The Big Surge in Afghanistan

Asking simple questions can produce startling results. For example, ask yourself why we are in Afghanistan? Did we go there to create a new stable nation from the shambles of Taliban authoritarian rule? If that were our goal (and I don’t think it was), exactly how did we foster this aim by installing one of the most corrupt regimes in the world (see below), a government that is very unpopular and very likely to fall when we leave? Were we striking back at a nation that gave sanctuary to al Qaeda, allowing that terrorist organization to train its forces and plot attacks against the United States, creating a base of operations from which the 9/11 attacks were planned and staged? By toppling the Taliban-led government, invading the country and killing major al Qaeda and Taliban operatives including bin Laden himself, haven’t we at least sen t a message that supporting an attack against the United States is really, really a bad idea and that we will respond with extreme military force? What more can we say on this score? And why exactly do we care whether or not it is the authoritarian Taliban, hands-in-your-pocket warlords or the corrupt Hamid Karzai (above) leadership that takes over Afghanistan when we leave? Think the Taliban will support another attack on the U.S. and not expect massive retaliation?

And exactly why are we supporting the government we installed in Afghanistan, when it is clear that it does not provide the democratic rule we had hoped? The June 25^th Huffington Post reports on the latest “surge” in Afghanistan, that of corruption, where Karzai officials and their cronies have their hand in the till at virtually every level of activity in the narrow band of Afghanistan that they control (the area around the capital) and warlords/Taliban have the same impact as the circle widens beyond Kabul: “[D]espite the hoped-for success of the U.S. military surge and President Barack Obama's claims of significant progress, Afghanistan's resemblance to a mafia state that cannot serve its citizens may only be getting worse, according to an upcoming report by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank.

“The 46-page study… looks specifically at Afghanistan's heartland: the rural areas of Ghazni, Wardak, Logar and other provinces just beyond the periphery of Kabul. Unemployment is high, government presence is low and the insurgency operates with impunity. Corruption and cooperation with the Taliban reach the highest levels of local governance… ‘Nearly a decade after the U.S.-led military intervention little has been done to challenge the perverse incentives of continued conflict in Afghanistan,’ the research group says. Rather, violence and the billions of dollars in international aid have brought wealthy officials and insurgents together. And ‘the economy as a result is increasingly dominated by a criminal oligarchy of politically connected businessmen,’ the report concludes.”

The collusion of those in power everywhere to permit this corruption to continue in every part of the country creates a hopeless future that we are powerless to change. The local citizens are squeezed by “taxes” and corruption from every angle. When we leave, tomorrow or in five years, the likelihood of the Karzai government remaining in power is minimal. Undoubtedly, the Taliban will be back, perhaps even at a national level, but that battle will take place whenever we leave, and there is little we can do about it. Warlords are unlikely to give up and walk away from their regional strongholds either. The drug trade will continue to flourish. True, we enhance our bargaining power to reach a negotiated settlement with the Taliban by keeping our troops there as chips on the table, but exactly why do we think the Taliban will honor any such treaty once we leave? How stupid do we really believe they are? Sooner or later, they know we will leave.

And if there is the slightest illusion that there is security and stability anywhere in this historically impaired nation, even in the only area where Karzai and Kronies control (in and around Kabul), that had to be shattered as Taliban operatives invaded the Kabul Intercontinental Hotel on June 28^th and took their sweet time systematically going through the building and killing people, room-by-room with no real attempt to subdue them until the carnage was well underway: “Six hours [after they began], at least 21 people were dead, including the nine suicide bombers [and gunmen] who managed to penetrate several rings of security on [the night of June 28^th] to carry out the attack. The assault has shaken public confidence in the ability of Afghan forces, especially the police, to assume responsibility for security, even here in the capital.” New York Times, June 29^th.

The “internal security forces” have no shot of bringing this fractured nation to heel. This is the legacy of Afghanistan, whether it arises from indigenous warlords, Taliban or foreign invaders. It will be this way next week, next year and in the next decade… whether we stay or go. Americans seem to be increasingly bad at learning the lessons of history. You’d think our military would have learned the lessons of the French and the Chinese in Vietnam after that effort failed, but we seem to have repeated that historical mistake by ignoring the fact that no foreign power has ever sustained a military takeover of Afghanistan. The Soviet debacle in the 1980s was the most stunning lesson of all, but we seem to gloss over that reality.

Clearly, what follow our departure will make it look like we failed in our efforts to tame Afghanistan. Whichever American President is in power at the time, Republican or Democrat, will be blamed for the result, but the reality is that Afghanistan is not tamable, and democracy does not work in an under-educated and impoverished world, particularly one with some of the most rugged terrain on earth, where centuries of barbaric tradition refuse to fade away no matter what the pressure might be. There will be chaos and power struggles, civil war and unrest no matter when we depart. So isn’t it better to cut our losses and go now? Do we really believe that leaving approximately 70,000 U.S. forces (after President Obama’s removing 33,000 troops by 2012) is really worthwhile and in our national interest, knowing that it costs about $1 million/ year per soldier? Exactly what are we getting for our money?

I’m Peter Dekom, and we must realize there will be no “clean exit” from Afghanistan no matter when we leave.