Barack Obama has a column in today’s New York Times that lays out his strategy for a phased withdrawal from Iraq. He remains firm in his commitment to withdraw, despite recent remarks that he is going to visit Iraq with an open-mind.
That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.
On this crucial point, Obama remains unequivocal. Juan Cole has mostly praise for Obama’s position, but he also has a couple of critiques. I agree with Cole that a residual force to fight Sunni extremists is probably unworkable. I also agree that the Iraqi Interior Ministry will probably develop as the most lethal enemy of al-Qaeda-type operators possible. On the other hand, if the U.S. can develop a good working relationship with the Iraqi intelligence services, it’s possible that some ready strike forces could be maintained in Iraq (probably in Kurdistan). I wouldn’t rule anything out, and Obama is at least partially taking his position as a counterpoint to talk of ‘defeat’ and ‘surrender’.
After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.
As a political matter, this is probably smart. As an operational matter, the merits will lie in the details. The important thing is that we have a commitment and a plan to withdraw our occupation forces. When it comes to Afghanistan, however, I think Juan Cole is too glib. I agree with his cautionary advice about following in the steps of the Russian forces and in his skepticism that we are really fighting the Taliban there. I don’t agree that Afghanistan is more ‘unwinnable’ than Iraq.
I don’t know whether Senator Obama really wants to try to militarily occupy Afghanistan even more than is now being attempted. I wish he would talk to some old Russian officers who were there in the 1980s first. Of course, it may be that this announced strategy is political and for the purposes of having something to say when McCain accuses him of surrendering in Iraq.
If the Afghanistan gambit is sincere, I don’t think it is good geostrategy. Afghanistan is far more unwinnable even than Iraq. If playing it up is politics, then it is dangerous politics.
The history of post-Soviet occupied Afghanistan is complex and tragic. In the simplest terms, there has not been a leader that could unify the country that was also acceptable to outside powers. As the most populous ethnic group, the Pashtuns have to consent to any government. They would not consent to being led by the Tajik warlords Ahmed Shah Massoud and Ismail Khan, nor by the Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum. And, in any case, those warlords were always more aligned with Iran and Russia than with the United States. Unfortunately, the United States’ Afghan policy, prior to 9/11, was always deferential to the interests of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. And both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supported Pashtun warlords at the same time they were pumping an extremely radical and dangerous version of violent Islam into the Talibs (or religious students) that made up the ranks of their armies.
But not all Pashtuns are radicals. Tribal leaders like Hamid Karzai (Durrani Tribe) and Abdul Haq (Ahmadzai Tribe) were allying themselves with the Tajik leader Massoud just prior to Massoud’s assassination on Sept. 10, 2001. This was the only secular (or, at least, moderate) kind of anti-Taliban coalition possible at the time. They had support from Russia and Iran, and they had good relations with the U.S. intelligence community. What they didn’t have is the powerful patrons in DC that could compete with the Saudis and the Pakistanis.
Our mission in Afghanistan is not to occupy the country or to somehow achieve ‘victory’. Our mission is to prevent the Afghan government from reverting back to a Pakistani/vassalage condition, where radical Pashtuns turn the country into a living nightmare for its citizens and a sanctuary from which Pakistan can train terrorists to attack Kashmir and other countries, including the U.S. and Europe. This is not a matter of setting up some puppet government. The only government possible in Afghanistan is a puppet of someone. I’d rather have a regime there that is supported by Russia, China, India, Europe, and Iran, than have one that is supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It’s that simple. And it’s doable. It’s doable because it isn’t America acting alone in defiance of world opinion. Rolling back the surge in radical Islamic terrorism means ending our support (or tolerance) for Saudi/Pakistani dominance of Afghanistan. If Afghanistan is ‘unwinnable’ it’s only because we are too weak and timid to challenge our old allies on their dissemination of a radically dangerous version of Islam.
Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam took away a tyrant, but it also took away a bulwark against radical Islam of both Sunni and Shi’a variety. Even worse, it acted as a major recruitment enticement. Afghanistan is different. Afghanistan desperately needed an international commitment to come in and prop up a multi-ethnic coalition run by a moderate Pashtun leader. It was the only possible way for them to end their nightmare. If we set limited goals and maintain and expand international support, we can succeed in Afghanistan at an acceptable cost. And it is justified by both humanitarian and national security grounds.
Well written and well reasoned Booman. I largely agree with your views here. I’m not sure the boo-hordes will know what to make of this, but that’s another story.
perhaps stunned silence?
I had read this over at Juan Cole’s this morning and was trying to let it sink in. Helpful to see your take on it as well.
The transition is difficult if your mind starts with the results of a foreign policy that thought if we just destroyed the infrastructure in Afghanistan and then paved a couple of roads and parked some MacDonald’s on the street corners that Afghanistan would fall all over itself to unite into one big democratic state.
I have an Afghan rug hanging on the wall next to me. Made about 5 years ago. An Idaho couple took it upon themselves to adopt a small village, whereupon they set up a school, a clinic and a water system with the members of the village. They share and develop designs with the villagers and believe me this looks nothing like what we think of as an oriental rug.
What the rug does speak to is geometry. Balance and continuity. All natural dyes. It’s a story rug. A young boy is leading his camels over the mountains to trade.
Surely the lesson of N. Korea opening its doors to the NY Philharmonic is a similar one.
Makes sense to me. It is the most cogent analysis of the Afgan situation I have seen to date. The question is if Obama would follow such a policy, especially the aspect of standing up to Pakistani and Saudi interests. What I see lacking is a strategy to eventually win the support of the Pashtun. Had we followed such a policy from 2002 to now we would likely be a long ways down the road. It will be much harder now, but Afghanistan is not something we can safely let be.
I read the Cole post this morning and hummed Amen to this:
Mark those words as prophetic. We’ll get bogged down in the new quagmire:
Af/Pakistan In three years this will blow back.
From the outset it was a trap. My sympathies to the next president.
Afghanistan is an enormously difficult country to govern. But we have the basic formula right (or as right as it can be). We have a Pashtun government that is inclusive of ethnic minorities and that is hostile to Pakistan. In addition, it has support from Russia, China, Iran, and India. It also has support from Europe.
If we can’t stand up to Pakistan with that type of coalition, then we’re hopeless. And Afghanistan cannot be governed by other Pashtun tribes that want to kill Shi’ites and impose a Saudi Arabian style religious absolutism on everyone else.
All along, our problem was been an alliance with the Saudis and a tolerance for Pakistan’s use of indoctrination to man-up armies to attack India. We already saw the blowback from that, and we’ve already seen what Afghanistan looks like when no one power can lay claim to power.
It’s a mess. It will remain a mess. But it was a much bigger mess in 2001.
I’m curious what Obama would do with that ridiculous fortress/embassy that we’re building in Iraq. It’s clearly there to act as the command-and-control center
for the protection of the Western oil cartel that hopes to make a killing pumping Iraqi oil. This amounts to a massive taxpayer subsidy of the oil industry. Here’s what it looks like-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm
The size of that embassy is absolutely ridiculous… unless you were planning it as your central fortress and command center for a long-term, such as McCain’s famous hundred years, occupation of a foreign country. Which I always assumed was exactly what it was.
A fortified chunk of Americana in the middle of Iraq, so that those guarding the oil company interests don’t need to interact with the natives… except when absolutely necessary.
A monument to American arrogance. In my humble opinion.
This was a very insightful piece. It’s a point I have tried to point out to people in different circumstances.
Ostensibly, the people we are fighting against are Sunni Salafi extremists. These people have always gotten aid and comfort in varying degrees from the military intelligence of Pakistan and from some people in the Saudi government, even as the Saudis (as you point out) have openly sponsored this brand of extremism.
Yet this point has been entirely neglected in the press as has our strong historical connections with the Saudis and Pakistani generals. Notably, a similar conflict is brewing in Algeria now.
I did appreciate Juan Cole’s piece this morning. What Obama won’t (or perhaps can’t) address is the role our policies have played in multiple ways (either in helping to gin up Sunni extremism directly or ginning it up indirectly through having a military presence in the Middle East)in fomenting this situation. Nobody is willing to suggest that our fundamental outlook on policy is wrong and immoral. This point is the real third rail of American politics.
“He remains firm in his commitment to withdraw…
“a residual force to fight Sunni extremists is probably unworkable.
“
More to the point, it is the opposite of a withdrawal, and also the opposite to ending the “war”. You and Obama cannot have your cake and eat it to, and you cannot end the “war” and continue it at the same time.
“if the U.S. can develop a good working relationship with the Iraqi intelligence services, it’s possible that some ready strike forces could be maintained in Iraq (probably in Kurdistan).“
That is the antithesis of a withdrawal, and of ending the “war”.
Booman, what part of the phrase “end the ‘war'” and the word withdrawal is not clear to people who think a “residual force”, and “some ready strike forces in Iraq” satisfies them?
For a more critical view of Obama’s op ed check out Helena Cobban’s blog on the subject. Helena is an Obama supporter with a deep internal understanding of the Middle East that Juan Cole, for all his knowledge, lacks.
Don’t be sloppy.
It is anything but the opposite of a withdrawal.
Getting our occupying troops out is the paramount consideration. Renouncing permanent bases is also part of Obama’s editorial.
If all that remains is some force to keep peace in Kurdistan, some trainers (by Iraqi government consent), and a Delta Force or two to swoop in and kill assholes, then that is not an occupation.
All rhetoric aside, the Iraqis are going to be a vassal state for the time being and the only question is who they are going to pay tribute to. All their new equipment is American and they will either be trained in its use and be provided replacement parts, or they will become a vassal state of Iran and a constant appeaser of Turkey.
It should be their choice. But don’t kid yourself about the choice they will make. They want our occupying forces out, but they also want to protection. I don’t think there is much need for residual forces other than to keep a buffer with Turkey, but that’s for the Iraqi government to decide.
You call keeping a “residual force” of combat troops a withdrawal, and you call ME sloppy? You say getting the “occupying troops” out is paramount at the same time as endorsing keeping troops in Iraq, and you call ME sloppy?!
Booman, as long as there are ANY troops, combat or otherwise, in Iraq that is an occupation. That is the view of the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people. The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people WANT EVERY LAST AMERICAN TROOP OUT OF IRAQ. Screw the Iraqi make-believe government.
Your view is delusional and inconsistent. I don’t know whether your thinking is muddled, or whether you are just making excuses for Obama’s position.
That’s absurd. First of all, the issue is Iraqi sovereignty. If the government can make its own decisions there can be no occupation.
Come on, BooMan, don’t be naive. As long as there are troops in Iraq there will be no Iraqi sovereignty. And that make-believe government does not make its own decisions, and absolutely does not represent the people of Iraq.