On the Contrary

For once Chris Mathews actually said something insightful.  After listening to both Democrats and Republicans on what we should do in Afghanistan he said, “Well I guess they have held those opinions for about 40 years.”  In other words nothing new since Vietnam and neither side is being really informed about the nature of Afghanistan.  We think in patterns that repeat.

My favorite was the argument that we need to support the commander on the ground.  The commander on the ground always wants more troops.  Generals want to win.  They didn’t get to be generals by being realistic about possibilities.  They got to be generals because they always had a “can do” attitude.  They can climb any mountain.  The guy who stood around asking, “but should we do it and is it worth the cost” is a retired Lt. Col.   John McCain has said we need to get on with giving General McChrystal want he wants.  But this is from the guy who thinks we could have won in Vietnam.  He still doesn’t get what that war was about and will fight it over and over again in present day wars.

I guess what is most frightening to me is to listen to the debate that is full of trite phrases:  “Americans will not abandon Afghans; we will not abandon the fight against Al Qaeda (they are turning the front on Al Qaeda into Afghanistan); we just need to protect the people.  Sadly what we are seeing is that our political leaders are one, not very bright, and two, have no clue about the realities of Afghanistan or its real strategic importance.  General Jones has estimated that there are about 100 Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan.  Now I see why we need 40,000 more troops:  That would be 400 Americans for every Al Qaeda operative.  And we still don’t have Bin Laden.

The real war there is with the Taliban.  The Taliban are not Al Qaeda, one being a international group of terrorists without a country that wants to destroy us and the other being an indigenous Afghan movement, albeit a distasteful one, that just wants us out of their country.  Do we really want to be in a civil war?  The reality was best described by Rory Stewart (Bill Moyers Journal):

“…..but if you’re an Afghan villager, you sit in your village, maybe in Southern Afghanistan, and one day the Taliban turn up. And you probably don’t like them very much, because they’re young, fanatical men, banging on about religion. But you might give them a cup of tea, they go away. Next day, maybe some Canadian soldiers turn up. Maybe they search your house. That makes you a little bit uncomfortable, but you give them a cup of tea, they go away. The next day, the Afghan police turn up. They may not be wearing uniforms, they’re waving guns around, they may be rude to your daughter. You give them a cup of tea, they go away. Basically, you want these people, by and large, to go away. Most Afghan villagers are finding themselves trapped in a very, very unpleasant battle between forces that they barely understand.”

So the debate that Washington is having is in general nonsensical.  What are our real strategic interests in Afghanistan?  What threat does it pose and how can we control it with a failing government and corrupt police force?  What can we really accomplish with a broken budget and waning public support?  My answer is not much unless we are willing to be there for 50 years and are you willing to send your child?  Looking at the recent death of eight American soldiers whose outpost was almost overrun by the Taliban, one has to wonder what the hell we are doing there.  This sounds so much like Vietnam it is ridiculous.  The Taliban occupy the neighboring towns and villages and to root them out we destroy the buildings and alienate the people.  This is just going swimmingly isn’t it?

Did it ever occur to anyone that the Taliban’s worst enemy is the Taliban?  These guys are great fighters but when they gain control of the country, they couldn’t do any better than the corrupt government that was in power that they displaced and they alienated most of the population.  If the Taliban wins, it is because the Afghans didn’t fight them and quite frankly, it is their war.  So let them have them and see how long they last.  We can always control the Al Qaeda problem as we did before and think about this:  If we are successful here Al-Qaeda will just move from Pakistan to say Somalia.  During this debate try to keep this in mind:  The Taliban are not Al Qaeda just like the Sunnis were not Al Qaeda.  Meanwhile the debate in Washington goes on as a rerun of Vietnam and the Iraq debates with no connection with the reality of Afghanistan.

A real analysis of Afghanistan is that it is a civil war.  The players are Afghans who want to move forward, and the Taliban who want to move backward, with pot stirring by Al Qaeda.  I want you to think hard here.  Vietnam was the same problem with those who wanted a free Vietnam (mostly different warlords who had control of different areas), and those who saw Ho Chi Minh as the national leader, with the Viet Cong stirring the pot.  And of course, they didn’t like us very much.  But here is the part I want you to focus on:  We had 500,000 troops in the country to pacify the country and we failed.  Ask yourself how could 500,000 Americans and the whole South Vietnam military  not defeat the North Vietnamese?  Hint:  The answer is not in military strategy.

It is that we poorly understood the real motivations of the culture and we tried to superimpose our ideas about their future on them.  I could go into some deep analysis of different cultures and their xenophobia, but think instead about trying to tell your teenager how to live his/her life.  Your advice is good and wise, and yet they totally reject it.  They reject it because it is their life and they have to find their own way.  It is critical to their own identity of who they are.  Do you see the analogy here?  We are making the same mistake in Afghanistan that we made in Vietnam.  Its their destiny and as much as we think we know the right path for them, they are going to have to work it out for themselves, as painful as that may be.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel.  Just a few more troops and we will pacify the countryside and then democracy will flourish.  We just need the right leader and things would be different.  These are the rationalizations of the Vietnam war and we are seeing it all over again. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal warned in a confidential assessment that he needed additional troops by next year or the conflict “will likely result in failure.”  I wonder if it occurred to him that even with more troops it will likely result in failure also?

General McChrystal, or those who support this war in the military, leaked this report because they didn’t like the fact that President Obama may actually be asking the right questions.  He has said that he will not commit more troops unless he thought we really had a plan that would work.  Apparently they haven’t convinced him yet.  What I see is a repeat of the military thinking that failed us so disastrously in Vietnam.  These guys are good Americans and they want to solve a problem.  But they have a one-dimensional view of the problem.  The only light at the end of tunnel is one that is held by Afghans, not Americans.

So what is the way forward?  Are Pakistan and Afghanistan intimately linked?  If Afghanistan becomes a Taliban stronghold will it be the home of terrorism?  Is it that simple?  I don’t think so.  We have an arrogance that makes us think we can control another country’s destiny.  We actually think we know what is best for them and we can control it.  Should I remind you again of the teenager analogy?  The last time we went down this road it cost 58,000 lives and now we recognize that there was no national strategic interest there.  We are only at 4000 and counting now.  Will it take another 54,000 before we get the message?  I hope not.