The Afghanistan Pullout

The U.S. is scheduled to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in about a month, after a decade of fighting there. Full withdrawal is supposed to be by 2014. Everyone expects the July 2011 withdrawal to be a token number, more symbolic than a meaningful proportion of the 100K troops there, because the battle against the Taliban is still at high pitch and the Afghans are not yet competent.

However, with the recent decapitation of Al Qaeda, there is opportunity to rethink the Afghan plan. The U.S. could plausibly declare the “war on terror” essentially won, because we got the perpetrator of the 9-11 attacks. Then we can get out of Afghanistan (and Iraq too!) much more quickly. Those were Bush’s wars of choice, which Obama inherited, and promised in his presidential campaign to end quickly. This is his chance to do what he said.

There is talk among the punditocracy that we must not “abandon” Afghanistan. We must “stay the course,” and make withdrawal sensitive to “conditions on the ground.” What is behind this kind of cautionary talk?

The fear is that as soon as we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over (probably under the leadership of our man, Karzai). If that happens, then Pakistan may well go Taliban too, and then you’d have nuclear terrorists. Who they would attack first, the U.S., Israel, or Europe, is beside the point; we assume they would attack. Bad scenario. Therefore, do not pull the troops out of Afghanistan “prematurely.”

But that logic can be rethought. There are two sets of arguments for simply declaring victory and pulling out all the troops as quickly as possible. Argument set one is domestic: The war is very unpopular in the U.S.; it is bankrupting us, and Obama needs to win in 2012. One reason for the 2014 date for a “serious” drawdown in troops is that it would be after Obama’s re-election, so couldn’t hurt him, and might give Democrats a boost in the midterms. But that is chicken thinking.

The second set of arguments for pulling out now/soon from Afghanistan is that we are not accomplishing anything significant there anyway. We cannot kill or capture every Taliban terrorist in the country. They breed too fast. They can easily wait us out. As for “nation-building,” we aren’t doing much of that either. We’re trying, with clinics and roads, to make life better for the people, but we are not winning hearts and minds; the populace is ethnically divided and not susceptible to democracy; and it is an opium-based economy. Even the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, doesn’t’ want us there. Hawks like senator Joe Lieberman insist we need to “build a country we can be at peace with.” But he doesn’t say how to do that, and he can’t, because it is not possible, at least not in his, mine, or Obama’s lifetime. Our position there is unsustainable as a practical matter. We cannot win militarily and we cannot be successful politically. The writing is on the wall: Afghanistan is going to be an anti-western, fundamentalist, Islamic theocracy. Let’s plan for the reality, not the fantasy.

Once Afghanistan has gone over to the dark side, the Taliban probably will influence or virtually take over Pakistan too, which is already halfway down the slippery slope to a failed state. Maybe we could continue to prop up Pakistan, just as we have propped up Israel for decades, and keep the nukes out of the hands of the Taliban. That would be much cheaper than what we are paying to keep troops in Afghanistan. But even that plan is not a sure thing. The Pakis are extremely ambivalent about us. They love our money, but that’s about all. Many are sympathetic to the Taliban. It is not for certain that we can buy their allegiance for much longer, and it is seriously not clear if Pakistan can survive as the pseudo-democracy it is now.

Conclusion:

Let Obama put his silver tongue to work and convince Americans of the real problem: We are stalemated in Afghanistan and so we should get out and plan instead for surgical retaliations when the Taliban acts up, as they surely will. We can, without being public about it, switch from a “global war on terrorism” to more of a police footing, where we kill and capture perpetrators, but do not invade whole countries and fight literal wars on their soil. We need to keep our legal options open. The president probably does not want to give up his “war” authority to pursue badguys to the four corners of the earth, across international borders where necessary, but there is probably some kind of slippery political language to finesse the legal points.

We should also prepare to prop up Pakistan (with the money we save by ending the war!) and also prepare for a failed Pakistan and even for nuclear terrorists. How will we react? Why not plan for the real probable future world, rather than hanging on to the status quo like some talisman that lets us avoid lifting our heads. A “stay the course” policy in Afghanistan is like a child’s superstition: Step on a crack, break your mother’s back. Hey, that won’t save us. It is pure superstition, not realistic policy.

Obama could pull virtually all the troops out of Afghanistan now and be ready to react to the next move. Yes, it’s a reactive approach, but we cannot be proactive against the Taliban in Afghanistan. That is amply demonstrated by the “facts on the ground.” The Taliban will not act rashly before 2012 because they know a Republican victory would probably bring the troops back in. They will wait. That gives Obama time to be ready with a thunderbolt response. Meanwhile the troops stop dying, and the money stops hemorrhaging in Afghanistan, and we’re no worse off geopolitically.

The AFPAK Conundrum

President Obama will soon announce whether or not he will agree to General McChrystal’s request to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Most pundits agree that 40K would be merely a downpayment; that at least 100,000 would be needed to suppress the Taliban there. So we are looking at a Vietnam-style gradual escalation that slowly bleeds the country (our country) white, whereupon we throw in the towel in defeat. It’s not even clear what these 40K troops would be used for. It’s not even clear what the present troops there are doing. The war in Afghanistan is not popular with Americans, but even allowing for the fact that the American public has a short attention span, sending more troops is a bad idea now and an even worse trend.

Should we pull out then? Let the Taliban take over? An argument could be made for that option, except for one small problem: Pakistan has the atomic bomb. The Taliban are not going to stay in Afghanistan. They have already migrated into Pakistan, which is now their headquarters. We do not need another bunch of nut-case Islamic extremists with nuclear weapons. The consequences are too severe to even consider.

So what is a good strategy? Not that Obama calls me any more, but if he did, I would say, don’t sent any more fighting troops to Afghanistan. It’s a never-ending battle there. No matter how many Taliban we kill, they can easily recruit more. Instead, send 40,000 troops into Pakistan to wipe out the Taliban in the Northwest region, drive them back into Afghanistan. Pakistan is what we need to protect, not Afghanistan.

Granted, the Pakis may not care to have 40,000 American troops barge in. But maybe there is a way around that. Maybe they are 40,000 trainers, advisors, logistics personnel, and whatnot; everything but trigger-pullers.

Once Pakistan is secure, we take these further actions in Afghanistan: We seal the borders of Afghanistan (as much as possible) from the inside with troops, and from the outside with economic and political sanctions. Especially the border with Pakistan. Then we eradicate the poppies, which is the Taliban’s source of income, and we pay farmers a subsidy to grow something more useful to the same profit level. Hey, it works in Wisconsin, it can work in Kandahar. I am sure that farm subsidies are less costly than a war without end. Finally, we spend money, money, money on training and infiltrating human intelligence into Afghanistan, psychological warfare, and on building schools, electric generators, and water systems in villages. We do NOT try to convert the country to democracy, capitalism, or Christianity. I would guess that all these efforts, costly though they might be, would still be less expensive than another eight years of warfare.

So Obama should send in, not 40,000 troops, but 40,000 civil engineers, spies, and micro-diplomats. Troops are not what we need.

The Warner Pullout

The Warner Pullout

Republican Senator John Warner urged President Bush to withdraw 5,000 troops from Iraq by the end of this year. That would “send a signal” he said, to the Iraqi government that we mean business when we say they need to get their act together. Government officials love sending “signals” and “messages.” They have to, since their personal utterances have zero credibility.

Warner acknowledged that five thousand troops out of 160 thousand would not make any military difference, but would be important symbolically, marking the beginning of the end. He insisted he still opposes any legislation calling for a U.S. pullout by any date certain (although that is exactly what he has proposed). He was interviewed by Judy Woodruff on The News Hour with Jim Leher, on Friday.

Why did Warner say this, and why now? He gave no serious reasons, despite repeated questioning. Some of his superficial reasons were...

1. He just got back from Iraq and his assessment of the situation there compelled his statement. Sounds good, but he was only there four days. Without knowing exactly what he did or saw, I can imagine it would be difficult to make any kind of first-hand assessment of any country’s status in 4 days. He probably just talked to Generals and administration officials there, and learned nothing he couldn’t have learned from a few international phone calls. It was Kabuki theater.

2. He emphasized in his interview that it would be wonderful if 5,000 American troops could be home for Christmas and spend the holidays with their families. That is a non-reason.

3. He said the Iraqi government was not making any political progress and so we need to send a message that our military commitment is not open ended. President Bush himself has said the same thing about U.S. commitment, as have others. Sending such messages doesn’t seem to have much effect on the Iraqi political process. He would know that.

But Warner hinted at one reason that seemed real to me. He emphasized repeatedly that the decision to draw down troops was exclusively the president’s, and that he was merely offering a humble suggestion, as if such a “suggestion” had not already been blasted through loudspeakers by Democrats. As a leading Republican, Warner’s symbolic positioning of himself is exactly one of the behavioral “messages” he is so fond of, but it is actually aimed at the American public, not the president. I think he is trying to give cover for the president’s imminent announcement to draw down troops. In fact, I would guess that the White House asked Warner to make this public statement at this time for exactly this reason.

Bush will indeed have to draw down troops soon. Why? Because we must start rotating out existing forces, according to the Pentagon’s public statements, and we do not have any more troops to replace them. So there will be a troop draw-down, probably by the end of this year.

That being the case, what will the White House cover story be? Surely not the truth, that we are out of troops! That’s out of the question. No, they will announce, a few days after September 11th, a “new policy” that will sound shockingly similar to what Warner just said yesterday. The White House will suddenly want to send that message to the Iraqis.

Why September 11th? On that symbolic date, General Petraeus makes his official report about conditions on the ground in Iraq. Anybody who has spent more than two weeks in business or government knows that you do not sit around waiting for such a report to plop onto your desk. There is active “shaping” of the report as it is developed. The White House already knows what is in the report, which will be at best “mixed” about progress, and despite euphemism, dysphemism, and multiple, spinning tinted glasses, probably will be depressing.

Plus, the president’s people have to know Republicans are staring into a vortex of obliteration in the '08 elections because of the war. If there is any hope of avoiding utter destruction of the Republican party, the president has to do something, and this token gesture could be the beginning of a change in policy.

Will the president admit defeat in Iraq? Never. Will he confess that he made a mistake? No. Will he say his policy was ineffective. Not a chance. Everything is good and positive; He has never been more certain; This is not a surrender; Democracy is on the march; yadda yadda as before; but now we are “sending a message” – but it’s actually a message to the American public that we are going to loosen the thumbscrews on American society.

Will there be more troop drawdowns in ’08? Will this be the beginning of complete or substantial withdrawal? No. Bush will let the incoming Democratic president take the rap for “failure” and “surrender” after January ’09. No way he is going to admit anything. Despite that bitter cynicism, I see a long term trend toward partitioning Iraq, as I have suggested before in this blog.

Three weeks ago the New York Times reported that the administration has a plan to sell billions of dollars worth of technically advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) . This story came and went very quietly. Amazingly so.

Israel? I hadn’t figured on that. My plan was to let Iran have the Shia territories, but that would be too hard a pride-pill to swallow for the White House. The Egyptians can do it just as well. The Saudis will not fight the Egyptians. Can Israel work with the Kurds? Israel might be a red herring here. I still think Turkey is the logical choice. Still, what do I know? There may be other layers of this chess game.

The point is that the proposed sale indicates that the White House is thinking about the upcoming civil war, who will fight it, and the eventual partition of Iraq.