Another Afghani Surge…
Recent political precedent — and just modern American politics in general — all but ruled out any Presidential decision on Afghanistan other then a surge in violence and troop levels. Historical precedent has never been a modern military guide and Afghanistan is no exception.
The examples set by the British and Russian experience or — for that matter — our own 16 year experience there should be all our President and Congress need to know. That said, history is easy to ignore. It is just an intellectual consideration and has no real constituency beyond historians and no historian has been President in quite some time.
So we are left with the tension between what is practical and what works politically. And since Presidents and Congresspersons are politicians by definition, you can easily guess what guides these decisions.
Adding to the tunnel vision of these limited options, note carefully the way President Trump described the decision making process. He consulted with his generals and his national security team which is primarily made up of ex-generals, as is his Chief of Staff. Is it a wonder that the solution comes out military when all you discuss is military solutions? By the same logic, if all you consult is Plumbers, then every problem in your house must be a leaky pipe. But, of course, we know this is not true.
The other irony in all this is the notion that somehow we “lost” or are “losing” Afghanistan. But that begs the question: What is the objective?
As is so often said, the idea is to deny terrorists a friendly state in which to hide and train. But hasn’t that been achieved? No attack on the US has been launch in any way from Afghanistan since 9/11. More to the point, is the only way to prevent an attack in the future through a heavy military presence or occupation?
As to the safe haven aspect of our security concerns, the real issue is the remote areas of Pakistan. No matter what we do in Afghanistan, those that wish to escape can simply leave the country or — for that matter — melt back into the population. So once again, it is unclear what we can achieve with a less then complete military subjugation of Afghanistan that also includes excursions into Pakistan.
What I am advocating here is not complete ignorance of this nation’s threat to our security but one that dramatically decreases of financial and physical “in-country” military commitment. Afghanistan is a remote, isolated country with a simple economy. It can be carefully monitored and contained from outside its borders.
In the worst case senecio, absolutely nothing prevents us from engaging in a military strike that targets a camp or certain key individuals. All comings and going of Afghanis into the West can be monitored and coordinated as can their exports. Military and police training can be given through a “train the trainer” program rather then the current hand holding approach.
What we lack is the will and the imagination to try something on a tactical level that was accomplished at a strategic level. Remember the Soviet Bloc? It was was isolated and contained and then toppled with no direct military effort. That is not to minimize the proxy wars that cost so many lives but it will never be clear that they were necessary to the overall strategic goal.
Sadly, the political expedient of demonstrating military might to achieve some illusionary and far off “victory” has driven and continues to drive this wrongheaded approach. But who are we flexing our might for? The people of Afghanistan? They either want to be left alone or should be left alone to make their own history.
Rather, the might on display is for American consumption in one way or another. You can certainly look at that cynically but if history is any guide at all, this will get old. Just look at what happened to our nation as Vietnam and Iraq dragged on.
