Obama May Postpone Afghan Surge;
Severe Problems in Supply Routes Afflict Aghanistan War Effort
While the attention of the US public and the news media here has been consumed (understandably enough) by the congressional debate over the economic stimulus plan, America's war in Afghanistan has nearly collapsed because of logistical problems.
First, the Taliban destroyed a crucial bridge west of Peshawar over which NATO trucks traveled to the Khyber Pass and into Afghanistan. 75% of US and NATO supplies for the war effort in Afghanistan are offloaded at the Pakistani port of Karachi and sent by truck through the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan. Then the Taliban burned 10 trucks carrying such materiel, to demonstrate their control over the supply route of their enemy. The Taliban can accomplish these breathtaking operations against NATO in Pakistan in large part because Pakistani police and military forces are unwilling to risk much to help distant foreign America beat up their cousins. That reluctance is unlikely to change with any rapidity.
Well, you might say, there are other ways to get supplies to Afghanistan. But remember it is a landlocked country. Its neighbors with borders on the state are Pakistan, China, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan; Kyrgyzstan is close enough to offer an air route. Pakistan is the most convenient route, and it may be at an end. China's short border is up in the Himalayas and not useful for transport. Tajikistan is more remote than Afghanistan. The US does not have the kind of good relations with Iran that would allow use of that route for military purposes. A Turkmenistan route would depend on an Iran route, so that is out, too.
So what is left? Uzbekistan and (by air) Kyrgyzstan, that's what.
More bad news. Kyrgyzstan has made a final decision to deny the US further use of the Manas military base, from which the US brought 500 tons of materiel into Afghanistan every month. It is charged that Russia used its new oil and gas wealth to bribe Kyrgyzstan to exclude the US, returning the area to its former status as a Russian sphere of influence. (Presumably this would also be payback for US and NATO expansion on Russia's European and Caucasian borders).
Then there was one. The US has opened negotiations with Uzbekistan, which had given Washington use of a base 2002-2005 but ended that deal after it massacred protesters at Andizhon in 2005. Some Uzbeks charged that the US had promoted an "Orange Revolution" style uprising similar to the one in the Ukraine against Uzbek stongman Islam Karimov. But even if the US could get a stable relationship with Karimov, the Uzbeks are not offering to be the transit route for military materiel, only for nonlethal food, medicine and other items.
In the light of these logistical problems (which are absolutely central to the prospects for success of the Afghanistan War), and given that no clear, attainable, finite mission in Afghanistan has ever been enunciated by US civil or military leaders, it is no wonder that President Barack Obama is reported to be putting the "Afghan surge" or the sending of 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan on hold until a clearer mission can be formulated. TheTimes of London writes:
' The president was concerned by a lack of strategy at his first meeting with Gates and the US joint chiefs of staff last month in “the tank”, the secure conference room in the Pentagon. He asked: “What’s the endgame?” and did not receive a convincing answer. '
and adds, 'Leading Democrats fear Afghanistan could become Obama’s “Vietnam quagmire”.'
This is a warning that I have voiced, in Salon.
And make sure to read Tom Engelhardt's essential essay on Afghanistan as the graveyard of empires.
Aljazeera English reports on the blocking of the supply routes in Pakistan used by NATO to send materiel to Afghanistan, by Taliban in Pakistan. Just a note on the high quality both of the report and the discussion, which includes former State Department South Asia analyst Marvin Weinbaum, former head of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Lt Gen (Ret.) Asad Durrani, and former Afghan/Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Mulla Abdul Salam Zaeef. You would almost never get this range of opinion in expert comment on such an issue on American corporate news. Aljazeera's philosophy, of allowing all sides of an issue to be heard, seems to me far superior to the American approach of having a US centrist debate a US far-right conservative about foreign policy (typically even an American left voice is absent over here).
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/08/2009 01:13:00 AM
|
Facebook
19 Comments:
Does my wish for American failure in South Asia make me moral and ethical or anti-american ?
NATO and the Americans should pull out, and quickly, because they are making things worse -- not just because of logistics.
Afghanistan's security can only be provided locally by tribal chiefs. Money should be given directly to them, trusting that they would look after their own as they will.
Having reduced tensions and paid towards construction, Afghanistan can creep from the middle ages and into the modern era. Only then do institutions and democracy become instruments to serve the people rather than the leaders and their foriegn enablers.
Surprise: Cole seems NOT to know that Kyrgyzstan has NO BORDER with Afghanistan. Manas is an airport, not a truck depot. Logistically, it could be replaced with an airport in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, or Turkmenistan. Politically, such a replacement might not allow military supplies.
If we wanted to see a self-sustaining and stable Afghanistan, we would focus upon penetrating and organizing every community so that they could and wanted to collaborate to obtain security and develop their wellbeing.
The side that is least effective politically is the side that will escalate the use of the military. Following that, the side that has to escalate the use of the military will inevitably lose the conflict.
The insurgents live and advance their cause because they recruit self-sustaining support from the local communities. That is the underlying source of competition.
Supply routes are a distraction that do not lead to anything better for the people or for winning the conflict.
The loss of supply routes illuminate our ineptitude to collaborate with the Afghan people.
One other point---From my personal experiences, dealing with Afghan people is a real delight. This whole experience could have contained many good experiences that would have been a source of building something sustainable. I think we continue to miss that opportunity.
Bob Spencer
Dr. Cole - You are not hearing 'left' in US news because we have sunk to an odd 'cable' world wherein the political skew is entirely dependent on which 'station' you are watching. There is plenty of 'left' on MSNBC (or Comedy Central *L). It has become almost entertaining to watch both Olberman and Hannity on the same night and laugh out loud at the difference in attitude.
Also - if you could, the Iraq election results are fine using percentages - but I'm curious what the 'counts' might have been had we arrived at this point more peacefully. Surely the dead and displaced (including some 4000 Americans) should have their sacrifices noted - and "Was it worth this?" (lives and money) needs to be asked.
this story is kind of at odds with Obama delaying the surge, taking a second look, etc etc.
In an effort to strike at a key income source for Taliban militants, the top NATO commander said that operations to attack drug lords and labs in Afghanistan will begin within the "next several days."
General John Craddock, who also heads the US European Command, also said that the US and its allies are making progress in their efforts to fill the need for more troops, equipment and intelligence gathering in Afghanistan. He, however, would not disclose any specific commitments he got this weekend as world leaders met at a security conference here.
coinky dink i am sure that the top NATO commander just happens to be an amerikan and the need for this operation just happens to coincide with the amerikans being in charge.
and how many more years are we going to read / hear of the US European Command. how many more years will the amerikans occupy europe, the pacific, etc etc ??? really tired of amerikan empire efforts.
It may be said that "we" took took "our" eye off of the ball but it has to be recalled that not all of us were in the "we" group. There were enough people who made the critical observation that Afghanistan was an almost impossible nut to crack, if not because of the geography and the cultural imperatives, then because of the history that the 'West' has had in the region. It doesn't take too much effort to understand that most of the history is orally transmitted in underdeveloped countries, fathers and sons sitting around the hearth or campfire, relating stories of the past aggressions and egressions of the imperialist invaders, namely those of the 'English' extraction, if the interlopers are identified only by a like language and vocabulary set.
There is always the crucial issue in the minds of men, that existential question, 'Why am I here?' To the Afghan fathers and sons, generations past, present, and future, it will come down to how well they fought for their ways of life, how they repelled the influences of the 'West' or the 'East' to maintain the integrity of their 'kind.' Instilled in the young and old alike is the sense of pride in who they are and what they represent, if only in a limited context of their immediate surroundings. And what matters more than that? Are not all politics 'local'?
We have to understand the other side, the will and the resolve of the invaders, how important it is for them to prevail and establish some sort of irrefutable marker of success with the projects and missions at hand. The old adage has it, 'You break it, you buy it.' Equally true is 'You buy it, you get to break it.' It might be understood that the Americans (and to a lesser extent, the COWs (Coalition of the Willings)) will effect the last round-up of the Afghans.
All that may have been happening so far has been a little coaxing, wheedling, or cajoling the indigenous people into accepting what the Americans have had to offer. 'What is the endgame?' may be a question tht offers many avenues of approach and several many solutions. The old notions of 'empire' had the limitations of their intelligence (mental acuity as well as information gathering skills) whereas the Americans have mapped every square centimetre of the land and can probably track the movements of any Omar or Fatima at any hour of the day or week. The purpose of being in Afghanistan probably has more to inure the populace to a kind of presence as it does to prosecute a conflict. Wearing in as well as wearing down.
While it can be said that GWB managed to do more to break the backbone of the United States (outdoing his own younger brother in the financial world, comparing Silverado to the 'Bailout' of the 'Bubbles'), it can be also maintained that GWB was unsuccessful, as in most of his life's endeavours. Perhaps bruised and battered, yes, but GWB forgot (and JMcC forgets) that the United States was and is NOT his 'bitch,' nor is any other country or group of people, beginning always with the Americans.
It was easy to predict th course of the eight years of 43s pResidency; the next years of 44 will be easier to predict when understanding the context of who 'Obama' is. While Younger George rarely if ever engaged in any sports other than to cheerlead from the sidelines, Barry O does participate in contact sports, even as an amateur. Barry O knows what a goal is and the sweat and toil to achieve it, even at two points at a time. 'W' never had this sense of discipline, expecting everyone else to do it for him, getting dirty on his behalf, never having to be in shirtsleeves other than to beat the Louisiana heat following one of his greater failures.
While the Afghans might be ones for trasmitting their histories from generaton to generation, the Bushes apparently have had some sort of long-standing communicaton gap, the father not being able to impart to the son the need for prudence of action. Again, the father had some combat experience whereas the son combatted experience overall, dimming and numbing his senses with all manner of substances and influences, from the bottle to the Bible. This period of history, 'W' and his story, is ending, the end-game coming when a real American can retake the prestige of the United States to others around the World.
Alamaine/8th Feb 2009
Good. Maybe we call it a day on the endless war plan.
Get all US troops out of the ME, Asia and elsewhere then concentrate on fixing the United States. Devote whatever resources are required to get into the clean electricity production business. It's a product that is in universal and eternal demand. Export electricity to Russia using undersea cables via the Aleutian Islands => Siberia route. Export electricity to Continental Europe via the Canada => Greenland => Iceland or Svalbard => Norway => Denmark route.
Stop meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations, adjust our economy to produce a product that's a necessity of life that never goes out of fashion and we won't need to perpetually support an overseas legion and trillions of dollars worth of hi-tech weaponry.
.
If the King had more horses and men, he could put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Standard Pentagon response the the question: How come.....?
President Obama will make a serious mistake by doubling troops in Afghanistan. This folly will rank with President Johnson's in Vietnam. Increasing troops did not help there and it will not help in Afghanistan.
The Russians had 150,000 troops and far more armament and firepower than US and NATO plan to have and still they lost.
The Afghan problem is political and not a military one. The majority population of this country is Pashtun and yet NATO and Washington have handed power to minority non-Pashtuns. As long as this situation continues NATO cannot succeed. No doubt Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun, but a majority of his Government is not. Also, the CIA had this brilliant idea of allowing Afghans to grow poppy again thinking that will keep them happy, instead they are using the cash to finance the Taliban. It is reported that Karzai's own brother is a drug lord. No wonder his power and control is limited to Kabul.
What needs to happen is that Pashtuns need to get their fare share of power and that should include the moderate elements of Taliban (who are Pashtun). Unless the balance of power is restored NATO will continue to fail.
And remember, Taliban are Afghans, so how can foreign powers fight the locals and win. The solution is political and not military.
Quagmire of empires:
A factor that's often left out of the 'Afghan surge' talk is that our ground forces are significantly more worn and overextended in Jan 2009 than they were in Jan 2007, when Petraeus/Gates' gamble took us 'all in'. Many of the 150,000 US troops in Iraq are still serving 15 month 'surge' tours, and none will be availble for Iraq duty until 2010. Our ground force is exhausted and expended.
The Great Petraeus is a general who was not shy about jawboning press and congress, to secure and throw his 'surge' troops into the heaviest combat of that war. He's been remarkeably silent since getting booted up to CentCom command, and inheriting 'the other war'.
Tom Ricks ("Fiasco", "The Gamble") today stated his refinement on the 'Barack's VN' analogy; that the appelation is more properly appled over the Durand Line/border. Pakistan's part of pashtunland is regarded by Petraeus advisers as the strategic center of our 'Afghan' war.
Our military success in Afghanistan depends on the Pakistani army's fight. Like our army in 2003, the Pakis trained for mainforce action against India, not COIN in the tribal areas.
Our primary interest is in their shaky government's control of Paki nukes. It's not at all clear how the war that Obama inherits is aligned with our strategic imperatives.
For another take on Obama's Vietnam dilemma see "Obama's Vietnam Plus?" at :
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/01/obamas-vietnam-plus-fb-ali.html#comments
Dr Cole, what would happen if NATO pulled up stakes and left Afghanistan overnight?
I am tired of all of the chickenshit bombing that comprises the bulk of our foreign policy efforts.
I find it interesting to contrast the trillion-dollar giveaways each year to the pentagon and some sorry wars with the resources allocated to improving infrastructure in the United States.
We can so easily and without care lose trillions in the Pentagon budget, drop billions of dollars of lethal weapons, yet cannot even keep minimum funding to our social institutions and infrastructure.
I heard Greg Mortenson (Three Cups of Tea) speak last night. He expressed anguish about 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and the reaction of the people. He believes an influx of peaceful assistance is preferable. Of course, that will be a slower process because we need to ensure corruption is held to a minimum and there is buy-in from local people who will benefit. But - Afghanistan will be a long, slow process no matter which approach we take.
I appreciate the logistics problem, but the simplest solution seems to build an airport (or two) in Afghanistan. In addition to meeting short term logistical needs for the coalition forces, it would also allow non-military aid to flow into the country and would also give the country a modern airport or two. This would seem to be a much better alternative than dealing with some of Afghanistan's neighbors and their airports.
This is an interesting article by Pakistan's Imran Khan:
http://pkpolitics.com/2009/01/29/an-open-letter-from-imran-khan-to-us-president-obama/
Anonymous mentions, Greg Mortenson and his book "Three Cups of Tea", which should be required reading.
Gen. Petraaeus is reported to be a Mortenson reader and fan. The general offered a cryptic reference to the 'many cups of tea' it will take to form hundreds of new local alliances in Afghanistan.
Perhaps Obama will surprise me by not "surging" against the Afghans, but I doubt it. Helen Thomas asked him at his first press conference to identify any Middle Eastern countries known to already possess nuclear weapons.
Not only did Obama lamely dodge her--saying he wouldn't "speculate" in that fashion, as if speculation were needed to state facts--but when Thomas tried to call him on his evasive and opaque (hardly "transparent") reply by pointing out that her question required no "speculation," her microphone went dead and Obama hurriedly called on someone else.
But here's the real stunner: Neither NPR (M. Eliason) nor the NY Times, in what purported to be full coverage of the press conference the next day (2/10/09), reported Thomas's question or Obama's evasion! This is the equivalent of the Soviet news media's airbrushing "enemies of the people" out of news photos. Totalitarian journalistic techniques and a "leader of the free world" who can't state a plain fact give me no reasons to be optimistic about the Obama administration's diplomacy in Afghanistan.--John Woodford, Ann Arbor
Post a Comment
<< Home