Aimless Absurdity in Afghanistan

[bigtree]

from TIME: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1865730,00.html

{snip}

THE war in Afghanistan — the war that President-elect Barack Obama pledged to fight and win — has become an aimless absurdity. It began with a specific target. Afghanistan was where Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda lived, harbored by the Islamic extremist Taliban government. But the enemy escaped into Pakistan, and for the past seven years, Afghanistan has been a slow bleed against an array of mostly indigenous narco-jihadi-tribal guerrilla forces that we continue to call the "Taliban." These ragtag bands are funded by opium profits and led by assorted religious extremists and druglords, many of whom have safe havens in Pakistan.

In some ways, Helmand province — which I visited with the German general Egon Ramms, commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command — is a perfect metaphor for the broader war. The soldiers from NATO's International Security Assistance Force are doing what they can against difficult odds. The language and tactics of counter-insurgency warfare are universal here: secure the population, help them build their communities. There are occasional victories: the Taliban leader of Musa Qala, in northern Helmand, switched sides and has become an effective local governor. But the incremental successes are reversible — schools are burned by the Taliban, police officers are murdered — because of a monstrous structural problem that defines the current struggle in Afghanistan.

The British troops in Helmand are fighting with both hands tied behind their backs. They cannot go after the leadership of the Taliban — still led by the reclusive Mullah Omar — which operates openly in the Pakistani city of Quetta, just across the border. They also can't go after the drug trade that funds the insurgency, in part because some of the proceeds are also skimmed by the friends, officials and perhaps family members of the stupendously corrupt government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Helmand province is mostly desert, but it produces half the world's opium supply along a narrow strip of irrigated land that straddles the Helmand River. The drug trade — Afghanistan provides more than 90% of the world's opium — permeates everything. A former governor, Sher Mohammed Akhundzada, was caught with nine tons of opium, enough to force him out of office, but not enough to put him in jail, since he enjoys — according to U.S. military sources — a close relationship with the Karzai government. Indeed, Akhundzada and Karzai's brother Ahmed Wali — who operates in Kandahar, the next province over — are considered the shadow rulers of the region (along with Mullah Omar). "You should understand," a British commander said, "the fight here isn't really about religion. It's about money."

Another thing you should understand: thousands of U.S. troops are expected to be deployed to Helmand and Kandahar provinces next spring. They will be fighting under the same limitations as the British, Canadian, Danish and Dutch forces currently holding the fort, which means they will be spinning their wheels. And that raises a long-term question crucial to the success of the Obama Administration: What are we doing in Afghanistan? What is the mission? We know what the mission used to be —to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and destroy his al-Qaeda command. But once bin Laden slipped away, the mission morphed into a vast, messy nation — building effort to support the allegedly democratic Karzai government. There was a certain logic to that. The Taliban and al-Qaeda can't base themselves in Afghanistan if something resembling a stable, secure nation-state exists there. But the mission was also historically implausible: Afghanistan has never had a strong central government. It has been governed for thousands of years by local and regional tribal coalitions. The tribes have often been at one another's throats — a good part of the current "Taliban" uprising is nothing more than standard tribal rivalries juiced by Western arms and opium profits — except when foreigners have invaded the area, in which case the Afghans have united and slowly humiliated conquerors from Alexander the Great to the Soviets.

The current Western presence is the most benign intrusion in Afghan history, and the rationale of building stability remains a logical one — but this war has become something of a sideshow in South Asia. The far more serious problem is Pakistan, a flimsy state with illogical borders, nuclear weapons and a mortal religious enmity toward India, its neighbor to the south. Pakistan is where bin Laden now lives, if he lives. The Bush Administration chose to coddle Pakistan's military leadership, which promised to help in the fight against al-Qaeda — but it hasn't helped much, although there are signs that the fragile new government of President Asif Ali Zardari may be more cooperative. Still, the Pakistani intelligence service helped create the Taliban and other Islamic extremist groups — including the terrorists who attacked Mumbai — as a way of keeping India at bay, and Pakistan continues to protect the Afghan Taliban in Quetta. In his initial statements, Obama has seemed more sophisticated about Afghanistan than Bush. In an interview with me in late October, Obama said Afghanistan should be seen as part of a regional problem, and he suggested that he might dispatch a special envoy, perhaps Bill Clinton, to work on the Indo-Afghan-Pakistani dilemma. Clinton seems a less likely prospect since his wife was named Secretary of State. The current speculation is that Richard Holbrooke may be selected for the job, which would be a very good idea. Holbrooke is a great negotiator, but he's also a great intimidator, and the first step toward resolving the war in Afghanistan is to lay down the law in both Islamabad and Kabul. The message should be the same in both cases: The unsupervised splurge of American aid is over. The Pakistanis will have to stop giving tacit support and protection to terrorists, especially the Afghan Taliban. The Karzai government will have to end its corruption and close down the drug trade. There are plenty of other reforms necessary — the international humanitarian effort is a shabby, self-righteous mess; some of our NATO allies aren't carrying their share of the military burden — but the war will remain a bloody stalemate at best as long as jihadis come across the border from Pakistan and the drug trade flourishes . . .

more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1865730,00.html


related:

Pentagon Hoping for More Brigades in Afghanistan by Summer - Gates Details Troop Deployments on Unannounced Trip to the Country
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122898192816197749.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

U.S. special forces mistakenly kill 6 Afghan police officers
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-afghanistan_11int.ART.State.Edition1.4a22edd.html

Afghanistan will be a ‘long fight’, warns Gates on Thursday
http://www.livemint.com/2008/12/11195642/Afghanistan-will-be-a-8216l.html

[patrice]

1. 160 (?) supply trucks blown up the other day - didn't even raise a ripple in the f-ing Media. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Will Osama Bin Laden be remembered as the guy who brought down the American Empire?

It truly is amazing.

A few of his followers hijack and crash some American planes into some buildings, killing 3000 citizens.

America responds by invading and occupying 2 countries at incredible expense in lives and fortune. Now, we are teetering on the verge of economic collapse. We are still paying in lives and money to continue those lost wars. "Terrorism" has increased, rather than decreased. Our citizenry are under the scrutiny of their own government and have lost much of their freedoms. Our military has shown itself incapable of fighting insurgencies.

We are overextended in our colonial ambitions and mired in two lost wars and facing another in Pakistan.

We may think ourselves "too big to fail", but history if jampacked with empires who squandered their power and wealth in vain attempts to make the world "safe".

[Bragi]

3. Obama is so wrong about this war.

He should be ending this war, not escalating it by sending in 20,000 more troops.

As a Canadian, I am particularly distressed that Obama appointed a Bushite as sec of defence, who is now pressuring Canada's (willing) conservatives to extend Canada's involvement, despite the fact that a majority of Canadians have never supported this war, and a majority in our House of Commons have now voted to leave in 2011.

See http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/552549

What makes me sad is that after supporting Obama fully (and I would have voted for him, of course) I can see myself 6 months from now with a sign protesting against "his war" when he eventually visits Canada.

How sad is that?

I wish American progressives would speak up and tell Obama to end this war, not to escalate it. I can't believe how so many people are quietly sleep walking into a war that will become a nightmare for Obama's administration.

- B

[spanone]

4. i hope our new president realizes soon the futility of this 'war'