![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Thoughts on Afghanistan
It's been over a week since the Obama speech, and the bullets have mostly stopped flying. For now.
I've spent some time ruminating over various arguments, especially from the strategic minded, and I've come to three conclusions on Afghanistan, none of which I particularly like. I know that nobody bothers to read what I write when it comes to news and politics, but here they are anyway.
1)People Care About Afghanistan Because of Other Places
A lot of people are concerned about what happens in Afghanistan, not because of Afghanistan itself, but because of its effect on other places. The most common concern I hear is people worried about the destabilizing effect that Afghanistan will have on Pakistan, but there are a host of others. People worry about its regional effects, on Iran, Russia, and India. People worry about the effects that a failure in Iran will have on the growth of the Jihadi movement, on the network of terror cells that seems to spread from Manila or Mogadishu and beyond, or on the prominence of Russia and China in central Asia.
Nobody seems to worry much about Afghanistan as Afghanistan. Nobody seems to have a conception that, even with an American "victory" that Afghanistan will become a valuable asset in the Global War on Terror, or even a valuable ally to the US. We do not forsee her people coming freely to the US in international brotherhood any time soon. We want to win in Afghanistan, not because Afghanistan is important to us, or her people appeal to us, but because if we do not, it will begin to destabilize other, more valuable locations. Afghanistan remains for the US not a friend to be saved, or an ally to be wooed, but the squeaky wheel that has to be tightened to keep the cart from falling apart. Which leads me to point number two:
2) Afghanistan Is Not the Country's Most Important Foreign Concern
If you believe that Afghanistan is important because of the effect that it has on Pakistan, then you logically consider the stability and safety of Pakistan to be more important then that of Afghanistan. But even laying aside the AfPak ball of wax, there seems to be a lot of other issues on people's minds. Stephen Walt has a whole list of areas he thinks are more important, but everyone seems to have a few things on their mind. Whether you are Walt and worried about US responses to the inevitable rise of East Asia, and our shifting relationship with our traditional allies and enemies, whether you are going to ruminate on the India Question, whether you get worried about the regional power blocks and are thinking about BRIC (or BIC, as I prefer to think about it), you have something else to worry about. Hell, even if you worry about Barnett's idea of the Core and the Gap dominating 21st century politics, there are other holes in the dike that need to be patched. The rise of what used to be the Third World, our continually shifting relationships with our international partners and competitors, all define a set of challenges so vast that their least implications make anything that happens in Afghanistan look like peanuts in comparison. Which, unfortunately, leads to point three.
3) What The Hell, It's Only Afghanistan
Which is a final, and disturbing conclusion to come to. What I see in the future is not cautious optimism, which would be nice, or cautious pessimism, which would be bad, but cautious apathy. Obama's hope seems to be that a quick surge of troops will knock the wind, and the organization, out of the Taliban, take back the initiative long enough to buy some factions time to develop, and basically insure that nobody will rise to the top of the Afghanistan food chain for long. Once the Taliban is stopped from taking Kabul, the rest of us can afford to casually indifferent about what happens to the rest of the country.
While the surge of troops may be necessary to stabilize Afghanistan, and at least give us a fighting chance of salvaging something out of the mess we have made in that corner of the world, the message that I am hearing is that we should not let it dominate our affairs. Stability in Central Asia may be important, but not nearly as important as a dozen other things that we must now deal with. Ultimately we can afford to be indifferent to an Afghanistan mired in civil war, or in the hands of a corrupt and incapable government. There are other problems we cannot afford such indifference towards.
If I were a soldier, I would probably be pretty unhappy with this, but as a citizen, I cannot find an alternative. Regardless of what happens in Afghanistan, we must begin paying attention to the problems that the 21st century is hurling at us. Ultimately our relation with China, with India, with Europe, with the rising powers of the world, will determine our course through the next century, while Afghanistan, whether we win or lose, will be tossed back in the dustbin of history for another few decades. The future of the world is being decided in how we meet or do not meet what the important challenges of our day, and Afghanistan is probably not one of them.
I've spent some time ruminating over various arguments, especially from the strategic minded, and I've come to three conclusions on Afghanistan, none of which I particularly like. I know that nobody bothers to read what I write when it comes to news and politics, but here they are anyway.
1)People Care About Afghanistan Because of Other Places
A lot of people are concerned about what happens in Afghanistan, not because of Afghanistan itself, but because of its effect on other places. The most common concern I hear is people worried about the destabilizing effect that Afghanistan will have on Pakistan, but there are a host of others. People worry about its regional effects, on Iran, Russia, and India. People worry about the effects that a failure in Iran will have on the growth of the Jihadi movement, on the network of terror cells that seems to spread from Manila or Mogadishu and beyond, or on the prominence of Russia and China in central Asia.
Nobody seems to worry much about Afghanistan as Afghanistan. Nobody seems to have a conception that, even with an American "victory" that Afghanistan will become a valuable asset in the Global War on Terror, or even a valuable ally to the US. We do not forsee her people coming freely to the US in international brotherhood any time soon. We want to win in Afghanistan, not because Afghanistan is important to us, or her people appeal to us, but because if we do not, it will begin to destabilize other, more valuable locations. Afghanistan remains for the US not a friend to be saved, or an ally to be wooed, but the squeaky wheel that has to be tightened to keep the cart from falling apart. Which leads me to point number two:
2) Afghanistan Is Not the Country's Most Important Foreign Concern
If you believe that Afghanistan is important because of the effect that it has on Pakistan, then you logically consider the stability and safety of Pakistan to be more important then that of Afghanistan. But even laying aside the AfPak ball of wax, there seems to be a lot of other issues on people's minds. Stephen Walt has a whole list of areas he thinks are more important, but everyone seems to have a few things on their mind. Whether you are Walt and worried about US responses to the inevitable rise of East Asia, and our shifting relationship with our traditional allies and enemies, whether you are going to ruminate on the India Question, whether you get worried about the regional power blocks and are thinking about BRIC (or BIC, as I prefer to think about it), you have something else to worry about. Hell, even if you worry about Barnett's idea of the Core and the Gap dominating 21st century politics, there are other holes in the dike that need to be patched. The rise of what used to be the Third World, our continually shifting relationships with our international partners and competitors, all define a set of challenges so vast that their least implications make anything that happens in Afghanistan look like peanuts in comparison. Which, unfortunately, leads to point three.
3) What The Hell, It's Only Afghanistan
Which is a final, and disturbing conclusion to come to. What I see in the future is not cautious optimism, which would be nice, or cautious pessimism, which would be bad, but cautious apathy. Obama's hope seems to be that a quick surge of troops will knock the wind, and the organization, out of the Taliban, take back the initiative long enough to buy some factions time to develop, and basically insure that nobody will rise to the top of the Afghanistan food chain for long. Once the Taliban is stopped from taking Kabul, the rest of us can afford to casually indifferent about what happens to the rest of the country.
While the surge of troops may be necessary to stabilize Afghanistan, and at least give us a fighting chance of salvaging something out of the mess we have made in that corner of the world, the message that I am hearing is that we should not let it dominate our affairs. Stability in Central Asia may be important, but not nearly as important as a dozen other things that we must now deal with. Ultimately we can afford to be indifferent to an Afghanistan mired in civil war, or in the hands of a corrupt and incapable government. There are other problems we cannot afford such indifference towards.
If I were a soldier, I would probably be pretty unhappy with this, but as a citizen, I cannot find an alternative. Regardless of what happens in Afghanistan, we must begin paying attention to the problems that the 21st century is hurling at us. Ultimately our relation with China, with India, with Europe, with the rising powers of the world, will determine our course through the next century, while Afghanistan, whether we win or lose, will be tossed back in the dustbin of history for another few decades. The future of the world is being decided in how we meet or do not meet what the important challenges of our day, and Afghanistan is probably not one of them.
no subject
I beg to differ. I may not always have anything constructive to add, but that does not mean that I do not read. :)
For myself I have an attitude (4) Which is that for change to happen in Afghanistan it must come from within. This is a country that has chewed up and spat out invaders for centuries, and their social order (and disorder) is deeply engrained. For positive change to happen the will has to be there amongst the people themselves, and the ability to break the power of the warlords. I do not know how this is to be achieved, since any help from the outside is outsider imposition, and therefore not welcome.
no subject
I agree with your attitude, but there does seem to be a caveat. I think that Afghanistan has a chance of changing internally if they were confident that the US could protect them for years or decades. If they could be honestly assured that any attempts at a progressive state would be actively defended, they might be encouraged, but the US cannot make such a commitment with a democracy, and its not in our interests to stay so indefinitely anyway. Anyway, neither party really wants that; the first time the fledgling Afghan democracy supported US enemies, the Republicans would have us out of there so fast we would leave tread marks.
Medieval to Modern
(Anonymous) 2009-12-16 03:00 pm (UTC)(link)