Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Domino Theory
President Barack Obama may or may not be doing the right thing in Afghanistan, but the rationale he gave for it on Friday is almost certainly wrong. Obama has presented us with a 21st century version of the domino theory. The U.S. is not, contrary to what the president said, mainly fighting "al-Qaida" in Afghanistan. In blaming everything on al-Qaida, Obama broke with his pledge of straight talk to the public and fell back on Bush-style boogeymen and implausible conspiracy theories.
Obama realizes that after seven years, Afghanistan war fatigue has begun to set in with the American people. Some 51 percent of Americans now oppose the Afghanistan war, and 64 percent of Democrats do. The president is therefore escalating in the teeth of substantial domestic opposition, especially from his own party, as voters worry about spending billions more dollars abroad while the U.S. economy is in serious trouble.
He acknowledged that we deserve a "straightforward answer" as to why the U.S. and NATO are still fighting there. "So let me be clear," he said, "Al-Qaida and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan." But his characterization of what is going on now in Afghanistan, almost eight years after 9/11, was simply not true, and was, indeed, positively misleading. "And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban," he said, "or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."
Obama described the same sort of domino effect that Washington elites used to ascribe to international communism. In the updated, al-Qaida version, the Taliban might take Kunar Province, and then all of Afghanistan, and might again host al-Qaida, and might then threaten the shores of the United States. He even managed to add an analog to Cambodia to the scenario, saying, "The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan," and warned, "Make no mistake: Al-Qaida and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within."
This latter-day domino theory of al-Qaida takeovers in South Asia is just as implausible as its earlier iteration in Southeast Asia (ask Thailand or the Philippines). Most of the allegations are not true or are vastly exaggerated. There are very few al-Qaida fighters based in Afghanistan proper. What is being called the "Taliban" is mostly not Taliban at all (in the sense of seminary graduates loyal to Mullah Omar). The groups being branded "Taliban" only have substantial influence in 8 to 10 percent of Afghanistan, and only 4 percent of Afghans say they support them. Some 58 percent of Afghans say that a return of the Taliban is the biggest threat to their country, but almost no one expects it to happen. Moreover, with regard to Pakistan, there is no danger of militants based in the remote Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) taking over that country or "killing" it.
The Kabul government is not on the verge of falling to the Taliban. The Afghan government has 80,000 troops, who benefit from close U.S. air support, and the total number of Taliban fighters in the Pashtun provinces is estimated at 10,000 to 15,000. Kabul is in danger of losing control of some villages in the provinces to dissident Pashtun warlords styled "Taliban," though it is not clear why the new Afghan army could not expel them if they did so. A smaller, poorly equipped Northern Alliance army defeated 60,000 Taliban with U.S. air support in 2001. And there is no prospect of "al-Qaida" reestablishing bases in Afghanistan from which it could attack the United States. If al-Qaida did come back to Afghanistan, it could simply be bombed and would be attacked by the new Afghan army.
While the emergence of "Pakistani Taliban" in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas is a blow to Pakistan's security, they have just been defeated in one of the seven major tribal agencies, Bajaur, by a concerted and months-long campaign of the highly professional and well-equipped Pakistani army. United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates replied last summer to the idea that al-Qaida is regrouping in Pakistan and forms a new and vital threat to the West: "Actually, I don't agree with that assessment, because when al-Qaida was in Afghanistan, they had the partnership of a government. They had ready access to international communications, ready access to travel, and so on. Their circumstances in the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and on the Pakistani side of the border are much more primitive. And it's much more difficult for them to move around, much more difficult for them to communicate."
As for a threat to Pakistan, the FATA areas are smaller than Connecticut, with a total population of a little over 3 million, while Pakistan itself is bigger than Texas, with a population more than half that of the entire United States. A few thousand Pashtun tribesmen cannot take over Pakistan, nor can they "kill" it. The Pakistani public just forced a military dictator out of office and forced the reinstatement of the Supreme Court, which oversees secular law. Over three-quarters of Pakistanis said in a poll last summer that they had an unfavorable view of the Taliban, and a recent poll found that 90 percent of them worried about terrorism. To be sure, Pakistanis are on the whole highly opposed to the U.S. military presence in the region, and most outside the tribal areas object to U.S. Predator drone strikes on Pakistani territory. The danger is that the U.S. strikes may make the radicals seem victims of Western imperialism and so sympathetic to the Pakistani public.
Obama's dark vision of the overthrow of the Afghanistan government by al-Qaida-linked Taliban or the "killing" of Pakistan by small tribal groups differs little from the equally apocalyptic and implausible warnings issued by John McCain and Dick Cheney about an "al-Qaida" victory in Iraq. Ominously, the president's views are contradicted by those of his own secretary of defense. Pashtun tribes in northwestern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan have a long history of dissidence, feuding and rebellion, which is now being branded Talibanism and configured as a dire menace to the Western way of life. Obama has added yet another domino theory to the history of Washington's justifications for massive military interventions in Asia. When a policymaker gets the rationale for action wrong, he is at particular risk of falling into mission creep and stubborn commitment to a doomed and unnecessary enterprise.
- Posted in
21 Comments so far
Show AllSorry, but is this guy an idiot? There's a lot more to keeping villages and cities safe from attack than having more troops. Being in power during an insurgency can be a huge disadvantage, in that you are forced to defend everything you control. An insurgency can relocate anywhere at anytime. How about this: the Soviet Union had up to 104,000 troops in Afghanistan at any one time, and on paper it's puppet Afghanistan regime had 302,000 troops. Did their huge troop numbers secure victory against a smaller amount of insurgents? Um, no. Pakistan is almost worse, the militants there have proven they can attack anywhere. If they were to gain control of Pakistan, they'd have access to nuclear weapons...and then India would probably nuke Pakistan to hell.
You could be right. He may be an idiot. Most tenured Professors are.
Thomas More, when I attended college I was educated by a lot of these tenured professors who were nothing but educated idiots that fool a lot of people who are afraid to think for themselves. Many are on ego trips and think they are smarter than the average bear, when they are really intellectual, eunuchs!
Imagine how folks living in the small town areas of the country would react if they were under siege from these same troops and mercenaries currently getting ready to further ruin the lives of those innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's bad enough that they're abused and even killed by the Taliban, war lords, and even the militants themselves ! If India and Pakistan nuke each other to hell although I'm guessing India would probably win, the global economy would drop even faster as the US currently relies on India as one of the major countries doing all that outsourced slave labor for the West.
Not only is Juan Cole an idiot, he is a damn liar as well:
Taliban, Pakistani Army declare ceasefire in Bajaur
By Bill RoggioFebruary 25, 2009 2:15 AM
One day after the Bajaur Taliban declared a unilateral ceasefire, the Pakistani Army ordered a four-day halt to operations in the tribal areas.
Faqir Mohammad, a deputy to Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud and the leader of forces in Bajaur ordered a unilateral ceasefire on Feb. 23. Faqir made the announcement on his illegal FM radio station.
The ceasefire was ordered because it was "in the interest of Pakistan and our region," Faqir said, according to the BBC. "We advise our people not to take action against security forces. Pakistan is our country and the Pakistan army is our army."
"We don't want to fight the army, but some elements have been creating misunderstandings between us," Faqir said. He also denied that foreign fighters were present in Bajaur and promised to "take action against them" if any were found.
Faqir is a close ally of al Qaeda and has known to have sheltered Ayman al Zawahiri. Several senior al Qaeda leaders have been killed in US airstrikes in Bajaur, including Abu Sulayman Jazairi, al Qaeda’s former external operations chief. Bajaur has served as al Qaeda’s command and control hub for operations across the border in northeastern Afghanistan.
Faqir warned that if US airstrikes continue, his forces would "avenge them by attacking Western troops inside Afghanistan."
Pakistani Army reciprocates
The Pakistani Army reciprocated the unilateral Taliban ceasefire with orders to halt the seven-month old offensive. The move was made as a “goodwill gesture” towards the Bajaur tribes, the agency's political agent said. The tribes said they have engaged Faqir and are working to put an end to the fighting.
The Army's ceasefire came at a curious time. On Feb 23, the military claimed a major victory by seizing the villages of Barchina and Charmang, both which control one of several valleys that lead to Afghanistan.
Frontier Corps Inspector General Major General Tariq Khan boasted that Bajaur would be cleared of the Taliban by mid-March. "We should secure Bajaur valley, where the paramilitary and army have so far lost 84 troops and officers and killed some 1,800-plus foreign and local militants since September 8 last year,” Tariq said. The military previously claimed Bajaur would be secured by the end of September 2008.
Tariq also suggested that NATO secure the Afghan side of the border as the Bajaur Taliban consists of foreign fighters.
"The Taliban we are fighting now include only a few locals … most of them are foreigners coming from across the border," Tariq said. "They are Arabic-speaking. We have picked up some Sudanese and (other) people who are different, not the same.” Tariq made these comments despite Faqir Mohammed's admission that his local Taliban forces have been fighting the Pakistani military.
The Bajaur ceasefire takes place as another ceasefire is in effect in Swat. Mullah Fazlullah, the Swat Taliban leader, is negotiating with Sufi Mohammed, his radical Islamist father-in-law who is acting on the behest of the government to end the fighting in Swat and implement sharia, or Islamic law in the greater Malakand division.
Also the three major Taliban groups in North and South Waziristan united over the past week. Baitullah Mehsud, the overall leader of the Pakistani Taliban, put aside differences with rivals Mullah Nazir and Hafiz Gul Bahadar to form the Council of the United Mujahideen at the behest of Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar.
Peace agreements have united, not divided the Taliban
The Pakistani government has defended the peace agreements with the Taliban and claimed these agreements are, in the words of Foreign Minister Shah Mehmmood Qureshi, a “local solution to a local problem.” The belief is these deals will cause rifts between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban and will isolate al Qaeda. Some analysts claim the creation of the Council of the United Mujahideen is evidence of this, as North and South Waziristan factions are uniting to make up for a theoretical split with the Swat and Bajaur Taliban.
But there is no evidence the Taliban has split. Baitullah Mehsud agreed to the Swat negotiations. There is no word on Baitullah's stand on the Bajaur talks, but he has supported prior peace agreements and in fact has his own agreement with the government. Fazlullah and Faqir remain the two senior most leaders in Baitullah's unified Taliban organization.
During the past peace agreements struck with the Taliban in 2006, 2007, and 2008, the government claimed the deals would localize the problems and divide the Taliban. But the agreement has had the opposite effect.
A multitude of disparate Taliban groups formed the Tehrik-e-Taliban, or the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan in December 2007 at the behest of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. Taliban groups began to coordinate operations in the region, while elements of some Taliban forces were integrated into al Qaeda's paramilitary Shadow Army.Al Qaeda training camps and safe houses popped up throughout the region.
Meanwhile, the local Taliban groups consolidated control over the regions ceded by the government and pushed the insurgency into the Northwest Frontier Province.
I think this guy should read up on Lawrence of Arabia and his take on irregular warfare.
Airpower is no solution, it part of the problem.
That said he does have the Domino theory partialy correct. The problem is that wither goes the armed forces of the United States of America, instability follows and spreads to neighboring countries.
The problem is NOT that all these nations will fall to extremists if the US Military does not do anything. The problem is the strength of the extremists GROWS as the United States projects their Military power into those regions.
The projection of violence leads to extremism.
It seems obvious to me that if one nation wants to use Militarism and Military solutions on another, they will create MILITANT responses.
Excellent comments!
Obama is starting to look more like LBJ than JFK, FDR, or TR.
Sioux Rose
GWNORTH: Very well-said. Taking it a bit further, if war is the chief US export/business, then in stirring other zones into interior frenzies, a rationale is created post-facto for the aggressive actions taken in the first place. Recall how Bush claimed there were WMD in Iraq, and that Al Queda operatives were there? Well, having unleashed a virtual civil war/hornet's nest, he helped create the problems he quested after. The "self-fulfilling prophecy" becomes a desirable thing when a nation must think up causes to go to war. Even so, isn't it amazing that the insiders can't come up with any newer rationales than a replay of the Domino theory crossed with a Don Quixote-like vision of raging at terrorists everywhere?
Considering there's no stated exit strategy, one has to wonder why BO is remaining committed to the failing mission in Afghanistan. I can only surmise it's because of India and Iran. Al Queda nor the Taliban will never be defeated in W. Pakistan and everyone, including Cokie Roberts knows that.
After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and ran the United States out of places like the Phillipines and Wake Island, the only Japanese this country could get its hands on were Japanese Americans who were swiftly locked up in "internment" camps. Obama's seeming obsession with Vietnamistan is something akin to that. After wasting ourselves in Iraq and finally admitting it (to some degree), Obama now focuses on Vietnamistan as the symbol of terrorism and terrorist planning to strike the United States again. They are just as likely to be sitting in a basement in Peoria. So the empty theatrics, the Punch 'n Judy Show goes on. Waste, waste, waste, waste. What a bummer for the Afghans!
This is not about al Qaida or the Taliban or whoever supposedly are threatening your country, this is about being as close as possible to the energy richness of the former Soviet republics of Asia and at the same time posing a lasting threat to China and Russia. That is where the economic paragraph stems from: in the best tradition of the Marshall funding of Europe after WOII, Obama is offering the Afpak financial support in exchange for full control of their soil. Now if only you still were a producing economy, you would probably even manage.
Isn't this the same Juan Cole who shows up on Faux Noise or am I mixing him up with someone else? Sorry I don't bother to watch these media outlets of crap.
He is discredited regularly by his contemporaries, and with very good cause.
Why doesn't this Juan Cole guy move to Lahore or Peshawar and tell us this story from there? Maybe then we can believe some of it.
More violence in Lahore today after the mosque suicide bombing last Friday. If 70% of the NATO Afghanistan supply chain is going through the Khyber pass then this route is becoming less and less secure.
Pakistan is looking more and more unstable, maybe even time for another military coup.
US government's stated policy doesn't have to be sensible. It just has to suck in enough stupid slugs so that it can be implemented.
There is only one US government policy: murder and steal.
Would Mr Cole (or a poster) please explain WHY? Obama is pursuing a 'crazy' war?? (please avoid overt conspiracy theories). Thanks.
Two Things-Control of energy & routes, and,
Heavy pressure from the Zionists who brought us the Iraq war. The Neocons are incarnating via William Kristol as the FPI, they will meet soon and feature John McCain speaking about why we must escalate the war in Afghanistan. Remembering the power these people had to make the Iraq war happen.....9-11.....there it is. 2 things-
1. Zionists who want militant Islam and Arab Countries fractured anywhere possible whenever possible.
and
2. Control of energy piplines and routes and fossil fuels throughout south Asia and the ME. The New Great Game.
Bang-Afghanistan is gonna get lit up.
Cole is wrong here.
He says "Kabul is not on the verge of falling to the Taliban," then cites as proof, 80,000 Afghan troops who have close US air support....hmmmmm and our ground forces of course. His present tense use 'is not' la la la is bsbsbs,
The US LEAVES, that air support,and ground support will leave 80,000 stoned kids w/ ak's probably all of a sudden without PAY!. Be real here.
We leave, Mullah Omar runs the show within weeks. Well, if so, then it's what the people want. Cool.
Which really begs the question as to what right the USA has to meddle in the internal affairs of any other nation?
Further one must note that military intervention in Iraq has proven that such action strengthens, not weakens, radicalism.