Time to Go - Afghan Edition

The Fat Lady has risen and is now limbering up her vocal cords for a rendition of “Impossible”.  Afghanistan is over and the distrust and dislike are fully out in the open.  Since the entire COIN theory rests basically on trust, there is nothing left to salvage from a war that was won on the ground almost a decade ago and the goal of which died in a lightning raid in Pakistan last year.  The US indulged in nation building after 2003 and no one remembers why.  Nation building in a place like Afghanistan, where local villagers do not even know why foreign troops were everywhere because they never heard of 9/11, is building on foundation of sand.  The coalition has lost the hearts and minds battle. 

Let’s understand one thing – there is no trust on either side.  The latest killing spree by a veteran US sergeant where 16 people – 9 of them children – died is only a degree of difference from the death of civilians around the country by accidental fire and collateral damage.  The accidental burning of the Quran – considered the literal word of God – and videos of US soldiers urinating on the bodies of Taliban are only the most obvious of the incidents that have made the coalition presence problematic.

Three weeks ago an Afghan gunman killed two senior US officers inside the Interior Ministry’s headquarters.  This was on the heels of the Quran burning. A couple of days before the incident inside the Interior Ministry coalition helicopters flying in eastern Afghanistan fired on a group of civilians, killing four and injuring three.

And guess what.  Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall and Karzai can’t put him back together again.  Why? Because he is not respected and is aptly called the Mayor of Kabul.  And even if he could, he cannot because he cannot be seen to be supporting a coalition that has lost all trust.

Finally, all those foreign aid workers might soon find themselves protected by Afghan security because the Afghan government looks like it is going to enforce the banning of private security firms.  It is hard enough for various international aid agencies to get qualified people to go to Afghanistan.  Being protected by those in whom you have no trust will make it impossible.

The fact is that at this point any possible gains made in Afghanistan by the coalition are now gone.  President Obama has assured Karzai that NATO will “stay the course”.  There is no course.  It is time to cut the losses and go – because frankly, what purports to be a country but in reality is just a loose combination of regions that sometimes fight each other is not worth it.  Afghanistan is irrelevant and can be dealt with from a distance.

Withdrawal will likely make Pakistan more peaceful and stable. Donor funds, Russian and US security efforts and other aid interventions are pouring into neighboring Tajikistan.  Afghanistan is not bordered by friends and internally is divided.  Take away the foreign troops and it is not hard to envision the results.  We should not care.   It is not worth another 18 months of further bloodshed.

Russia Makes its Moves

A decision by the Kremlin to pay a naval visit to Syria as reported in Izvestia spells trouble.  Russia is clearly ramping up its position regarding what it sees as encirclement redux by the West.  Sending its flagship aircraft carrier the "Admiral Kuznetsov" along with a patrol ship, an anti-submarine craft and other vessels is a signal to NATO that Russia is willing to irritate the West - such as threatening to shut down the supply line to Afghanistan as well - to assert its resurgent foreign policy. 

Aside from the natural position of any country to protect its interests, the move to send a naval contingent to Syria is curious because the blow-back to Russian economic interests in Syria could be serious in long run.  Assad is going down and it is unlikely that the new government will recall the support given to him by the visiting ships with any fondness.  It may have been pre-planned, but it was not cancelled, and under the circumstances is a supremely stupid move by Moscow. Defending one's interests is one thing - supporting a bloody murderer is another. Not that the Russians don't have a history of supporting people like Assad - just look to Serbia. 

The other somewhat provocative move is the recent threat to cut off the supply route to NATO troops in Afghanistan.  Coupled with this weeks border closure by Pakistan, this could spell real trouble.  NATO is withdrawing anyway and the logic of the threat speaks more to the perceived and somewhat real containment of Russia by the US in Eastern Europe.  But, again, such a threat, if implemented, would affect real NATO interests and lives.  This would be a profoundly dumb move by the Kremlin unless it actually desires a return to the cold war - one it did not win. 

The timing of the threats from another standpoint is also curious. The US is Russia's greatest competitor. It is withdrawing from Afghanistan and has largely completed its withdrawal from Iraq.  Russian ability to reign-in its near-abroad depended on the window of opportunity provided by the distraction caused by those two wars.  The window is almost shut and the US will have more opportunity to shift its foreign policy focus away from these wars, much to the detriment of Russian foreign policy should it continue on this course. 

It is difficult to understand the choices that are made by those in power in Russia regarding how they protect their interests.  They certainly have other leverage points but appear to be deliberately choosing those that maximize the chance of long-term damage in relations with the West - a partner they desperately need.  The imminent re-assumption of power by Vladimir Putin coupled with militaristic muscle flexing does not auger well for future.

Posting about the Obvious

I’ve had a long break from posting while I thought of what topic was worth a comment.  None, really, was the conclusion.  

First, the anticipated speech by Obama on the troop drawdown in Afghanistan is not news any longer.  It stopped being news when the leaks began.  My judgment is that it is about time the US declared that the death of OBL and destruction of the al Qaeda operation in Afghanistan mooted the need for US and NATO troops.  Nation building was not why Bush went in – the mission morphed into that particularly perverse idea. Plus, Karzai is a bigger ass than previously thought and his increasingly strident remarks about NATO and the West – who are there protecting his ass – justify, in and of themselves, a complete withdrawal.  In any event, the wind-up of the 10 year war should be considered a success because, simply – the goals originally put forward for the invasion have been reached.  The unplanned for break in the relationship between the US and Pakistan is another matter. End of story.

Second, what more can be said about the IMF, Brussels and Greece other than the path taken at the insistence of Germany in particular won’t work in the long-term for the cohesion of the EU and may very well bring about the collapse of the euro zone.  The economies of the EU are badly out of balance and the major players are unwilling to change the dynamics. This is no longer breaking news.

Third, is anyone surprised at the time it is taking to get rid of Gadhafi?  Nothing new here except, again, everyone must re-learn the basic rules of warfare – airpower is never enough and boots on the ground win battles. Unfortunately, the anti-Gadhafi forces do not have the firepower or the money to successfully bring an end to the conflict. A NATO missile (if the Europeans have any left) will end up doing it.  Daily reports of casualties, mistakes and the continuing shock by Very Important Pundits that civilians are killed in wars make not a damn bit of difference.  The absurd debate in the US of the legalities of involvement in Libya is a side-show for intellectual ego massage and decisions over superficialities (something at which the US Congress excels) while the intellectually challenged Republican candidates for president indulge in posturing on who can be more Christian, white and right-wing than the other.

Syria.  Being in the neighborhood and the headquarters of al Jazeera, I get a full dose of the atrocities every day.  No one will do anything because no one can do anything.  The demonstrators are, well, on their own. End of story.

South China Sea.  The entire universe seems to claim overlapping parts of it.  Few are paying attention, but this zone is a legitimate flash point for a very dangerous military encounter.

South Sudan and no one mentions the oil.  Why is that?

So – being somewhat bored with all the above and not the hand-wringing type, I thought that it would be more interesting, at least for me, to write about the New Old World Order – abbreviated edition.  That will be the subject of the next few posts.

Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Death of bin Laden

If you’ve noticed a dearth of postings it’s because I’m busy with my day job. I’ll be posting more often once the frenetic pace abates a bit.


Now that OBL & Son are defunct, several items of a more important practical nature need to be reviewed. At the top of the list are Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The elimination of OBL is an opportunity for the US to declare victory in Afghanistan, saddle-up and move out. As I have always maintained, the surge advocated by General Petraeus and largely implemented by the US, was the wrong way to go. It has not been a success and since the original objective of the mission was to destroy al Qaida and take Afghanistan off the table as a safe base for jihadist training, the US and NATO have succeeded, it is time to leave. The mission was never to nation-build.

Furthermore, the mission to kill OBL deep inside Pakistan was undertaken by a small, elite team – not 35,000 or so boots on the ground. The justification for the surge appears to be based on the experience learned in Iraq. That was never a good idea considering the results in that ill-advised war. However, rather than indulging in the surge method of warfare (which always struck me as something you do when you’re on the ropes) or even COIN in Afghanistan the US should have focused on tracking and killing terrorists in Afghanistan with discrete and rapid missions, including from the air. That was V.P. Biden’s advice but because Petraeus was equivalent to Zeus by the Very Serious People in the Beltway, his advice absolutely had to be followed otherwise the world would end. So, the opportunity to agree with Karzai is sitting there like low hanging fruit. Pull out – and do it before the current target of 2014.

A rapid draw down in Afghanistan has a bag full of advantages, not the least of which is that it would save lives. And then there is the money. The budget deficit in the US would get some relief, particularly in combination with the withdrawal from Iraq. It would free-up the US military to actually pay attention to other areas of the world – or better yet – take a rest from patrolling the borders of the empire. It would swiftly cut short the messianic tinged nation-building endeavor into which the conflict has morphed. Not least, none of us would need to listen to the ungrateful whining of the corrupt Mayor of Kabul, Karzai.

Pakistan is a different issue. It is inconceivable that someone very high on the food chain in the Pakistan military or the ISI did not know that OBL was sipping Coke and Pepsi in a huge, multi-million dollar compound with 6 meter walls, close to the West Point of the country and the most fashionable golf course in the north - all 150 kilometers from the capital. How Pakistan is approached, however, will depend on the draw down in Afghanistan and what the US wants to accomplish in the region.

Pakistan is paranoid about India and Indian activities in Afghanistan. The generals see it as an encirclement campaign and will look to China and Iran for help. Pakistan is also beset by its local Taliban while opposing the Taliban in Afghanistan – for now. That may change as the US withdraws and Pakistan’s secret service decides the Afghan Taliban are useful. However, Iran loathes the Afghan Taliban for a variety of reasons – not the least of which is their particular brand of Islam. However, Pakistan’s military is still very reliant on US largess. Even as it becomes an economic and political basket case and becomes overall weaker compared to its heavy hitting neighbor India, the military will want their toys.

However, US foreign policy may be able to disenthrall itself regarding the perceived need to be nice to Pakistan and Afghanistan based on their fear mongering about al Qaeda. Given the swift insertion, action and withdrawal of a tightly organized team to kill OBL the US should wake up to the notion that it does not need Pakistan and Afghanistan as much as they led the US to believe – with significant help from the Republicans. The leverage this produces is huge. Back in the good old days (that’s a joke) when Kissinger and Nixon were around making trouble, Turkey’s generals were snubbing their collective noses at the US regarding missile deployment in Turkey. Kissinger, with considerable risk, basically said that the US clearly saw no reason to indulge the Turkish government if they did not want the help of the US. The same should be said of Pakistan and Afghanistan. What is more important in the region – India or Pakistan? In all of eastern and central Asia, does US foreign policy need to pander to the whims and blackmail of Islamabad, Kabul or, for that matter, Dushanbe and Bishkek?

The death of OBL, and the means of its accomplishment should provide US foreign policy with far more flexibility and allow it to focus on more important issues than the threats from some 3rd rate terrorists who have managed – again with the help of the Republicans – to get American citizens give up basic Constitutional liberties with every little radio and tape broadcast of meaningless threats. If anything, the al Qaeda central command (long gone and now decapitated) and all the little franchises have managed to show that many Americans are, quite simply, cowards and willing to give up all their democratic rights for security regardless of how remote the threat. As Benjamin Franklin said: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

So the killing of OBL opens up a range of opportunities for US foreign policy and withdrawal from Afghanistan will put Pakistan and Afghanistan on notice so they may adjust to a new world of interaction with their neighbors.

The Trees of Kabul

This is a guest post by a long-time friend, Philip Clark who is based in Kabul -  I will be in Uganda for a week - so no posting.

Kabul, 27 March – On 7 March I watched Gen. Petraeus – whom I had just met and to whom I’d immediately made a joke – and Ambassador Eikenberry plant trees in a Kabul park during a snow storm. The show was heavy and very welcomed but it apparently was the last of the Kabul season, and, almost at once, the weather changed.


Day by day, we could see the snow diminish from nearby Television Hill, a former Taliban holdout where the local stations now have their towers. The grass – that which hadn’t been crushed to straw underfoot – turned immediately green. The scattered rose bushes sprouted leaves. Within two weeks, I spotted two dandelions and a daffodil in full bloom. From our car, we could see a cluster of cherry trees, safely sheltered behind a wall, in riotous pink flower. During the tree planting, municipal workers had shivered in their tunics – green for park workers, orange for sanitation crews -- but now we were in shirtsleeves as we dashed between the AID and State compounds.

The farther, higher peaks still are resplendent in their white coatings, glowing in the sun, and that’s good. Late-melting snow will provide water for irrigation over a longer stretch of the growing season than rain, not all at once, when much would be wasted or, even worse, cause flooding. Now the concern is the sudden switch from winter to spring will foment early thunderstorms. Thunderstorms can bring hail, which could destroy just-sprouted crops, when they are most vulnerable. Like farmers everywhere, Afghans have plenty to worry about, even without deliberate Taliban bombings and accidental NATO strikes.
The tree planting was a joint effort of USAID and the International Security Assistance Force the military coalition here. USAID is doing the bigger part but both the general and the ambassador made speeches, as did the mayor of Kabul and several Afghan government ministers.

My joke came when Gen. Petraeus arrived at his seat in the front row. We were in the second. He introduced himself first to the deputy director of the Office of Democracy and Governance – my bailiwick – Maria Barron, then to the chief and deputy of our implementing partner behind the tree project. (Implementing partners are the firms that actually do our work. We publish “request for proposals” for projects, then let contracts to implement them.) All three had identified themselves with the project, and Maria specifically said she was from AID but when Petraeus came to me, and I did the same, besides greeting me, as he had the others, he thanked me for buying the trees. Maybe he realized the implementers were hired guns, but why not thank Maria? Unconscious sexism, perhaps? I didn’t know, of course, but when he spoke to me, I replied, “General, I did it only because Maria told me to.” Petraeus was unfazed.

From the hill-top park, we had a nearly magnificent view of Kabul and the surrounding mountains. The panorama was diminished by cloud cover and mist but was still impressive. Unlike so much of our work, the tree-planting project provided instant gratification. We could see thousands of saplings ready to plant. The result of our investment was obvious. What will become of Afghan democracy, of women’s education and civil rights, of the Taliban and war lords remains to be seen but right now we could see a park full of trees because of us.

The dignitaries had been expected to plant a tree or two each but they threw themselves into the task with gusto. Perhaps they, too, enjoyed seeing an unambiguous, concrete result. As traditional musicians wandered from sapling to sapling, serenading each one, the ambassador, the general, the mayor and Afghan ministers planted tree after tree, while photographers – amateur and professional paparazzi -- swarmed around them, stampeding from each tree to get shots of the big shots wielding shovels. We had an official embassy photographer and television crews. The assistant mayor for technology recorded the event on his iPad, and dozens of embassy and city employees snapped pictures with their cell phones. It was fun, and that’s probably something neither the ambassador nor the general gets to say here very often.

USAID Closes Down a Contractor

A little scandal in the development world is always fun – except for the people who are the cause of the scandal.

AED, it was reported in yesterday’s Washington Post, has been suspended from future USAID contracts while the Office of the Inspector General completes an investigation of the non-profit.  The Post reports that according to a statement from USAID, the initial findings by the inspector general's office "reveal evidence of serious corporate misconduct, mismanagement, and a lack of internal controls, and raise serious concerns of corporate integrity.  AED holds 65 contracts with USAID worth over $640 million. The article also points out that USAID said it decided to suspend AED after the inspector general's investigation started in spring 2009 and found "substantiated evidence of misconduct by AED.”  AED had to return money following an investigation into its Pakistan project.  AED also has significant contracts in Afghanistan. 

How much of the misconduct is related to shorting consultants and pocketing the difference?  the article does not say, but if you are in development, you know what I mean.  Example. Hotels can be expensive but if the organization tells the consultant that he or she can only bill for $100 per night and USAID allows up to $250 per night – what happens to the difference if the firm charges USAID the full permitted rate?

Now, this sort of thing has happened before.  I was once brought in to resurrect an organization where one or two staff (out of 15) had colluded with outsiders to fraudulently obtain about $185,000 during the previous two years and the OIG had shut down operations.  In that case, however, my organization had discovered the fraud, reported it to USAID, paid the money back, took responsibility for the sloppy internal financial management but USAID panicked, called in the OIG resulting in a further investigation that held up operations for another 9 months after the situation had been resolved. Nevertheless, this sort of thing happens.

The venerable Harvard University sponsored Russia development program back in the 990s was also involved in some shady practices through some subtle maneuvering by its senior person in the field.  They were found out and black-balled with ramifications all the way to the top at Harvard.

However, my question is, if this investigation started in 2009, why was AED just awarded a USAID contract in Ukraine – the kick-off of which is supposed to be on Monday, 13 December?  How on earth does USAID justify that?  By saying it’s a signed contract?  So what?  On what planet do they live?

Oh. And the CEO of AED reportedly earns close to or over $800 thousand a year. This is rumor, of course, but if true,  nice work in the Not-For-Profit universe for someone who doesn’t have to spend time in the field in the garden spots of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Future of NATO to be decided over a Week-end

As NATO meets this week-end in Lisbon, three crucial issues will be on the table.


The first is Afghanistan. The timetable for withdrawal of NATO forces will focus on pace, not if. The rising crescendo of certain politicos in the US that there should be no withdrawal apparently forget that this is a NATO mission, not a US mission regardless of the fact that the majority of troops are American. Decisions in NATO are taken by unanimous consent. A decision not to withdraw is not an option. However, that does not mean that the mission – a decade old, by the way – should not be molded to fit the reality on the ground.

First, as often pointed out by me and others, Afghanistan has not been and will not be a country. It is a largely feudal system of differing tribes, some of whom have more power than others. The mission of NATO and the US in particular, was established as a response to the 9/11 terror attack by Al Qaeda which launched its training and planning from Afghanistan and who were guests of the Taliban. I’m sure there are elements of the Taliban today who wish they had not indulged their cultural traditions quite as much and thrown Al Qaeda out. Nevertheless, NATO has achieved its goal of destroying Al Qaeda Central and the mission needs to consider how to assure that Afghanistan does not become a base for international terrorism again. To do this, it will need to involve Pakistan, Russia, India and (yes) Iran.

NATO, and the US, did not plunge into the Afghan civil war raging at the time in the north between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban for the purpose of nation building. Good governance and civil society building were not part of the writ then and are a long vanished opportunity now. It was a wasted opportunity and short-sighted policy, but the reality is that the Taliban are deeply embedded in society, NATO is going away, and other tribes, particularly in the north, will not be inclined to cooperate with the Taliban alliance. These are the ingredients to a return to an Afghanistan with which all the local participants are very familiar. After NATO vanishes, expect a return to localized tribal war.

That is why NATO needs to discuss the structure of future involvement in Afghanistan, not only among its member states, but also with the surrounding players. It will need to formulate a strategy to deal with potential threats. The Taliban pose zero threat to NATO or any member country. They posed no threat in 2001 and less now. We may decry the return to what most in the West consider barbaric practices; but, aside from complaints, no one in the West was in favor of a massive use of force against the Taliban for their cultural proclivities and abuse of women. Otherwise, NATO might as well invade Saudi Arabia – an unlikely proposition.

NATO, as a body, appears particularly useless at this point in time and its principal mission, defending Europe from the Soviet Union, is not relevant. It must redefine its role and Afghanistan is a good place to start.

The second issue on the table is its relationship with a resurgent Russia. This is complicated by factors that Russia considers important to its foreign policy and its relationship with Europe – such as missile shield deployment and securing its field of influence. NATO has frequently stated that Russia is a partner, not an opponent. Many in the US do not see it that way and may well sink the START Treaty which is supported by the US military and important (thinking) Republicans. If START goes down and they are not included in the decision to deploy a missile shield, expect trouble.

For a start, Moscow may stop cooperating with the United States on Iran and, bearing in mind that Afghanistan will not be over for at least another few years, it may not be so generous with the transit of non –lethal material over its territory to supply NATO troops. It may renew pressure on its “near abroad” through energy supplies and less than subtle political pressure to make sure that NATO – and particularly the US – do not renew the Bush era political invasion of their turf. Finally, if START is not ratified and the Republican leadership succeeds in bringing a return to the confrontational policies of the previous administration with Russia, then Moscow hawks may win the day. So much for the reset button.

Third, and connected to the above is this issue of the missile shield. NATO, through the US, changed its focus from an overtly challenging system aimed at Russia that Bush and his neo-con allies sought to install, to one which is aimed at defending Europe and others from Iranian missiles. NATO will try and force the issue with Turkey for example. It has already asked that Turkey allow anti-missile shields to be placed on its territory. If Turkey says ‘no’, that will lose the second most powerful military to NATO, not to mention an important Muslim ally. If NATO pushes and Turkey says ‘yes’, then its standing in the Middle East will plummet- leaving Iran as the great protector. Ultimately, it is hoped that no specific countries are cited, giving Turkey the cover to place the shield on its soil. Of course, this is not to say that Turkey is not making some serious blunders along the way. The recent demand by Turkey that it be given operational control of the system based on its territory is absurd – but indicates the levels to which Turkey will go to gain respect and leverage in its back-yard. Time for NATO to be clever and devise a satisfactory solution because it would be sad to begin the ritual “who lost Turkey” refrain. Turkey needs to climb down from some of its positions as well.

By the end of the week-end, NATO will need to formulate an approach to the entire Middle East. It should have the wit to see how key Turkey is to the alliance and the West and not permit Israel to dictate policy. Fortunately, there is only one member of the alliance that allows its foreign policy to be directed by Israel. The others are not so inclined.

Finally, aside from specific areas of concern that must be addressed, NATO must redefine itself. It is already largely irrelevant but is unable to dissolve itself. None of its members, even France and Germany and certainly not Poland and the Baltics, want that to happen. Sweden and Finland will likely increase their participation in NATO short of becoming members. So, what is NATO to become? Because, the Cold War is over and political relationships are getting back to normal.

Credibility to Die For in Afghanistan

Over at Bellum, Mark Rice argues for staying in Afghanistan to preserve US credibility.  Aside from the fact that the loss of more life in defence of credibility is morally unacceptable, the comparison with Vietnam (denied in the article but clearly being used as an example) is a false one. He uses credibility as a justification for the his definition of the goal of NATO intervention - the conflict of liberal democracy against Islamism.

There is no doubt that the Taliban are Islamists. But that was not the goal of NATO intervention.  It was to destroy the central command of al Qaeda.  The goal has been accomplished. To now move the goalposts in an increasingly unpopular war to support a corrupt government (much like Vietnam, by the way) is intrinsically misleading.  This is not a war for the hearts and minds of millions of people as he asserts. The argument that everyone is watching to see how NATO handles the conflict - in particular Russia - is to assume that NATO has a strategic vision of its future.  It does not.

Many NATO allies have a marginal interest regarding the Afghan mission and there are profound differences over the appropriate means to address the threat of transnational terrorism in general.  Europeans do not think that the threat of jihadism should be countered in the Middle East and South Asia with major commitments of troops, but rather at home using domestic law enforcement or, as Vice President Biden advocated, handled abroad with clandestine operations.
Nevertheless, the US still has both a motivation to bring the senior leadership of al Qaeda to justice and a strategic interest in leaving Afghanistan with a government capable of preventing the country from devolving into a terrorist safe haven. The problem is the overcommitment to combating terrorism in this manner at the cost of threats elsewhere and with so much of its resources and political capital invested, it is reluctant to withdraw. This does not mean that it should stay - and most certainly not to retain some ephemeral credibility. Europeans, after all, have essentially already left.

India, Pakistan and Afghanistan - Obama in India

President Obama is in India. Pakistan is miffed. India considers an Afghanistan empty of US troops as a threat since it will revert to a land mass controlled from Islamabad through Pakistan’s security apparatus working with acceptable elements of the Taliban. Pakistan’s western border would then be reasonably secure allowing it to turn its attention to India and the Kashmir issue.
India is, to say the least, touchy about foreign intervention attempts at settling the Kashmir “problem”. As far as India is concerned, Kashmir is an internal security matter. As NATO and US presence begins to evaporate in Afghanistan, India has been inserting itself with development aid and establishing a foothold to maintain its leverage against Pakistan and prevent it from turning its attention to the east.
However, what possible alternatives are there to preventing Afghanistan from becoming a center of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist training if it is not a strong Pakistani presence? Islamabad is very familiar with the players and would not be inclined to accept the former Taliban regime from regaining anything close to its former level of power. They would likely support enough Taliban control to stabilize Afghanistan through traditional tribal deals and to create a status quo that resembles the Afghanistan of pre-Soviet times. This is what India will try to disrupt.
Is there a deal that can be brokered between India and Pakistan and can Obama do it. Frankly, I doubt it merely because Pakistan wants a settlement of the Kashmir issue, India does not except solely on its terms and the US has little leverage. Pakistan may want continued US support, but that won’t happen at the expense of India if only because of the economic element – Pakistan has little to offer while India controls a huge market that impacts US jobs and trade. There is also a little matter of balancing China’s growing influence.

Nevertheless, it is US foreign policy that can play the largest role in the sub-continent – no one even comes close. Obama visits Pakistan next year and will have a chance to smooth over the ruffled feathers in Islamabad. Afghanistan will be in full wind down. No one can afford a vacuum. The transfer of power to multiple parties in Afghanistan, including Karzai, the mayor of Kabul, needs to be arranged with security and stability in mind.
Unlike Iraq, where the US invasion and handling of the aftermath has resulted in the destruction of secularity and a gift of the entire country to Iran, the transition process in Afghanistan must carefully balance regional interests so that no one country ends up on top.

The Russian Are Coming - Again

Back in August, 25 Islamic militants escaped from a high security prison in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan.  The government immediately initiated a hunt.  It's not going well.  On September 19 in the northeastern valley of Rasht, militants ambushed a Tajik patrol and killed at least 25 soldiers.  Nothing like this has been seen in a decade.

There are a whole variety of different militant groups operating in Tajikistan whose terrain is difficult, to say the least. Similar groups exits in Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic. The sudden increase in activity coupled with the upcoming withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan just to the south may spell trouble for the entire region.

Which is why the Russians are coming.  They have never rally left and have bases in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, most notably along the Uzbek border who the Russians fear may have designs on becoming the regional power since it has the largest population and a ruthless military. But all the countries have an interest in making sure the conflicts of the 1990s don't return, especially in the form of Islamic militancy. So the Russian just sent around 25,000 troops to Tajikistan.  More will be coming and China will certainly take an interest as some of the militant groups spill over into their territory. 

As the US pulls back and the latest iteration of The Great Game dials down, these Central Asian republics are in for a ride.  It will be left to the Russians.

Who Lost India? Courtesy of Robert Kaplan

Image by amanky via Flickr

Robert Kaplan has been around for some time now and could be characterized as a "reasonable" neo-con. He supported, indeed promoted, the invasion of Iraq before he opposed the war.  He is all for intervention by the US against leaders like Saddam Hussein. Still.  Because he travelled to these oppressed countries and saw for himself the suffering of the population.  Now, in this paper he explains why, if the US deserts Afghanistan it is deserting India and because of the geography of the sub-continent and its history, India will be driven into the arms of China.

Although Kaplan does not explicitly state that the US should remain in Afghanistan, its pretty much there in the background.  He says that the US should not spend enormous amounts of money in Afghanistan specifically to impress India, but it must be part of the considerations regarding the Afghan strategy.

I find this whole line of reasoning to be somewhat STRATFOR-ESQ (one of the leading foreign policy analyst publications with a geo-political bent).  This is not a zero sum game among China the US and India. India is concerned about a Taliban takeover after the US leaves next summer. But so does Russia and China.  Pakistan might benefit as their security apparatus uses the Taliban to its own ends - but that particular relationship is pretty much soured - and provide them with a secure rear when facing India.  But that's not the point. India was not leaning toward China before the Afghan war despite Taliban control. It is unlikely to jump into the arms of the Chinese - a major competitor both economically and politically - after the US withdraws.

Therefore, Kaplan is just throwing up his straw-man of the "who lost India" genre in order to forestall the end day of US involvement with Kabul on a military basis.

Afghanistan Nation Building

The title of this post is wrong.  Afghanistan has never been and will never be a nation except in the short-lived case of control by a ruthless local chief who happens to have, for an instant in time, overwhelming force backed by financial deals and power sharing.  He too shall pass.

It is still a strange turn of events that led the US from its principal, strategic reason for striking in the first place - severely damaging Al Qaida  and denying it and other jihadist groups from establishing a base in the future. In that, the US policy has succeeded. Nation building has nothing to do with it and still does not - or at least should not.

Once US military forces are withdrawn, the infighting will begin again with local forces manipulated by Russia, Pakistan, India and Iran.  In January I suggested that the best policy for the US was withdrawal of most combat troops and a reversion to tactics that reflected the only legitimate and achievable US strategic objective - preventing the use of Afghanistan as a base for terror operations and so degrading and destroying the central command of Al Qaida that it would be unable to mount any trans-national operations. The latter has been achieved and can be maintained through the use of much smaller, quickly deployed ground units and air strikes. Instead, a surge was initiated to defeat the Taliban and create a nation around President Karzai. This is simply not going to succeed.

The US will need to find a political solution and leave with grace - unlike the English and Russians before them. Afghanistan is simply not worth the candle.

Gaming for Afghan Minerals

The timing behind the report in the Paper of Record (which brought you Judith Miller) concerning the vast potential store of mineral wealth in Afghanistan is very, very suspect. Why now? What’s the purpose of this report at a time when the US is scheduled to exit, stage right? The geological investigation has been going on since at least 2004. Assuming that the initial reports were available to certain inner circles by 2006, what is the big revelation supposed to do? Keep the US in Afghanistan?

All other things being equal, there is not a country in the world that is going to go mining in Afghanistan any time in the foreseeable future for many reasons. The first being the amount of lead and depleted uranium in the air while the second reason…well, there is no second reason.

The World Bank helped draft a mining law? Is this a joke? Of course they did. So what? In what court would any mining developer care to enforce its rights against a local war-lord?

The article, its timing and who wanted it printed is suspicious.

Good News Bad News - Afghanistan and the West Bank

Some time ago I offered my opinion of the,then, proposed surge in Afghanistan - the request by General McChrystal for a significant increase in troop deployment. He got 30,000 (the media seems to continue to ignore the previous deployment of 12,000 earlier in 2009 making the total over 40,000 so I will too for now).

The Republicans, of course, stamped their collective hooves saying the General should get whatever he feels is necessary for prosecution of the war. Fortunately, the grown-ups decided to actually think about future strategy rather than allowing the military to dictate to the civilians in control (a source of frequent confusion to those in perpetual opposition to anything). Well, what will all those Republicans say now to this (registration required).

For those who can't access the article in the Financial Times here is a key part:

“As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there’s been enough fighting,” he said. “What I think we do is try to shape conditions which allow people to come to a truly equitable solution to how the Afghan people are governed.”

Asked if he would be content to see Taliban leaders in a future government in Kabul, he said: “I think any Afghans can play a role if they focus on the future, and not the past.”

The remarks reveal the growing faith the US military is placing in the hope that a power-sharing arrangement can end the war, a possibility floated in Islamabad last week by Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, when he described the Taliban as part of Afghanistan’s “political fabric”.

The coming conference in London to discuss strategy will be a crucial meeting for NATO. Europe wants a definite exit strategy and the US has already issued a deadline to President Karzai. Although I did not agree with the surge, now that it is in place arguing about its usefulness is moot. General McChrystal has also tied his credibility to the request to support his plan, so he has much at stake. But, it is his sentiments expressed that I find most telling. It should really upset the Republicans. Good.

Now, juxtapose his statements with those of The Worst Israeli President Ever while planting a tree in the West Bank:

"Our message is clear: We are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here. This place will be an inseparable part of Israel for eternity".

Eternity, Mr. Netanyahu, is a lot longer than you will be in charge. Not helpful at all and is only a further example of the extremist positions taken by the current regime in Israel that really began manifesting itself with the childish incident of the low chair for the Turkish ambassador. Well, people usual get the government they deserve.

China Syndrome

Image via Wikipedia

Japan has ended its refueling mission in the Indian Ocean which was part of its support for the Afghan war. On the other side of the coin, this will be interesting from a foreign policy perspective if it comes to pass.

The Chinese navy is slowly extending its permanent blue water reach into new zones. Although ostensibly a mission merely to support the continuing war in Afghanistan (and therefore in support of the US military), this step really goes far beyond the naval mission against piracy that China has heretofore engaged. It creates a permanent presence. How this will play out with India, its regional rival, and Pakistan, its regional ally, if it actually happens?

On the other hand, will the US really, really agree to having its warships refueled by the Chinese? Somehow, it seems to me that this might be a sea lane too far.

Predictions

And off we go.

In the 1st year of the next decade (yeah, yeah, I know - it really starts in 2011. Well, that's not the common usage, so live with it.) I'll indulge in a couple of predictions.

Prediction 1 - The last free and fair election in Ukraine will be in January if Yanukovich wins so he can fulfill his threat to end "democracy".

Prediction 2 - The new Russian empire will expand and consolidate its hold on Central Asia, Ukraine and the South Caucuses.

Prediction 3 - The US will increase its military footprint in the Baltics and Poland to counter the newly imperial Russia.

Prediction 4 - Turkey will flex its newly found military, economic and (most importantly) cultural muscle in the Middle East, most of the time against the wishes of the US and Israel.

Prediction 5 - Iran will continue to experience shocks to its social system with a concomitant reduction in its ability to interfere abroad until it reaches a tipping point - at which time they will do something stupid.

Prediction 6 - There will be a ground assault on Somali pirates.

Prediction 7 - The "surge" in Afghanistan will not achieve its intended goals, and the Afghan military will continue to be the phantom army of the 21st century.

Prediction 8 - Political relations between Germany and the US will continue their slide as Germany becomes more reliant on Russia for energy and trade.

Prediction 9 - The Israeli government will continue its illegal construction activities on Palestinian land despite international condemnation and new fighting will erupt between Hezbollah and Israel.

Prediction 10 - All the previous predictions will change as the inevitable chaos theory takes over.

Welcome to the next decade.

Afghanistan Surge

The Obama plan is not what I would have hoped for since other than the July 2011 date to begin withdrawal there is no exit strategy. Perhaps there is one, but the strategy was not announced. To my mind, this was a necessary step in explaining the entire plan to the public. Now, however, and despite statements to the contrary, the withdrawal must really begin in the summer of 2011.

General McChrystal largely got what he wanted. The media, as usual, reported that the approved 30,000 was short of the troop surge that he had requested. He has more. The media conveniently forgot the 21,000 sent earlier this year. So, the US has committed another 51,000 and not 30,000. So be it and I really hope the general is correct in his assessment because he has 18 months to prove it.

If the troop withdrawal does not start in July 2011 then the surge will convert to an occupation in the eyes of the Afghans, something I would hope the US had learned to avoid from its ongoing experience in Iraq. This would be a mistake of enormous proportions because it would be seen that the US is supporting a corrupt regime in the face of an indigenous Pashtun uprising with an army made up of minority Tajiks.

Furthermore, Obama has stated that this is not a war of choice, but of necessity. Maybe - but I still wonder who we are fighting. That the Taliban are a despicable throw-back to twelfth century beliefs does not make them the enemy. Distasteful, oppressive and dangerous internally to Afghans - particularly women - they may be. But, the US cannot wage war on those grounds everywhere. So is the Mugabe regime, not to mention the proposed legislation in Uganda calling for the death penalty for homosexuals (supported, by the way, by the US homegrown Taliban known as the far right christian fundamentalists and their Republican allies).

If the purpose of the surge is to protect areas long enough to solidify opposition to the Taliban, then who is going to do that after the withdrawal? The Afghan army is composed largely of Tajiks who will have serious trouble operating in Pashtun majority areas. Indeed, it has taken 8 years to train 100,000 Afghan troops. Is the plan to train an equal number in 18 months even remotely feasible?

Is the goal to destroy al Qaida? It wouldn't seem necessary to employ 55,000 troops to go after a shattered organization which has not mounted a serious attack in 5 years. In any case, destroying the terrorist organization should not be the goal in Afghanistan not merely because its total destruction is likely impossible, but because the goal should be to deny it a base. Again, that does not take 55,000 troops.

The US has indulged in nation building in Iraq and is dangerously close to that goal in Afghanistan. This is the worst mistake since it is not a nation and only can be dealt with - if that's the phrase - as a collection of tribes and clans. The US cannot afford to stay in Afghanistan to cobble together a unified nation and certainly not with Karzai, the mayor of Kabul.

My take on this strategy is that there are too many points where it can fail ranging from the perception of occupation by foreigners to a corrupt, ineffective government that has lost legitimacy but which will attempt to keep the US in the game well beyond the 2011 withdrawal phase.

Beyond the borders of Afghanistan, the US and the surge will produce additional tensions between India and Pakistan. The latter have no desire to see Afghan Taliban, supported by the Pakistan government, pushed into Pakistan only to be followed in hot pursuit by troops or an increase in drone attacks. Pakistan is also concerned by Indian influence in Afghanistan and, paranoid or not, feels that India is encircling it.

Then there is Iran which seems to be involved in a slow motion drain circling dance internally but which also appears to be deliberately provoking the West. With troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, a belligerent Israel and an independent minded Turkey, how does Obama deal with a sudden Iran crisis? More importantly, how does he deal with the massive unemployment in the US while funding these military interventions.

I hope McChrystal is right and the Obama strategy works - at least to a certain extent - so that the US can declare it has done what it can do for Afghanistan, eliminated a base for al Qaida to operate within to train and launch attacks, and then leave.

Afghanistan Surge

The rumours of President Obama's decision on the next steps in Afghanistan for the United States all seem to indicate the insertion of about 34,000 more troops as part of a "surge" advocated by the Pentagon. This is less than demanded by General McChrystal. The number itself is meaningless without context and the parsing of the rumours serves no useful purpose until President Obama explains, as he has promised, the plan.

Any explanation will have to address what the Afghan government must do in the short and medium term and an exit strategy (though not necessarily characterized as such). Perhaps, too, President Obama will explain the objective and, hopefully unlike the military and their allies, it won't be to "win". Until then, I'm reserving comment.

Afghan Rumours

McClatchy reports that the Obama adminstration is hinting at the deployment of 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan - very close to the number requested by General McChrystal as a minimum and which I thought was delusional.

If this is true, then I believe it is a huge mistake. The Biden approach is much more doable than spending a huge amount of funds on a questionable deployment to support a corrupt government of a non-nation which has shown no signs of reforming. The final decision won't come until after the President finishes with his Asia trip, but a plan has yet to be articulated.

I despise people like the Taliban - but are they a threat to US interests within Afghanistan (they are different than the Pakistanian version)? Why isn't it possible to maintain a force that can surgically target threats? What is the US goal? Is there an exit strategy?

Afghan Post - Headline: Karzai Bounces Back - Wins by Landslide

Image via Wikipedia

The US is now stuck. First, the administration tried to distance itself from Karzai as well as signal it was looking for someone new. With Karzai cozying up to every warlord in Afghanistan, turning a blind eye to corruption (particularly his own), the US had burned the ships on the beach - as history has shown, a very unwise tactic. Now what? A congratulatory message from the US embassy in Kabul. "Looking forward to working with you", "victory for democracy" sniff, sniff sort of stuff.

Whatever happens next, the US needs to start rebuilding those burnt hulks and develop a strategy to get out. Karzai is unlikely to feel generous just now and attempts to pursue governance, anti-corruption and "civil society" reforms will slide off the mountains like so much melting snow.

As I said earlier, I suspect that the Obama administration will send between 10-14,000 more troops. McChrystal is certifiable if he thinks more will come. Obama will lean more toward the Biden plan of CI warfare than that of taking and holding territory. I hope.

Afghanistan is not a country and cannot be governed through a central authority. Some semblance of a deal needs to be made with the warlords. It would be nice if the Taliban can suffer severe losses and be marginalized because I believe that people who treat others, especially women, in a manner that might even be found obnoxious in 12th century, need to be boxed up somewhere so they don't do any more harm. However, it is likely the best that can happen now is a successful Biden approach. Any legitimacy in Kabul that a real election may have engendered is up in smoke.

The other element ofthe Afghanistan war is the impact on the foreign policy of the US and NATO members as a whole. NATO is now becoming less and less of a unified force. The US is tied down in Afghanistan and still has 120,000 troops in Iraq. In the meantime, Iran is proving to be its normal self, expert at outwardly reasonable delay and obfuscation while risking that Israel may suddenly tire of the game and throw its weight around. This could drag the US into another Asian land war and would undoubtadly set of a naval conflict in the Arabian Gulf. Something it cannot afford either militarily or financially. Something Russia knows very well.

The mess that the previous administration of Cheney/Bush dumped on the future is now pretty clear. Bush looked into Putin's eyes and "saw his soul". Really. How sweet. Jerk.

Well, that soul has now breached the borders of another country and remained; threatens Ukraine with a similar loss of Crimea (to which it has gleefully handed out Russian passports); cajoles Germany with the carrot of energy dependence to its view of Eastern Europe as within its sphere; crushes any degree of press and individual rights at home; revises its nuclear strategy to include a first strike; and, begins a diplomatic round of ally hunting in South America. All of this is within Russia's rights. Just like the Soviet Union (except for the first strike doctine) which it is more than a little beginning to resemble. None of these moves should go unanswered or uncountered because of Afghanistan. Understand, Russia wants the US tied down while it completes its circuit. The US, while it remains in that position, has very few alternatives.

If Russia were to turn on Iran today, there would be a deal. Iranians are not stupid and they know they have Russia at their back. China would veto sanctions as well - but the Russians will sell them military equipment. Obama will not succeed with Iran until he succeeds in beginning the disentaglement from Afghanistan and completes it in Iraq.

He will not succeed in moving anything forward between Israel and the Palestinians while Iraq and Afghanistan are lead weights on new policy development.

He will not be able to assist Pakistan deal with the terrorist wave of 12th century Luddite Taliban extremists that are tearing the Pakistan state to shreds.

The costs of these two wars has been and is draining the US treasury and making the dollar weaker every day - leaving the US open to a type of effective diplomacy at which the Chinese excel - and the US does not.

NATO is losing its center of gravity and a Germany that sees fit to sell the freedom of other countries for comfort and energy, can bring its operations to a halt.

There should be no mistake. The gross, self-centered, bloody arrogance and greed that engulfed the US for 8 years under the Republicans has been dumped on this new administration to come full circle both domestically and internationally. An exit strategy for Afghanistan based on the Biden plan will be a hit on US prestige. The right wing extremists that have now taken over the Republicans and give the Taliban a run for their money will howl because they are very willing to watch other people die but won't volunteer while there is still time to do so (unlike the Taliban). So what. They would howl either way because they only hate being out of power. The country means nothing.

So this administration now is forced to show the world that it knows how to deal with Afghanistan. The non-plan of the snarling Cheney world view of blood-letting has turned into a morass.