EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- The Biggest Criminal Enterprise in History
- Exclusive: Why I Spoke Out at Obama's Foreign Policy Speech
- Get Apocalyptic: Why Radical is the New Normal
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- Over a Million Signatures in Support for Sen. Warren's Student Loan Bill
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghanistan: 'Armed Nation Building'?
The generally sane and realistic military analyst Tony Cordesman published a 28-page paper (PDF) last on the US war in Afghanistan, which to me merely underlined how deeply un-winnable this US war has become.
Here's his lead sentence:
There are no certainties in war, and the tasks that NATO/ISAF and the US must perform in Afghanistan go far beyond the normal limits of counterinsurgency. They are the equivalent of armed nation building at a time when Afghanistan faces major challenges from both its own insurgents and international movements like Al Qa'ida, and must restructure its government and economy after 30 years of nearly continuous conflict.
Armed nation building?
Pack up your guns and come home, guys. Do whatever deals you need to do, to get out of there fast. Leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.
I'm not even sure where this notion of "nation building" came from, within US/western strategic and policy discourse. The current Wikipedia entry on it is suggestive and helpful. For starters, it denotes a clear distinction between the process of nation-building and that of state-building-- most notably, by sending you to a different page for the latter.
To me, nation-building implies a process that can only be effectively and sustainably undertaken by the constituent members of the nation itself. It certainly can't be carried out in any meaningful way by a horde of very heavily armed robo-troops parachuted in from a distant land. It just might be that a group of armed men from outside could do something to help with the process of state-building. (Not that that would make the resulting state recognizably a democratic one, however.) But nation-building, in the sense of building up the ties among a group of people so they feel they all belong to one "nation" and are bound by the obligations of that commitment?
Nah, I'm still not seeing it as a possibility.
I don't think NATO can succeed at state-building in Afghanistan, either.
... Last week I was on a Press TV show with Larry Korb and Gareth Porter, about Afghanistan and Iraq, both. Larry, who's a sensible, realist person, seemed fairly supportive of Obama's decision to increase the numbers of US troops in southern Afghanistan. At one point I asked him what the best outcome was that he could reasonably foresee in Afghanistan. He said something like,
Well, that in 18 months we would have stabilized things enough there that the process of nation building could be taking root. But if that hasn't happened by then, we'd have to look at other options.
This is not exactly a gung-ho outlook. But I think that even this outlook is very short-sighted and irresponsible.
Why wait another 18 months, when it is almost certain that the kind of
"stability" Larry was looking for won't be there then... and along the
way, how many more Afghan citizens and how many more Americans will
have died?
Pres. Obama should start acting now-- to reach out to the whole of the rest of the world community, but especially Afghanistan's neighbors, to ask their help in formulating a plan for a speedy withdrawal of the western troops from the country. Pakistan and Afghanistan both need a lot of help in re-establishing effective governance at all levels. But military troops who are western are just about the worst imaginable tools to help bring this about.
And guess what. There are plenty of other ways for these two countries' peoples to get what they need.
Sure, many Americans still have a lot of concern about future Al-Qaeda attacks, or about Afghanistan once again turning into the kind of place where Al-Qaeda can find a safe haven for organizing its heinous plots. But once again, the insertion, use, and maintenance of a large western military force in the Afghan-Pakistani border region seems like just about the worst, and most counter-productive way to respond to these concerns.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
10 Comments so far
Show AllThe idea of Afghanistan as a single unified state in the modern sense is completely ludicrous. Afghanistan is a crossroads sort of place where different & mutually hostile peoples mix uncomfortably. It should be noted that the constituent peoples of Afghanistan consider themselves their people hood first: Pashtun, Hazara, Tadjik, Uzbek, & Kirgiz, and may say Afghan if they want a passport. As long as the rest of the world holds on to this foolish notion that Afghanistan can be a nation-state, then the non-comprehension will continue apace.
The idea that most land masses are single unified states is completely ludicrous.
Is Iraq one nation or three nations (Kurd, Shia, Sunni). Let's give the Marsh Arabs their own country.
Is Saudi Arabia one or three nations - Wahabi (highland), Quereshi (Red Sea) and Gulf Arabs ?
Afghanistan is the "leftovers" of empire. Much like Ethiopians, Afghans were too big a pain in the ass to conquer. Countries were carved out around Afghans.
They have always been a crossroads of land empires.. More accidents occur in the crossroads than on the open road.
For a large part of the second millenium, commerce traveled on the oceans.
Afghanistan is landlocked - only valuable to an oversized Soviet Union.
In the 21st century - the whole region is becoming a crossroads of pipelines.
The US backed Unical Pipeline is on hold untile we can eliminate opium from Helmund Province. And where will this pipeline terminate - at a Chinese built port on the Indian Ocean - Gwadar. It's also a small concern that the pipeline runs right through Quetta, the real headquarters of Al Quaeda and the Taliban.
And now that the Iran - Pakistan - India (IPI) pipeline from the Fars gas fields is on hold - something about nucelar ambitions - we don't have to worry about the northern link of this pipeline which will connect with China - right through the currently unstable northern frontier of Pakistan.
Americans rank at the bottom as geographers. They have no concept of spatial reality. We believe in the political process - devoid of geographical sense.
Get out some maps and look at the reality of Afghanistan - you might then begin to understand why we are there.
high level psy-ops...notice the framing:
Sure, many Americans still have a lot of concern about future Al-Qaeda attacks, or about Afghanistan once again turning into the kind of place where Al-Qaeda can find a safe haven for organizing its heinous plots. But once again, the insertion, use, and maintenance of a large western military force in the Afghan-Pakistani border region seems like just about the worst, and most counter-productive way to respond to these concerns.
ah yes, us good innocent americans with our concerns about heinous al-qaeda and its plots...
You are absolutely correct in pointing that out.
We like to be scared into thinking that we can never be safe, that right behind us, lurking in the shadows are Al-Qaeda operatives, waiting to STRIKE - BOOM and carry out another "terrorist" attack.
It's like Ron Paul said so many times, What would we do, here at home, if some large Military was on OUR shores, patrolling our neighborhoods and setting up bases, and killing your friends and relatives?
Why we would be observing our Second Amendment RIGHTS and we would be out there trying to get rid of the Imperial nation who is on OUR Soil.
Us being there is the reason their numbers continue to grow. Al-Qaeda will grow stronger if we continue to kill innocent civilians, if we continue to POLICE their lands and control their resources.
Any person with common sense can see this, why is it that Our President, Our Military leaders cannot - Oh wait, thats right, I said anyone WITH Some Common Sense can see this - Apparently these people possess none!
Let US END This Madness, We NEED to and Immediately PULL-OUT of IRAQ, Afghanistan and Now Pakistan - We NEED to Get ALL Our Troops, from ALL Around the World, home and on Our Own shores.
If we are so scared of our shadow - or think we are prone to more attacks (Blow Back Anyone?) Then lets us use our troops here at home and place them in Boats along our Coasts to Protect us. Lets use some of that BILLIONS of Dollar WAR Enterprise, the Largest in the World, lets get it actually running correctly so the next time 4 stray planes happen to be used as missiles we will actually be able to Notice them, Track them and Take them Out ( Oh wait, that might actually have gone against their PLANS and they would have never been able to Launch multiple Middle East Wars while at home remove our Liberties with the so called US Patriot act and Department of Homeland Security)
RON PAUL Was Right then and still is Now!
One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America
Ron Paul for President 2012
visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
"Any person with common sense can see this, why is it that Our President, Our Military leaders cannot - Oh wait, thats right, I said anyone WITH Some Common Sense can see this - Apparently these people possess none!"
Powers That Be leaders never have common sense when it comes to military action. Abraham Lincoln's first enlistment quota was for three months; he was sure they could whup the South's keester and be done with it all by fall. In 1916 the British and French were sure that they could drop a million artillery shells on the German's then go "over the top" and end the war in one quick fell swoop. Despite all the shelling there were still plenty of Germans left to mow down the charging armies and the war went on for two more years. Over and over Lyndon Johnson said, "Just 10,000 more troops for a final quick mop up and we can come home and have the victory celebrations." That went on for lots of more years.
The leaders will get mad if you question their unfounded optimism; they'll tell you that you're unpatriotic and that your saying that they can't prevail as easily as they say is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" and you ought to be shot."
Afghanistan is looking more like a Vietnam-like quagmire and with nuclear Pakistan right next door and unstable as all get-out, trying to punish someone, anyone for 9-11 by warmaking there is beginning to seem like a really really bad idea.
But soon the environmental crisis will kick in full force and render all this militarized political stuff moot, and we can all be refugees without having to do all that bombing and high tech destructive gonzo go-go.
Churchill is sometimes paraphrased in referring to democracy as a terrible solution, except everything else is worse.
I abhor war and have devoted much of my life as a peace activist and a resister.
And, like many, I can easily see the potential folly we engage in Afghanistan: Their history of resistance is almost unparalleled, and their diverse and embattled cultures another enormous stumbling block in 'nation building.' We too often forget that a nation refers to a people, and within Afghanistan, there are many nations. And these embattled nations have, for centuries, endured countless conflicts, endlessly destroying whatever grasp at stability they could achieve.
And, Helena Cobban's argument echoes many similar statements during these last years.
However, I do not recall ever reading a comprehensive description of how stability and peace could be achieved by withdrawing.
I could, and so I will, state the obvious, but not mentioned and reiterated often enough: economic opportunity, economic stability, and education are the essential means of encouraging men throughout the world to put down the gun.
It appears that Obama has some sense of this, and that economic support for the people of Afghanistan is becoming more of a current focus and will be a greater part of our presence there.
Yes, the fear factor is over-played in our rationale. However, there are some inescapable realities that we have the luxury of standing far away from: where else in the world are we, as people of the world, confronted with acid thrown in the face of girls who seek an education, of boys whose only form of education is the endless reading and studying of the Koran, and, a neighboring country which is the most unstable in the world and, at the same time, most vulnerable to having nuclear weapons lost to Islamists.
We must not fall into the too easy trap of holding Iraq in the back of our minds while we contemplate the seeming futility of our presence in Afghanistan: the context is a separate one.
I encourage all to evaluate and criticize our historical and current efforts in Afghanistan. The policies of the Bush administration were horrendously wasteful of major opportunities and it is easy to see that Obama's efforts may not be much of an improvement.
But at least two things are necessary for any intelligent discourse and evaluation of the Afghanistan problem: first, we need specific, constructive alternative policies laid out, if they can be discerned; and second, we must consider that as bad as things look in Pakistan, an informed reading suggests that things may actually be much worse.
Packing up and moving to another planet is not a current option.
Several points:
The main point of the article, is that what you want to achieve, nation building, cannot be achieved by an armed foreign force, whether Afghanistan or any other country, NOT without the cooperation of the local people of the nation you want to build. Secondly, any state that an armed foreign force imposes is very unlikely to be truly democratic, by definition.
Thirdly, there is little evidence that what you want to achieve is being achieved. Or that it is even the goal. That is the crux of the matter. See various articles by Malalai Joya, and Lucinda Williams.
"where else in the world are we, as people of the world, confronted with acid thrown in the face of girls who seek an education, of boys whose only form of education is the endless reading and studying of the Koran, and, a neighboring country which is the most unstable in the world and, at the same time, most vulnerable to having nuclear weapons lost to Islamists."
Putting aside fearmongering about "Islamists", you do not appear to consider that having a huge armed presence in Afghanistan, bombing civilians and villagers in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is only making the situation worse, not better. Your solution is exacerbating the problem.
Furthermore, you appear to overrate the vulnerability of Pakistan's nuclear weapons to being obtained by the Taliban.
Also, are you claiming that Pakistan is the most unstable country in the world? That is nowhere close to being true.
"economic opportunity, economic stability, and education are the essential means of encouraging men throughout the world to put down the gun."
If this is your goal, then you are not going about it the correct way. You do not encourage people to put down the gun by sending ever more foreign invaders into their homes. You do not encourage people to put down the gun by bombing them. You do not encourage people to put down the gun by sending in ever more foreign invaders to prop up corrupt local leaders who are willing to lick your boots.
How much is the US, and the other NATO, spending on the military presence in Afghanistan? How much on education, providing economic opportunities, jobs? Why is the US, and NATO, propping up the warlords who in many cases were big parts of the current mess? Why is the US, and NATO, propping up warlords who are just as guilty as the Taliban of various human rights crimes?
"But at least two things are necessary for any intelligent discourse and evaluation of the Afghanistan problem: first, we need specific, constructive alternative policies laid out, if they can be discerned; and second, we must consider that as bad as things look in Pakistan, an informed reading suggests that things may actually be much worse."
No, the first thing necessary is to properly analyse the problem.
For example, we must also consider that as bad bas things look in Pakistan, things really aren't that bad. We must also consider that foreign meddling in Pakistan and Afghanistan is making things worse, not better.
The main point of the article is, like many, a critique of how our military presence in Afghanistan is in error, or making things worse. Our military presence in Afghanistan, like most if not all of our military activities, is vulnerable to in-depth critique. This vulnerability does not, in itself however, logically equate with a conclusion that we should just end our military activity and leave.
And, again, it is true that it is not easy to see evidence that we are achieving anything positive, especially because most of the news focuses on the war in the countryside and the IEDs. However, in Kabul for instance, I suggest that there are a number of women who we hear little from, but who are grateful for the absence or lessened presence of the Taliban.
I did not specifically state what I wanted to 'achieve'. That was not the point of my comment, nor did I identify my 'goal'. One could argue that there are implicit goals or intentions in my comment and that is true.
Yes, we must properly analyze the problem, but none of that appears on this page, except perhaps where I remark about how "economic opportunity, economic stability, and education are the essential means of encouraging men throughout the world to put down the gun."
It is overly simplistic - and this is a type of mistake often made by arguments formulated by peace activists, and like myself in the past - to suggest that in Afghanistan ALL we are doing is "sending ever more foreign invaders into their homes" and "bombing them" and [propping] "up corrupt local leaders who are willing to lick your boots".
Yes, it is terribly true that those things are happening, and the single greatest frustration (truly) for me has been to read over these last years about how scores of civilians in Afghanistan have been killed by another of our bombs, called in by our soldiers on some homes where they believed the Taliban had taken position. That it continued again and again was and is maddening for me.
We did not create the warlord culture in Afghanistan. That is how their culture has been structured for hundreds of years. To have any hope in successfully engaging a people we must recognize their cultural norms and show respect for them. That said, we have encouraged the formation of a structure that might hold some hope for an eventual semblance of democracy. Almost all countries - except perhaps for Costa Rica - beginning anew with an unfamiliar form of political structure have experienced great turmoil, even in the U.S. Many fail, and much depends on the level of education and economic opportunity available in the respective fledgling democracy. Corruption is rampant in Afghanistan - and elsewhere - and is also publicly addressed in their current electoral discourse.
Yet, I still cannot see that the situation would be improved if we simply pulled out. Following that, it would be impossible to prevent another decimation of the rebuilt (countless times after countless wars) major cities, but even worse, the greater decimation of civilian population, again, and the rape, murder, and beatings of those hundreds if not thousands of women who were not totally covered.
Numerous excellent articles have been written identifying problems, if not horrors, that result from our presence. Yet, to simply leave, now, would be much worse for the reasons I have stated - that's my analysis of the problem with the argument presented in the article and in your reply to my comments.
For those who are not familiar with the culture and feel at a loss to 'analyze' the problem, Rory Stewart's "The Places in Between" is an excellent first encounter. And then, there is the incomparable "Kite Runner", if we ever feel confused about which may be the greater evil.
There is no country on earth - except perhaps Great Britain - that stands more guilty of military excess and foreign malfeasance than the U.S.
But that, and in support of our current errors and horrors, does not mean we will achieve a greater good by simply leaving Afghanistan.
As for Pakistan, you avoid my point by suggesting that the essential issue is that Pakistan either is or isn't "the most unstable country in the world" which I never claimed. That need for the highest degree of instability is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that they are the only nuclear armed country in the world who has recently received militant attacks on a military base positioned to defend their storage of nuclear weapons. If that reality does not conjur a reasonable fear of great calamity, then I acquiesce to your better argument.
Writers like Hellena Cobban need to maintain a prolific output. I simply suggest that on this subject matter, the effort of analysis could be better focused on detailed suggestions for alternative solutions, which are very difficult and may boggle the mind, rather than an easy and repetitive shot such as she gave.
P.S. Thanks for the reference to Malalai Joya. A exceptionally heroic woman. For those, like myself, who were unfamiliar with her work, the following links may be of help:
The U.S. Has Returned Fundamentalism to Afghanistan
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1148
and her own site
Defense Committee for Malalai Joya
http://www.malalaijoya.com/index1024.htm
My approval of President Obama's staying power in Afghanistan is based on the hope that there must be a significant number of moderate Taliban leaders and followers who have a broader vision of women's and education's role in the future of a traditional based future Afghanistan.
I point out Sayed Salahuddin article about "former Taliban officials have been trying to mediate between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the insurgents since late last year, hoping eventually to arrange peace talks."
A recent cease fire may bode well during upcoming election. "Before the Badghis deal the Taliban had repeatedly rejected such suggestions, saying they would continue their insurgency until all foreign troops had left Afghanistan."