Washington Post Rewrites History of Afghanistan Policy
Couldn’t we fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan with a much lighter footprint? The Washington Post editorial page says no: “As for limiting U.S. intervention in Afghanistan to attacks by drones and Special Forces units, that was the strategy of the 1990s, which, as chronicled by the Sept. 11 commission, paved the way for al-Qaeda’s attacks on New York and Washington.”
Spencer Ackerman points out that the 9/11 Commission report says no such thing. On the contrary, it explains that the drone technology available at the time wasn’t up to the job (”In the configuration planned by the Air Force through mid-2001, the Predator’s missile would not be able to hit a moving vehicle”) and that special forces weren’t seriously considered (”no indication that President Clinton was offered such an intermediate choice, or that this option was given any more consideration than the idea of invasion”) during the period in question. One might also note that there’s no particular reason to believe that the Taliban would suddenly overrun the entire country in the absence of a heavy American military deployment. I’m not going to promise you that they wouldn’t—life is unpredictable—but anti-Taliban commanders exist with troops in the field and we could continue to support them in various helpful ways if we were so inclined.
It’s important to remember that these are all factors that need to be weighed at the margin. Grant that reliance on a light-footprint strategy makes the emergence of a safe haven more likely than would reliance on a heavy-footprint strategy. But how much more likely? And grant that the emergence of a safe haven makes a successful attack on the US somewhat more likely. But how much more likely? And at what cost? Compared with which other possible uses of the resources in question? Ever since 9/11, people have worried a lot about the threat of a an international terrorist group detonating a nuclear weapon in a western city. That’s a small chance, but with huge downside. It’s something we rightly worry about. But it seems to me that whether or not the Taliban controls a given patch of Afghan countryside has no bearing whatsoever on this element of the terrorist threat. Which should, I think, help us gain some perspective on what’s most important.
15 Responses to “Washington Post Rewrites History of Afghanistan Policy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
One might also note that there’s no particular reason to believe that the Taliban would suddenly overrun the entire country in the absence of a heavy American military deployment.
I don’t know about the entire country, but I think the chances of them taking Kabul are hard to ignore. I’m not guaranteeing anything either, but I don’t think this scenario should just be waived away casually with a “the future is cloudy” attitude.
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
But it seems to me that whether or not the Taliban controls a given patch of Afghan countryside has no bearing whatsoever on this element of the terrorist threat.
You’re right, this doesn’t matter. But, unfortunately, this might:
“whether or not the Taliban controls a given patch of Pakistani countryside”
I don’t know about the entire country, but I think the chances of them taking Kabul are hard to ignore. I’m not guaranteeing anything either, but I don’t think this scenario should just be waived away casually with a “the future is cloudy” attitude.
Considering that Massoud was able to hold them out of the North with zero support in the 90s, I’ve always been surprised that we don’t simply let the Taliban control Pushtunstan-in-Afghanistan, while funding their hated enemies in the rest of the country. I’m pretty sure the Uzhbeks or Hazara would rather die fighting than let the Pushtun take them over.
That way, our allies are at least as motivated as the enemy, and if we can give them better weaponry, they’ll probably come out on top.
For the most part – not always, as Matt’s post today points out about the Tadjik governor of Herat – a Pushtun-dominated organization like the Taliban is never going to be accepted by anyone else.
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Matt, if you haven’t already read it, you should really add the book “Taliban” to your Afghanistan reading list. I’m reading it now and kicking myself for not having read it earlier.
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
THE REPUBLIC OF QUEBEC?
(Vandoo Quebec French)
Is this what French Canadian Blood and treasure is being spent upon? Valcartier, Québec (French Canada), Canada? Are French Canadians really sure they want this? Quebec Canada has a large Oil Supply within its own section of the Arctic Polar Cap Region, why is Vandoo Quebec French Canadian Blood for Oil needed to supply the American Empire when it can just sell them oil, running its own pipeline from the Arctic Oil Fields into the South? Is the continued lost of Vandoo Quebec French Canadian for Empire Oil in The Republic of Quebec’s best interests, as only about (35%?) Thirty-Five Percent, of Canada supporting continued involvement decreasing monthly, and Canada as it is not considering withdrawal, but with the English Government of Toronto, expected to remain regardless of the cost as long as it takes. Again it’s a matter of DEMOGRAPHICS, Quebec is Roman Catholic, of French Speaking decent, and English Canada is of Protestant, English speaking decent, two separate cultures, there are no lasting ties.
(Vandoo Blood for U. S. Empire Oil)
The overall support of Canada to remain in the (Af-Pak) Blood for Oil War, marked with Milestones of Gravestones, viewed long a path to the building of the ($2B/€1.4B) Two-Billion-Dollars/ One-Point-Four-Billion-Euros, Central Asian pipeline through the Afghanistan to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India, so just how many milestones/gravestones will that entail, the former (USSR) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics paid with (14K) Fourteen-Thousand-Lives, lost in vain, not count the economic and political price of a misguided adventure. Now, the question must be asked how many milestones/gravestones will have Republic of Quebec Vandoo, young men’s name’s upon them with what year’s (2011-2031), or longer?
(Might is Right?)
The (U.S. EMPIRE) and European troops numbers levels in-country (Af-Pak) have reach (110K) One-Hundred-Ten-Thousand and the war has escaladed into a clash of polarized civilizations, all-out jihad, with the intervening powers having no perception of how to handle this hopeless situation beyond The application of the ‘might is right’ principle, unveiling repeated new strategies, all with the same end message of More Time, More Troops, More Escalation, and Mission Creep, and no definition of what will constitute Victory beyond the building of the Central Asian Pipeline and its protection. The next question is will Quebec be the first of many changes upon the map of North America caused by the fall of the (U.S. Empire), will Canada break-up before the Empire but caused directly by the Empire? It looks like it’s a (65%-35%) chance!! The Republic of Quebec, will be many of the new Republics that will be formed not only upon the North American Continent, The Republic of Alaska, The Republic of California, the Republic of Hawaii, The Confederate States of America, but globally as Korea once again is united, Nationalist China is reunited with the mainland, Kurdistan wants to become a type of (AU) much as the (EU), Persia may once again emerge, with the decline of the Empire. Make no mistake the Empire is falling, and with its fall a new global reality will happen.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I think they’re greatly over-estimating the importance of action against the camps in Afghanistan. There were literally a whole host of points during which the 9/11 attacks could have been disrupted without hitting the camps in Afghanistan, and multiple warnings, as the 9/11 Commission report pointed out.
Having spoken to a number of english-speaking Canadians from elsewhere, there’s no lack of people who would be happy to see the Quebecois out – they’re major leeches in terms of transfer payments, largely due to the bilingual requirement for government office. At the same time, the Quebecois who want to secede seem to want to have it both ways – they want continued payment from the Canadian government.
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
One might also note that there’s no particular reason to believe that the Taliban would suddenly overrun the entire country in the absence of a heavy American military deployment. I’m not going to promise you that they wouldn’t—life is unpredictable—
This is the sort of informed, fact-rich analysis that keeps me coming back.
I’m just as uninformed as you are, Matt, but consider this: if Afghanistan is essentially a stalemate WITH the presence of a fairly robust multinational force, what is likely to happen if that force is removed?
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
[...] missile would not be able to hit a moving vehicle”) and … View original post here: Matthew Yglesias » Washington Post Rewrites History of Afghanistan … Share and [...]
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
No, it wasn’t.
It was, however, the strategy when THE TALIBAN WERE OVERTHROWN. How can everybody keep forgetting this? The Taliban were run out of Kabul, and our Northern Alliance clients installed, with less than 1000 American troops in country, almost all of them Special Forces personnel calling down air strikes.
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 pm
None of this is even remotely relevant to dealing with Al Qaeda.
The whole “safe haven” thing is a pure myth. If the US can attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan with impunity, I see no reason why the US can’t attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with impunity, regardless of who’s running the country. What is the Taliban in Afghanistan going to do? Shoot down our Predator drones? With what?
This whole thing is pure nonsense. The sole reasons the US is in Afghanistan are:
1) Pipelines for oil.
2) Heroin for the CIA.
3) Money for the defense industry.
4) Promotions for US military officers.
Everything is pure, unadulterated ruminant evacuation.
If Obama tells you anything different, he’s as big a liar as George Bush.
September 4th, 2009 at 2:48 am
Hack is of course wrong. There’s no reason at all.
September 4th, 2009 at 2:58 am
“I see no reason why the US can’t attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with impunity, regardless of who’s running the country.”
They can, but would it make a difference? Al Qeada is like ants. You can stomp on them all you want, but some always survive. And they form new colonies elsewhere. The problem here is that we’re fighting an idea. And ideas never die. Just look at Ayn Rand. As stupid as she was, her ideas will never die. If you want to win a war over an idea, you will lose. If you just want to steal land, it will be costly. We are not supposed to do cost-benefit analysis on war, and there’s a really good reason why. If we did, it would demonstrate that war never pays. Crime might, but war doesn’t.
September 4th, 2009 at 3:04 am
“Crime might, but war doesn’t.”
I should never question whether crime pays. It does. Do it right, and there’s a lot of money in it. And if you get caught? At least your wife will do well.
September 4th, 2009 at 3:15 am
And let’s face it war is just crime on a macroeconomic scale. And that’s the critical point. Crime is profitable on a microeconomic scale, but it just doesn’t work if everyone does it. And that’s the problem with war. You just can’t scale up random urban gang violence to the national level and expect it to work the same. At this point, why to we even bother? We used to steal good agricultural land and seaports. And those are still very valuable. But our economy has evolved in such a way that those aren’t really very important anymore.
September 4th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
[...] and executed within the respective countries. Indeed, the same is true of 9/11. What’s more, and as Matt Yglesias has repeatedly noted, the terrorist attacks that we’re really worried about – nuclear, chemical or biological [...]
September 4th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
[...] more, and as Matt Yglesias has repeatedly noted, the terrorist attacks that we’re really worried about – nuclear, chemical or [...]