A former head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security calls it "regrettable" that Canada plans to withdraw from the conflict in Afghanistan.
He is certainly entitled to his opinion, and the following is undoubtedly true:
Chertoff believes the challenge of this century is "ungoverned space," where there is no government that can maintain order. Those areas of the world can give terrorists room to thrive, he said.
This is the part that I take issue with, not the concept, but the scale and the execution:
"It would be very short-sighted to stint on the investment now and face the consequences in five years," he said. "So I think President Obama is dead-right in what he is doing."
I read something a few days ago about U.S. Special Forces troops sweeping into Mogadishu with helicopters, hitting a specific target, killing him, and extracting with no losses; it's like "Blackhawk Down" except that it worked. The key phrase in the article was "specific intelligence" and THAT is where the investment that Mr Chertoff talks about should be made.
If the place is ungovernable, who are we to think that we can make it so? Even empires had a hell of a time subjugating barbarians; beating them in the field, sure, conquering the place, sure, but holding it? Iraq might have worked if the Yanks had just decapitated the leadership, but I've made that argument before. Superimposing government can work, but building one in a vacuum? Ask another question, what is the Aim?
Yes, "Selection and Maintenance of the Aim" is the foremost of most Principals of Warfare that you will find, although the exact terms will vary. End state is what? Terrorists have no safe havens to attack us from with impunity? I can think of a lot cheaper (in blood and treasure) ways to achieve that than bogging ourselves down and making us the fixed target as we wallow about trying to rebuild a failed state.
The people who live in these places have more pressing motivation than we do for their countries to function, and if THEY can't make it work that doesn't augur well for us to do so. Cynical for damned sure, but I'm still waiting for someone to prove me wrong.
Wednesday 16 September 2009
Wednesday 9 September 2009
If you want something done right...
In the aftermath (sort of) of the latest Afghan election, there is a lot of comment from various sources about the corruption of the incumbents. If anything, this is probably understated, as the most lucrative parts of the economy is the drug trade, and the Karzai family is deep into it.
I have talked to Afghans in the heart of Taliban territory and they aren't happy when we wreck their stuff and kill them by accident, but they don't want us to leave. Part of that is economic; we break something or tear up their fields, we pay for it and that's a better source of hard currency than they'll get pretty much anywhere else. Bigger than that though, the Taliban are as miserably austere a group as have ever walked the earth and even conservative Pashtuns don't want to live under their rules.
Leaving the problem of how best separate the wolves from the sheep for the moment, back to running the country. The question I have (and I don't have an answer!) is; should we just kick out the government and run the place?
Afghans are famous for uniting to drive out foreign invaders, so on the face of it it sounds like a fantastically bad idea. In the current situation, where their government is seen as a corrupt Western puppet anyway, I don't see what we have to lose.
The people kowtow to the Taliban partly in desperation for any kind of stability, partly in fear, and partly because they know that we (and consequently the Karzai government) won't be sticking around forever. In the meantime we pour in blood and treasure in an ultimately fruitless attempt to get the country on it's feet.
My proposal: decapitate the government and replace it with competent Westerners. Use the British Raj as a model as far as possible and keep locals where you can, replace them where you can't. You have to keep the Bremers out but I really don't see it as being either more expensive or more dangerous than what we're doing right now.
The ANA is already stood up, although it has a long way to go and honestly it may never get all the way there. The police are a disaster that is being somewhat managed, and the biggest challenge is to damp down the corruption to something reasonable (for that part of the world). Right now the public distrusts the government despite its' "nativeness". My gut tells me that they would not rise up against a foreign administration as long as it got the job done.
This does not suggest that things will be all rainbows and frisky puppies if we kick Karzai et al to the curb, spray the opium fields and cut out the middlemen from our aid to the country. I just don't think it would be worse, and people might do what they did in Iraq and start talking to us if they think we can get the job done.
Michael Yon described the US military in Iraq as a "tribe", specifically a powerful one which could be trusted to be neutral and just. Afghanistan is NOT Iraq, and that isn't a good thing in this case. The educated middle class of Iraq doesn't exist in Afghanistan, so we'd have to work with warlords, but if you have the biggest stick on the block you can keep them in line. Be "professional" about running that place and you might gain that (probably grudging) respect from the public.
Incredibly difficult, complex and most certainly bloody, but a sliver of long-term hope. We can extrapolate from what we're doing now, and everybody says it'll take a generation at least. I say throw the dice; go big or go home, and soon at that.
I have talked to Afghans in the heart of Taliban territory and they aren't happy when we wreck their stuff and kill them by accident, but they don't want us to leave. Part of that is economic; we break something or tear up their fields, we pay for it and that's a better source of hard currency than they'll get pretty much anywhere else. Bigger than that though, the Taliban are as miserably austere a group as have ever walked the earth and even conservative Pashtuns don't want to live under their rules.
Leaving the problem of how best separate the wolves from the sheep for the moment, back to running the country. The question I have (and I don't have an answer!) is; should we just kick out the government and run the place?
Afghans are famous for uniting to drive out foreign invaders, so on the face of it it sounds like a fantastically bad idea. In the current situation, where their government is seen as a corrupt Western puppet anyway, I don't see what we have to lose.
The people kowtow to the Taliban partly in desperation for any kind of stability, partly in fear, and partly because they know that we (and consequently the Karzai government) won't be sticking around forever. In the meantime we pour in blood and treasure in an ultimately fruitless attempt to get the country on it's feet.
My proposal: decapitate the government and replace it with competent Westerners. Use the British Raj as a model as far as possible and keep locals where you can, replace them where you can't. You have to keep the Bremers out but I really don't see it as being either more expensive or more dangerous than what we're doing right now.
The ANA is already stood up, although it has a long way to go and honestly it may never get all the way there. The police are a disaster that is being somewhat managed, and the biggest challenge is to damp down the corruption to something reasonable (for that part of the world). Right now the public distrusts the government despite its' "nativeness". My gut tells me that they would not rise up against a foreign administration as long as it got the job done.
This does not suggest that things will be all rainbows and frisky puppies if we kick Karzai et al to the curb, spray the opium fields and cut out the middlemen from our aid to the country. I just don't think it would be worse, and people might do what they did in Iraq and start talking to us if they think we can get the job done.
Michael Yon described the US military in Iraq as a "tribe", specifically a powerful one which could be trusted to be neutral and just. Afghanistan is NOT Iraq, and that isn't a good thing in this case. The educated middle class of Iraq doesn't exist in Afghanistan, so we'd have to work with warlords, but if you have the biggest stick on the block you can keep them in line. Be "professional" about running that place and you might gain that (probably grudging) respect from the public.
Incredibly difficult, complex and most certainly bloody, but a sliver of long-term hope. We can extrapolate from what we're doing now, and everybody says it'll take a generation at least. I say throw the dice; go big or go home, and soon at that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)