Foreign Policy Blogs

General David Petraeus Meets the Press

By now nearly every media outlet has written up comments about General David Petraeus’s interview with David Gregory on Meet the Press. Indeed, I have as well, in my other role as way-ward political artist.  For now, though I’d like comment on General Petraeus’ deeply analytical understanding of the current situation in Afghanistan.

Mr. Gregory did not fail to ask General David Petraeus whether he though victory in Afghanistan was a substantive concept.

What does victory in Afghanistan mean? What does loss mean?

General Petraeus’s answer (repeated, often at length) was that victory is a sum accumulation of progress, where progress is defined piece-meal, a series of moves at driving out the Taliban in areas of interest, reconciling those who would lay down their arms and swear fealty to the Constitution of Afghanistan.

But more importantly, the structure of progress is one of a virtuous cycle–that much was obvious, ex ante–of expectations. Defeat the enemy, clear and hold the ground and move in such a way that the current victory reinforcing the possibility and expectation of victory in the next round of fighting.   Parlay one occasion of triumphant defeat of the enemy in one field of combat into numerous occasions of victory against the same enemy and his syndicates (the Taliban is surely a syndicate, much like Chicago Capone gang).

Using some mechanism that establishes a virtuous cycle as laid out, the ISAF will then spread the boundaries of a modestly secure zone from Kabul to the Southern reaches of Afghanistan and then further Northward.

Victory then is to systematically spread security throughout the land like an oil spot, that spreads throughout a ruddy carpet. Note that General Petraeus failed to point out that an oil spot is invariable thicker, harder to erase in the middle , its point of focus and that the oil stain–here, security–runs shallower, the further the spot extends.

All this implies a respectable outcome to this war is years away; there’s yet more blood and money to pay and the net result may not be a thick cordoned off, secure war that might necessarily prevent the Taliban’s return to decisive power.

Finally, to add madness to worry, the 2012 political clock beats in time against every move that General Petraeus might possibly plan to ensure even an unsettled  peace in Afghanistan.

 

Author

Faheem Haider

Faheem Haider is a political analyst, writer and artist. He holds advanced research degrees in political economy, political theory and the political economy of development from the London School of Economics and Political Science and New York University. He also studied political psychology at Columbia University. During long stints away from his beloved Washington Square Park, he studied peace and conflict resolution and French history and European politics at the American University in Washington DC and the University of Paris, respectively.

Faheem has research expertise in democratic theory and the political economy of democracy in South Asia. In whatever time he has to spare, Faheem paints, writes, and edits his own blog on the photographic image and its relationship to the political narrative of fascist, liberal and progressivist art.

That work and associated writing can be found at the following link: http://blackandwhiteandthings.wordpress.com