In the Arena

Non Sequitur

Tony Cordesman, the well-known and -regarded military expert, makes the case for more of everything in Afghanistan today. But there is a giant hole in the middle of his argument. Cordesman says that it’s up to the U.S. troops–and he supports adding as many as 40,000 more, nearly doubling the size of the force–to bring good governance to Afghanistan:

U.S. forces need to “hold” and keep the Afghan population secure, and “build” enough secure local governance and economic activity to give Afghans reason to trust their government and allied forces. They must build the provincial, district and local government capabilities that the Kabul government cannot and will not build for them. No outcome of the recent presidential election can make up for the critical flaws in a grossly overcentralized government that is corrupt, is often a tool of power brokers and narco-traffickers, and lacks basic capacity in virtually every ministry.

That, unfortunately, is entirely unrealistic. Counter-insurgency tactics can help create the conditions for better local governance, but it’s up to the Afghan government to build those institutions, not us. This is a country with a tradition of rejecting outsiders; foreign involvement becomes counter-productive at some, indeterminate–but very real–level. An increase of U.S. troops on the order that Cordesmann–and, perhaps, McChrystal–envision could provoke a backlash. Certainly, it is unrealistic to think that we can create good governance in the provinces without the support of the central government. (Someone should also tell Cordesman that the excellent Ambassador Eikenberry–and perhaps even General McChrystal–would not be on the ground in Kabul if it hadn’t been for the “micromanagement” of special envoy Richard Holbrooke.)

The fact is, some hard decisions are coming on Afghanistan. The Karzai government may make it impossible for the U.S. and the international community to succeed in nation-building and economic development. Most experts agree with Cordesman that the most important job is to build a bigger Afghan Army that continues to reflect the inter-ethnic diversity and strength the Afghan military has already shown. But it may be difficult to achieve much more than that–and unwise to augment our current force levels to a point where they become an impediment to success. It is vital to our national security that Al Qaeda be prevented from re-establishing safe havens in Afghanistan (it’s also vital that AQ’s safe havens in Pakistan be eliminated.) But, as I wrote last week, I hope someone in the military is thinking about Plan B.

Related Topics: Afghanistan
  • Latest on Swampland

    Ben Garvin / For the Washington Post / Getty Images

    The Beginning of the End for No Child Left Behind

    President Obama granted 10 states relief from the strictest requirements of No Child Left Behind on Thursday, in a move he said combines “greater freedom with greater responsibility.” That freedom is provided in the form of a waiver that releases the states from having to meet targets education officials have long complained are too rigid and impossible to meet, including one key provision that required all students at public schools to be proficient in math and reading by 2014.

    Romney: 'I Misspoke'HuffPost Politics

    Morning Must Reads: Accommodation

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Interesting that you would take issue with the Neo-colonial wordview. It’s one that you have been known to skirt the edges of yourself.
    Self-determination is a crucial element for any claimed success. Thanks for noticing.

  • rustyreturns

    And Joe, just what would “Plan B” look like?

    Perhaps you could also shed some light on the fact that Gibbs totally squatted through the question in today’s press conference when asked,

    “Isn’t the War in Afghanistan worse now than it was just 8 months ago”?

    Could you elaborate some on that question Joe?

    Gibb’s only defense was to yet again blame the Bush Administration. Also may I ask, when can we start holding Obama accountable for the actions being taken in Afghanistan?

  • spob

    http://green.autoblog.com/2009/08/29/gm-using-bankruptcy-to-shirk-responsibility-for-clunker-mercury/
    .
    OT, but probably something all the lefties in here would want to see.
    .
    Hopeandchange guys, hopeandchange.

  • deconstructiva

    …here’s a non sequitur Plan B: just legalize drugs here and have Big Pharma buy up their opium poppy fields. US / Afghan biz will boom and cash will rain down on the people. After all, the Right has been telling us that Prosperity comes from Free Markets[tm], yes? Oh, this can’t happen? Well, in ‘60’s Las Vegas, Howard Hughes arrived and to some degree literally bought out the mob by purchasing many properties built with shady money. Or they can plant more pomegranates. We’ll buy ‘em. Afghan poms are among the best in the world…and they have a seedless variety too.

  • mccainfluffer

    Has Cordesman properly praised the Pentagon’s leadership since Rummy’s departure?

  • rustyreturns

    Oh just keep smoking your reefers from the free clinics in California deconstructiva, and let the rest of us alone with your madness.
    .
    And while you are at it, stuff a few poms up where the sun doesn’t shine, I hear eventually if you do, sanity will return.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Actually relocating all the assets to a new company while leaving the liabilities behind to sink the old one is a pretty standard practice in today’s corporate landscape. Nothing unique about GM in that regard. It’s part of what i mean when I say it’s foolish to expect corporations to behave as if they have a conscience.
    The whole point of forming a corparation in the first place is to avoid liability.

  • deconstructiva

    rusty, you thought I was serious? *pointing at you and laughing*

  • spob

    Yes, Paul, but there’s a bit of a difference when the corp has significant public ownership, and which is, also, by the by, investing taxpayer dollars in an outsourcing venture.
    .
    Hopeandchange–funding Chinese jobs and stiffing environmental cleanup in the US.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    deconstructiva if you smoke pot, and are caught, you will go to jail. I would suggest giving it up, getting a job or contract with the government, and beating people to death, for which there are no consequences.

  • carotexas1

    Joe, John McCain just recently said he hoped that the President would not do as usual and take the middle of the road. I am sure the Generals have this figured as well. When we see the final figure requested, you will be able to see the amount the Generals want will be the middle amount.

  • grape_crush

    …it is unrealistic to think that we can create good governance in the provinces without the support of the central government.

    combined with:

    No outcome of the recent presidential election can make up for the critical flaws in a grossly overcentralized government that is corrupt, is often a tool of power brokers and narco-traffickers, and lacks basic capacity in virtually every ministry.

    Equals confusion on my part. How can a ‘critically flawed’ central government that ‘lacks basic capacity in virtually every ministry’ support ‘good governance in the provinces’, Joe?

    (side note: what’s interesting to me is the change in discourse from “we should do X in Afghanistan” to “what is the plan for Afghanistan”…I mean, if journalists – who largely seem to think the world be a better place if it was run by journalists – are beginning to throw their hands up in the air, looking for answers from above, then we truly are running out of options in Afghanistan.)

  • deconstructiva

    Derek, you have no clue, as usual.

  • Joe Klein

    My point exactly, Grape. At this point, the only hope for the Afghan government is if Karzai invites other people–his rivals, Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani or perhaps someone like Zal Khalilzad–in to run it for him on a day to day basis. That is possible, but unlikely…and even then a longshot to succeed.

    I have no idea what Plan B would actually look like–but we need one. We almost always do…

  • http://afghanistantoday.co.cc/?p=6096 Non Sequitur – Swampland – TIME.com | Afghanistan Today

    [...] Cordesman says that it’s up to the U.S. troops–and he … Continued here: Non Sequitur – Swampland – TIME.com Share and [...]

  • Cliff

    At this point, the only hope for the Afghan government is if Karzai invites other people–his rivals, Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani or perhaps someone like Zal Khalilzad–in to run it for him on a day to day basis.
    .
    How am I supposed to believe that?
    .
    The only way for a critically flawed government to work is to bring in other members of the government to do the leader’s job for him?
    .
    Are you just dropping names to make it sound like you know what you’re talking about?

  • ifthethunderdontgetya

    Usually I ignore you and your fellow minions from oppositeland, rusty.
    .
    But sometimes you post howlers that are too juicy to pass up.
    .
    The answer to your question is never. GWBoob and company, as a direct result of lying us into a war in Iraq, have left the country stuck in two overseas quagmires, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq.
    .
    You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
    ~

  • larry278

    Derek isn’t spelled, dreck, but I don’t know how Derek is said in Washington, DC. I’ve been up north for a long time.

  • http://sam.projectarchive.net/index.php/world-news/afghanistan/getting-realistic-on-afghanistan-time-magazine/ Getting Realistic on Afghanistan (Time Magazine) | Simple Automated Mess

    [...] original post here:  Getting Realistic on Afghanistan (Time Magazine) VN:F [1.6.3_896]please wait…Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)VN:F [1.6.3_896]Rating: 0 (from 0 [...]

  • dmnolan

    Remember: if plan “A” sucks, and there is no plan “B”, plan “A” still sucks.

  • tanboontee

    A new Vietnam in the making? Very likely, if the deteriorating situation aggravates further.

    Months ago, when the top US general was hastily dispatched to replace his predecessor, he had the responsibility for working promptly on a new strategy to win the heart of the people.

    Now, he says the US needs fresh Afghan strategy, arguing that protecting the lives of the people must be the top priority, and insinuating (like what the British premier did earlier) that more troops would be required. Isn’t this absolutely worrying?

    One wonders what have been the main roles of the Afghan security officers? Are their duties clearly defined?

    Expect more inevitable casualties in the already devastated nation.

  • timurid

    Read Afghanistan’s history, and you’ll see that out of 260 odd years its longest period of peace was 40 years (1930′s to 70′s), and even then under a repressive monarchy that held the country in the Stone Age.

    Why so much war, because Afghanistan is a country, but not a nation. Its a group of nations with very different cultures that are forced to coexist, but not able to.

    What happens if the US leaves? Another 260 years of civil war!

    Solution = partition of the country, and redrawing of false regional borders drawn by the British and Russian Empires.

blog comments powered by Disqus