Thursday, July 16, 2009

Deadly Afghanistan

The war in Afghanistan is heating up and the per-capital casualties are higher than in Iraq.

It is not obvious to me why we are changing tactics in Afghanistan. We are beating Al Queda in a war of attrition and the main leadership is operating out of Pakistan anyway. Why are we heating up to fight the reconstituted Taliban? What are we gaining by adding more troops? What do we hope to achieve? How will those more troops help achieve it?

What concerns me is that the idea and support for an Afghan "surge" is rooted in the mistaken American Liberal perception that Afghanistan was the "good" war and Iraq was the "bad" war...that we took our eye off Afghanistan in '03, etc, etc. This pig-headed view towards reality could turn a winning strategy into a losing one. It needs to be explained why we need to change tactics in Afghanistan and how a "surge" is going to achieve it. I'm flabbergasted Americans aren't demanding an answer to this question, especially in light of the violent opposition to the Iraq War and the Iraq War Surge. Here we are prepping to send a bunch of troops to perhaps swift the tides of war into our DISFAVOR (considering how a large number on the ground could turn the Afghan population against us), and yet everyone is just going along with it. Afghanistan is not Iraq. If you think Iraq isn't ready for democracy, Afghanistan REALLY isn't ready for democracy.

Furthermore, it isn't obvious that the surge ALONE worked in Iraq. The surge supplemented other facts on the ground - the Sunni Awakening - and resulted in the shifted tide against Al Queda. What facts on the ground in Afghanistan suggest a surge of US troops are going to help defeat the Taliban? Granted, the argument for the surge was that it would provide temporary security to find a grand political solution to the sectarian problem. It ended up working differently than planned, by setting the stage for ground up, grassroots, localized efforts to take back control from Al Queda, and undermining their efforts to bring about civil war. It gave Sunnis jobs and it had a ripple effect. I'm sure there could be similar positive externalities to a surge in Afghanistan. But there could also be negative. And is it worth the risk? Iraq is a keystone state in the most volatile region in the world. Afghanistan was a safe haven for Al Queda. We can keep it from being a safe haven with a minimal number of troops. What are we gaining by surging?

No comments: