Does Afghanistan Need a Bailout?

Posted by Enrique on 08.27.2009

Gambit...



The war everyone once loved continued its downward spiral this week when four American soldiers were killed by an IED, making 2009 the deadliest year yet for coalition forces in Afghanistan. Even though President Barack Obama has sent over 30,000 additional troops to the region this year, American military commanders say they need more. On a recent appearance of "Meet the Press," chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said, "I believe we've got to start to turn this thing around from a security standpoint in the next 12 to 18 months."

That's all well and good, but even if a "surge" in Afghanistan could improve security, what would be the point? After eight years, it seems safe to say the U.S. strategy is Afghanistan is even more muddled than it is in Iraq. Last week, the Obama administration raised its 10-year deficit projection by $2 trillion. Since the American government drastically needs to cut expenses, why not start by ending at least one mismanaged, unpopular war?

The story so far…

Last year, candidate Obama rose to the top of the Democrat primary field on the strength of his unimpeachable anti-war stance. Unlike some of his challengers, Obama had never voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, and it was his credibility on this issue that would propel his historic and ultimately victorious candidacy as the first Hawaiian-American to be elected President of the United States. But while Obama always opposed the war in Iraq, he also promised that as president he would ramp up the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, it was one of the few campaign promises Obama has kept – he ordered additional troops to the region within one month of his inauguration.

Over the last several years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, a popular mythology developed about the conflicts in the minds of many Americans. In this mythology, the Iraq war was launched under false pretenses, making it an illegitimate enterprise that could only be corrected by a rapid withdrawal of American forces. The invasion of Afghanistan, on the other hand, was self-evidently justifiable and therefore must be seen through to a victorious conclusion. This mythology was central to candidate Obama's promise to prolong the war in Afghanistan while ending the war in Iraq, despite the fact the perceived legitimacy of any war has little effect on the facts on the ground that determine the prospects for success.

To the chagrin of many supporters, President Obama has decided not to noticeably alter his predecessor's policy on Iraq, but he has already put his stamp on the Afghanistan war with a surge to call his very own. But to what end? Although facts on the ground are highly volatile, the current state of Afghanistan is perilous. Not only has the Taliban grown more deadly, but the recent presidential election has been marred by accusations of fraud and corruption. Maybe they understand Western-style democracy better than we realized:

Based on 10 percent of the votes counted, Karzai received 212,927 votes compared with rival Abdullah Abdullah who received 202,889 votes.

Officials stressed that this was only a partial count of last week's presidential election and the margins may change.

Nevertheless, a Cabinet minister in Karzai's government said Tuesday that Karzai has won with 68 percent of the vote, according to several media reports. […]

Abdullah, who was foreign minister under Karzai, has accused the incumbent of rigging the August 20 elections in his favor. Six other presidential candidates have also called for an investigation into "widespread fraud and intimidation" which they said could cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vote. But unlike Abdullah, they did not accuse Karzai of having a role in the alleged fraud.

There may be less to this than meets the eye, since allegations of vote fraud are the new black as far as democratic elections go, but the idea of civil unrest in a country beset by a resurgent Taliban doesn't exact put one's mind at ease.

When George W. Bush implemented General David Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq at the end of 2007, it had some success in quelling the violence in that country. However, it wasn't a permanent solution, and to this day terrorist groups continue to commit atrocities against civilians. But even though the surge in Iraq helped turn that conflict around, it came at the expense of Afghanistan, which has been a lower priority for the Pentagon for many years. It's gotten to the point Adm. Mullen admits the U.S. is essentially starting from scratch in developing a strategy for the "good" war. And it's not clear if a "surge" could work in Afghanistan. Writing in March, a commander who served in Afghanistan explained why a surge would have its own unique challenges:

The [Iraq] surge involved 30,000 more troops but its main ingredient was a new operational approach. Instead of "commuting to the war" from bases, soldiers were asked to "live with the people." Their job? Protect Baghdadis from raging violence. Smaller security stations helped soldiers be both more responsive and effective in urban operations and instill confidence in locals. Barriers and checkpoints limited the movement of militants and terrorists. And some nonviolent "soft cleansing" was permitted, transforming some of Baghdad's mixed neighborhoods into single-sect ones, further reducing violence.

But securing the Afghan population is a much more daunting challenge.

Iraq is like New York State: both feature mostly urban populations with dominant capitals. Pacify the Big Apple and you pacify the whole state; pacify Baghdad and you pacify Iraq. But Afghanistan is more like Alaska: both have rural populations with capital cities far removed from large, mountainous regions. Baghdad alone accounts for 7 million Iraqis – about one-quarter of the population. In Afghanistan, barely one-tenth of the population lives in the five largest cities. Because Baghdad is the political and socioeconomic center of the nation, the calming effect of the surge there reverberated across the country. But there is no such city in Afghanistan.

"Living with the people" in Afghanistan will require a completely different configuration. It would require small numbers of US soldiers living in countless small villages, where they'd be unable to support each other in emergencies. And since only about 20 percent of Afghanistan's roads are paved, quick-reaction forces would slow to a crawl, especially in the mountains and in bad weather.

A successful surge in Afghanistan wouldn't be impossible, but it would cost a great deal more money and more than a few lives, and would require the support of the American public. As it happens, the American public is not currently interested in committing more troops to Afghanistan. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week, "51 percent now say the war is not worth fighting, up six percentage points since last month and 10 since March. Less than half, 47 percent, say the war is worth its costs. Those strongly opposed (41 percent) outweigh strong proponents (31 percent)." Additionally, only 24 percent say more troops should be sent to Afghanistan while 45 percent want to reduce the troop levels.

This skepticism is likely a reflection of the fact no clear strategic objectives for Afghanistan have been articulated. While most Americans may believe in the legitimacy of the initial invasion, prolonging the occupation without any particular goal in mind seems like a wasted effort.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is widely expected to request more troops in the next month. If he does, we might want to take a lesson from last year's Wall Street bailout. At the time, our elected representatives insisted that we needed lots of money very quickly to prevent bankruptcies and shore up the economy. They didn't offer many details, and a year later it seems the wisdom of those bailouts was dubious. If Obama asks us to accept a bailout of Afghanistan, the American public would be wise to ask a few questions before letting the government force one down our throat. First and foremost – What are we doing over there?