Rolling Afghanistan Thread

[scottdisco]

Nothing wrong with fierce moral outrage coupled with a brilliant intelligence. Fucking beautiful, in fact.

damn straight

Anyway, let me dwell a little upon the 'logic of intevention'

let me pre-empt you (excuse the pun!)

Intervention is always questionable but not always wrong...My central objection to intervention has always been that it won’t work—and what we cannot do, we should obligate ourselves to try to do.

- Alex de Waal

seems fair to me.

(full disclosure: i'm a de Waal fan.)

 

[Dial]

damn straight

Intervention is always questionable but not always wrong...My central objection to intervention has always been that it won’t work—and what we cannot do, we should obligate ourselves to try to do.

A riddle designed to entice me to further reading? It's working. Cheers.

 

[scottdisco]

yeah, it's true. I just mean that as soon as the "War on Terrorism" was announced pretty much every f**ker who's a petty dictator saw that he could get into our good graces by claiming to be fighting "terrorism" while they stamped out dissidents (admittedly the 2 could & do sometimes go hand in hand). Egypt, Pakistan, etc etc and not that the U.S. doesn't have a long history of propping up petty dictators for dubious reasons, but that doesn't make me feel better about any of it.

all true.

i agree w you wrt the US and her often hypocritical, hard-headed, indeed sometimes appalling way of conducting her friendships.
(Condi Rice would sometimes grumble a little bit in the direction of Mubarak and his police state, but it didn't do much good. i mention her as i have not followed Clinton at all well enough to know if she has remarked on Egypt yet. not picking on Egypt, just one example.)

but it's just given the sorts of govt you mention one extra layer of excuse - there's plenty of things to beat you Yanks up about in the first instance, not in a second-hand way, so i wouldn't cast too long another glance in that direction, tbf

tbc, i know that every govt committing serious misdeeds - whether they are a US ally that the US cannot afford to say nothing reprimanding to (or little) due to the US needing their airbases etc - or countries the US doesn't need to court so much, regardless, i know these countries will point to the WoT brand and say 'lookit!'

and they would be right to, obv. (they would still be persecuting opponents tomorrow if the US turned inwards in a spectacularly real fashion as of noon today Eastern time and never did anyone any more harm ever again, but hey.)

Uzbekistan was a shit place to be an opposition activist pre-9/11.
it is a shit place to be an opposition activist today.

etc. etc. etc.

 

[scottdisco]

also, tbc, i realise the hypocritical conduct of the WoT, all the objections, the discredited and repugnant practices, the things that diminish the moral authority of those claiming to be wanting to uphold the rule of law whilst they action their WoT, that some people think it is a war on Muslims, that you can't fight a war against a noun, and so on, yes, i know all that, i trust i don't sound overly flip, i'm just saying, despots would have been persecuting dissidents w out the inspirational leadership of the Dubya clique regardless (and were up to no good when Bush was an isolationist Texan governor) just as surely as they're getting persecuted w or w out anything coming from the mouth or deeds of the Obama regime... ...all very obv of me i know but just saying, like.

 

[scottdisco]

also tbc (god i'm a windbag ) i hope it doesn't sound like i'm making light of the whole 'despots throwing words back in your face' angle here, it's just that, the semantics of the war on terror are not something i have ever got too worked up about tbh (just the semantics angle of the phrase 'war on terrorism', i know some people can't abide it, but, just, tbh, not something that bugs me that much)

obv the phrase axis of evil was fucking stupid: Dubya should never have uttered it.
(even allowing for the fact that Saddamite Iraq and NK today were/are two of the most nefarious and hellish govts of the modern age, but if you were going to go down that route, part of me mischievously thinks let's just go the whole hog, let's name-check, you know, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Eq Guinea, etc)

 

[vimothy]

There are implications, though, that are more than merely semantic: the legal regime, the policy responses, the agencies that are deployed... I think that the institutional framework that the response is embedded in is conditional on those very semantic, almost hair-splitting, distinctions. FWIW.

 

[scottdisco]

yes that's a fair point

c.f. the words of BobFromBrockley in point 3 of that Lucozade plot post i mentioned elsewhere:

There seem to have been two approaches to the investigation and foiling of the plot. British intelligence and security services, reporting regularly to Tony Blair on the case, carefully infiltrated and watched the plotters, building up a slowly expanding picture of their networks, and gathering robust trial evidence. They let it run its course, confident they would know when they needed to act. American intelligence and security services, reporting regularly to George W Bush, seemed to want to make quick arrests to shut the network down...In this instance, the American approach was mistaken, and the culture around the war on terror under Bush – conceived as a military war rather than as a strategy of investigation and prevention, and staged as a high profile public spectacle – proved counterproductive.

clearly the American approach above was/is inferior.

but for whatever reason - and i know this conflicts w my impulses of shock and dismay at American abuses in the WoT such as the limbo horrors of black sites - yes, it's weird, the semantic thing, i just have no problem w the metaphor itself. that is a different kettle of fish from the can of worms you have rightly opened, of course, although it starts out on that same path.

i should probably have made it clearer i was just geeing up Padraig re the metaphor itself (a serviceable metaphor i think, FWIW, even when the people who coined it therefore conceived of all the initial policy planks which came to symbolise it, and to darken the term) and not shouted my mouth off quite so much..

 

[vimothy]

I agree with you: it's a servicable metaphor. And I don't think it's unreasonable to want to employ a war-orientated response to 21st C. terrrorism.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

despots would have been persecuting dissidents w out the inspirational leadership of the Dubya clique regardless (and were up to no good when Bush was an isolationist Texan governor) just as surely as they're getting persecuted w or w out anything coming from the mouth or deeds of the Obama regime

yes, again, it's all true. I'm not saying it's a causal relationship, like the WoT was announced & then all these grisly dudes were like "yeah! let's crack down on dissidents!". but 2 things.

1 - as Vim says, all that stuff, those differences, do in fact matter, because of their real world repercussions. I reckon we are quite beholden to semantics; how laws are written, tax loopholes, the wording of public statements, jargon ("kinetic" meaning killing people always gets me), euphemisms, legal definitions, memos and emails, bad translations. the tone of the Bush admin - moralistic, messianic, triumphalist - lends itself to justifications to all manner of grotesquery in a way that the Dems, in all their bland mediocrity, never could (which isn't a h/t to them so much as an indication of their inability to incite enthusiasm in anyone over anything).

2 - it still legitimizes these dudes, and I still hate having to be associated with it. it's embarrassing, this endless history of propping up banana republic dictators and anti-Communist strongmen and oil princes (not nearly as embarrassing as y'all's imperial past, but still).

 

[scottdisco]

yeah fair play P, though i note that Obama hasn't ditched the metaphor's ramifications entirely, or in some cases the metaphor at all (following Obama quotes all since he took office)

The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight and we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a - this is fundamental to the defense of our people.

- Obama

and again -

Now, in addition to securing the world's most dangerous weapons, a second area where America has a critical national interest is in isolating and defeating violent extremists.

For years, al Qaeda and its affiliates have defiled a great religion of peace and justice, and ruthlessly murdered men, women and children of all nationalities and faiths. Indeed, above all, they have murdered Muslims. And these extremists have killed in Amman and Bali; Islamabad and Kabul; and they have the blood of Americans and Russians on their hands. They're plotting to kill more of our people, and they benefit from safe havens that allow them to train and operate - particularly along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

And that's why America has a clear goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

and again -

We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.
.....
We are... at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.
.....
Now this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. And unlike the Civil War or World War II, we can't count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end.

and again -

It's not acceptable for Pakistan or for us to have folks who, with impunity, will kill innocent men, women and children... Well, Mr. Holbrooke is there, and that's exactly why he's being sent there, because I think that we have to make sure that Pakistan is a stalwart ally with us in battling this terrorist threat

and -

I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations... But that those organizations aren't representative of a broader Arab community, Muslim community.

John O. Brennan, Obama's senior counter-terrorism adviser

Terrorism needs to be fought against and certainly delegitimized or attacked

VP Biden

There is a war on terror. Terror is a legitimate threat. It is a threat that comes from al Qaeda and those organizations that have morphed off of al Qaeda

Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell, 26th March 2009

We are still actively engaged in a global war against terror

Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General

Some have compared the Cold War - which President Kennedy called "our long twilight struggle" - to our current struggle against terrorism. In many ways, this is an apt comparison. The Cold War did not end on a traditional battlefield, and neither will our fight against terrorism. But the comparison is even more compelling because both struggles are ones in which values - ideals and morals - are as important as military strength. As the President has made clear, winning the war on terrorism requires winning the hearts and minds of people around the world. Engaging those hearts and minds is dependent upon our ability to show the world that the United States will once again be a force for positive change in the lives of people across the globe. We must accomplish that goal by setting an example with our ideals, and by rebuilding our partnerships with our allies. We cannot ask other nations to stand by us in a pursuit of justice if we are not viewed as being in pursuit of that ideal ourselves.

yes apologies, serviceable metaphor is what i should've stuck w at the start, that was rather a lot of waffle up above!
Obama's people are clearly speaking more smartly than Bush, and there are real differences, and it's good to know that:- (from the same Brennan quote above, from an interview this August w the WaPo)

However, Washington must couple the military strikes that have depleted al-Qaeda's middle ranks with more sustained use of economic, diplomatic and cultural levers to diminish Islamist radicalization, he said, exercising "soft power" in ways that President George W. Bush came to embrace but had trouble carrying out.

but i just meant i think it can be an unremarkable term (certainly in the right hands).

'war on crime', etc etc etc.

and i totally appreciate your being embarrassed/ashamed by linkages P, of course

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

so, in the NYT's week in review: 10 Steps to Victory in Afghanistan

including both David Kilcullen & Andrew Exum (aka COIN blog overlord Abu M - coming up in the world innit). oh and one of the Kagan brothers.

Kilcullen on reform - "Counterinsurgency is only as good as the government it supports" particularly good. Kagan & his wife OTOH, get the gas face for their "don't believe we can afford to lose".

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Obama hasn't ditched the metaphor's ramifications entirely, or in some cases the metaphor at all

yes, that is one of the few things about the Big O & Co. that has disappointed me. if only cause I expected they'd be smart enough (isn't that the selling point of technocrats?) to realize that it's counterproductive.

for the record I think terms like "war on crime" & "war on drugs" are equally stupid. certain militarizing the latter hasn't helped any - has if anything made it worse I'd think - and I don't the think the WoT has been much different.

 

[scottdisco]

for the record I think terms like "war on crime" & "war on drugs" are equally stupid. certain militarizing the latter hasn't helped any - has if anything made it worse I'd think - and I don't the think the WoT has been much different.

totally agree w your final point here wrt the war on drugs, i must say. it's certainly welcome when they stress all the soft power-type aspects of this 'war' and not just the military component; of course even classic inter-state war throughout history has relied on more than just the fighting angle, there's propaganda and so on. though admittedly the war on drugs in, say, the UK, is a bit different from the war on drugs in, say, the USA.

i like the idea of a war on poverty though - granted, that's more common in Yurp than your side of the pond, perhaps

cheers P, BTW, for the NYT link!

certainly agreed w the kick out corruption one, and the wisdom of Paul R. Pillar's observation re Pakistani patronage. Gretchen Peters, money ends up where it belongs, is a nice thought, of course.
re Exum on taking a risk; Foust consistently says similar on his own page.

the Kagans, oh dead, head-desk. international troops need to be deployed better, not necessarily in more numbers.

incidentally, i'm watching Robert Dallek - the respected historian - on C-SPAN. clearly a very smart, indeed warm, guy, and the programme had the idea to invite him on and discuss Vietnam analogies: which he has over-egged at times, though he is respectful and measured toward all callers, even the tin-foil hat ones.
(also he briefly mentioned older British and Soviet experiences in Afghanistan, and one of his sentences contained, frankly a hint of a sort of generic anti-Afghan aside, which i didn't care for in the slightest.)

all the above airy observations coming from my non-American armchair, of course. smite at will if you want.

BTW, that bit at the start, the below quote is my italics

If we see no genuine progress on such steps toward government responsibility, the United States should “Afghanize,” draw down troops and prepare to mitigate the inevitable humanitarian disaster that will come when the Kabul government falls to the Taliban — which, in the absence of reform, it eventually and deservedly will.

— DAVID KILCULLEN,

clearly reformation needs to happen in certain areas (slow and steady wins it), but i couldn't bring myself to write that word, especially if i'd just honestly acknowledged an "inevitable humanitarian disaster" half a sentence earlier... ...but i am not going to lots of service funerals every month, what do i know... ...also i appreciate Kilcullen says "prepare to mitigate".

sorry, a typically muddle-headed scott post :slanted:

 

[scottdisco]

incidentally Dial might be interested to hear that i'm watching Scott Ritter on C-SPAN (he no apologist for expansionist, war-mongering American impulses) and Ritter has just made a point of saying the very great credit he would like to give to Obama for the real differences to his predecessor wrt some of his approaches to dealing w Iran

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

yes, credit due so far on his more nuanced approach to Iran (still waiting to see if it bears fruit, but hey). and for his more balanced take on Isr/Pal - which is also, incidentally, better for Israelis even if some of them don't realize it. various other things, not so much.

as far as "more troops" vs. "better deployed" I don't think the 2 are mutually exclusive tho it's of utmost importance to have the latter worked out beforehand so you're not just throwing good after bad. sorry, I'm out the door don't have time to be more thorough...

i like the idea of a war on poverty though - granted, that's more common in Yurp than your side of the pond, perhaps

my man Lyndon Baines Johnson might have a thing or two to say about that.

 

[scottdisco]

as far as "more troops" vs. "better deployed" I don't think the 2 are mutually exclusive tho it's of utmost importance to have the latter worked out beforehand so you're not just throwing good after bad.

yeah sorry i meant that too, should have been clearer on that point. but to those people who are very sceptical about boosting numbers and who can rightly quibble re deployments, an acknowledgment of their grievances is a start

my man Lyndon Baines Johnson might have a thing or two to say about that.

admirable riposte!


note to self
if you are attempting to make a half-assed, tongue-in-cheek, throwaway point about the relative superiority of some nominally social-democratic European govts to try and ameliorate poverty compared to the more laissez-faire bill-of-fare in the States, don't - WHATEVER YOU DO - forget that the term "war on poverty" was in fact brought into the lexicon initially alongside a leonine attempt to do same across the pond...

 

[Dial]

incidentally Dial might be interested to hear that i'm watching Scott Ritter on C-SPAN (he no apologist for expansionist, war-mongering American impulses) and Ritter has just made a point of saying the very great credit he would like to give to Obama for the real differences to his predecessor wrt some of his approaches to dealing w Iran

Hang on. Rhetorical flourishes aside, I would never claim no difference between Obama and Bush. The degree and significance of that difference and how it plays out is another matter. To borrow a line: "All of these subsidiary, discrete battles are shaped by larger truths". I'm merely of the suspicion that 'larger truths' result in putative differences between players being washed out to very similar outcomes. That larger truth being money, militarization, oligarchy etc etc. But let's not rehash an argument we've sort of already had, which only ends up in me being accused of generic criticism. I don't entirely disagree. And, of course, I still have to answer the challenge; you know, the one that no one else alive on the planet seems to be able to

I've been reading back through that Afpak thread btw. There's quite a lot of interest there. Too much. Still I'm being provoked to some follow up. I'm not sure, yet, that my initial assessment of 'amusement' is going to change.


Speaking of Iran, I just watched Fareed Zakaria in discussion with Timothy Garton Ash, Reuel Marc Gerecht, and another man from the NYT whose name escapes me. RMG dominated the discussion with the others largely agreeing. Aspects that caught my interest: RMG was quite adamant that Iran will not give up its identity as Islamic warriors. The West is naive/hopeful to think that Ahmadinejad is not a holy warrior. He defines himself as such. His - and like minded Iranians - religiosity is not calculated in a cynical sense but in a pragmatic sense. Russia and China are not challenged by Iran for their misdeeds against Moslems (Chechnya/Uighurs) for various reasons, among them economic ties and the simple fact that Iran couldn't take on all three. Moreover, the US is seen as Satan, not in metaphorical, but actual terms. And it is the duty and role of Iran to challenge this Satan. It is foolish, says RMG, to imagine this aim will be abandoned as it goes to the very core of of Iranian identity. And so on.

..... Yet, the Revolutionary Guard is not monolithic, both they and the clerics face internal challenges/pressures, particularly from their own educated offspring. The West should be aiming at moving the Clerics towards a position somewhere along the lines of constitutional monarchy. ie emphasize the 'republican' aspirations of Iran, rather than the 'Islamic'.

Interesting.

 

[scottdisco]

Hang on. Rhetorical flourishes aside, I would never claim no difference between Obama and Bush. The degree and significance of that difference and how it plays out is another matter. To borrow a line: "All of these subsidiary, discrete battles are shaped by larger truths". I'm merely of the suspicion that 'larger truths' result in putative differences between players being washed out to very similar outcomes.

this seems fair. i think it's reasonable to say i enjoyed tee-ing that up given your prior playfulness

The West should be aiming at moving the Clerics towards a position somewhere along the lines of constitutional monarchy. ie emphasize the 'republican' aspirations of Iran, rather than the 'Islamic'.

the last link i posted on the Iranian democracy thread has a discussion at the Utopian magazine, one contributor being a Columbia prof. he mentions the same constitutional thing as your man here.

 

[scottdisco]

Foust, quoting Richard Strand in parts, posts on that bloody Kamdesh battle over the weekend between ANA and US troops and ANP forces against Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin forces.

elsewhere, it's all over the British news that

A front-line UK soldier in Afghanistan has told the defence secretary "more troops on the ground" are needed...He added: "If you give us more troops, we can form a counter-IED taskforce to train ground troops better."

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

but to those people who are very sceptical about boosting numbers and who can rightly quibble re deployments, an acknowledgment of their grievances is a start

of course. there are many legitimate grievances, a number of which I share. what I'm saying is this - if you decide on a new strategy you must give it both the time and the resources to have a shot at working before you abandon it. and once you do decide on a strategy, you can't deviate from it after a few months for political reasons. running a war based on concerns in Washington is just begging for disaster. these things take time - 2007 looked terrible in Iraq, until it didn't. there's been a spike in CF casualities recently in Afghanistan; that's what happens in a counteroffensive.

now, there is no guarantee that a more vigorous pursuit of the war, and of counterinsurgency, will work. I don't know if there's even a good chance that it will work. and tbh I'm still not clear what "working" would look like. but you pick a course, you stick with it, or you're very clear about reversing it and following a different course.

my issue is really with people (many of them w/o relevant military experience) trying to use some ambiguous "better deployment" as a prerequisite for more troops. better use of resources should always be a major goal. also, it's unclear, or at least people don't agree, what would be "better". how to deploy troops is a field commander's decision, whether or not to send troops is a President's decision. let's not get them confused.