Lyndon Baines Obama...

Here's the latest take on Afghanistan that Democrats, liberals and progressives will no doubt ignore. It comes Anthony H. Cordesman in the Washington Post:

The United States cannot win the war in Afghanistan in the next three months -- any form of even limited victory will take years of further effort. It can, however, easily lose the war. I did not see any simple paths to victory while serving on the assessment group that advised the new U.S. commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, on strategy, but I did see all too clearly why the war is being lost.

The most critical reason has been resources. Between 2002 and 2008 the United States never provided the forces, money or leadership necessary to win, effectively wasting more than half a decade. Our country left a power vacuum in most of Afghanistan that the Taliban and other jihadist insurgents could exploit and occupy, and Washington did not respond when the U.S. Embassy team in Kabul requested more resources.

"Years of further effort." Years. 

Cordesman takes George W. to the woodshed, rightfully, for screwing things up:

The Bush administration gave priority to sending forces to Iraq, it blustered about the successes of civilian aid efforts in Afghanistan that were grossly undermanned and underresourced, and it did not react to the growing corruption of Hamid Karzai's government or the major problems created by national caveats and restrictions on the use of allied forces and aid. It treated Pakistan as an ally when it was clear to U.S. experts on the scene that the Pakistani military and intelligence service did (and do) tolerate al-Qaeda and Afghan sanctuaries and still try to manipulate Afghan Pashtuns to Pakistan's advantage.

Further, it never developed an integrated civil-military plan or operational effort even within the U.S. team in Afghanistan; left far too much of the aid effort focused on failed development programs; and denied the reality of insurgent successes in ways that gave insurgents the initiative well into 2009.

But then also notes that the Obama Administration doesn't seem to have learned anything from that screw-up:

McChrystal has not announced a need for more U.S. troops, but almost every expert on the scene has talked about figures equivalent to three to eight more brigade combat teams -- with nominal manning levels that could range from 2,300 to 5,000 personnel each -- although much of that manpower will go to developing Afghan forces that must nearly double in size, become full partners rather than tools, and slowly take over from U.S. and NATO forces. Similarly, a significant number of such U.S. reinforcements will have to assist in providing a mix of capabilities in security, governance, rule of law and aid. 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.

Unfortunately, strong elements in the White House, State Department and other agencies seem determined to ignore these realities. They are pressuring the president to direct Eikenberry and McChrystal to come to Washington to present a broad set of strategic concepts rather than specific requests for troops, more civilians, money and an integrated civil-military plan for action. They are pushing to prevent a fully integrated civil-military effort, and to avoid giving Eikenberry and McChrystal all the authority they need to try to force more unity of effort from allied forces and the U.N.-led aid effort.

It's interesting to not that Cordesman doesn't provide us with the following:

1. a definition of "victory" for the United States in Afghanistan,
2. an indication of what the United States should actually do to change the present " grossly overcentralized" and "corrupt" Afghan government,
3. how the United States would build provincial, district and local government capabilities in the face of resistence from the Kabul government and the Taliban,
4. how much time,
5. money, and
6. blood this is all going to cost.

So, all-in-all, what Cordesman seems to be suggesting is that the United States risks defeat in Afghanistan because it is choosing to fight a Vietnam-style war on the cheap. His solution? Fight a Vietnam-style war on the scale of, well, Vietnam.

Wonderful. How in the world could that fail?

What's troubling about this isn't that the Obama Administration is looking for "a broad set of strategic concepts" rather than massive increases in money and troops, it's that the Obama Administration isn't actively trying to find an exit strategy. An immediate exit strategy.

Note: Any bets on what sort of play this is going to get at Talking Points Memo, DailyKOS or firedoglake? Anyone think Sully's going to call Obama on this?

Comments

[JeffS]

No bets, Dennis. Obama is looking more and more like Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, and that's scary.

[bishop]

strategy is more important than mere troops strength, CSIS has been heavily Saudi financed since the 80s as Steve Emerson, pointed out.
They are always critical of any endeavor, that we engage
in that part of the world.

[richard mcenroe]

JeffS -- I've been using that 'LBO' line on the lefties across the street since pretty much the inauguration. They turn all kinds of interesting (unwashed) colors.

Dennis, 'winning' in Afghanistan is going to require something more than the old European model of sending in a few frontier regiments to burn down a few tribes' villages.

One of the major complications against 'winning' in Iraq was that, although the country has had over half a century of democratic government trappings, the political life of the country was and to a large degree remains dominated by fmaily, tribal and regional loyalties over and above any identificaton with an national identity. Sort of like Massachusetts Democrats.

Afghanistan is worse, with not only a more fractious tribal, clan, and family organization, but an even greater degree of geographical isolation between same and virtually no experience of a central government of any sort. Imposing same would require a longterm military presence to which the nation-building efforts of innefectual organizations like the State Department and the NGO's (with a vested interest, basically, in preserving disorder) are subordinated, or any unexpected increase in the competence and effectiveness of those entities.

It would be great to be able to just throw up our hands and move to someplace away from the coasts like Ohio and try to ignore them. But this is the 21st century. The barbarians don't just swoop down out of the hills on stray caravans and isolated villages on the fringes of civilization anymore. They swoop in Logan Airport and Madrid and London and the Twin Towers.

Success in Afghanistan would involve setting up a structure that discourages the hosting the barbarians in the first place. Doing that will ultimately, no matter what else we do, involve identifying the Afghans themselves who can see the benefit to doing so. That could take years. Hell, we may have to create them. But no Afghan is going to see the value of identifying with the up-skirts-and-away hysteria they're hearing out of the American opinionati these days.

[richard mcenroe]

Sorry for all the typos. Posting this en route to work.

[Jane2 McMahon]

Is an immediate exit strategy even possible after eight years of this stuff?

[JeffS]

Well, that depends on the price Obama is willing to pay, Jane. We could pull the troops, civilians, and essential equipment out in a year or less, the bottleneck being aircraft. It would likely be a fighting retreat, and we'd abandon a lot of expensive equipment (probably destroyed to avoid capture). It would be expensive.

To do a proper job, and scale down gradually, and withdraw everything, a couple of years at least. The estimate for an Iraq withdrawal was about that, but included removing all weapons systems and vehicles. Plus we can just drive into Kuwait and load ships. The 'Stan, not so much.

But that's not quite Dennis' point. Obama promised an immediate withdrawal from Iraq during his campaign, and support to Afghanistan. Instead, he's trying to weasel his way out of a decision either way on both, but especially on Afghanistan.

Me, I'd prefer that we stay, with a better strategy. But I don't see Obama leaning that way. War is an all or nothing affair, and that's where LBJ really messed up Vietnam as a "police action".

Richard -- keep on pushing that LBO! There ain't nothing better than twitting lefties.....

[Jane2 McMahon]

Obama's campaign promise was to "end the war", but also to withdraw combat troops (not all troops) within 16 months of the election. As I understand it, after the election and before the inauguration, he clarified that the withdrawal would be "most" troops and that withdrawal would seriously start after a December 2009 election. Today, the NY Times is reporting that the planned withdrawal has been accelerated.

As for Afghanistan, the "good war" in Obama's eyes, I have long held that it's a Vietnam style war waiting to happen (ergo my "objectively pro terrorist tag..Dennis, you are not alone!). However, I haven't seen much change over the past 8 years other than a heightened media attention (new shiny thing! Afghanistan!) in the past couple of months, and thus a new bat to beat liberals over the head with.

I don't get the same glee out of "LBO" that you all seem to, perhaps because current Afghanistan policy is so bad for the Middle East, America and the world in general.

[JeffS]

"..but also to withdraw combat troops (not all troops) within 16 months of the election."

A promise that every experienced logistician I know laughed at. (Disclosure: I pulled a tour in Kuwait, working with the logistical stream that supports Iraq and Afghanistan, and that topic of discussion was a lively one there.) AT BEST, he could pull out all of the primary combat forces, but unless we gave a lot of equipment to the Iraqis, there was one heckuva lot of work. That was a hollow promise, pulled out of his backside to win votes. That "most" troops caveat ignores the logistics AND the "training" forces we are obligated to leave there. A significant American presence will remain in Iraq indefinitely. A good portion of them will be involved in combat operations, at the very least in support of Iraqi forces. The "accelerated withdrawal" means most troops are leaving the cities, and pulling into the major bases, prepatory to returning to home station. Smoke and mirrors, Jane. This is what Obama does best.

However, I haven't seen much change over the past 8 years other than a heightened media attention (new shiny thing! Afghanistan!) in the past couple of months, and thus a new bat to beat liberals over the head with.

A new bat, Jane? Sorry, no. While Afghanistan was indeed second to Iraq during the Bush years, there was very little support from the left for Afghanistan, especially considering their energy expended against Iraq. For all that the 'Stan was the "good war", I don't recall that being a loud and consistent message.

For example, there were no major efforts by anti-war members of Congress to prioritize funding that way; if there was any "prioritizing", it was to hold ALL combat operations hostage for political gain. Or Coalition casualties in Iraq: those received more media attention than casualties in Afghanistan. And so on.

So Afghanistan needs no new bat to smack lefties with; there have been several at hand. If there is a "new" one, it's because Obama is making the same mistakes as past Presidents have made, and the lefties who were so adamantly anti-war are staying mum. They don't want to disturb The Won™, after all.

I don't get the same glee out of "LBO" that you all seem to, perhaps because current Afghanistan policy is so bad for the Middle East, America and the world in general.

Glee? Try horror. Vietnam was an American failing thanks to politicians inside the United States. LBJ set us on that path, and others picked up where he left off. The result: a nation conquered, with millions dead and homeless. There's no "glee" here. Twitting the lefties reminds them "Hey, you can't blame Bush for this! Time to accept some responsibility for your actions." I won't deny feeling schadenfreude at their expense as things stand, but that will turn to anger should we get another Vietnam (which, as per then Senator Kennedy, should have been in Iraq, not Afghanistan).

[Jane2 McMahon]

I didn't say it was a *good* promise..I was stating what he did promise. His talent laid in convincing all sorts of people that he'd promised more than he did...ergo, the Greenwald et al criticisms now. How they ever saw him as any more than slightly liberal in the first place escapes me.

When I said there was little attention paid to Afghanistan, I was referring to Americans in general. American liberals were anti-Iraq...until recently, the bulk of liberal attention to Afghanistan was along the lines of "yay for feminism and no burkas!". The new attention seems to be yet another replay of the domestic liberal vs. conservative battle (like an election cycle that never cycles!), which is why I see it as a "new bat". In my view, American liberals are generally ignoring Afghanistan in favour of retrofitting their wardrobes in the colour of the day in support of some "freedom" or other.

And yes, Obama deserves criticism on several fronts..but 8 years vs. 6 months still makes it a tad uneven in the blame category.

[richard mcenroe]

Dennis, meet another Fighting Accountant

[JeffS]

I didn't say it was a *good* promise..

Touche'!!

...until recently, the bulk of liberal attention to Afghanistan was along the lines of "yay for feminism and no burkas!"

Exactly. But it was erroneous attention, pretty much . Afghanistan officially calls itself the "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan", and their constitution is based on Sharia Law. Which allows lovely laws like this. And that's only the latest, these sort of laws have been coming up in Afghanistan for several years. Which the lefties have been pretty much ignoring.

...but 8 years vs. 6 months still makes it a tad uneven in the blame category. It is, and it isn't. Bush was getting blamed for a lot of things even before the September 11th terrorist attacks. And soon after, hoo doggie! Right or wrong, he took a lot of heat. Obama, in comparison, is getting far less heat for much more serious issues. Granted, he's had only a few months, but he promised a whole lot in that window. Much of which isn't happening.

Criticism on Afghanistan may be unfair in that he just settled into the job with an old problem, but he's the one who preached hope and change to the public. If he was just following the usual pattern of Chicago politics (promise much, deliver little, pay off your stooges) while running for President, he deserves it. And if he was naive? Sorry, but he still deserves it.

Now, if Obama pulls it off, and saves the day in Afghanistan, I'll rethink my position. But the odds are that he won't. In fact, he probably doesn't know how to. We'll get another Vietnam instead. Unfortunately.

[J West]

1. Cordesman is right. Beyond hold and build is nonexistent.
2. We fight our wars in third world hell holes. (I've done that)
3. Then we look at the inhabitants, seeking reflections of ourselves.
4. At least Iraq had thirty years of near secular rule and had developed a nascent middle class.
5. Afghanistan is beyond primitive.
6. Half the population are peasants.
7. The other half are tribesman who welcome a new set of targets.
8. They figure we'll do the same thing the Russians (and everybody else has done): when they hurt us, we'll go crap on the peasants for body counts and whatnot.
9. Eventually, we'll go away and they'll go back to crapping on the peasants, themselves.
10. The only certain solution is to kill all the tribesmen. Alexander or Genghis Khan might have. We can't, for many reasons.
11. The military and state department types can project maximum gravitas into their pronouncements on the subject, but can't change reality.
12. Don't give much of a damn about the Afghans. No one else does either. Grieve for our real best and brightest who have been set a task of this sort.
V/R JWest

[Mona]

the Greenwald et al criticisms now. How they ever saw him as any more than slightly liberal in the first place escapes me.

Greenwald never endorsed Obama -- or anyone else. Nor did he write sycophantically about Obama. Indeed, he was criticizing Obama before the general election.

[Mona]

Success in Afghanistan would involve setting up a structure that discourages the hosting the barbarians in the first place. Doing that will ultimately, no matter what else we do, involve identifying the Afghans themselves who can see the benefit to doing so. That could take years. Hell, we may have to create them.

I see. Do you identify as a conservative? If so, since when did that stripe endorse "social engineering," or think it worked?

[JeffS]

That needn't be "social engineering", Mona. Social engineering is the art and science of getting people to comply to your wishes. This is more favored by socialists and other like minded types. Indeed, it's more common here in the United States that I like to think.

However, reinforcing acceptable behavior with positive reinforcement (which is closer to what Richard describes) is an age old parenting technique. The trick is to find people who are already leaning into that direction, and make sure others see what's going on. Human self-interest (e.g., bettering themselves) is a powerful motivator.

But it's not as easy as you imply, a point that Richard makes clear.

Further, given the choice of having barbarians constantly threaten your civilization, killing them all, or teaching them how not to be barbarians, just which would you chose, Mona?

[Mona]

Jeff writes: Further, given the choice of having barbarians constantly threaten your civilization, killing them all, or teaching them how not to be barbarians, just which would you chose, Mona?

So, you think it is possible to "set up structure" that is not "social engineering," but makes James Madisons out of barbarians. I see. Your "choice" is not one, whatever else may be possible to control Af/Pak, turning them into our Founding Fathers ain't prolly one of them.

Social engineering almost never works, and especially not with foreign, non-Western cultures.

[richard mcenroe]

Mona, if social engineering didn't work, you could find more than a tiny percentage of conservatives in the college humanities departments.

If social engineering didn't work, India would still be a collection of squabbling princedoms practicing suttee, not a world-class power.

If social engineering didn't work, Japan wouldn't be, whether you refer to the Tokugawa shogunate and the unification of the country, the Meiji Restoration, or the American Occupant. All massive social engineering projects.

If social engineering didn't work, Turkey would still be a pack of Janissaries eating goat in the Topkapi while they contemplated another run at Vienna.

And as the above examples suggest, as an eeeeeevil conservative, I find it a bit racist of you to suggest that foreign, nonWestern cultures are incapable of change.

Okay, except for the humanities departments, which I see more as an example of social de-engineering...

[Eric Blair]

Rich, it's just the bigotry of low expectations at work again. Typical whitebread, middle class libtard thinking.

[JeffS]

Nicely said, Richard. I wondered just how deep one had to scratch Mona to find a typical leftie, racism and all.

Not very, it would appear. And I must concede that "social engineering" is what it would take to deal with the s**thole known as Afghanistan.

I also notice that Mona avoided my question to her.

So how about it, Mona? Given a choice, do you want to let barbarians constantly threaten your civilization, kill them all, or teach them how not to be barbarians?

Just askin'.