-
U.S. POLICY
Will China Surpass the U.S.?
-
NEOCONSERVATIVES
Why The Neocon Strategy Was A Failure
-
ISRAEL
How Powerful Is the Israel Lobby?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 10:57 PM
Share
President Obama has decided to increase the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan by roughly 17,000 troops over the next few months. The increase will begin with an initial deployment of 8,000 Marines in the next few weeks, to be followed by subsequent deployments of an Army brigade of 4,000 troops and about 5,000 support troops next summer.
This is a fateful decision. Yes, I know; he promised that he would do this during the campaign, but ignoring campaign promises is a time-honored tradition and I can't help feeling like this was one issue where a rethink was called for. Instead of being just another one of George Bush's mishandled legacies, Afghanistan will now become Obama's war. If increasing U.S. forces doesn't work, he will face pressure to do still more, and he will incur the political costs of any subsequent failure.
As other commentators have noted, what's missing in the announcement is a clear statement of U.S. strategy. To begin with, as William Pfaff notes here, it is not clear what our present goal is. Are we trying to bolster President Karzai, and do we still hope to build a stable democracy there? Is our real objective to defeat the Taliban once-and-for-all and eradicate poppy growing while we're at it? Is the objective the long-term delegitimation of the central Asian strains of Islamic extremism, and the encouragement of more moderate forms of Islamic observance? Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has already told Congress that we are not trying to create "some kind of Central Asian Valhalla" (which is both realistic and smart), but that still leaves a lot of other possibilities open.
In fact, we have only one vital national interest in Afghanistan: to prevent Afghan territory from being used as a safe haven for groups plotting attacks on American soil or on Americans abroad, as al Qaeda did prior to September 11. It might be nice to achieve some other goals too (such as economic development, better conditions for women, greater political participation, etc.), but these goals are neither vital to U.S. national security nor central to the future of freedom in the United States or elsewhere. Deep down, we don't (or shouldn't) care very much who governs in Afghanistan, provided they don't let anti-American bad guys use their territory to attack us. As I recall, President Bush was even willing to let the Taliban stay in power in 2001 if they had been willing to hand us Osama and his henchmen.
Second, it is not clear what the additional troops are going to do once they get there. In Iraq, we faced a mostly urban-based insurgency, and the so-called "surge" focused primarily on stabilizing Baghdad. By contrast, the Taliban is a rural movement, and an additional 17,000 troops (or even 30,000), won't be enough to provide reliable protection for the Afghan people. And as Juan Cole and Rory Stewart have warned, using U.S. and NATO troops to eradicate opium poppies or to engage in other forms of social engineering is likely to provoke a local backlash and make the Taliban even more popular.
Going forward, here are some critical things to watch:
1. Do the United States and its allies devote more resources to training the Afghan national army, and do these efforts succeed? If so, then we ought to follow the Iraq model and turn the country back to the Afghans as quickly as we can.
2. Is Obama able to persuade our NATO allies to increase their own efforts there, or will they mostly free-ride on Uncle Sam? (And watch out for token deployments intended to signal that the rest of NATO is with us on this one, but that have no real effect on the ground).
3. Can Obama (or more precisely, Richard Holbrooke) get Pakistan to do more to deny safe havens in Pakistan's frontier areas? If not, more U.S. troops on one side of the border won't have much effect. Does the recent ceasefire in the Swat Valley generate a backlash against the extremists who are imposing Shariah (as my FP colleague Thomas Ricks hopes), or do these groups continue to extend their sway?
4. President Karzai is increasingly seen as the weak leader of one of the most corrupt regimes in the world. Was this new commitment of U.S. troops linked to specific changes in Karzai's policies, or did we just do this on our own? My understanding is that the surge in Iraq also involved pressuring Prime Minister Maliki to crack down on both Shiite and Sunni militias (rather than just the latter), a decision that helped reduce violence and may even have enhanced his own legitimacy somewhat. Before we decided to up the ante in Afghanistan, did we get some a clear commitment to reform from Karzai, and do we think he has to backbone to pull it off? If not, we're in trouble. Do the names Ngo Dinh Diem or Nguyen van Thieu ring any bells?
Given Central Asia's potential to become the bottomless pit of American foreign and military policy, I hope Obama's decision pays off. But it's hard to have much confidence at this stage, until we know what the objective is and why he thinks adding more troops is going to get us there.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, CENTRAL ASIA, AFGHANISTAN, BUSH'S LEGACY, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, PAKISTAN, TERRORISM 
This is a fateful decision. (Updated)
This is a fateful decision. Yes, I know; he promised that he would do this during the campaign, but ignoring campaign promises is a time-honored tradition and I can't help feeling like this was one issue where a rethink was called for.
Professor don't worry about it Obama kept his promise and tomorrow the situation may change and he withdraw more troops than he deployed to keep his promise;->
Remember Obama is there to enjoy the Kingdom;->
Are we trying to bolster President Karzai, and do we still hope to build a stable democracy there? Is our real objective to defeat the Taliban once-and-for-all and...
No as you have already said, just to keep his promise. You should ask those question when he made this promise. Now it is too late Mate!
.. to prevent Afghan territory from being used as a safe haven for groups plotting attacks on American soil or on Americans abroad, as al Qaeda did prior to September 11. It might be nice to achieve some other goals too (such as economic development, better conditions for women, greater political participation, etc.), but these goals are neither vital to U.S. national security nor central to the future of freedom in the United States or elsewhere. Deep down, we don't (or shouldn't) care very much who governs in Afghanistan, provided they don't let anti-American bad guys use their territory to attack us. As I recall, President Bush was even willing to let the Taliban stay in power in 2001 if they had been willing to hand us Osama and his henchmen.
and this is another one of tongue in cheek, leg-pulling statement;->>
NATO troops to eradicate opium poppies or to engage in other forms of social engineering is likely to provoke a local backlash and make the Taliban even more popular.
I don't think poppy-traffic is your main concern out there, you must have much more important traffics than that out there. For example Natural Gas traffic etc.
Professor! tell us realistic reasons why the US and her Allies to be there. Remember this is a Realist Blog.
Have you looked at the Afghanistan Map recently?
It is very, very close to Iran, isn't it? It would be nice to lay a pipe-line thru Iran to the EU, isn't it? - to by-pass Russian interests?
Professor please don't be scared like a Greek God (what a God;-)) that we will steal the knowledge from you and use it against you, remember you are the Hegemon here;->>
...until we know what the objective is...
Isn't it amazing Professor, you are a citizen of the US and a Professor of Foreign Politics, but even yourself is unaware of the objectives of the Monopoly to move another 17000 men to Afghanistan. If you ask me it is not amazing, it is scary.
And this is happening in the pillar of the democracy;->
I can't imagine even a city-state like Athens ruled like that. Didn't I tell Obama will enjoy the Kingdom like an African King. That is what he is doing and of course you wouldn't have a clue what is the objective of his moving 17000 men to Afghanistan, but don't worry you will eventually learn it after the disaster/fortune strike you - wait and see as a loyal subject of the Kingdom;->>
The Monopoly knows the best by Jupiter!
Or maybe you don't tell us the truth. But I don't think so, because when the Monopoly don't trust her subjects why would she trust her subject professors;->
Grand Sen~or
on a second thought I know the objective of this move of 17000 men to Afghanistan. Obama is creating an extra job opportunities to at least 50000 people with a spending of couple of billion dollars. Compared to the Bill of $787 Billion, this is nothing to worry about, he is just kick-starting the job-market;->
to provide reliable protection for the Afghan people...especially the women...from the menace of Taliban...eradicate poppy growing...eradicate bases not to repeat attacks like 911....
tisk..tisk..can you believe it;->>
Re: Karzai, Afghanistan has a presidential election in six months. The short-term US objective should be to ensure that the election produces a legitimate winner.
"Deep down, we don't (or shouldn't) care very much who governs in Afghanistan"
This is the kind of logic that gets 'friendly' dictators like Saddam Hussein and Islam Karimov into power with US backing so very, very often. Its guaranteed to turn around and bite you in the you-know-what in thirty years. Why is so called 'national interest' so short sighted?
Of course that isn't to say that social engineering (which the democratisation project is, you are perfectly right) can ever actually work. Its natural to wish for security and peace for such a geo-strategically important and terminally conflicted region but one should stop to wonder whether peace and security come from democracy or whether democracy comes from peace and security. I'd have it about 3 to 1 in favour of the latter, myself.
On another note, if Afghanistan (and Iraq) are left in anything less than a semi-functional democratic state where does that leave Bush and friends vis-à-vis locking them up and throwing away the key?
Did the USA Bring Saddam Hussein to Power?
Or did the USA simply deal with him after he achieved power?
politics are the art of being hopeful. i like to believe that, Obama no doubt an egomaniac (but which ruler/statesman isn't?), the reason behind Afghanistan is still the unfortunate fruit of interest group politics. just count how many lobby die-hards are in this administration. it's not his wish, nor the result of any kingdom enjoyment--he is cocky and he likes to wait until he can get his way safely. otherwise i would say he is a fool. but he probably isn't
Can We Please End the Cold War Now?
Nobody in that neighborhood likes the Salafists. They are trouble for the Iranians, trouble for the Russians, trouble for the Indians and trouble for the government of Pakistan - they're even trouble for the Chinese.
So why have we spent so much time working with NATO instead of the local neighbors who have a real stake in cleaning up their own backyard, and the strongest desire to do so? Is this our stodgy old Atlanticist foreign policy establishment still conducting the foreign policies of the 90's - and even the 60's and 70's - still dreaming their NATO uber alles dreams, still treating Iran like its 1979, and still trying to pull off some crazy anti-Russian, anti-Iranian, anti-Salafist triple play in Afghanistan?
We're weighed down by an antiquated global strategy forged by a half century of cold war, and grafted into the DNA of generations of foreign policy practitioners from the foreign policy seminaries. Enough is enough. We've got real problems in Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan, but we're still busy trying to push NATO in the Ukraine and Georgia, and still trying to overthrow the government of Iran?!
While I am mostly a Jewish and Eastern European studies expert, I have done business from Egypt to Malaysia for long enough to have realized that flinging terms like "salafists" without really understanding or explaining them is not particularly useful.
I will try to put some of my current thinking on the subject of "salafism" on my blog for Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel within the next three entrees.
I seldom see much discussion about U.S. policy makers thinking that we need a long term and stable presence in Central Asia so that we can gain access to the region’s oil resources.
Also, I seldom see a detailed analysis about the importance of the dynamics of factional politics on both sides of the Pakistan and Afghanistan border regions. How do those dynamics affect the stability of Pakistan, and how do the complex kaleidoscope of activities affect China?
Thirdly, Afghanistan supplies almost 95% of the world’s opium. That large enterprise makes up most of Afghanistan’s economy---along with foreign aid.
To me, the humanitarian issues are important.
Whether or not you agree with how important any of these potential or real interests should be, or are presently important to American interests, we apparently do not have the skills to manage those interests.
In the long term, the peasant political culture will determine the outcome of any of our interests in the region. If we cannot operate within a culture of ever changing factional alliances and where personal interests override any notion of state legitimacy, then we will continue to escalate the military role because we have failed politically to recruit support or even temporary collaboration with a broad base of rural communities.
We are obtuse enough to think that we can pay the warlords to support us, and that will provide the support we need to prevail. In reality, we are undercutting President Karzai’s ability to perform the traditional Afghan role of head patronage broker. The warlords are more loyal to us than to their own President. Consequently, the country cannot obtain even a beginning of stability.
We escalate the military’s role because we cannot mange the politics. Doing that almost guarantees that we will suffer a long frustrating loss of any legitimate interest.
Bob Spencer
Here is a different viewpoint about corruption in Afghanistan.
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3326&updaterx=2009-02-19+12%3A45%3A33
Sending a Message to Pakistan?
I can't help wondering that the real object of the troop buildup is Pakistan and not Afghanistan.
I can think of several ways in which their presence might affect US Pakistan relations. I had a chat with David Frum shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, and he seemed to think the US should have been focusing primarily on Pakistani regime change and not so much on getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
Anyway the drone attacks seem to be a disaster and increasing the instability of Pakistan.
A New Standard of Hypocrisy!
by Joachim Martillo
The US condemns rocket attacks on Israeli Jewish civilians by the Palestinian resistance. Yet the USA routinely kills dozens of Pakistani Muslim civilians via drone attacks. Could the USA possibly be more hypocritical?
Zionist Jews believe that they have the right to plunder and to kill non-Jews with impunity.
Zionist Jews planned to genocide Palestinians in the 1880s and started abusing them as part of a very dirty demographic war in the 1890s.
Zionist Jews put their genocidal plans into effect in 1947 and have not let up since.
Not only are Palestinian attacks on Zionists are completely legitimate, but they are also completely legal under Nuremberg Law, which the USA helped create.
In contrast, US attacks on Pakistani Muslims are neither legal nor legitimate.
Until Obama ends attacks on Pakistani Muslims and retracts condemnation of the Palestinian resistance, he engages Muslims not on terms of mutual respect and equality but instead insults the intelligence of any decent human being that understands the difference between right and wrong.
US attacks ... neither legal nor legitimate
So!?
what are you going to do about it?
You Guys still don't get what a "state" is;->
Please read carefully;->
Salvare Apparentias Theory of FP (SATFP).
1. There exist states.
2. A State composed of a nation, a national leadership, national interests and power (economic, military, population, land, etc? ..(any others? pls feel free to add, it is the Blog's theory, not mine).
3. There exists a competitive arena where states acts as they do.
4. There exists no central authority in that arena that can enforce moral or legal constraints.
5. States commit morally dubious acts (dubious according to what? The Blog knows) (see axiom 4)(Why this is here? Didn't the Blog declare that SATFP is essencially amoral?)
6. A State's foreign and defense policy reflects national interest of the state.
7. A State can take deterrent action against other State(s) if the Leadership of the State decides so. (see axiom 11 & 12).
8. A State seeks to increase her national interests when her existence is threatened.
9. A State's power is a potential threat to other states. A state is by definition paranoid of other states.
10. States to increase their National Interests, to decrease potential threat of other States, to assimilate them and to dominate them, impose their Constitutions to other States. (But of course this degenerates all constitutions to a mono-constitution which prepares the Competetive Arena to the favour of the State whose Constitution became the one and only dominant Constitution to pave the ground for so called Globalization - Global Dominance - Ein STAAT, ein LAND (the GLOBE), ein FUERER und ein VOLK where there exists NO THREATt, NO COMPETITIVE ARENA, NO WORRIES and bsst of all NO NEED TO FP - a Paradise on Earth if you believe;->>)
11. A State talks sweet but carries her power peeping under her cloak to deterre the potential threats of other states. (McCain the Presidential Candidate 2008)
12. Powerful States to rule or protect or increase their National Interests divide less powerful states ad infinitum.
13. A States can suspend her constitution if the National Intersts dictates so. Soley the Leadership decides whether the National Intersts dictates that or not and their decision is final, cannot be challenged based on the articles of the Constitution of the State. In such cases the leadership for the sake of the National Interests is not required to disclose the reasons how they reached to a certain decision.
14. A State to keep her Internal Balance of Threat and National Interest and National Unity must centralize the power and not to share it with any Identifiable National Entity(ies).
15. A State keeps the power of making and implementing the laws solely to herself and does not share this power with any Identifiable National Entity(ies).
16. Salvare Apparentias Foreign Policy is the art of keeping the threats of states in Balance besides saving the foreign policy related phenomena. (How? By shuffling, dividing and mixing nations/races/cultures?!, subjecting them to prototype secularo-fascist laws to reduce their multiplicity to singularity? the Blog knows).
In this Blog Bloggers are talking about this kind of "state" and arena and they call it realistic not yourkind of "state and arena". In other words according to this Blog you are living in a dreamworld and expecting miracles to happen.
Keep on dreaming Mate!
Grand Sen~or
International Legality or Legitimacy
I have already explained that I use a much less limited definition of the modern state than most academic political scientists. (See Introduction: The Virtual Colonial Motherland as Political Innovation.)
However we define the state, to believe that states or even the most powerful state exists in a frictionless environment is simply unrealistic.
International legality and legitimacy are contructs useful in discussing pushback against a state's policy or actions from other state or non-state actors.
the definition of modern state
Joachim,
I am not against people introducing new theories here and I am not in favour of the SATFP either. But I observe that the SATFP is sort of standard theory used here, my formalization of it is just a draft but better than nothing. So what I would like to suggest you is; when you say your concept of "state" is somehow different than the "state" of the SATFP, please bring your axioms together and put them in contrast with the SATFP, like I did to degenerate the concept "state" of the SATFP to "hegemon state". That would really help the Bloggers to understand your theory better in relation to theirs. They could dig out your theory's structure like I did for the SATFP but this is really a lot of time waste. Please do the Bloggers a favour and tell them which axioms of the SATFP you accept/reject/modify/add to invent your theory. By that way once they get familiarized with your concepts they may be attracted to your literature and better understand it. That is what I would do if I wanted to promote my theory;->
But fortunately I am not here to promote a theory, I am here to conduct conceptual investigations on some political concepts. For me the concept of "state" based on existing proto-type constitutions is completely corrupted one cannot repair it trying what you are doing:
much less limited definition of the modern state than most academic political scientists.
BTW, still, if someone see some error on my list of axioms of the SATFP please feel free to correct it, sort of to represent the mostly used standard theory here.
Thank you.
Grand Sen~or
Lack of Media, Lack of Strategy
The attention, or more accurate, the lack there of, this has gotten in the media is appalling. On the day of the announcement, CBS Evening News with Katie Couric had it as the fourth storyline of the day, behind the Stimulus passage (ok) and the Aroid scandal (not ok). And today, the second news morning after the announcement, not one story from any major newspaper (realclearpolitics). Heck, I write an Afghanistan blog for the Foreign Policy Association and I didn't even write about until today! The Iraq ’surge’ was just a little over 20,000 troops and I recall it being a ‘big deal’. Not only should the media do its job of examining the how’s, why’s, and the ‘what’s’ of this Afghan troop surge, but it also owes it to the men and women who are about to do tremendously difficult work in a dangerous and unstable region.
Anyway, what really concerns me is that there does not seem to be a comprehensive strategy to go along with these troops. In a written statement, (no time for a press conference or speech), Obama really only justifies the troop surge as ‘necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation.’ Obama and his JCS have already leaked that they are likely to have a more ‘realistic’ approach to the conflict, trying to bring stability and security first, democracy and Afghan good governance second, but I want to hear some explanation how these troops will lead to that. The Iraqi surge did come with a General Petraeus counterinsurgency plan attached to it and had his rock solid leadership.
Professor Walt,
One of your earlier insightful posts referred to the prospect of Pakistani internal conflict which could lead to a jihadi-led nuclear power.
That seems to be a critical concern.
How would you recommend avoiding that?
likely to provoke a local backlash and make the Taliban even more popular.
Keep in mind that from what we can tell of Afghanis, the Taliban aren't popular - the Afghanis utterly despise them.
Can Obama (or more precisely, Richard Holbrooke) get Pakistan to do more to deny safe havens in Pakistan's frontier areas?
Pakistan couldn't even deny the Taliban safe haven in the North West Frontier Province, much less the FATA. Their army is simply not that competent in dealing with counter-insurgency, which is why 3,000 Taliban were able to keep 12,000 Pakistani troops at bay. On the "bright" side, though, presumably they can be counted on to at least try to defend Islamabad, and we might be helped by the ethnic differences (the FATA and NWFP are primarily Pashtun areas, whereas Islamabad and the Punjab are not).
So, how do they dominate afghanistan?
"Not popular" is not the same as "no supporters". They do have some, and they make up for the general lack by doing things like intimidation and assassinations. Think of them in gang-like terms.
A small group that everybody despises. A nation where every village has a large armed militia.
The latter is almost certainly not true, or is only true depending on how well you define "armed". One of the major complaints that the local Afghani tribesmen give to US troops, if I recall correctly, is that the US won't provide them with weapons to stand up against the Taliban. All they have are aging AK-47s (a same problem the lashkar had in the FATA).
1. Maybe Taliban is more popular than it looks like to us. Maybe afghans tell us what they think we want to hear.
They have supporters, but you don't need widespread support if you have a decent source of money (poppy sales) and just enough support to have hiding places and safe houses. Intimidation is a big factor here.
Obama widens Pak strikes - Attacks target Mehsud camps
I have a blog entry on Mehsud: CIA: Mehsud Behind Benazir Killing?
I cringe every time I read commentaries that suggest that the initial invasion of Afghanistan was necessary. I can't believe that you in any way believe Ben Laden was responsible for 911. For Christ sake you can see the buildings exploding. You here the firemen telling us explosions went off in the buildings. You can see Tower # 7 falling straight down just like a controlled demolition. It was not struck by a plane. You most know the coverup that followed. The steel was shipped out of the country before it could undergo a thorough inspection. Video from security cameras from the Pentagon and surrounding businesses were confiscated to never be seen by the public. Why were they not shown? At most all we would have seen would be a jetliner crashing into the Pentagon. Or, would we have seen something different?
Please do all you can to reveal the truth about 911 and stop the the suffering of people subjected to the USA unjustified revenge
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
Jan/Feb 2012
-
Cover Story
-
Feature
-
Inbox
(19)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE