable person who reviews the record will conclude that the United States armed forces have been the most compliant with the laws of war and the dictates of the Gevenva Conventions than any country that has engaged in major military operations in the last 60 years.
Sean and Ken,
I don’t really disagree with anything you say. My remark was in reference to the Bush administration and the issue of the treatment of detainees captured in the “war on terror.” The initial approach by the administration was that the Geneva Conventions did not apply. The Supreme Court ultimately said otherwise.
Compliance with the Geneva Conventions, it seems to me, requires not making unilateral decisions that declare them inapplicable when you want to do things like waterboarding prisoners. For the most part, the congress, the courts, and the Obama administration has worked things out, but I believe there still remain loopholes, and also the issue of how deeply to delve into, and deal with, past wrongs has not been settled.
I believe the American military is, in general, at least as honorable as any other military that actually has to get its hands dirty, although it is far from perfect and should not be exempt from criticism. Abu Ghraib was more than an isolated incident. Also, General McChrystal has not been candid (in my opinion) about his role in the coverup of the events surrounding the death of Pat Tillman.
on November 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
In short – get a clue.
Sean,
It would have been a better message if you had left that out.
on November 24th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
In response to some questions about my post – I do not want nor do I support the re-emergence of the Taliban over the common Afghani citizen esp. women and children. Some of you cited the Geneva Conventions and an occupying force – is the US an occupying force? In reality, probably. How about the NATO mission within Afghanistan?
If we have learned nothing else over the past 60 years, when the US is an occupying force; we lose the moral high ground; we fail; we retreat. It is a very complex situation as Ms. Steinfels link to an article enumerates. The current and probably ongoing government is really no better than the Taliban – the media just don’t report it as so.
Obama needs to find a completely different approach that gets the US armed forces out of the role of an occupying force and into police, economic, health, education roles with active intervention along the borders of Afghanistan. We need to refocus on the tribal areas of Pakistan and on Pakistan itself. We need to spend our dollars on other initiatives and our political energies on regions such as Palestine/Israel; the Koreas; Iran; African nations.
on November 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Amazingly slow on this blog today. Probably most decent people are preparing for Thanksgiving – not at work in front of the pc!
I enjoy the always interesting and sometimes fiesty discussion here, and sure hope everyone has a nice Thanksgiving day!
on November 24th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
David
The Bush administration’s position was, until the Supreme Court decided otherwise, not only widely held but arguably the more accepted position among law of war experts. It is not as if they simply ignored the conventions. Five mebers of the Supreme Court were the ones who changed the rules, and when they did the administration complied.
Moreover, they also took the position that even if Common Article 3 applied, the military commissions – which were identical to those that tried war criminals after WWII, were in compliance. They for example permitted vists by the ICRC and gave the detainees counsel. Common article 3 does not require that a nation give all the procedural protections that the Constitution provides it only requires – “affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
This idea that the Bush administration went out and ignored the law of war is simply false. Their approach at the time was not considered outrageous or illegal – and it still wasn’t by at least three justices on the court.
on November 25th, 2009 at 3:54 am
we can’t find the governing principles in Scripture.
I’m not sure how we can pick and choose to what areas the Sermon on the Mount stuff may and may not apply. To say pacifism can only be applied be individuals but not by nations is really to say that pacifism isn’t practical. But most of what Jesus preached isn’t practical, and doesn’t lead to sucess – after all, it got him killed. The just war theory is Christianity’s way of getting around pacifism – of having cake and eating it too. I’m not saying that there aren’t times when people must fight, but the expression ‘Christian soldiers’ seems an oxymoron.
on November 25th, 2009 at 9:19 am
There was a message here quoting my message of November 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm and disagreeing with me. It was under an unfamiliar name and said that considering the fact that only three detainees had been tortured, if loopholes remained in the ban on torture, they would be all that was needed to continue the policy. The writer also said the United States was violating the Geneva Conventions in Pakistan.
Where did the message go?
on November 25th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I deleted it at the author’s request.
on November 25th, 2009 at 10:05 am
I deleted it at the author’s request.
Grant,
Thanks. Feel free to delete any comments that contradict mine, even if the authors don’t request it.
on November 25th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Scroll down past the halfway point to a graph called “Troops in Afghanistan” for an interesting surprise.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/13/information-beautiful-afghanistan
on November 25th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Thanks, Unagidon. Excellent data – guess folks can disagree on how to interpret and apply. Have to look through my old graduate school data on Vietnam……would love to compare 1964-1973 to these time periods in Afghanistan.
Remember the involvment of SEATO – troops from South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Philippines but not much else.
Obviously, the civilian and Viet Cong/North Vietnamese lives lost would be significantly higher than the Afghani figures.
on November 25th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Thanks U.. great charts. However to the 164,143 for Afghanistan army and policy, I would add comments from the NYU meeting. There are said to be 92,000 Afghan army troops; the panelists agreed that at best it was actually half that because people sign up and first paycheck after boot camp they head home (some to join the Taliban). No one discussed the police numbers.
If one of Obama’s goals is to get the Afghan Army to defend the country, it sounds to me that it will be all uphill.
on November 25th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Margaret – I agree; this Afghan war is going to be a toughie. I wish President Obama had decided to bring the troops home.
My wife already prays regularly for the president, and I think that is great. I will try to start doing the same for our troops.
When yesterday the President announced he will stay the course on this, I was surprised he take this route – wow.
I have real reservations and would not have chosen this course, but politics needs to stop at the waterfront and we all need to support our President. Since we are now fully committed, I sure hope Afghanistan goes quicker than Iraq did.
My politics are not Obama’s politics, but the way I look at things, this is not a game; this is war and is very, very serious. I must support our President, and I will.
on November 25th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Typo – meant to type;
“…President announced [we] will stay the course …”
on November 25th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
He also said he intended “to finish the job.” I think we should wait until we smell the whole kettle of fish! Oy!
on November 25th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
When yesterday the President announced he will stay the course on this, I was surprised he take this route – wow.
Ken,
I don’t think Obama said we would “stay the course,” and if Michael Beschloss was correct on the NewsHour last night, there may be an earlier end to this than we think.
on November 25th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Coding error. There should be only one blockquote, and “And later he said this:” and the very last sentence should not be in it, since they are my words, not Beschloss’s.
on November 25th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“There was a message here quoting my message of November 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm and disagreeing with me.”
Those comments were mine. In my multitasking fervor, I erroneously submitted that comment under my full name (the pseudonym I use is an acronym of that). Without boring you with my CV, it suffices to say it is to the greater good that my colleagues be unaware of any personal opinions I may have regarding matters not directly related to my employment.
That being said, I was not disagreeing, just being argumentative (I cannot think of the appropriate word off the tip of my tongue but I mean that in the non-contentious sense). I do not recall my original comments in their entirety, but my recollection was I was making two observations. The first was that the waterboarding by the CIA in 02/03 is a separate and distinct issue from the broader issue of treatment of detainees with respect to the Geneva Conventions both in terms of the underlying laws, who the protagonists are, and the fact pattern. I think the way you articulated the previous President’s legal position on those two issues was therefore confusing the two.
Notwithstanding the above, the other sentiment I was trying to articulate is that it is not clear to me these two issues have been worked out in a substantive way. The examples I used to illustrate that point were the loopholes you refer to and the status of US military operations in Pakistan vis-à-vis international law. I believe this lack of clarity has direct bearing on what appears to be our long-term presence in Afghanistan.
on November 25th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Well David, I hope you are right, or more accurately, that Michael Beschloss is correct regarding this.
In any case, while he is not my man politically, I will not criticize President Obama on this one. For me, politics stops at the waterfront.
I will criticize him on other matters (I routinely do), but regarding this war business, there is simply too much at stake to play political games or gamesmanship.