Afghanistan: Get It Right or Pull the Troops Out

Abu Muqawama has a blog post at the Center for a New American Security raising the issues about the strategic importance of the fight in Afghanistan (here). I posted some of my reservations (here) in April. I am now updating my thoughts as I see the Obama admistration approach developing.

Now, at an absolute strategic level (that is without factoring in other strategic priorities or the way we are now fighting there) I would be for some level of military engagement in Afghanistan, at about the level Obama has articulated. But, the US has other international priorities it is not attending to and we are not operationally engaging the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in a way that can be successful. So I say lets get out until (1) we have our strategic priorities right (a key indicator would be that 10,000 US high school students are studying abroad in China) and (2) we have a workable operational strategy for the Afghanistan-Pakistan region (key indicators would be that China provides at least half a many troops as the US, that the US provides no more than half of the total number of foreign troops in the region, and that the US has 1,000 high school students studying abroad in Pakistan).

At just an absolute strategic level, I generally agree with the summary assessment of Stephen Biddle’s article “Is It Worth It?” in the American Prospect (here).

Managing this war will pose difficult problems both in Afghanistan and here at home. The strategic case for waging war is stronger than that for disengaging, but not by much: The war is a close call on the merits. The stakes for the United States are largely indirect; it will be an expensive war to wage; like most wars, its outcome is uncertain; even success is unlikely to yield a modern, prosperous Switzerland of the Hindu Kush; and as a counterinsurgency campaign its conduct is likely to increase losses and violence in the short term in exchange for a chance at stability in the longer term.

So “a close call on the merits” turns negative based on (1) the Afghan war diverting attention and resources from the higher strategic priority of engaging China, (2) on the operational failure to make the Afghan War a shared international mission with more troops provided by foreign nations, especially China, and (3) on the operational failure to train enough US personnel to speak the languages and know the cultures of the region. I also worry that the reconstruction effort is not big enough.

Engaging China should be a top US priority. Too many big issues are at stake. More Mandarin needs to be taught in US schools. More US high school and college students need to study abroad in China. Developing and paying for such educational programs should have a high priority, higher than the War in Afghanistan. If we don’t have enough funds to engage China educationally, we don’t have enough funds to fight in Afghanistan. Move the funding.

The War in Afghanistan should be a more broadly shared international mission. We have little geopolitical strategic interest in Afghanistan. We do have a strategic interest in protecting the nuclear weapons in Pakistan. We need to make greater efforts, and be more willing, to have other nations contribute troops. China with its large army is a natural ally. India, also with many troops, would threaten Pakistan if it sent troops to Afghanistan, so is ruled out. So bring in more troops of China and other nations, or get the US troops out.

Counter insurgency and nation building take time and require personnel who speak the local languages and know the local cultures. The US is just not training enough troops and civilians in the languages of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until we do, neither our military nor our reconstruction efforts are likely to be successful in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. So enormously up the efforts in language training and education, or pull the US troops out.

Comments

[christian louboutin shoes]

Now, at an absolute strategic level (that is without factoring in other strategic priorities or the way we are now fighting there) I would be for some level of military engagement in Afghanistan, at about the level Obama has articulated.

[pandora]

he War in Afghanistan should be a more broadly shared international mission. We have little geopolitical strategic interest in Afghanistan. We do have a strategic interest in protecting the nuclear weapons in Pakistan. We need to make greater efforts, and be more willing, to have other nations contribute troops. China with its large army is a natural ally. India, als

[christian louboutin sale]

ounter insurgency and nation building take time and require personnel who speak the local languages and know the local cultures. The US is just not training enough troops and c

[Pandora Charms]

surgency and nation building take time and require personnel who speak the local languages and know the local cultures. The US is just not training enough troops and civilians in the languages of Afghanistan and Pa

[christian louboutin sale]

ig issues are at stake. More Mandarin needs to be taught in US schools. More US high school and college students need to study abroad in China. Developing and paying for such educational programs should have a high prio