Nothing new under the sun
January 30th, 2008, 3:04 pm · 2 Comments · posted by jhogg
When the Associated Press publishes things like “Study: Afghanistan Could Fail as a State” I’m left wondering why people pay them as much as they do. Afghanistan as a failed state is about as newsworthy as a sunrise. Draw a time line of Afghan history, pin it on the wall and throw a dart and you’ll either hit failed narco-state or weak theocracy.
An independent study co-chaired by retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones and former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering offered the usual pile of recommendations, including -
…increase NATO force levels and military equipment sent to Afghanistan, decouple U.S. management of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, establish a special envoy to coordinate all U.S. policy on Afghanistan, and champion a unified strategy among partner nations to stabilize the country in five years.
One of the biggest failings of NATO and NATO countries is the assumption that all countries can be “NATO-fied” with the appropriate leverage of military and economic forces. The fact this approach does not work, like ever, is no impediment to trying it again. Fans of this approach like to point to NAZI Germany or Imperial Japan as evidence, either oblivious or intentionally ignoring that these were traditionally progressive countries that experienced a historically anomalous bit of despotism. Most of our nation-building efforts involve historically despotic countries, and there lies the rub.
Kabul is not Berlin of the 1940s, and pretending we can Marshall Plan it into Jeffersonian democracy is naïve. Finding a strongman to run the country is probably our best shot. Establishing a reasonably pro-western government that will keep the schools open and the extremists away would be worth the effort. Trying to go from theocratic despotism to Federalism in 10 years is not.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:48 am
The Afghan Study Group is about what I would expect from such a venture. It’s up to it’s eyeballs in suggestions that are either ridiculous or so poorly rooted in reality one wonders which end of the looking glass the group is operating on.
“…the Study Group proposes to establish an Eminent Persons Group to develop a long-term, coherent international strategy for Afghanistan and a strategic communications plan to garner strong public support for that strategy.”
An Eminent Persons Group? I suspect this would be like asking a Broadway actor how to raise hogs. We do not need any more groups telling us what we would like to hear - Eminent or not - we need a cold, hard dose of reality.
Historically, there are three options for Afghanistan: a failed narco-state, a relatively benign strongman state or a hostile theocracy. When it comes time to picking leaders we have workable choices of the Pashtun, the Pashtun or the Pashtun.
History and geopolitics have given us a face-up deck for this game. We know what we’ve got and what our best chances are, why we don’t take them is beyond me.
I have been a long time fan of Brecher, even if by reading him I am reminded of my small-timedness. I will comment more on that and the Van Riper exercise tomorrow.