For the past few months, the war in Afghanistan has been seen as the ‘Right War’ by the American politicians and media. John McCain and Barack Obama both have called for greater troop strength in the conflict and have shown unwavering support in the US/NATO mission there; to defeat the insurgency/Taliban and create a viable, strong, liberal democratic Afghan state. I myself have been a strong advocate of these as well. But I’ve also been troubled by what I believe is a lack of communication by the Bush administration, the presidential candidates, and the media to layout just how challenging this mission is the broader public. Defeating the Taliban on their hometurf, bringing federal government to the Pashtun areas, and setting up and solidifying a democratic and strong Afghan state are all tremendously ambitious goals. Goals that will take a great amount of sacrifice in Western aid, lives, and time. We need to continue to ask ourselves, is this worth it? (to cut to the chase I believe it is)
Bartle Breese Bull, editor of Prospect Magazine, brought up this issue and question in a recent editorial. His words; “But what are the real prospects for turning fractious, impoverished Afghanistan into an orderly and prosperous nation and a potential ally of the US? What true American interests are being insufficiently advanced or defended in its remote deserts and mountains? And even if these interests are really so broad, are they deliverable at an acceptable price? The answers to these questions put the wisdom of an Afghan surge into great question.” Bull proceeds to list four central American interests in Afghanistan (denying terrorists sanctuary, project American power in the region, support modernity in the global struggle for the Muslim world, and stop heroin exports) and comes to the conclusion that the West can accomplishes these with a maximum of 20,000 troops, strong intelligence, airbases, a strong Afghan army, and by aiding the Afghan government generously. Bull does not see Afghanistan in the same critical light as Bush, Obama, McCain, and most others do, calling the nation's global importance ‘negligible’ and a ‘backwater of the Muslim faith.’ Bull's recommendations and assertions are controversial, and I disagree with a great many of them, but he has helped deepen the debate as to what are our interests in the region and how much we are committed to accomplishing them. Will more troops help the situation, or in fact make it worse (as Bull points out, as the West's troops have increased in the conflict so has the Taliban's insurgency and bloodshed)? Do we know what victory will look like? Bull obviously views the situation through realist/American strategic interests eyes, and this misses the strides taken by Afghan society, such as girls now receiving schooling, and the possible impact a free, open Afghan government and society would have on the greater Central Asian region.
The US/NATO need to have firm answers to these basic questions; what are true interests, what will it take to accomplish them, and are willing to pay the costs?
Georgia
Here is the latest update on the ceasefire and Russia's possible circumventing of it.
I may have been too easy on the US/West policy toward Georgia leading up to the recent conflict in my earlier posts, so here are a couple critical articles: Gerhard Schroder, ‘Serious Mistakes by the West,’ Andrew Bacevich ‘Russia's Payback.’ Here is a piece from the London Times critiquing Europe's lack of clout and flimsy diplomacy. Lastly, National Defense University professor and Central Asian expert Eugene Rumer discusses how important it will be for the West to ease Russia back down from this conflict.
