Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

As the United States prepares send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, in what I still regard as a futile effort at "state-building," two interesting items arrived in my in-box. The first is an opinion piece by former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami (now vice-president of the Toledo Center for Peace in Spain), who argues that Afghanistan's neighbors have a greater stake there than the United States, and that they are advancing those interests more effectively by relying primarily on diplomacy rather than military intervention. Money quote:

So, while the United States gets to play the "Ugly American" once again, the regional powers promote their interests in that war-torn country with a smiling face and away from the battlefield. America’s difficulties in Afghanistan -- and the serious problems it faces in harnessing Pakistan’s government to a more robust fight against the Taliban both at home and in Afghanistan -- provide an opportunity for these powers to attempt to shift the dynamics of the "Great Game" to their benefit.

In other words, Afghanistan's neighbors have successfully "passed the buck" to the United States -- getting Uncle Sam to do the dirty work and heavy lifting in Afghanistan -- and Washington has been foolish enough to accept that burden. It's too late now, but a smarter strategy would have been for Washington to focus on getting the regional powers to address these problems while it remained in the background, focusing primarily focused tasks (such as the capture or killing of al Qaeda members) for which we were uniquely equipped. My guess is that this approach is where the United States will end up once it realizes that the current "surge" isn’t working, so Ben-Ami's article might even prove to be prophetic.

The second item is a video report from the Guardian in Britain, which shows a group of U.S. Marine trainers working with some pretty hapless Afghan recruits. (One Marine says "I think if they introduced drug testing for the Afghan army, we would lose probably three-quarters to maybe eighty or eight-five percent of the army." It is sort of like watching an Afghan version of Stripes, except that this is in fact serious business and a critical ingredient of current U.S. strategy. The video is consistent with other published reports about the difficulties the U.S. faces in trying to create larger and more effective Afghan security forces, but it is obviously hard to know how representative a single short film might be. So you should view it with some skepticism, the same way you should view any official reports of our progress or anything you read in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Guardian itself, for that matter. But if it’s even remotely representative, it tells you why everyone from Secretary Gates on down understands that we are facing a multi-year, and maybe even multi-decade challenge there. Good thing we don't have any other foreign or domestic problems to address right now, and infinite resources to devote to this problem.

TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

H.GUST7

3:22 AM ET

December 17, 2009

America's Ongoing Military Presence in Afghanistan

I could not agree with you more. America has no business being in Afghanistan as it is a third world country that poses no real security threat to the U.S. If only our leadership could understand this critical point. I'm curious to know what you know about Obama's plan for withdrawal. I know what the media is telling everyone, but I'm wondering if this situation is going to be just like Iraq: a promise for "full" withdrawal by a certain date but the reality being that thousands of troops will still be stationed there in some capacity beyond that date. At any rate, your point about Afghanistan being another "nation-building" endeavor for America is well taken, and with new powers on the rise, namely China, I think this kind of behavior will only hurt the U.S. in the long run. The bottom line is that if we are failing to properly address and solve our own domestic issues, how on earth are we suppose to help rebuild and stabilize any other country?

 

ERIC C

4:07 AM ET

December 17, 2009

Not the most mature thing in

Not the most mature thing in the world, but there are some hilarious videos of afghan training out there.

Seriously though, the lack of training is I think misleading. I think if we bail on Afghanistan, Karzai will have trained soldiers ready to do his bidding, and I'm not sure that is a good thing.

 

KEROKAN

6:25 AM ET

December 17, 2009

free-riders

I understand from Ben-Ami's article that China and Russia are free-riding on the US efforts in Afghanistan. But this does not imply that US should mimic their strategy or US can mimic their strategy.

Their economic investments can return a profit only if the US provides some sort of stability in some parts of Afghanistan (If I am wrong, Russia and China should be investing in Taliban controlled regions as well as US controlled regions). But if the US switches from the provider to a free-rider no one will provide the security and all free-riders (including the US) will suffer. So, it is too bad for the US that others do not share its burden but this is an inescapable fact of the situation.

Also Ben-Ami makes the resolution of Kashmir sound much easier than pacifying Afghanistan. The two conflicts are fundamentally different and I think these tasks are similar in difficulty for the US. It is surprising to read an Israeli politician describe a territorial issue in such terms.

 

ZJIN

7:07 PM ET

December 17, 2009

Well, China and Russia's

Well, China and Russia's investment decisions certainly have more constraints. I.E., they would have invested in Taliban controlled areas if US were fine with it. And, Russia also had some beef with Taliban in history.

And if US becomes a free rider, it is obvious that someone else will step up to provide security. But it could be Taliban. The problem in your arguement is that you assume that everyone won't accept that. In reality, I believe that many regional players can live with the Taliban's control. They have lived with it before 9/11 and it did not pose a serious threat to the region. Certainly they can live with Taliban again in the future.

 

JANBEKSTER

1:26 PM ET

December 17, 2009

Common Sense Scenario.

I know this is a repetition of what one keeps saying, but there is no harm in repeating common sense despite the fact that it is never popular.

Firstly, a new president is needed in Kabul, with enough credibility to negotiate with Taliban. Secondly, there is no escaping an American sponsored international conference on Afghanistan, in which the major stake holding countries in the affairs of Afghanistan, are urged to play a more positive role in bringing stability, rather than their habitual current policy of fanning the flames of the conflict. And thirdly, how long will it take the Obama administration to realise, that it is important to start cooperating with the Organisation of Islamic States, for them to send military contingents, health cadres and educational staffs to Afghanistan.

The member states of the Organisation, have both, religious as well as cultural affinities with the Afghan people; at least more than NATO as a whole.
khairi janbek.paris/france.

 

KASSANDRA

7:15 PM ET

December 18, 2009

Contractors

The Taliban doesn't seem to have any trouble teaching their recruits how to shoot, whether the helmet is on backwards or not. Maybe it's the occupation -- who really wants to be seen servile to the occupier? I seem to vaguely recall that the last foreign occupier that really managed to stay was Babur, and that was around 1500's (I think). I recommend to the US and NATO forces that they contract out the training of the Afgan army to some branch of the Taliban -- sooner or later, it will happen anyway.

 

ANON_ANON

8:28 PM ET

December 18, 2009

calisthenics, iraqi and afghani style

You might also want to check these out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbK76okexVk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ThUxg1hrrU&feature=related

A former student

 

ANON_ANON

8:31 PM ET

December 18, 2009

why is it

the South Vietanmese were militarily incompetent whereas teh Viet Cong and NVA often were not?

 

CARRINGTON WARD

11:51 PM ET

December 19, 2009

I'd agree that we're likely

I'd agree that we're likely to get sucked into nation-building even in spite of ourselves... and so try to create an Afghan National Army, etc.

The question, I tend to think, is whether we realize that in Afghanistan we don't actually have to put humpty dumpty back together again, just keep the the Taliban from accomplishing that feat (as they did in the mid-90s).

In a way, the Afghan problem, for us, is less severe than the problem with Iraq (or South Vietnam) because we don't need to build a state capable of withstanding/balancing against a conventionally-armed neighbor... rather, we need simply to ensure that the regions are sufficiently developed that the Taliban cannot conquer Afghanistan as they did in '95.

Of course, on this, we have significant disagreement with the Russians and Europeans, who have a more serious interest in the War on Poppies.

 

GREENWARRIOR

4:27 AM ET

December 27, 2009

how America lost the Battle to the third world??

how come the more powerfull nation on the planet got lost in a third world country without any technology. big money has been spend out there and nothing has change overhere the country dosen't have money to create jobs,to fix the bad roads, to schools, it kind the governors we have... this is for sure one more big mistake.GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!!!!

 

MATTHIEU1

3:28 PM ET

January 2, 2010

I found your website perfect

I found your website perfect for my needs. It contains wonderful and helpful posts. I have read most of them and got a lot from them. To me, you are doing the great work. Carry on this. work at home In the end, I would like to thank you for making such a nice website casino gratuit

 

MKP

7:22 AM ET

January 28, 2010

United States administration

United States administration that is the Bush was foolish enough to make this decision to interfere into the Afghan problems. Bush saw many other advantages than that, the business of weapons and the show of power to the world that United States was capable of anything and everything. American leaders who were the rulers at that time did not have the wishful thinking, Our country has spend millions of money on Afghan, Iraq all in vain. That money alone would have been enough to withstand the effects of recession. Many agencies are working on the normal people life's to give them with better Masters Hospitality . Thoughts by Richard of Olympus Battery and Patio Furniture

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More