Print
In late May, some 40 Pakistani journalists received a summons to an unusual press conference given by Baitullah Mehsud, the rarely photographed leader of the Pakistani Taliban, who is accused of orchestrating the 2007 assassination of Benazir Bhutto, of sending suicide bombers to Spain earlier this year, and of dispatching an army of fighters into Afghanistan to attack U. S. and NATO forces in recent months. Surrounded by a posse of heavily armed Taliban guards, Mehsud boasted that he had hundreds of trained suicide bombers ready for martyrdom.
It was an extraordinarily brazen public performance for a man who is supposedly on the run. The conference wasn't in a Pakistani jail or a U.S. detention center, but in a school in South Waziristan, on Pakistan's northwestern border with Afghanistan. And the meeting wasn't secret: According to two of the journalists who attended, reporters were given 24 hours' notice and were able to call in news from the press conference on their satellite phones.
Don't be surprised. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan achieved wonders--but only in the short term. Today, Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders are running free. Pakistan seems unable or unwilling to clamp down on leading militants on its territory, and jihadist attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan have increased enormously in the past year. More Pakistani citizens died in militant violence in 2007 than in the previous five years combined. Similarly, in Afghanistan's eastern provinces, violence is up by 40 percent in the last several months; more American soldiers are now dying in Afghanistan than in Iraq. And, as is by now well-known, U.S. intelligence assesses that Al Qaeda has regrouped along the Afghan-Pakistan border.
The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has grabbed the attention of American politicians across the spectrum. John McCain and Barack Obama have both recently called for thousands more American soldiers to go to Afghanistan. But simply throwing more soldiers at the problem will do little if the next White House doesn't pursue the kind of strategic reset that helped the U.S. military to dampen down the violence in Iraq.
The solution is twofold. First, recognizing the peril that the descent of Afghanistan into a failed state would cause, the United States needs to seriously reconsider its stopgap policies there. It must overhaul its approach to the insurgency by building up the size of the Afghan army and police, and by embedding the best American advisers in their ranks. It must fix the problems in the NATO mission, decouple the Taliban from the drug trade, embark on effective reconstruction, end coalition air strikes that kill civilians, and block the Taliban's freedom of movement throughout much of the country.
Controlling the Taliban, though, is not only an Afghan problem, and it is tied directly to the second part of the solution: Pakistan. As much as the Pakistanis suffer from Islamist insurgents, the country's powerful military intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), also tolerates the Taliban as a sort of backup plan to assert control if the United States suddenly decides to cut and run from Afghanistan. To defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the United States must start dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan as one region, not as separate entities.
COMMENTS (15)
Wow - excellent article. TNR needs more of this kind of well thought out, detailed, snark-free article. Great analysis of applying the positive lessons from Iraq and Colombia and a clear-eyed view to the threats we face and will continue to face.
Wow - excellent article. TNR needs more of this kind of well thought out, detailed, snark-free article. Great analysis of applying the positive lessons from Iraq and Colombia and a clear-eyed view to the threats we face and will continue to face.
Typically sound work by Bergen--here's hoping it gets careful consideration by the next President.
Key point--within reason, it's more important what the troops are doing than how many of them there are. This is true in Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else. A continuation of the revamping of our global strategy based on COIN principles is critical. Obama's implication that merely shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan will be an improvement is a dangerous misconception, and one that is overshadowed by the even more dangerous idea that Afghanistan is more strategically important than Iraq.
Typically sound work by Bergen--here's hoping it gets careful consideration by the next President.
Key point--within reason, it's more important what the troops are doing than how many of them there are. This is true in Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else. A continuation of the revamping of our global strategy based on COIN principles is critical. Obama's implication that merely shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan will be an improvement is a dangerous misconception, and one that is overshadowed by the even more dangerous idea that Afghanistan is more strategically important than Iraq.
Bob - two points.
Firstly, I really don't get the feeling that Obama believes that more boots on the ground is all that it will take. Listening to him and reading his positions I very much get the impression that he understands that what is needed is the multi-pronged apporach (of which military action is only one of many tools) as posited by Bergen. That he appears to take a more simplistic approach in his speeches is, I believe, a realisation that to win an election and hence be able to affect policy, you need to simplify the message to get through the noise. That we need more boots on the ground in Afghanistan since more Americans are now getting killed there than in Iraq is a fairly ... view full comment
Bob - two points.
Firstly, I really don't get the feeling that Obama believes that more boots on the ground is all that it will take. Listening to him and reading his positions I very much get the impression that he understands that what is needed is the multi-pronged apporach (of which military action is only one of many tools) as posited by Bergen. That he appears to take a more simplistic approach in his speeches is, I believe, a realisation that to win an election and hence be able to affect policy, you need to simplify the message to get through the noise. That we need more boots on the ground in Afghanistan since more Americans are now getting killed there than in Iraq is a fairly simple, digestible message.
Secondly, I know I'm somewhat asking you to repeat yourself, but I don't fully understand why you feel Iraq is more strategically important than Afghanistan. If it's just access to oil, then whoever is in charge is going to sell it no matter what. For all I know I just filled up on a nice Iranian/Russian/Venezualean blend this morning for example. If you feel strongly that we shouldn't be sending oil money to those sorts of countries, I couldn't agree more, but flipping Iraq into a shining city on the hill wouldn't change the main calculus there, which is that we should use less oil.
Afghanistan (and parts of Pakistan) on the other hand actually contains people who have attacked us, and will assumedly continue to try to do so. If one wishes to prevent another large scale attack on the US, that would seem to be the place to pour in the resources.
Bergen's commentary reads very well on paper, but that's as far as it goes. He should read the history of Afghanistan and realize what the fate of any occupying army is likely to be. Moreover, the contemptuous way that the US disputes the truth about US caused civilian deaths tells the Afghans the truth about how Washington feels about the Afghans. Moreover, he and we should also realize that the war in Iraq has already been won--by Iran. Every Shia group, while competing with each other, is also competing for Tehran's support. The al-Maliki government will never accept the Sunni Sons of Iraq, no matter what the US says, and the US won't be getting control of Iraqi oil either. Both of these ... view full comment
Bergen's commentary reads very well on paper, but that's as far as it goes. He should read the history of Afghanistan and realize what the fate of any occupying army is likely to be. Moreover, the contemptuous way that the US disputes the truth about US caused civilian deaths tells the Afghans the truth about how Washington feels about the Afghans. Moreover, he and we should also realize that the war in Iraq has already been won--by Iran. Every Shia group, while competing with each other, is also competing for Tehran's support. The al-Maliki government will never accept the Sunni Sons of Iraq, no matter what the US says, and the US won't be getting control of Iraqi oil either. Both of these wars have done more to weaken the US global position than anything the old Soviet Union might have hoped for.
Great article. 2 comments: 1) you need to pay more attention to Pakistani views of the "Greater Hindu Kush" and other strategic considerations - this is an article of faith among the senior Pakistani military; and 2) weaning the poor Afghan farmer off of his poppy income is far more difficult than you imply - there is no way other crops can compete with the income derived from poppy, unless, as you point out, there are farm-to-market roads, but also a product worth exporting, given the small size of Afghanistan's internal market. A semiconductor plant? Fresh flowers? Strawberries? Who knows? By dint of geography, Afghanistan has lots of problems; it is not for nothing that control of ... view full comment
Great article. 2 comments: 1) you need to pay more attention to Pakistani views of the "Greater Hindu Kush" and other strategic considerations - this is an article of faith among the senior Pakistani military; and 2) weaning the poor Afghan farmer off of his poppy income is far more difficult than you imply - there is no way other crops can compete with the income derived from poppy, unless, as you point out, there are farm-to-market roads, but also a product worth exporting, given the small size of Afghanistan's internal market. A semiconductor plant? Fresh flowers? Strawberries? Who knows? By dint of geography, Afghanistan has lots of problems; it is not for nothing that control of the country has been called, and still is, the "Great Game" of regional and superpower rivals.
In early Peace Corps days, it was often clear that U.S. officials who have not generally immersed themselves in Mid East cultures generally relate easily with the small proportion of bi-cultural in-country citizens whose values and habits resonate with their own. Sometiems these individuals are quite westernized, sometimes they are moderately sympathetic, sometimes they are superficially attracted to material advantage but deeply offended by our materialism. Thus traditional people--traditional or tribal Muslims may seem intractable or at least so "different" as to appear "other" or at least "difficult".
Let us also suppose that in the course of becoming "invaded" by culturally very d ... view full comment
In early Peace Corps days, it was often clear that U.S. officials who have not generally immersed themselves in Mid East cultures generally relate easily with the small proportion of bi-cultural in-country citizens whose values and habits resonate with their own. Sometiems these individuals are quite westernized, sometimes they are moderately sympathetic, sometimes they are superficially attracted to material advantage but deeply offended by our materialism. Thus traditional people--traditional or tribal Muslims may seem intractable or at least so "different" as to appear "other" or at least "difficult".
Let us also suppose that in the course of becoming "invaded" by culturally very different Westerners ordinary citizens may become angry and disillusioned. And are we really surprised when in desperation and exasperation they may resist our ham-handed actions? And when we start making up labels for their disaffected citizenry we may miss the reality beyond our labels--be those labels Taliban or Al Qaeda?
Wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper in terms of American "blood and treasure" to negotiate fair royalties for those pipe line easements? Surprisingly, I've personally met Middle Easterners in the west who are quite happy with some of the ways of their traditional communities. And here in North America I've spoken with a Muslim professional including three women who have said that they felt more respected back in their home societies than here where male tradesmen and professionals sometimes treat them as though they are stupid and inferior. Where in the history of continental American history might we find parallels? Possibly among Indian Nations who resisted the various ham-handed Removes; or the Minutemen themselves who told King George and the British colonials to stuff their mushy peas to leave. If the Colonial Brits had offered gifts of new infrastrucure at the time of the American Revolutioln or had offered to rebuild Washington after 1812 would we all be getting tiddley over the doings of their queens and princes? Why do we seem to feel that we can analyze the intentions of Middle Easterners in terms of corporate values of old TV dramas like Dallas? As the English say, these cultures are "as different as chalk and cheese."
This is a welcome proposal that wisely goes beyond the assignment of troops. Infrastructure is vital, the provision of power in Kabul, which has not advanced enough beyond what it was when I lived there nearly t60 years ago. The missing part is attention to corruption in government and the fallen reputation of Pres. Karzai. How much depends upon this?
This is a welcome proposal that wisely goes beyond the assignment of troops. Infrastructure is vital, the provision of power in Kabul, which has not advanced enough beyond what it was when I lived there nearly t60 years ago. The missing part is attention to corruption in government and the fallen reputation of Pres. Karzai. How much depends upon this?
I have some advice. Vote for McCain. Thank you for the opportunity to say so.
I have some advice. Vote for McCain. Thank you for the opportunity to say so.
Obama does not believe in war of any kind. The Democrats will suspend any efforts to win the war on terror. They will spend the money on social programs.
Obama does not believe in war of any kind. The Democrats will suspend any efforts to win the war on terror. They will spend the money on social programs.
Let's get real. The real solution is a B-52 strike on any village that harbors Taliban or AQ. And to hell with the "civilians." If you're harboring our enemies, you need to die along with them. End of story. We need to kill the bastards. We know Pakistan won't. If Pakistan wants to flaunt its nuclear arms, let them know that we will answer any nuke with everything in our arsenal. It's time to be big bad America, not a bunch of hand-wringing paper tigers. Kill them.
Let's get real. The real solution is a B-52 strike on any village that harbors Taliban or AQ. And to hell with the "civilians." If you're harboring our enemies, you need to die along with them. End of story. We need to kill the bastards. We know Pakistan won't. If Pakistan wants to flaunt its nuclear arms, let them know that we will answer any nuke with everything in our arsenal. It's time to be big bad America, not a bunch of hand-wringing paper tigers. Kill them.
Very telling that bergen thinks he has to give advice, and he does, to the rookie about how to fight al Qaeda.
So does the rookie still think 0/11 was caused by poverty?
Very telling that bergen thinks he has to give advice, and he does, to the rookie about how to fight al Qaeda.
So does the rookie still think 0/11 was caused by poverty?
The US can no longer afford to police the middle east nor any place else. It is more important to rebuild the US and devote resources to making us independent of arab oil. Islam is basically incompatible with US culture and no amount of money or military power will make it any better. The best we can do is to have as little to do, as possible, with all arabs. It will be cheaper and much better for our world reputation to concentrate on freeing ourselves from arab oil.
The US can no longer afford to police the middle east nor any place else. It is more important to rebuild the US and devote resources to making us independent of arab oil. Islam is basically incompatible with US culture and no amount of money or military power will make it any better. The best we can do is to have as little to do, as possible, with all arabs. It will be cheaper and much better for our world reputation to concentrate on freeing ourselves from arab oil.
How abt a very simple solution presented over and over by Pakistanis, Lets mine the whole border btween Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Afghan Govt won't ever agree to that, why?
1 - They don't recognize the international border btween Pak and Afghanistan.
2 - Will inconvinient Indians and Afghan intelligence agencies to carry out operations like assisting Baluchistan Liberation Army, enciting secreterian violence in FATA etc etc.
Ofcoz It will always be Pakistan's fault no matter what we do so carry on.
How abt a very simple solution presented over and over by Pakistanis, Lets mine the whole border btween Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Afghan Govt won't ever agree to that, why?
1 - They don't recognize the international border btween Pak and Afghanistan.
2 - Will inconvinient Indians and Afghan intelligence agencies to carry out operations like assisting Baluchistan Liberation Army, enciting secreterian violence in FATA etc etc.
Ofcoz It will always be Pakistan's fault no matter what we do so carry on.
Nari--I don't have much faith in the capacity of this website to sustain a discussion, but here's hoping...
I agree that we should wean ourselves from our oil dependency, but the stability of the world economy depends on a gradual glide-path to alternatives--$200/bbl. oil translates into economic collapse, wars, revolutions, famines, etc. Reliable access to world markets for Iraqi oil plays a huge role here as it has always done. Then there's the fact that access to that kind of wealth can again as it has in the past produce a very dangerous enemy in Baghdad.............Iraq may also play a key role in helping to broker our needed revision of the Iranian relationship.........Iraq is the heart ... view full comment
Nari--I don't have much faith in the capacity of this website to sustain a discussion, but here's hoping...
I agree that we should wean ourselves from our oil dependency, but the stability of the world economy depends on a gradual glide-path to alternatives--$200/bbl. oil translates into economic collapse, wars, revolutions, famines, etc. Reliable access to world markets for Iraqi oil plays a huge role here as it has always done. Then there's the fact that access to that kind of wealth can again as it has in the past produce a very dangerous enemy in Baghdad.............Iraq may also play a key role in helping to broker our needed revision of the Iranian relationship.........Iraq is the heartland of the Muslim Arab world, with which we have much more pressing business than, for example, Tajiks in Afghanistan......... There's more, but with tiny print and no paragraph breaks that's about all I can do here, except to add that the opium story is critical in Afghanistan. Attempting to shift blame for drug abuse from users in the rich world to starving farmers in the Third is not only morally bankrupt, it's funding some of our worst enemies. Short of de-criminalization, the best thing we could do is simply buy up the Afghani crop and donate it to the WHO (the UN agency, not the band).
Good article, good comments.
Some Muslim women in the US may have felt "more respected" in their native lands than in the US, but I doubt that many of them were from Afghanistan during the Taliban government, when it was well documented that women were prohibited from education, and severely punished if they strayed from traditional modes of dress and conduct.
Past attempts by foreign governments to control Afghanistan have always met with disaster, from British attempts in the 19th century to the more recent Russian invasion in the 1980's, and even Afghanis have had trouble establishing a unified national government.
The suggestion that we should adopt a Vietnam War style progam of "strategi ... view full comment
Good article, good comments.
Some Muslim women in the US may have felt "more respected" in their native lands than in the US, but I doubt that many of them were from Afghanistan during the Taliban government, when it was well documented that women were prohibited from education, and severely punished if they strayed from traditional modes of dress and conduct.
Past attempts by foreign governments to control Afghanistan have always met with disaster, from British attempts in the 19th century to the more recent Russian invasion in the 1980's, and even Afghanis have had trouble establishing a unified national government.
The suggestion that we should adopt a Vietnam War style progam of "strategic" bombing from B52's of insurgent areas is interesting. Can anyone remind us how it worked back then? Maybe we could ask McCain. I question whether bombing or mining the border would work to control a well-established insurgency in a country of 40+ million people. Civilian casualties would be large, and it is likely to turn the entire population against our forces, with dire results. Remember that it was in Afghanistan that the British came to adopt the battlefield practice of "saving the last bullet for yourself," due to the savage treatment of the wounded and captured.
Bergan maps out the only likely route to success, which is letting the Afghans take charge of their government, reducing the size of the insurgency, and then letting them govern.
McCain may have more experience fighting insurgencies, or whatever it was that he did during the Vietnam War, but his recent statements suggest that he thinks we could have won if we had just stuck it out. So advice to "the Rookie" may also be applicable to McCain, and perhaps he and Terry in Post #11 should keep in mind that it was a Republican- President Nixon - who finally pulled the plug on that misadventure.