The Final Frontier
Today in The National I have a new article out arguing that the fear of safe havens doesn’t make a great deal of sense and is part of a lack of strategic priority setting. After all, the truth about Afghanistan is that it’s not so much “the graveyard of empires” as it is simply a place empires eventually realize isn’t very important.
What the piece doesn’t deal with is the idea that a large American military deployment in Afghanistan is necessary for the stability of Pakistan and a broader South Asian security context. I’m not sure whether I think that argument is right or not, but for what it’s worth it strikes me as a much more plausible idea. Which is to say that if it’s true that our efforts in Afghanistan are playing a crucial stabilizing role in Pakistan, then that definitely seems like the kind of thing we should be pouring a lot of resources into. My colleague Brian Katulis has a smart recent take on Pakistan, but it doesn’t really delve into the Afghanistan connection.
26 Responses to “The Final Frontier”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 30th, 2009 at 10:50 am
It seems hard to argue that we’ve not destabilized Pakistan to an extraordinary degree. At the least you can argue that we’ve strongly encouraged Pakistan to destabilize itself.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:03 am
I quite agree with Christopher. We are surely destabilizing the region when every decision is made with a view to Washington optics, even before we consider that most of those responsible for pulverising the countryside don’t understand much of the country, or of Pakistan, or what any of the locals care about.
To say that this argument is more plausible than a patently nonsensical argument is not saying much.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:13 am
But while the campaign to Afghanistan (then called Bactria) was a difficult one, it hardly marked the death of Alexander’s empire.
Thank god somebody finally pointed that out. I’ve been sick of hearing this Alexander was defeated in Afghanistan nonsense.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:15 am
It’s not the graveyard of empires because Afghanistan kills them, it’s the graveyard of empires because it’s where empires go to die. If America weren’t so far in decline, we wouldn’t be fighting pointless wars to distract it’s people from massive unemployment, wage stagnation, and a growing police state. If it wasn’t a dying empire, it wouldn’t have those things at all.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:18 am
This, however, is not accurate.
Hellenistic political influence remained for a few decades under the Seleucid Dynasty before they quit the area to focus on more prosperous areas to the west.
The Seleucid’s did not leave to go west. The Satrap, Diodutus I, seceded from to empire to form the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. Afghanistan was ruled by Hellenes until 125 BC, when they were drive out, not by the indigenous population, but by the invading Yuezhi nomads. After they left, they went East, not West, and founded the Indo-Greek Kingdom.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:25 am
The ’security’ problem is South Asia arises for a very good reason: USA is always looking for a solution that is more complicated than the obvious one. All that has to be done is to support India, the only democracy in the region — as a matter of fact the only ex-colony in Asia and Africa that has survived as a democracy after getting its independence.
The foreign policy professionals in the USA are, it is sad to say, fixated on the old notion that since India is not with us we must support its enemy.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:27 am
What’s going on in that picture?
October 30th, 2009 at 11:28 am
This is also (sorta) false:
Its mountainous terrain and nonexistent infrastructure make it an appealing place to wage an insurgency but a poor trade route.
One the main routes of the silk road went through Bactra/Balkh, a major city near modern day Mazar-e Sharif. Central Asia was a prosperous region precisely because it had lucrative trade routes connecting China to the Mediterranean.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:53 am
a large American military deployment in Afghanistan is necessary for the stability of Pakistan and a broader South Asian security context.
So we’re back to the domino theory. These guys seem intent on replaying every Vietnam error they can.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I bet the folks in Cambodia and Laos might have a different opinion as to to the proposition that the U.S. brings stability to the countries next to the one being occupied.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
This is a silly post and the responses are utterly ridiculous. The US is not an empire in the classical traditional sense. We don’t have territories that will break off and become independent, nor are we in danger of being overrun by barbarians. The US is not in terminal decline as many liberals have been saying for decades with no actual evidence. Thats just perverse wishful thinking.
We’re not in Afghanistan to stabilize Central Asia – we’re there because the 9-11 hijackers were trained there and if we leave we’ll be called pussys. Pakistan doesn’t need our help to become unstable. They never were stable and frankly, we couldn’t make the situation there worse assuming the leftist ‘America is evil’ crowd had valid points, which they don’t.
Afghanistan is a poor, backwards-ass country; a demographic time-bomb (high population growth, no resources) going down the same toilet as Pakistan. Our troops have been given an impossible task and are making the best of it. This does not represent the decline of the US. It represents the last failure of Bush II, the worst president in American history.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Matt,
You undervalue safe havens. I’m not going to argue that they are worth eliminating at any cost, obviously they are not. But you seem to think they are nothing, and not really eliminatable to any useful degree. This is false. While it certainly may be true that our efforts in Afghanistan are not worthwhile, it is hard to tell for certain.
One thing common to virtually all arrests of domestic “terror cells” is that those cells almost certainly could never pull off any act of terror more serious than accidently blowing themselves up in their garage. There is value to a terrorist in having a place where they can train to make bombs or use firearms in combat situations. Downloading “how to make a bomb” from the internet is no substitute for having access to the materials you need, and an experienced mentor to show you how to do it right. There is value in knowing that the person you are about to meet with to obtain funds for your activities is not an FBI or CIA undercover agent.
We don’t even need to wage war against “safe havens” until they are eliminated. The Taliban have self interests that do not align completely with anti-American terrorists. We only need to make it so that the Taliban loses more from cooperating with anti-American terrorists than they gain. This is what happened in Sudan. The Sudanese government wanted to pursue some odious policies for their own benefit. When Al Qaeda brought unwanted attention which endangered Sudans interests, Sudan kicked them out.
In the current situation in Afghanistan, it is tricky. Since our presence is an existential threat, the Taliban will not stop cooperating with Al Qaeda as long as we have troops there. However, they will also not stop cooperating with al Qaeda if they feel that Al Qaeda can be a valuable asset toward their goal of establishing dominance again in Afghanistan.
There are two ways to get to a good negotiating position:
Strengthen the central government to an extent that it can hold its own against (not necessarily defeat) the Taliban. Then negotiate with the Taliban. Offer to restrict arms shipments to the central government in exchange for kicking out al Qaeda.
Or: Specifically target Al Qaeda in the region such that it no longer is a valuable asset to the Taliban. The Taliban don’t really care about external terrorism; they wanted Al Qaeda for assassinations and sabotage against their internal enemies. Make Al Qaeda worthless, and the Taliban can be convinced to abandon them in exchange for our leaving. We might even be at this point now.
The Taliban are religious fanatics, not morons. If they see Al Qaeda as a hinderance rather than an asset, they’ll kick them out. Even the Pashtun who support the Taliban don’t really like having foreigners with guns around.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
1. I believe there’s been about 800 or so U.S. troops killed so far in Afghanistan. At that rate, we’d have to be there about 500 years to suffer the same number of casualties as Vietnam. The U.S is also spending about $3.6 billion a month in Afghanistan. Americans spend about $3.2 billion a month at McDonald’s. Let’s not get carried away with this “death of empire” stuff.
2. How does withdrawing from Afghanistan as it is now actually improve things for the U.S.? It’s not like people are going to stop blaming us for the horrible shit we’ve already done, and they’ll certainly blame us for all the horrible shit that happens after we leave. I also can’t quite see how our withdrawal would neccessarily or even likely lead to positive developments in Pakistan. The short term death toll to U.S. soldiers would decline, and the same would probably happen for Afghanis. That’s not nothing. But outside of that pacifistic goal, what’s the upside?
Mike
October 30th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I love it when neo-neo-cons start citing the silk road as a strategic interest in Afghanistan….
October 30th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
(from the article)
Sigh. I thought the U.S. wanted less trouble, not more. India and Pakistan have been negotiating for years without success. This is a zero-sum game to them.
The only thing the U.S. might be able to bring to the table is a guarantee that it, the U.S., will guarantee Kashmiri independence from both of its neighbors.
You’ll have won the not-exactly-gratitude of India and Pakistan, and the certain enmity of neighboring China. Pretty good deal, huh?
October 30th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I love it when neo-neo-cons start citing the silk road as a strategic interest in Afghanistan….
I’m not a con of any kind, neo-neo or otherwise. I don’t give a shit about contemporary Afghanistan. But I was just trying to correct a series of historical inaccuracies about the place. MY said the geography of place made it “a poor trade route.” It was part of a larger argument that empires throughout history have left Afghanistan because “empires eventually realize isn’t very important.” He brought up Alexander and the Seleucids. My point was that (1) the Seleucids didn’t abandon the place and (2) it was a strategically important place back then.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Matt’s summation is pretty good, and Pauli’s elaboraton is also.
The passes through the Khyber and Kabul were important to international trade for thousands of years. They are not, particularly, anymore, because of the invention of the steamship and the airplane. However, if you are a local power, like China, Pakistan, or Khazakistan, you need to keep track of them for economic and strategic reasons.
The notion of Afghanistan as some sort of death trap for empires is dubious. Anyone trying to re-organize the mountain tribes is in for a rough time of it, which is why we need to get the hell out of there as soon a possible. However, a quick look at any historical atlas will tell you that Afghanistan has been nominally under foriegn rule for most of the history of civilization.
You don’t need to “conquer” Afghanistan to rule it: you just have to buy off the tribes, leave them alone, and govern the cities and trade routes with a light hand. Practical and cost-effective.
This worked for the Persians, the Greeks, the Kushans, various Arab, Turkish, and Mongol rulers, and the British when they weren’t over-reaching. The only persistant quarrel the British had with the border tribes was that they made part of their living as bandits. The Pakistanis inherited that problem and have apparently bungled their relations with the tribes just as they’ve bungled most other aspects of running a country.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
To Neil the Ethical Werewolf (#7), an Afghan is getting live fire practice with a Russian-style RPG. Looking over the American’s shoulder, the grenade’s fin assembly is about to exit launch tube.
To Mbunge (#13), $3.2b at McDonalds stimulates activity within the US economy (fueling a participant, for starters). $3.6b to fund a war largely stimulates the sort of activity shown in the photo.
National defense is an economic good, as is food service, but in AF we seem to have reached the point where we’d get more bang for our buck pushing bags of cash out the back of a C-130.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Matt,
We really don’t need to worry about Pakistan. India is quite capable of “handling” Pakistan, thank you very much.
@CMHolm #18,
Yep. Supposedly we spend more on the “stabilization effort” than the entire Afghan GDP. We should just hire everybody. The WPA South Asian Branch.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
The foreign policy professionals in the USA are, it is sad to say, fixated on the old notion that since India is not with us we must support its enemy.
Are you talking about Pakistan when you say “enemy”? I don’t think so much anymore, it’s more like we’re supporting Pakistan because it has real potential to turn in to the Jihadist-ridden-failed-state-with-nukes that the foreign policy planners lose sleep over and they feel like the only solution is to keep whoever is in power stable and try to root out the troublemakers (Jihadis).
But that’s a familiar story we’ve all heard before around Pres. Johnson’s time: gotta keep Diem in power or the VietCong will take over and then what will we do?????
We’re down to the point of fighting a counter-insurgency in Pakinstan by proxy through the available means at hand, in Afganistan. If people tell you the reason we’re staying in Afganistan is for the sake of Afganistan, they’re wrong.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
@17 Midland: “You don’t need to “conquer” Afghanistan to rule it: you just have to buy off the tribes, leave them alone, and govern the cities and trade routes with a light hand. Practical and cost-effective.”
Yup. And it fits in nicely with an inkblot strategy. Anything outside your inkblot spheres you buy off. Anything inside your spheres you try to make into a reasonably decent place to live; appealing, in other words, to those outside the spheres.
It is within the realm of possibilities, however remote, that following a successful inkblot strategy, you could then “conquer” the rest of the country, the only way conceivable, peacefully.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
@17 Midland: “You don’t need to “conquer” Afghanistan to rule it: you just have to buy off the tribes, leave them alone, and govern the cities and trade routes with a light hand. Practical and cost-effective.”
So what do you do when someone starts paying them more who doesn’t happen to be a kafir and tells to go on the warpath? “Buying off the tribes” is going to work as long as we’re there to keep as a threat and giving them money
When the last American soldier leaves it’ll be just like 1992 all over again when Dotsum and Shah Massoud deposed Najibullah: chaos will ensue.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
So what do you do when someone starts paying them more who doesn’t happen to be a kafir and tells to go on the warpath? “Buying off the tribes” is going to work as long as we’re there to keep as a threat and giving them money
So, who is this reclusive, fabulously wealthy James Bondian villain who can pay bigger “subsidies” to Afghan’s clans than the US government?
All we really need from the Afghans is Osama Bin Laden’s head on a pike, and they can go back to oppressing each other on their own schedule and with someone else’s money. We’re over-committed back on this side of the planet trying to deal with our own crop of ignorant reactionaries, corrupt warlords, and bloody-minded religious fanatics.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:29 am
MY “According to the new thinking, chaos and political extremism as such are a threat to the United States because they create the possibility of safe havens for terrorists. This in many ways aligns national security policy with worthy goals – spreading good governance and prosperity to the darkest corners of the earth”
The people of the United States spend well over 1 trillion per annum in cumulative dollars on our military despite the fact that: one, their are no major power wars to fight in the 21st century, and two, it is readily apparent nobody is going to take the bait and have an old fashioned Cold War with us.
And if we can’t entice a country like China to play our traditional, multi-trillion dollar, ever-escalating Cold War game, what is the point of having this colossal, multi-trillion dollar military?
Shouldn’t this hugely expensive military force at least be expected by the American taxpayer to have the capability to go into a sparsely populated place like Afghanistan -where they outnumber a lightly armed enemy (according to conservative estimates) by a factor of 5 to 1, and outgun them by a factor of what, 100,000 to 1, 1 billion to 1- and be able to accomplish a set of, let’s face it, minimal goals?
Shouldn’t this massive military organization that brings with it, wherever it goes, tens of billions of dollars in seed money, be expected by the American taxpayer to subdue the minority, violent elements in a backwater country and create -or allow for- a stable government with a functioning society, and do it in jolly quick time -anytime we ask it of them?
I ask, what the fuck good is this organization that the people of the United States have spent $27 trillion on (in yesterday’s dollars!) since 1947 if they can’t “win” in Afghanistan?
October 31st, 2009 at 2:47 am
Obviously, other former colonies in Asia and Africa are currently democracies. Some have even had uninterrupted democracy from independence onward, like Botswana. More interesting, IMHO, is the question of whether India was continuously democratic from independence to the present, or whether parts of Indira Gandhi’s rule count as dictatorial.
October 31st, 2009 at 11:42 am
I ask, what the fuck good is this organization that the people of the United States have spent $27 trillion on (in yesterday’s dollars!) since 1947 if they can’t “win” in Afghanistan?
The “organization” isn’t any good at all if it doesn’t back a foreign policy based on traditional American values: peaceful co-existence, free trade, and the rejection of jingoism, despotism, and militarism. If we promote the un-American practices of jingoism and militarism, all we will do is bankrupt ourselves.