Petraeus' dubious strategy in Afghanistan

[Herman]

Yeah, its funny how he turned into a flaming neocon the minute he swore the oath.

It's in the code. It's automatic.

[drogulus]

     We can lose Afghanistan in a meaningful sense, so not losing it to the Taliban/Al Qaeda is a kind of victory. I see the problem with this war in its resemblance to most of the guerilla wars that have troubled us. It's hard to win wars where the enemy has sanctuaries in neighboring countries, in this case Pakistan.

     We probably won't be able to turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy any time soon. I'd be happy if they could get back to where they were in the '70s when the country was at peace. There were pockets of modernity in a primitive land. If we could get stability and keep building schools (especially for girls) the Afghans will eventually modernize on their own.

     

     Is this failure or success? Right now I'd say it depends on whether we continue to take our rotten medication and do what we have to do, or decide that what we're fighting for is too costly (meaningless? No, I don't buy that) and leave the field.

     About Iran, war will happen sometime next year if the Iranians don't change course. There won't be an invasion, except perhaps in Lebanon.

[DavidRoss]

COIN misdiagnoses the root cause of America's Middle Eastern difficulties. The U.S. is the target of Islamic terrorists because of its regional policies like support for corrupt regimes, its one-sided stance on the Israeli/Palestinian problem, its heavy politico-military presence, and the fact that the U.S. appears to many in the Middle East to be the imperial successor in the region to the French and British who once dominated it. As Andrew Mack, currently on the faculty of the School of International Studies at Simon Fraser University, pointed out in a classic article 35 years ago, there is a good reason that big states lose small wars: The forces of national and religious identity are stronger than the will of outside powers — powers that, inevitably one day will go home.

On its own terms, COIN is a problematic policy. Even more worryingly, it sets exactly the wrong grand strategic priorities for the United States. In an ironic coincidence, the same morning leading newspapers carried reports of Gen. Petraeus' remarks, another headline announced that China has overtaken Japan as the world's second largest economic power and is on track to overtake the U.S. by 2030 (indeed perhaps as soon as 2020, according to many leading experts). In the early 21st century, East Asia is becoming the world's geopolitical and economic fulcrum, and it is U.S. air and naval power that will be needed to meet the emerging challenge from China. That is where America's long-term grand strategic interests lie —- not in fighting futile Eurasian land wars in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Christopher Layne, the Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security at Texas A&M University's Bush School of Government and Public Service, is writing a book on the collapse of the Pax Americana.

Nice to see some common sense analysis for a change.  Layne's book may be a worthwhile read.  Hope I live long enough to enjoy a comfortable bleacher seat for the coming battle between superpower China and expansionist Islam. 

[drogulus]

Yeah, its funny how he turned into a flaming neocon the minute he swore the oath. 

      He turned into the President. I said this would happen, and it has nothing to do with these prefab categories. They're useful in debates, as an indication of a tendency to lean in a particular direction.

     

The U.S. is the target of Islamic terrorists because of its regional policies like support for corrupt regimes, its one-sided stance on the Israeli/Palestinian problem, its heavy politico-military presence, and the fact that the U.S. appears to many in the Middle East to be the imperial successor in the region to the French and British who once dominated it.

     Yes, our enemies hate us because we're against them, we're powerful, and we have interests that conflict with theirs. We support Israel, oppose Islamism even when it doesn't directly attack us, support shitty Arab dictatorships because the alternatives are worse, and we're either godless or Christian or Jewish and therefore worthy of death.

     We won't leave the Middle East. No successor to the current administration will do more than tinker with our foreign policy. It's goals are permanent, though there are different means that can be used, invading one country and staying out of another, often staying out in order to go somewhere else.

[Todd]

Hope I live long enough to enjoy a comfortable bleacher seat for the coming battle between superpower China and expansionist Islam.

Any such conflict would not be for the faint of heart, or for those who support human rights.

Perhaps I'm too skeptical for my own good, but people talk and write about China as a superpower like it's either already happened, or that nothing could derail it.  But remember that in the 1980s people were saying and writing, with great certainty, that Japan was going eat America's lunch, and overtake the US as the leading economic and financial power in the world.  Germany was not far behind.  Of course, this time really is different.

[drogulus]

Any such conflict would not be for the faint of heart, or for those who support human rights.

Perhaps I'm too skeptical for my own good, but people talk and write about China as a superpower like it's either already happened, or that nothing could derail it.  But remember that in the 1980s people were saying and writing, with great certainty, that Japan was going eat America's lunch, and overtake the US as the leading economic and financial power in the world.  Germany was not far behind.  Of course, this time really is different.

     Japan is still a semi-occupied country with a pacifist constitution written by an American viceroy. It's funny, but a declining Japan might again become a military power if they sense that we want to go home.

     I think India-Pakistan is more likely than China-India. The Chinese are cautious, and they might let Pakistan fight for them. Also, both India and Pakistan are riddled with religious extremists willing to kill a hundred million innocents for their holy cause.

[bwv 1080]

   

     

     Is this failure or success? Right now I'd say it depends on whether we continue to take our rotten medication and do what we have to do, or decide that what we're fighting for is too costly (meaningless? No, I don't buy that) and leave the field.

     About Iran, war will happen sometime next year if the Iranians don't change course. There won't be an invasion, except perhaps in Lebanon.

Yes, and the poor Afghan kids will miss out on the smiling GI's giving them candy as well.

Given the cost of $337 billion relative to a population of $28 million that comes out to 12K per Afghan (about $1500/per year of the war - 3x the per capita GDP) and all that has happened is more education and some health clinics (which must not amount to much, as the infant mortality and life expectancy has not improved) 

[bwv 1080]

Nice to see some common sense analysis for a change.  Layne's book may be a worthwhile read.  Hope I live long enough to enjoy a comfortable bleacher seat for the coming battle between superpower China and expansionist Islam.

Hard to see how China becomes and expansionist power, they never have been historically

Unless the Chinese start allowing mass immigration from the middle east, which hardly seems likely, their conflicts with Islam will remain limited to their Western provinces

[DavidRoss]

But remember that in the 1980s people were saying and writing, with great certainty, that Japan was going eat America's lunch, and overtake the US as the leading economic and financial power in the world.

Really?  No one remotely sane, at least not that I recall.

And, yes, China really is different.

[DavidRoss]

Hard to see how China becomes and expansionist power, they never have been historically

That's not what I said, although economic expansionism seems likely.  We uncorked a pretty potent genie.

Unless the Chinese start allowing mass immigration from the middle east, which hardly seems likely, their conflicts with Islam will remain limited to their Western provinces

Let's revisit this in 4 or 5 decades.

[Todd]

Japan is still a semi-occupied country with a pacifist constitution written by an American viceroy. It's funny, but a declining Japan might again become a military power if they sense that we want to go home.

I don't recall anyone stating that Japan would supplant the US as a military power, just as an economic power.  There was definitely a sense that it was inevitable, at least until it didn't happen.  I see much of the same kind of writing now about China.  Will China be able to overcome the longer term demographic problems caused by thirty years (!) of the one child policy, and move away from obviously inefficient economic planning, and address issues with education to continue growing into the future without end?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  They will also have to contend with India and Russia and Japan and the US in the coming decades.  None of this precludes Chinese primacy, but none of it guarantees it, either.

I think India-Pakistan is more likely than China-India.

What does this refer to? 

Hard to see how China becomes and expansionist power, they never have been historically

Hmm, are you saying that the Han Chinese have always occupied the entire land mass between the Pamirs and the Pacific?

Really?  No one remotely sane, at least not that I recall.

The claims were quite fashionable among some intellectuals, most notably some ardent declinists.  At the time, Japanese GDP was about 80% of US GDP and still growing.  Times have certainly changed.

[drogulus]

Yes, and the poor Afghan kids will miss out on the smiling GI's giving them candy as well.

     I understand that anti-imperialism depends on a hostile characterization of our supposed good intentions as a mask for our bad intentions, but it's feeble. All of our intentions are real, to help others and ourselves.

     Helping others is often a good way to help ourselves, to be sure, but then it isn't a good idea to dissect altruism, especially for the purpose of showing how phoney it is. It's easy to do that with motives, which tend to be mixed. I think it's naive to do that, a form of false sophistication.

     You can even do that with the Taliban. They're just freedom fighters, right? Of course there's the little matter of throwing acid in the faces of girls going to school, but then those Afghans have a hard life, so let's show a little cultural sensitivity. After all, we're not perfect. This is the attitude that the left adopts to avoid the unbearable dilemma of siding with the Western powers against third world monsters. If fighting fascism is opposing U.S. policy then it can't be fighting real fascists. Somehow that must be ruled out.

     Anyway, I was pointing out that while Afghanistan is a mixed picture, there are real gains that are worth defending and extending. In time the future of the country will be determined by a new generation that received education due to our efforts. Conservatives always mock these efforts, and they are always wrong to do so. Now the left does it too, to avoid the horrific conclusion that Western intervention is better than leaving Afghans to their fate.

What does this refer to? 

     The Chinese aren't likely to confront the U.S. directly. They might improve their relative position in the world by crippling India. Pakistan has its own reasons for fighting the Indians, so they wouldn't just be acting for the Chinese.