A Winnable War in Afghanistan
(US Army photo by Sgt. Matthew Moeller)
Back during the great Iraq debate of winter 2006-2007, one point I made was that by gambling on the “surge” we were also gambling on the total collapse of our strategy in Afghanistan. It’s a point Barack Obama also made. And then as he prepared to take over the government of the United States in the winter of 2008-2009 he basically went about implementing the kind of strategy that Iraq War critics had been urging two years earlier. But by the time that actually happened, I began to be beset by the nagging worry that two years later was too late; that our endeavor in Afghanistan had actually slipped below the horizon line of viability. And I know, especially as I’ve been doing some student-heavy speaking engagements this summer, that a lot of other progressives are worried about this too.
If you’re looking to be a bit cheered up about Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, then you couldn’t do much better than to read Peter Bergan’s new article in The Washington Monthly where he argues that success is more achievable than people realize and that Obama’s strategy is sound. I have some doubts about the Pakistan portion of his argument, but I find it pretty convincing.
57 Responses to “A Winnable War in Afghanistan”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 15th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
The only way to win is not to play. Regardless of the war’s outcome, the Afghan war will cost somewhere around half a trillion dollars. If that much money were spend improving availability and quality of healthcare for Americans, we would be saving a lot of lives rather than losing them.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Sigh. There were plenty such articles about how winnable Vietnam was, back in the day. The credulous we have always with us.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Every war is always considered to be winnable by both sides till the end.
The title betrays a level of dumbassery that does not behoove you.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
It’s winnable, all right, though it’s not clear by whom.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I never had much doubt Afghanistan was winnable if we would only make it our #1 concern, and still don’t. I never had ANY doubt that we had no other option.
A near consensus of Americans supported toppling the Taliban. Winning the peace was a non-negotiable corollary commitment to that decision. But bush weaseled out of that because, yes, it is hard, and there wasn’t much credit to be got for it as compared to starting a new shooting war elsewhere.
But that didn’t mean our obligation to the country went away. Barack Obama inherited that obligation, and has set out to meet it as he is obliged to do. Given the near unanimity of the support for the initial campaign in Afghanistan (and, yes, if you were against it, you’re off the hook), I frankly sometimes get disgusted with the large numbers of people who now act like it’s an optional war that Obama is choosing to extend out of misplaced motives. We have an obligation to finish the job, and moreover from our own perspective if we left without doing it would be as if we never went ot begin with and we would be wasting the sacrifice of those who went there in the seven-and-a-half years thus far and didn’t come back or came back not in one piece.
Let the pillorying begin.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
What exactly constitutes “winning” in Afghanistan?
Establishing democracy? The tribal society will still prevail.
Eliminating a training ground for terrorists? We would have to control the whole country forever to do that, with 4 or 5 times the force there now.
Eliminating Al Qaeda? Where is Al Qaeda? Apparently we don’t even know.
I would like to hear what constitutes victory before we waste more lives and money.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I came across an article this morning (h/t Eric Martin at Obsidian Wings) that smartly argues otherwise. Perhaps you should give it a read before wandering too far along the primrose path…
July 15th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“There were plenty such articles about how winnable Vietnam was, back in the day.”
The Vietnam War was certainly winnable. All we had to do was back Ho Chi Minh. We just chose the wrong side.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Or you could read Rory Stewart, currently director of the Carr Center at Harvard, who thinks that the entire premise of the Afghan mission is flawed.
It’s a long piece, and it’s worth reading.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Ah, John Emerson beat me to it. As I’ve said here a few times, Stewart’s the kind of person who Matt ought to interview about this.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
We can’t even fix California’s government, but we’ll fix Afghanistan’s. Good luck with that.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Last I heard, Mr. Yglesias, the armed forces are still accepting recruits of your age for this important mission.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
“What exactly constitutes “winning” in Afghanistan?
Establishing democracy? The tribal society will still prevail.”
I may be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure the Obama administration’s been backing off that point…
Probably quibbling here, but…
“Eliminating a training ground for terrorists? We would have to control the whole country forever to do that, with 4 or 5 times the force there now.”
Having a force present there — like a functioning army — wouldn’t make that difficult?
“Eliminating Al Qaeda? Where is Al Qaeda? Apparently we don’t even know.”
Is it not in Pakistan?
July 15th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
By the way, I’m glad to see this article getting traction on all my favorite blogs — as with OW, I’ll be checking back in when I have some time on my hands.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
By the way, I’m glad to see this article getting traction on all my favorite blogs — as with OW, I’ll be checking back in when I have some time on my hands.
Thanks to Matt.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
That war in Afgahnistan is just not worth it either. The money spent there could save thousands of people every year when alocated to health issues or just public transport even in the US, not to mention some less fortunate countries.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
We have an obligation to finish the job
Pointing out the obvious, but you have an obligation to finish the job* only if the locals want you to.
*) whatever that means, but that is a different argument
July 15th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Exactly what is winning in the short term differs how Afghanistan will look twenty years from now. Does a strong centralized government emerge that holds the support of local communities, does Afghanistan achieve more economic stability, i.e. is there *any* distribution of wealth, and who, really, controls the oil? Those are variables that can’t be entirely controlled by the U.S., obviously, but they are critical to Afghanistan “winning.”
July 15th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Considering the terrorist training grounds for 9/11 were in Munich and a Florida flight school, I’m not too psyched about our ability to prevent terrorists from getting their training on. Especially since it’s easy enough to design operations that require a weak skill set. Think four guys who can half-ass fly a plane, and then fifteen others to make stabby motions with box cutters.
Anyway, it’s not like they can’t just go next door to Pakistan for the training.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Pointing out the obvious, but you have an obligation to finish the job only if the locals want you to.
It’s worth noting that in the latest poll that I’m aware of (ABC News, from January of this year), 63% of Afghans supported the presence of US troops in their country.
There are plenty of good reasons to be skeptical about US efforts in Afghanistan, but (at least for now) it’s not accurate to claim that the locals want us out.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Winnable?
What a naive way of looking at the world.
Like a poker game.
Grow up! Nobody wins in such a situation.
Besides the Afghans don’t want The Brits, the Russians, the Americans or anybody else for that matter, to occupy their country.
So far as historical facts are concerned present day Afghanistan is a creation of the British in order to defend British India.
Presently the only thing that worries America is the Geo-strategic importance of that territory and the rich resources of central Asia.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
It’s worth noting that in the latest poll that I’m aware of (ABC News, from January of this year), 63% of Afghans supported the presence of US troops in their country.
OK, thanks. I didn’t know that.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
What exactly constitutes “winning” in Afghanistan?
I don’t like the term “winning”, but I think a reasonable goal would be for both Afghanistan and Pakistan to have stable central governments willing and capable of preventing the Taliban (or a similar group) from exercising effective control over significant amounts of territory.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
The repeated assertion that the Afghans oppose our presence, backed by nothing and flying in the face of the data, is becoming irritating.
One of the problems with ideologues is a tendency to assume that events fit a pre-existing narrative, instead of looking at the reality on the ground to determine whether that is true. Thus, the neocons assumed that our invasion of Iraq was a France 1944-style liberation to spread freedom which would be greeting by flower-throwing throngs, and anti-imperialists assume that the Afghan War is an Iraq-style effort to expand hegemony and secure resources against the will of the locals, and that the Taliban (by virtue of being against us) represents a popular resistance movement.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
With a war criminal in charge of the US forces, a weak Afghan president linked to drug money and in power (but not really, outside Kabul) only because of US support, and no clear strategy besides killing people, it is clear Afghanistan is very winnable. For the military industrial complex.
It makes one wonder: how many people have to die just to prove Obama is not a left-wing pacifist?
July 15th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Last I heard, Mr. Yglesias, the armed forces are still accepting recruits of your age for this important mission.
This is a very good point. If you think the war in Afghanistan is important and winnable, enlist already.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
anti-imperialists assume [...] that the Taliban (by virtue of being against us) represents a popular resistance movement
Who do you have in mind here, Joe? I haven’t seen anything remotely resembling this argument among those favoring withdrawal.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Bergen: “Rather, the renewed and better resourced American effort in Afghanistan will, in time, produce a relatively stable and prosperous Central Asian state.”
Given enough time, the probability of anything happening increases. That Afghanistan emerges within, say, the next 50 years as a “stable and prosperous Central Asian state,” I personally would assign a very low probability. In my opinion, Bergen tends to be looking at Afghanistan through rosy spectacles, citing the best statistics, but not wanting to see any of the bitter realities.
If nothing else, Afghan proclivity to back various warlords will always be a destabilizing factor.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Uncle Kvetch,
I’m thinking of the Vietnam comparison.
No way the Taliban = the VC.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Barack Obama just likes to kill brown people.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
And also, if you think murderers should be arrested, become a police officer already.
And if you think we should have universal health care, become a nurse already.
And if you think we should have paved roads, become a laborer for the DPW already.
And if you think we should have a nationwide rail system, become a train conductor already.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Yeah – one of the disheartening aspects of the popular debate over the war in Iraq was its tendency to devolve into unbelievably dumb and inappropriate WWII analogies on one side vs. less dumb but still inappropriate Vietnam analogies on the other.
The analogies were all the more irritating because both seemed to be somewhat rooted in baby-boomer narcissism filtered through different ideological perspectives (60’s fixation on the left vs. mid-life crisis “Greatest Generation” envy on the right).
Iraq is Iraq, Afghanistan is Afghanistan, and each one has its own very complicated history and set of current circumstances. There’s absolutely no reason to assume that other recent events in US history will provide some sort of model for understanding what’s going on in either of those countries. Bergen’s article has some serious flaws (in particular, I think he glosses over the challenges to rule of law and state-building), but he does get that part right.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
joe from lowell, calm down.
The difference should be obvious between thinking that:
- cops, nurses and train conductors are useful professions
- it is important to invade and occupy country X killing thousands or millions of people in the process
War is a terrible thing and should always be the last resort. That is why it is so easy to make fun of people like Bush, Cheney or Kristol (and apparently Matt) who are eager to send other people to kill and get killed in some useless war, but refuse to fight themselves when they’re young.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
“The difference should be obvious between thinking that… cops, nurses and train conductors are useful professions…”
and soldiers are not. Fuck you soldiers!
July 15th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Uncle Kvetch,
I’m thinking of the Vietnam comparison.
No way the Taliban = the VC.
And even if people are drawing certain parallels between the US experience in Vietnam and Afghanistan, no one is taking the analogy to that particular conclusion. So unless you can come up with some cites, I’ll have to conclude that those “anti-imperialists” you refer to above are purely in your imagination.
I’m sure you remember the “antiwar = pro Saddam” bullshit from a few years back. I don’t know why you feel compelled to recycle it here. Advocating withdrawal from Afghanistan does not make one a “fan” or a “supporter” of the Taliban.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
I’m perfectly calm. You know, strong arguments don’t need a lead-in designed to demean the opponent.
Those are indeed differences. They have absolutely nothing to do, however, with your argument about people supporting a war having a moral responsibility to become professional soldiers.
Whoops, my bad. I thought you had a coherent and logical argument, when in fact, you’re just “making fun of people.”
Won’t happen again.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Uncle Kvetch,
It’s the naked assertion that the general public in Afghanistan opposes the American presence there, as the Vietnamese public opposed our presence, combined with the assertion of imperialist intent, as we had in Vietnam. This adds up to assertion that the forces opposing us in Afghanistan – that is, the Taliban – are an expression of popular opposition to American imperialism.
I’ve neither made this argument, nor believe it. I regret that I’ve left you with this impression. As a liberal, and an Iraq War opponent myself, I am quite aware that noting that a group has the support of the locals is not an endorsement of that group. I recognize that the Lebanese Shia support Hezbollah, but that certainly doesn’t make me pro-Hezbollah. At one time, Muqtada’l Sadr’s Mehdi Army had very widespread support among the Iraqi Shia, but that didn’t make me pro-Mehdi Army. At one time, there was widespread support among the Anbar tribes for the foreign jihadists we drew into Iraq, but that doesn’t make me pro-al Qaeda.
When I wrote that anti-imperialists cast the Taliban as a popular resistance movement, I meant only that they overestimate their level of support among Afghans, not that they were pro-Taliban.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
and soldiers are not [useful].
No, not the way cops, nurses or train conductors are. Soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan in particular are not useful. A military is a necessary evil to defend the borders and the security of allies, but I think spending more money on “defense” than the rest of the world combined covers that part.
Again, if you disagree, and think this war is very important, enlist! I hear the army and the marines are recruiting. But if you think the war in Afghanistan is not important enough to join the military (unlike, say, Mexico and Canada invading the US) and just want to cheer on brown people — probably terrorists or future terrorists — getting killed on the teevee, at least be honest about it like joe.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I want to make sure you understand me, Uncle Kvetch:
One of things that defines us liberals – one of the things that differentiates us from the neoconservatives – is that we recognize that leaders and groups in foreign countries can be popular, and even enjoy popular legitimacy, even when we, the American liberals, don’t like them.
For example, Hugo Chavez.
I’m saying, I think a lot of the people who oppose the AfPak War apply this principle, wrongly, to the Taliban. They dislike them, but assume a degree of popular support and legitimacy that they don’t actually enjoy.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Again, if you think universal health care is important, go to nursing school!
But if you think universal health care isn’t important enough for you to go to nursing school, at least be honest about it.
If you want to cheer on brown people — probably terrorists or future terrorists — getting killed on the teevee, at least be honest about it like Barack Obama.
Because Barack Obama sure does like cheering on the killing of brown people. You can tell, because he has a different opinion about the necessity of the AfPak war than “Why oh Why,” and that’s the only plausible explanation.
You have no argument; you have only insults.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
This would be a good point for people who oppose the AfPak War, but who are also decent and honest, to denounce Why oh Why’s assertion that Barack Obama, Colin Powell, Eric Shinseki, and other people who support for that war “enjoy cheering on the killing of brown people.”
Like George Bush’s silence about the Swift Boat Vets, there comes a point when silence in response to a repugnant slur amounts to enabling and endorsing it.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Knowing Matt is a complete idiot on military matters, I don’t even have to read the referenced article to know it’s bullshit.
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to win the war in Afghanistan short of nuking the entire population of BOTH Afghanistan and Pakistan into glowing dust, which is obviously not in the cards.
Get a fucking clue, Matt.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Thought I’d cross post a little here:
From where I sit, Obama himself has been very clear on the fundamental mission in Afghanistan:
“Now, I can articulate some very clear, minimal goals in Afghanistan, and that is that we make sure that it’s not a safe haven for al-Qaida, they are not able to launch attacks of the sort that happened on 9/11 against the American homeland or American interest.”
Now, as to how valuable denying Al Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan is — Eric and I have debated this subject in the past, and many of his points are brought up here as well.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
No joe, I was “denouncing”, or rather referring to, your wild cheers when a drone bombed the crowd during the burial of a taliban, killing 60+. No matter who was the target (two taliban leaders), such an act — necessarily killing many civilians, and did I mention it was a burial? — is barbaric; yet you couldn’t have been happier.
Later we learned, of course, that those two leaders were not even there. But hey, maybe we killed a few talibans, right? And from now on, drones will be even more accurate – at least war criminal McChrystal (somehow Bergan fails to mention his “brilliant” record in Iraqi jails) says so.
————————-
To go back to the article, besides a few howlers (our soldiers are very nice people unlike the ruskies; the World Bank doesn’t bother measuring economic indicators of poor countries), the main flaw is the “strategy” supported: more troops and money. For what?
He mentions the fact that Karzai deserves his nickname “Mayor of Kabul”, and goes on to suggest building a strong army. Who will control this powerful army? What’s the endgame, and the exit strategy? Obama won’t say, so Bergan can’t tell either.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
I don’t like the term “winning”, but I think a reasonable goal would be for both Afghanistan and Pakistan to have stable central governments willing and capable of preventing the Taliban (or a similar group) from exercising effective control over significant amounts of territory.
Stewart argues that it’s a flawed premise, or at least it’s a flawed instrumentalist strategy — to build an Afghan state as a means to fight a counter-insurgency. That’s to say, you can’t get there from here:
(As I said, it’s a long piece, and deserves reading in full.)
July 15th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
pseudonymous in nc,
I agree that the stability of the central governments in question and the ability of the central governments in question to prevent the Taliban (or a similar group) from exercising effective control over significant amounts of territory are two somewhat distinct goals, in that neither is strictly necessary for the other. I also agree the ability of the central governments in question to aid us in dealing with terrorism is yet a third somewhat distinct goal. But I also think you can reasonably list all of these goals on their own merits even while acknowledging that they are somewhat distinct.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Anyone know what the polling is choice 1) spending 200 billion a year on wars in the Middle East for the next ten years or choice 2) free health care and Social Security solvency? Choice 2 seems like a no-brainer to me but the no-brainers seem to have the cloture-proof upper hand for the perhaps the next 10 years.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I’d rather have free medical care and social security solvency for the next 10 years and take my chances with the terrorists.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Actually, I found the above assertion to be one of the strangest parts of the Stewart article, so obviously incorrect that I assume he must have worded it poorly. Regardless of what one thinks of the US’ overall prospects for success in Afghanistan, the connections between state-building, counterinsurgency, and development are strong and obvious.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Afghanistan is a name that outsiders gave to the area. It is a country in name only. It is ruled by various tribes and family groups that have nothing in common. There is nothing to win there.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:55 am
I’m saying, I think a lot of the people who oppose the AfPak War apply this principle, wrongly, to the Taliban. They dislike them, but assume a degree of popular support and legitimacy that they don’t actually enjoy.
I’m aware that you think that, Joe. That’s not the issue. I’ve asked you to cite just one out of this “a lot of people,” and you still haven’t.
It’s a strawman. You’re better than this.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:58 am
What on earth are you talking about? There are several comments on this very thread.
Is this individual made of straw?
July 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Part of Bergen’s article deserves to be quoted at some length:
“Afghanistan is a much older nation-state than, say, Italy or Germany, both of which were only unified in the late nineteenth century. Modern Afghanistan is considered to have emerged with the first Afghan empire under Ahmad Shah Durrani in 1747, and so has been a nation for decades longer than the United States. Accordingly, Afghans have a strong sense of nationhood.“
July 16th, 2009 at 11:58 am
What on earth are you talking about? There are several comments on this very thread. Is this individual made of straw?
No. He’s questioning whether a majority of the people of Afghanistan want us to continue to wage war in their country. He is not suggesting, explicitly or implicitly, that the Taliban constitutes a “popular resistance movement.” Those are two completely different assertions.
Never mind, Joe. I’m sorry I bothered.
July 16th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
One problem with that is if there is an act of terrorism from a group based in Afghanistan, we’ll elect a government which will try to undo healthcare reform and gut social security.
July 16th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
[...] The War for Afghanistan July 16th, 2009 admin Leave a comment Go to comments How to win in Afghanistan? Peter Bergen looks at the capability of the Taliban insurgents, NATO troops, and the Afghan army and police, compares the current conflict to the Soviet invasion, and weighs the dangers of civilian casualties and popular support. He concludes that renewed American effort in the fight will "produce a relatively stable and prosperous Central Asian state." (via Matthew Yglesias) [...]
July 16th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Well, I didn’t mean that everybody who opposed foreign presence in Afghanistan supports the Taliban, and I can’t see how you get that. Most of the Al Qaeda members, anyway, come from Saudi Arabia. It’s Saudi Arabia that is the problem.
Also, America currently is the biggest supporter of dictatorship in the world. For example in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It must be higher priority to stop supporting dictators than to prevent dictatorship – such as by Taliban in Afghanistan – from arising elsewhere. Most of the new recruits to Al Qeada come from Saudi Arabia, and they hate the US for its support of the king there. They don’t care about Afghanistan, first.
Terrorists can train anywhere. A number of 9/11 terrorists went to flight school for a year in America.