Afghanistan: Moving Forward

We've been fighting in Afghanistan for nine and a half years - longer than any other war in U.S. history. The current situation in Afghanistan is a combination of a number of historical factors, policy blunders, mistakes, and failed lessons. The Taliban are currently waging a very effective insurgency from the relative safety of Pakistan, and the U.S. military is still reeling from the neglect Afghanistan experienced during the Bush administration. I think, however, we are approaching a turning point in this war, one which will hopefully result in an Afghanistan which is finally at peace and can heal from the decades old wounds of perpetual warfare and bloodshed. The following is my opinion based on what I've learned from this course on how to achieve that end.

The first step forward is the realization that with the limited resources we have, we cannot defeat the Taliban by any conventional means. There is no capital to seize, no fortress to breach, and no line in the sand over which one we cross, we can claim victory. They are an amorphous enemy who are as flexible as they are determined. So long as America continues this war, and the country remains gripped by poverty, and in some areas starvation, the Taliban will always have a base of support, a supply of recruits, and a means by which to continue their war. Further, so long as they can freely move in and out of Pakistan, which they will always be able to, we can never pin them down.

I think this has already been realized, as indicated by talk of some future political settlement with the Taliban. The next step forward, is to actually begin initiating those discussions. With the death of Osama Bin Laden, that may happen sooner than later, which is a good thing. However, this will require compromise on both sides – including compromise by the Karzai government. One of the major blunders of the U.S. at the start of the war, the reinstatement of the warlords , some of whom  were eventually incorporated into the Karzai government, may actually turn out to benefit us in the end. The warlords are men who understand compromise and probably understand the Taliban far better than the bureaucrats and ideologue politicians. Still – this will require serious commitment by all three parties involved, and it is vital for the U.S. that a permanent arrangement is reached which will provide stability, and not ignite further conflict.

While this is happening, it is also vital that the U.S. engage in nation building. If you provide opportunity for people to support their families and earn a living, you remove much of the fundamental reasons for young men to join the Taliban in the first place - to earn money. On top of that, if the economy is growing, the people are happy, which builds support for the government, and most importantly of all, provides revenue for the government such that it can afford to provide basic services, a police force and a military to provide security for the people. It is a positive feedback loop which leads to development and stability. However, it will require an investment by the United States - the kind of investment that went into rebuilding Japan and west Germany after the second world war. Further, it will require significant oversight by the U.S., as the Karzai government is ripe with corruption. This includes doing away with the contractors who are currently robbing the government blind.

One must not only focus on Afghanistan though, we must be wary of external forces who have interests in the country. Pakistan, especially, but India, Iran and China too. Each is a potentially destabilizing force, and the U.S. must do all it can to prevent their interference in Afghanistan's future - because it is not they whom will be paying the price for ten years of involvement. We are the ones who are footing the bill, both for helping to destroy the country, and hopefully to rebuild it. It is in both our and Afghanistan's interests to see that outside forces be kept in check.

And that's that. Of course, the devil is always in the details, but I think these are the fundamental issues that lay in wake of  the path forward. Much of this I have already echoed throughout my other blog posts, so I only present a concise description of what I feel are the most important goals in ending this war. I've learned a lot from this course, and even if my views are naive I feel I am far better informed about the war than most people my age as a result. Thanks for an enjoyable semester Professor Breyman.

Afghanistan: Recap

For my final two blog entries, I think I'll try to briefly sum up what I've learned throughout the semester about the history of Afghanistan, how things got to be as they are, and what the future may hold. It seems an appropriate way to bring a close to things, and at the same time do a little preparation for the final exam. This first one will consist of the events which have shaped Afghanistan and led up to the American invasion, and the second will be about what we can do to get ourselves out of this mess. I don't intend for this to be of research-paper quality or length, just an overview of what I feel is the most important things I've learned, and it should be said that going into this course I knew very little about Afghanistan or the war. With that said...

18th Century - 2001

Modern Afghanistan was born out of the imperialistic endeavors of the West, and competition between Russia and The British Empire during the 19th century. Afghanistan has long been a pit stop for rampaging conquerors, as it lies at the crossroads between China, India, Central Asia and the Middle East. It is Abdur Rahman Khan, the "Iron Amir" who is credited to having founded modern Afghanistan. He was the first leader who was able to consolidate his power and establish his authority over the fractured tribal lands into one nation state called Afghanistan. Following two previous wars involving Britain, and in his attempts to modernize his country he was also willing to accept British patronage in exchange for British control over Afghan foreign affairs.

The British sought to establish Afghanistan as sovereign nation - a buffer state to provide a cushion between Russian advances into Central Asia and the British territories of West Asia. With the Iron Amir in power, this was possible. In 1919, a third war broke out between Afghanistan and Britain, under the rule of Amanullah Khan, and Afghanistan regained control over it's foreign affairs. This was the end of British involvement in the country until almost eighty years later. Following a series of assassinations and infighting, Zahir Shah came to power in 1933 and reigned until 1973. During this time, the rising Soviet Union began to get involved with Afghanistan, and communism spread to Kabul. A communist party known as the PDPA rose to power, and over-threw Shah in 1973 and he was exiled.

The Soviet Union saw it in their interest to ensure a stable communist leadership in Afghanistan who had close ties to Moscow. In-fighting within the PDPA and a split in the party, however, did not fit with these interests. A bloody coup occured in 1978, which came to be known as the "Saur Revolution", and following a series of political assassinations and further in-fighting and struggle, Hazifullah Amin seized power in 1979. During all this time, the PDPA enforced sweeping reforms, outlawing Islamic laws and traditions, and caused enormous unrest throughout Afghanistan and resistance began to emerge. By the end of 1979, the Afghan government was on the verge of collapse, and the Soviets had had enough and decided to intervene and invaded in December of 1979.

Meanwhile in the west, the cold war was in full-swing, and America saw Afghanistan as an opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. They began funneling huge amounts of money to the Afghan resistance against the Soviets, which came to be known as the Mujaheddin, through Pakistan's ISI. It was during this time that the warlords began amassing power, fighters and resources, funded by the U.S. and with contributions from Saudi Arabia. After ten years of resistance by the Afghan Mujaheddin, and the with Soviet Union on the verge of collapse, Russia limped out of Afghanistan in 1989. However, the large supplies of weapons, the self-made militias of the warlords, and a fractured country remained. This lead to a civil war over who was to control Afghanistan.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran continued to fund various factions of their choosing, who fought amongst themselves for control over various regions of the country. In the mid 1990s, a new faction, formed by Mullah Omar and consisting of students from the Madrases of Kandahar emerged called the Taliban. They quickly began to gain the support and respect of the public, and soon the ISI began funding their campaign. Many men deserted their former units to join forces with the Taliban, who not only sought to represent the poor politically but also had strong religious foundations which resonated with many Afghans. In 1996, the Taliban gained control of Kabul, followed by many victories (and some defeats) throughout the country. At this time, the Northern Alliance was formed by Ahmad Massoud and Abdul Dotsum, who would continue fighting the Taliban for control over northern Afghanistan until the U.S. invasion in 2001.

As the Taliban seized control over much of the country, they began enforcing Sharia and stripped woman of almost all their rights. Toward the end of the 1990s, they also began to aid Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network Al-Qaeda, which established training camps in parts of Afghanistan. In 2001, Al-Qaeda launched the September 11th attacks on the U.S., which prompted the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to remove Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who the U.S. saw as partners in the attack. The Taliban quickly fell from power under the might of U.S. air power, and many retreated to Pakistan where they found relative safety. It was from here that the Taliban re-grouped and began their insurgency against the U.S. which continues to the present day. So that, in as few words as possible, is how we ended up in Afghanistan.

Continued in next post...

dates and names referenced from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

Relations with Pakistan

Pakistan is an important ally for the United States in the War in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a land locked country, and heavy supplies - too heavy to be brought in by air cargo ships - are brought by ship through Pakistani ports and carried by truck through the country and into Afghanistan. Pakistan shares a long and perforated boarder with Afghanistan, which allows the Taliban and other militants to easily cross between the two countries - which means Pakistan is an important battleground for the U.S.'s war in Afghanistan, and without the cooperation the Pakistan government who allow U.S. drone operations, the fight against the Taliban would be all the more difficult for the U.S. However, despite Pakistan being our "ally" and their complacency with the U.S. drone attacks, they continuously play a double game - often supporting the Taliban and other militants for their own purposes, and their secret spy agency the ISI's never ending cold war with India has put serious strain on U.S. relations with Pakistan as of late.

The first major problem this year began with the whole Raymond Davis debacle, the apparent CIA agent who killed two would-be robbers, who may have actually been ISI agents and was arrested by Pakistani officials. For several days this resulted in an almost complete breakdown in diplomatic relations between Washington and Islamabad, as neither side wanted to provoke outrage from their own people by caving to the others position. Now, less than six weeks after Davis's release, a team of Navy Seals conducts an operation in which Osama Bin Laden is killed - in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad. There had been some suspicion that the ISI was protecting Bin Laden, and finding him living in the same town as one of Pakistan's top military academies has essentially confirmed that suspicion. It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks what all of this means for U.S. - Pakistan relations, but I can't imagine things are going to go well.

It's understandable why Pakistan was protecting Osama, if you understand the ISI's obsession with India and Kashmir. Pakistan can not attack India directly, but they can support and encourage Islamic extremists to carry out terrorist attacks in Kashmir and continue to harass and fight a sort of proxy war with India. To this end, the ISI must maintain the trust of these extremists if it wishes to continue to use them as a convenient tool in this territorial dispute. So from this perspective, it was "necessary" to provide protection for Osama, despite the fact that Pakistan is supposedly an ally in the "War on Terror".

The United States so far has largely ignored the hypocrisy and double crosses of the ISI and Pakistani military, probably because they've been too valuable to us to do otherwise. However, with these recent events involving the killing of Osama Bin Laden, it may become more and more difficult for Washington to allow Pakistan so much leeway, especially if Obama wishes to maintain his new found mane. If it is Obama's intention to end this War sometime during his second term in office, then where does that leave U.S. - Pakistan relations in the future? When this war finally comes to an end, I think Pakistan will have to reap what it has sown during the past ten years, and I highly suspect that Washington will want very little to do with the country once we no longer have a use for them.

There is, however, the question of what Pakistan's role in a future Afghanistan will be. It would be convenient for the U.S. to have an ally in the region who shares a common set of goals to help manage the re-building of Afghanistan and the transition to a stable and self-sufficient government. Unfortunate, that ally is not Pakistan. It seems to me that it is in fact in Pakistan's interest to maintain a weak and dependent Afghanistan for as long as possible, and to continue to exploit the fact that the U.S. needs a way to move supplies into the country, and that the Taliban use Pakistan as a save haven. When the war inevitably ends though, what leverage does Pakistan have left, and for what reason would the U.S. continue to put up with their shenanigans? To me, it seems that this current "friendship" with Pakistan is one which is not made to last, and as time goes on I can foresee some serious conflict of interests between the two countries - especially as India becomes more and more important in the world.

If Pakistan were smart, they would realize that their actions, motivated by India and the Kashmir dispute, are putting them at serious risk of losing this current friendship with the U.S., and frankly in the coming years I think it will become apparent that as the Pakistani economy continues to stagnant and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan begins to gain strength, that Pakistan will need the U.S. much more than the U.S. will need Pakistan. It is a very dangerous game they are playing.

Assassination

Yes - three blog posts in a row related to the death of Osama Bin Laden, but seeing as every news outlet on the internet is filled with stories about this, I don't think I'm alone in fixating on the topic, and after all it's only been three days. This time I'd like to touch on the actual intent of the raid which occurred on Sunday. Recent information has emerged that Osama Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot dead, and that its possible there was never any intention of taking him alive.

The original story went that Osama "resisted arrest", and I suppose most people assumed that this involved some kind of shoot-out. New information reveals, however, that he was not in fact armed and supposedly was in bed when he was killed (possibly resigned to his fate?). This makes me wonder if he was intentionally assassinated, or if some Navy Seal just couldn't resist being the guy who fired the shot that got America's most hated enemy. The latter seems like a perfectly plausible explanation, but I would like to think that the most elite of the elite would have a little more self-control and training than that. It seems if the goal was to take him alive if possible, they may have used a bit more discretion. So I also think it's very plausible there was no intention of capturing him, and I can think of several good reasons for wanting to just take him out.

If we had captured him alive, then we'd have to place him on trial, this is something we talked about in class a few weeks back, and there would be some serious issues with a legal case of that magnitude. The first, obviously, would be security. Any courthouse in any public setting would be an instant target for any kind of terrorist attack - especially with the Sheik housed inside. That, coupled with the fact that these sorts of trials take months, if not years, would be that there would need to be a huge amount of resources devoted to providing adequate security, managing the crowds, and dealing with the general pandemonium such a spectacle would cause.

Beyond the logistics though, there are still serious legal issues involved. Firstly, one could easily argue that it is impossible to give Osama a fair trial in this country - something which is required by law. Also, despite the presumption of his guilt by all, it may be difficult to actually tie him directly to the attacks of 9/11, or any of the other attacks for which he is accused, in any kind of legally rigorous way.  Certainly he could be tried, but would it be anything more than a mock trial, a spectacle for the gawking media and public? If we wish to uphold the integrity of the legal system (that is not sarcasm) at all times, then it is seriously questionable whether it would be possible to try Osama in the United States.

In addition, I'm not sure that trying Osama would have had the same political effect. A lot of people feel that he didn't deserve a trial, and perhaps putting Osama on trial would have made Obama look like he was somehow going easy on the terrorists - the exact opposite of his intent with this. So it seems to me, from Obama's perspective, it made much more sense to simply kill him and avoid the headache of a trial.That being said, there are some questions which can be raised about outright killing Osama.

The first, is it actually legal to simply assassinate someone, even if they are a terrorist? Well in general no, using murder as a means of eliminating political opponents, enemies, or threats is in general illegal. However, one can easily make the case that Osama was in fact an enemy combatant, and this was a targeted strike - no different than the routine drone attacks which we conduct, and which are legal. So in that context, I think one could argue that this was a legal operation - regardless of whether we had Pakistan's consent or not. 

Another important question to ask is, what could we have learned from interrogating Osama? My opinion is probably not much - not without looking bad in the process. I do not think it would be easy to extract any real information from the man without the use of some serious torture, which just opens up a whole other can of worms, and even then it's not likely Osama personally had a great wealth of information about the outside activities of Al Qaeda in my opinion. In that sense, he was worth very little to us alive. What is significant, however, are the computers, storage devices and documents recovered from the compound - which will probably provide much more practical information than any interrogation could.

So all things considered, taking Osama alive probably been much more trouble than it would have been worth, and from Obamas point of view it was the smart move. I think this also helps eliminate some of the backlash that may have occurred with detaining him - months of protests erupting would lead to months of violence in an already violent part of the world, but if he's dead there isn't very much to protest about.

Osama Bin Laden pt. 2

I think this is important enough of an event to warrant a second post to sort out my thoughts on this. I'm still very surprised about the whole thing, though I am not surprised to see conspiracy theories abound on the internet. One of the main questions being asked  is why did the U.S. dispose of the body so quickly, and why has no photographs of the killing emerged yet - which are fair questions to ask. However, not only do I think it would be impossible to fake his death, but I think it would be political suicide for Obama. Further, what would be the motivation? Obama was under no real pressure to capture Osama, what he did feel, however, was that this was an enormous opportunity for him - and he was right.

There are two ways to fake someone's death - either to lie and say they're dead when they are really alive, or to lie and say you killed them, when they've really been dead all along. I think it's obvious the latter is impossible. We have audio recordings and videos of Osama from recent times which we can unmistakably identify as him - the frequency of such recordings may have decreased, but then again he has been in hiding for the past nine years... every time he releases such a recording he risks capture, so it makes sense that he would be forced to release such messages less and less frequently, which may give the false impression that he had been killed prior to the events of Sunday.

The are two other options, aside from the rational one that he really was killed by a U.S. operation - either he is still alive and in hiding, or he is still alive and in U.S. custody. If the first were true, why wouldn't he simply release a new video and expose the U.S. hoax? And more importantly, if the U.S. wasn't convinced he was dead, or at least within their custody, why would they lie? But even holding Osama in custody to me seems too risky - the whole point, in my opinion, was to boost Obama's 2012 chances - why take the risk of being exposed and ruin your political career? It just doesn't make any sense to believe anything other than that Osama Bin Laden really was killed in Pakistan a few days ago.

But still, it is fair to ask why dispose of the body so hurriedly, and why no hard evidence of his death? To address the second part, it's likely that there is plenty of evidence, and I'm sure both video and pictures exist - however there may be reasons for not wanting to release them. Perhaps the conduct of the Navy Seals was not as appropriate as the government would have liked, perhaps the pictures are simply very gruesome and the U.S. fears inciting some emotional response amongst Muslims. That being said, it's also only been a few days - I'm sure in the future pictures, video, audio and eyewitnesses will surface, but these things generally take time.

So, it seems the final big question is why to dispose the body so quickly. The official answer had something to do with wanting to prevent any burial site from becoming a "terrorist shrine" and wanting to respect Islamic law regarding burial. I personally think this is reasonable, if one looks at it from Obama's perspective.

Really, what good could have come from giving a place for Islamist extremists to congregate and draw large crowds of people together? It's just a massacre waiting to happen. Further, bringing people together, which burying Osama certainly would have, only invites opportunity for those "fast talking Mullahs" to incite a riot or create chaos. The fact that he was buried quickly, in accordance to Islamic law I think was a very smart move. America got what it want, but did so without adding insult to injury for those in the Muslim world who saw Osama as a hero. It was the smart political choice, and perhaps a chance of changing a few minds in the Muslim world.

The alternative to burying him in Pakistan would have been to bring the body back to the U.S. - and that certainly could not have been good. I can only imagine the wild stories and outrage that would have followed, not to mention the media shitstorm that would have occurred here in the U.S. and throngs of people demanding his body be displayed. The whole thing could very easily have turned into a huge disaster - so why go through all of that, when you can just toss him in the ocean and everyone is happy, for the most part? I'm sure in time more and more details will surface regarding the whole event, but I think for once we can be fairly safe in laying down our guard, because I see no reason that Obama should be untruthful in all of this.

Osama Bin Laden

So here I was last night worrying about finding a topic to blog about, and then I heard the news - the CIA had killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan... talk about a relevant news story. I was pretty shocked personally, as I really didn't expect we'd ever find Osama after the miserable failure of the Bush administration. What wasn't surprising, however, was to hear he was living in Pakistan - an hours drive from Islamabad no less. I think it's fair to ask what this means for the War in Afghanistan, and the "War on Terror" in general.

First things first - I do not expect that this will have a huge impact on Al-Qaeda or terrorism in general. Certainly this is a big blow to the organization, but ultimately I don't think Osama has played as important of a role as he did in the past. In the past, Osama was directly involved with fund raising, planning attacks, and issuing propaganda and rhetoric to inspire volunteers to die for his distorted views of jihad and Islam. Since 2001, I think Osamas involvement in the organization has been severly limited as his sole priority has been to remain hidden and alive - which he managed to do for nine and a half years.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a short-lived rise in attacks as misguided young men are inspired by this "martyrdom", but ultimately these types of movements require a face and voice. Osama's face is certainly one which the world is safer without, but my feeling is that ultimately he will be easily replaced as a new generation of extremism is grown from the harsh, impoverished and desperate lives many in Central Asia and the Middle East live - and that is the real root of terrorism. Still, Osama was an influential man, and he is responsible for the violent deaths of thousands of people around the world. His death is a consolation to many, but my suspicion is that ultimately killing him will not do very much to end terrorist attacks throughout the world.

What this event is, more than anything, is an enormous political victory of Barrack Obama, and he may have brilliantly just ensured his re-election. One of the Republicans main points of attack on Obama has been that the implication that he is a Muslim sympathizer and that he is soft on terrorism. I think this is what helped Bush secure re-election in 2004, as 9/11 was fresh in people's minds and the ever present color coded terrorism threat weighed heavily on peoples decision. Obama has just shown that he was able to accomplish in three years what Bush failed to do in eight - kill the most hated terrorist in American history. This is a huge boost to Obamas credibility, both at home and overseas. At the same time, Obama has tactfully reminded the Muslim world that Al-Qaeda has murdered thousands of Muslims, and was clear that they should celebrate this as victory with the U.S. - a smart move.

This may also have implications for Afghanistan. To many Americans, the reason for invading Afghanistan was to get Osama Bin Laden and remove the safe-havens of Al-Qaeda, and now both of those tasks are complete. This could possibly be an "out" for Obama - a way to justify ending the war without looking weak in the process. No one can accuse him of  "cutting and running", and at the same time he can bring an increasingly unpopular war to an end. It's win-win for him. Now, as a student of this class I can recognize that there are far more important reasons for being in Afghanistan than getting Osama Bin Laden, but for the sake of Political Expediency, this may very well be the beginning of the end to this war - whether that is a good thing or not.

So, I think while Osama's death has made the world a little bit safer, ultimately the real significance here is not that the war on terror has been won, but the implications this has for Obama's presidential campaign and the U.S. policies in Central Asia in the years to come. I'd like to think this is a positive thing - a possible turning point - but I remain skeptical and as always, nothing is ever simple or easy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Exsanguinate

The logical argument goes that the War in Afghanistan will ultimately come to an end by means of some political settlement with the Taliban, and it seems like they, or at least some fraction of the network of groups which can be called the Taliban, are not close minded to having talks with the U.S. Suppose this changes though, and the Taliban decide it is in their own best interest to simply continue fighting the U.S. for however long it takes - what would this mean for America? Can American win this war if the Taliban refuses to surrender, and how much longer can we continue to pour our military resources into the region?

Since 2001 we've spent $400,000,000,000 in Afghanistan alone, and twice that in Iraq for a total bill of over one trillion dollars. With spending in Afghanistan on the rise, and no end to this war in sight, at what point do these wars begin to seriously affect the American economy, our spending power as a nation, and our influence in the world? Suppose some conflict were to arise somewhere that needed our attention - how weakened would the U.S. military be if they are quagmired in Central Asia? How well could we respond to a threat from, say, North Korea? It seems to me that by dragging out this war, the Taliban have very little to lose, and we have everything to lose. And yet, at this point we may be far too deep into this thing to simply leave like we did in Vietnam. I think the U.S. strategy right now should be to very seriously begin preparations to negotiate with the Taliban so some sensible end to this war can come - otherwise we may have realized we've bitten off far more than we can chew, and there's no hope of spitting it back out.

I see some major issues with simply cutting our losses and leaving Afghanistan. The first is that this will probably lead directly to another civil war, one which the Taliban would probably win unless we provided some serious resources to the Karzai government. The cynical and natural next question to ask would be - who cares? Well, I think we should care, for several reasons.

First, it simply makes the U.S. look bad. We've seriously damaged our reputation in the region, killed tens of thousands of people and lost thousands of American lives, spent hundreds of billions, and in the end we are defeated by a bunch of kids from Pakistan wielding AK-47s? I think just up and surrendering would be a big embarrassment for the U.S. military and would hurt our credibility with the rest of the world - especially with our allies who have also invested resources and people in this war. How would we look if we simply gave up and basically wasted ISAF's time for the past ten years?

Secondly, Central Asia is unstable enough as it is - and I think its in our interest to see that that things do not worsen. Another Afghan civil war can not be good for the region, or our interests. Further, a civil war opens the door the countries like China to begin extending their influence over the region - and that can lead to a whole other can of worms for the U.S. The real frightening possibility though, is that India may seek to try and fight some proxy war with Pakistan by supporting the Karzai government while the ISI will almost certainly be supporting the Taliban. This could very seriously lead to a real war with Pakistan - something that is definitely not what we want.

Afghanistan is just too important to let everything go to shit - and that is mostly because of who lives in its neighborhood. Central Asia sits at the crossroads of the main rising powers in the world - Russia, China and India, and Afghanistan is right at the heart of it all. We simply can not afford to pull out of the region, and yet it doesn't seem like we can defeat the Taliban. If, hypothetically speaking, they refuse to negotiate, what does that mean for the U.S.? To me, it means a very long and expensive commitment to re-building Afghanistan, and one which will require a significant increase in the amount of money spent on Nation building - including dramatically increased over-sight on how those funds are used to prevent a large portion of them being squandered by corruption and unscrupulous contractors.

At this point, we are simply too far into this thing in my belief, and there is no easy end in sight. I think Afghanistan will prove to be a wound that the U.S. will not recover from easily, and the worst may be yet to come. The Taliban can continue to bleed the U.S. for years, but how long can the U.S. continue to devote huge amounts of its resources to this small part of the world when there may be very serious conflicts to come in the future?

Torture

As Americans we like to pride ourselves that our country was founded on integrity and a firm set of moral and ethical principles. Principles such as the right to free speech, the right to elect our leaders, and all the other good ole' fundamental American values. People in power, however, often neglect and violate these principles, which isn't too surprising. One issue that came up in class and which has been given some attention in the media in the past is the issue of torture. The very word invokes the image of some kind of Stalinist, dystopian, oppressive government where people live in fear rather than in freedom, but the fact is the United States is a nation which practices torture. Aside from it being a fundamentally un-American concept, I don't think it's possible to ever justify torture nor does it make sense from an intelligence gathering perspective.

Ignoring the dozens of moral objections one could raise about torturing people, I see three major issues with the practice. The first is to me there seems to be a serious contradiction with the presumption of innocence, the second is that it is an unreliable and ineffective means of gathering accurate intelligence, and the third is that it creates a sort of sand-trap where once you begin torturing people you can not simply release them based on their innocence or not. I'll elaborate a bit on each of these.

Firstly, one should establish exactly why presumption of innocence exists. It is not to protect terrorists, or murders or any other species of criminal. The concept is to protect us - the innocent. If we believe in this idea of  "innocent until proven guilty", then we must believe in it wholeheartedly, regardless of how severe or revolting the crimes of the accused may be, or how obvious their guilt is. We can not pick and choose when to apply this principle, and to whom, otherwise the entire concept falls apart. No one argues that it is OK to torture innocent people - this is obviously wrong. However, the argument has been made that it is justifiable to torture terrorists and people associated with organizations like Al Qaeda because these are the "worst of the worst", and the idea seems to be that if you're bad enough, then torture is acceptable.

This type of argument is based on the assumption of guilt however, and directly contradicts the concept of presumption of innocence. If one is assumed to be innocent, then how is it justifiable to torture him? Further, if one is only allowed to torture the "bad guys", and we torture people to extract confession of crimes, we are torturing innocent people by definition - because they have not yet been convicted of any wrong doing. This argument goes as far to show that it is illogical and contradictory to torture people in order to extract confessions, so long as we uphold our legal and most fundamental principles and ideals. One may make the case, however, that once someone is convicted of a crime and proven to be a "bad guy", then it is fair to torture him. I think I can provide arguments to show that this too is absurd.

If one is torturing someone to obtain intelligence and information about other people, there is no reason to believe any confession or revelation will be truthful. The person being tortured has but one goal - to say whatever he can to make his tortures stop. This could mean betraying his comrades, or it could mean lying and proving false information - typically either blaming innocent people or inventing stories. There is no motivation for someone being tortured to tell the truth, only to say what he believes will be the quickest route to ending his suffering. This fact makes any information obtained from torture completely suspect and of very little credibility. Essentially torture defeats its own purpose, if that purpose is to obtain information.

The third issue I raise has to do with people who truly are innocent. The American government can never admit it tortures people - not unless it has to. The status quo will always be to deny the use of the torture, especially if they've stated in the past that they no longer torture people. Further, they especially do not want it revealed what methods and means they use to torture people. So what happens when the C.I.A. disappears some innocent Afghan by either mistaken identity or bad intelligence? They subject him to torture, and realize he's not the right guy - then what?

Are they going to just release him so he can run to the nearest media outlet and tell them what he's been through? Are they just going to say "sorry, our mistake"? No, they simply aren't going to release him, despite his innocence. We now have a situation where people - innocent or not - disappear into these black holes and can't ever leave. We are setting up these institutions which essentially are functioning as gulags, and that is a very dangerous thing.

Not only is torture a violation of American principles, the law and of our sense that America is supposed to be better than the rest, but it is an erosion of the rights and freedom of innocent people and it serves no useful purpose, save perhaps to satiate the desire of some to punish their captives - but that is what the legal system is for. There simply is no excuse or justification to be torturing people, even if they "deserve it".

Pakistan and Afghanistan's Future

The situation in Pakistan is an interesting one, at least as interesting as it is dangerous. Pakistan is a nation whose military's sole purpose seems to be to prepare and wait for the next confrontation with India, and whose slimy intelligence agency - the ISI - seems to justify anything by always relating it to India.The ISI seems to never tire of playing both sides of the fence, and the military seems completely reluctant to stem the growth of Jihadist movements within its borders... and this is our ally in the region...

The whole situation is a complete mess. On the one hand the stability of Pakistan is crucial to our success in Afghanistan - we rely on them for trucking routes, to help provide intelligence and as an important political ally in the region. Yet, they almost seem to undermine every American effort... it seems that we need Pakistan, and it seems that the real enemy is Pakistan.Things might not be so complicated if it weren't for the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and is controlled by an unstable government which is now facing a rising insurgency of its own... and in the background looms India and the never ending Kashmir dispute, a weak economy and a population who is largely impoverished and prone to radicalism.

I really don't think America can have its cake and eat it too. It seems to me that so long as Pakistan remains a safe haven for the Taliban, one which they can freely  cross into and gain access to weapons and a continual supply of recruits, we will never be able to gain enough ground in Afghanistan to be able to leave. And so long as the war continues, there is little hope of economic recovery and development within Afghanistan, which means the Karzai government will remain weak and fragile and completely dependent on America to pay for and manage its armed forces. At the same time, the ISI continues to support the Taliban so as to stamp out any possible influence from India in the country, and the knowledge that the military is unlikely to move against them in Pakistan boosts Taliban moral all the more.We cannot secure the border on our own, and even if Pakistan could, they would never be willing to deploy large resources on their Western border with big bad India to the east.

It seems as time goes on, the Taliban position only gets stronger. The longer the Americans stay, the more civilian casualties will occur and the more hatred for America will exist in Afghanistan. This not only strengthens the Taliban, but it is crippling to the Karzai government who at this point seems hopelessly unable to assert any true authority over the country. It seems at this point, America is simply staving off collapse of the Karzai government and hoping to God that Pakistan remains stable and is willing to accept what meager support they offer. There have been talks of negotiations with the Taliban, but at this point it almost seems like they have the upper hand - which is not good for us.

What America really needs is a stable Pakistan who is willing to fight against the Taliban on its side of the border and one who is willing to actively work to dampen the Islamist movement by providing the things its people expect of it. This doesn't seem like it can ever happen though so long as India remains the sole obsession of the military and the Kashmir remains an issue. I believe that our ability to withdraw from Afghanistan and to see the country rebuild its self is directly dependent on support from Pakistan... support which we are not recieving. If we were to withdraw with things as they are, I have no doubt that the Taliban would quickly defeat the Karzai government and re-gain power, and we'd be back to 2001, or perhaps back to 1992 in the midst of another civil war. In addition, without aid from America there is a real possibility that Pakistan may find its self in a civil war against the Pakistan Taliban, and the stakes are much higher there than in Afghanistan.

I don't think its possible for America to leave this region any time soon. Even if we get Afghanistan sorted out, we are too tangled up with the mess in Pakistan that some American presence is going to be needed for a long time, and many billions more are going to need to be spent. If defeat of the Taliban is the goal, we're never going to leave. If nation building and the solidification of the Karzai government is the goal, we're going to have to work out a deal with the Taliban, and still American presence and money is going to be required. There just aren't any quick ways out...

Zero Accountability

I remember when I was younger, sometime around 2003 when America was gearing up for the invasion of Iraq, hearing about this strange news organization called "Al Jazeera". It sounded suspiciously like "Al Qaeda", and indeed some people, including Donald Rumsfeld, were actually comparing it to some kind of propaganda engine for the terrorist organization. Somehow, no one seemed to correct this flat out lie, and that impression stuck with me until years later when I finally realized that not only was Al Jazeera a credible, world-wide news organization, but that it was less biased and had a far better depth of coverage than any American news outlet. I had forgotten about this act of demonization, but was reminded by it while reading a news story today about the refusal of American cable companies to carry Al Jazeera English on their networks.

This makes me wonder - in this "age of information" where knowledge is freely available to anyone - at least to anyone in America - (if not through the television networks, but through the internet) how is it possible for people like Donald Rumsfeld to go on National T.V. and blatantly lie, and no one seems to hold him accountable? The American public I can understand - most people rely on American broadcast news stations or their local newspapers to get their information (if they are interested in the news at all), and I believe the American media does a horrible job of holding our politicians and government to any kind of scrutiny, but what of the informed people in America? Have they no voice in the mainstream media? It appears they do not. As another example, this one more recent, the story of the so called "Kill Team" that have been accused, and so far at least on person already convicted of, murdering innocent Afghan civilians for sport. It took a German newspaper to break this story, and weeks later and I've seen very little of it mentioned in the American media - but the latest person voted off American Idol is a headline story. Where is the outrage? Why does it seem that no one is demanding the military explain why it took a German Newspaper to reveal these atrocities, and question had this story not been broken would the American public ever had known about these events?


And further, where is the accountability? The accountability of the military, of our government and of our media. It seems to me sometimes, that given enough time when attention spans have waned, there is none. Former U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter gave a talk at my school a few years ago, and one of his topics was this very same issue - of holding the government accountable for its actions and failures. I asked him how one is supposed to do so, and his answer I think was both realistic and honest - by simply being informed. Its easy for Donald Rumsfeld to go on T.V. and claim Al Jazeera is a terrorist news station, or point to a map of some amourphous shape which you're told is Iraq, and say "WMDs are here, here and here." if his audience cant even find Iraq on a map. To try the same trick on someone who was informed about Iraq at the time or a reader of Al Jazeera, however, would have been completely absurd. Politicians, the military and the government can never be held accountable if the average person is too ignorant to even realize that they're being taken advantage of.

This is where the American media fails so miserably. Although, I have to question whether "failure" is the correct term, because often I feel the media intentionally neglects to point out when the government lies, or when our troops commit horrific crimes, or when its blatantly obvious that there is more to be said than has been. This is what really baffles me, and its something I don't quite understand. Is it that the American people just dont want to hear about these kinds of stories, and its a ratings issue? Does the government pressure the major news outlets not to cover these stories, or cable companies not to allow Al Jazeera to be broadcast on their networks? Does the media ignore these stories for their own agenda? I really don't have a clue, but it is incredibly frustrating to me at times, and I suspect it is some combination of the three. I've personally give up watching CNN or any other American News station - that's my way of holding them accountable for their lousy reporting - I won't give them any ratings - but it seems that many people don't share my feeling of dissatisfaction as these news channels get huge ratings.

Perhaps I'm wrong about the American public - maybe they are more well informed then I assume, after all my peers are mostly dumb twenty year olds who mainly rely on facebook banter for their source of news (and I will gladly lump myself in with the dumb twenty year olds part), but honestly I don't think I'm all that far off. Of course, a lot of what I am reacting to comes from reading Rashid, and I have the benefit of hindsight and informed sources telling me about how things really happened but still, are people not accountable when they lie and manipulate the American public, regardless of whether they are currently in office or not, and when we learn of past lies and untruths, should we not be wary of our current officials and hold them to an ever higher standard?

Hair-trigger

"Terry Jones says the “Braveheart” film poster in his Florida office gives him spiritual sustenance." - NY Times

This is a caption from a  NY Times article about the Floridian pastor whose actions have apparently sparked violent protests in Kandahar which have resulted in at least ten deaths and nearly one hundred people wounded so far. The pastor has apparently "supervised the burning of a Quran", which provoked the wrath of Afghans all over Afghanistan. This seems like a bit of an over-reaction on the part of the Afghan people at first, after all why should they care if some idiot from Florida burns a Quran he likely got from a local Barnes and Nobel? I think it's clear though, that these protests have really very little to do with this particular event, and much more to do with the pent-up anger and frustration the Afghans are feeling following ten years of occupation, and killing by American forces in their country.

This is, so to speak, simply the straw that broke the camels back, although in this case it seems that this camel had its back broken long ago. I think these recent events are a grave indication of just how far we are from "winning" this war. The reports mention people running through the streets waving Taliban flags and shouting anti-American slogans - and this is in Kandahar, the chosen capitol during the Taliban rule. Have people forgotten the brutality and prison of fear they lived in during the time the Taliban were in power, or has America so badly mismanaged this war and its relationship with the Afghan people that they would choose to go back to the Taliban rather than to suffer any further American occupation? My guess is people haven't forgotten.

I think events like this force us to seriously consider the likely hood of ever wining over the "hearts and minds" of these people, who if they have forgotten what life was like under the Taliban, have certainly not forgotten the actions of the U.S. military. Things like these, far more than any opinion poll, really highlight the deep hatred and anger many Afghans have for the U.S., and personally I am doubtful that we can ever repair our image in Afghan eyes. If in the future it turns out that more and more Afghans find themselves in favor of the Taliban, the underdogs of the Afghan civil war and who are Pashtun and more importantly deeply Islamic - how can America ever compete with that? In one hand, I feel as though America owes it to Afghanistan to help rebuild the damage we have done, but on the other hand, and events like this are beginning to sway my opinion in the opposite direction, and perhaps we'd be doing them a bigger favor by just leaving and preventing further harm.

It'd probably be cheaper to simply supply the Afghan government with foreign aid and let them work out a settlement with the Taliban, and let Afghans sort out the problems of Afghanistan. Of course, in the past this has simply led to interference from Pakistan and other neighboring countries and to civil warfare. I suppose my reaction to these recent events is simply this: If there is any possible progress to be made in Afghanistan, it doesn't appear as if we're making it, and I have to seriously question what is going on in the minds of the men whose job it is to manage this war, and what our motivation for continued occupation is.

Econmonics for Afghanistan

Some of the huge figures that are tossed around when discussing the war in Afghanistan are hard to really appreciate. How does one put into context a sum on the order of trillions of dollars? One has to wonder - how could costs have gotten so high? Does anyone in Washington really care about the long-term effects of spending such ungodly sums of money? Imagine what could be accomplished if that money were spent on constructive endeavors, instead of on bombs and killing people...

The military claims to attempt to cut costs by outsourcing certain services to contractors. These contractors in turn, sub-contract these services - often hiring local groups and paying them a small fraction of the contract amount, and then simply pocketing the remainder as profit. This makes me strongly question why the military bothers at all with these middle men - why not simply hire Afghans to help re-build Afghanistan? This was something that was touched upon in the film we watched in class "Re-thinking Afghanistan" but I think there's a lot to be said about this issue. It seems that we - America - are perfectly content with being taken advantage of allowing war profiteers to get rich off the blood and sweat of other Americans. We really must re-think how the spending for the war is managed.

It's understandable (though not necessarily forgivable) that the military would spend money carelessly - after all it really isn't there money. Congress is just as much a guilty party here as any for not putting restrictions on the spending power of our war machine, but rather than focusing on whose incompetence is greater, I'd like to just tie this issue in with something I've brought up before - economic growth in Afghanistan. I firmly believe that the rise of terrorism, militantism and islamism is directly related to the desperate economic conditions in the region. It's understandable why people would be angry with America, and even hate America, but being willing to take up arms and die fighting America is an entirely different thing. Che Guevara's revolution failed because he could not motivate enough of the lower class to fight - and the reason being was they had too much to lose. They may have been poor, but they had food and land and homes - guerrilla warfare stems from desperation.

This is not the case in Afghanistan - there is plenty of desperation to go around and that means plenty of young men willing to risk their lives fighting the Americans for what meager pay the Taliban would offer them, or simply because they feel they must do something to change their situation. There are more factors involved here than poverty however - fundamental ideological differences between the Islamic world and the West make Western occupation of Afghanistan a very difficult pill to swallow, and the sense of wanting revenge for past and present crimes against the people of Afghanistan, however, I feel the ultimate motivating factor is economic. Give people jobs, a chance to support their families and a sense that their lives have some worth, and I think one would find it is much more difficult to convince people to take up arms and run off the mountains.

And with all the money and resources being wasted on contractors and U.S. troops in Afghanistan, we could be helping to provide jobs for the Afghans, by hiring Afghans to construct wells, build roads, and provide security. The added benefit is it would be orders of magnitude cheaper to pay an Afghan - who would be happy to work for a tenth of what an American would - to do the same job as an American, and at the same time you have just eliminated one enemy combatant with zero loss of life. It is a win-win situation. Of course, there is still a need for some American presence to oversee reconstruction, manage funds and recruitment, provide training and supplies, and all the other administrative duties - but that would be far less costly than managing a full war. It just doesn't make any sense to continue spending billions on fighting and killing people, when we could probably solve our problems in Afghanistan for a fraction of the cost, and of greatly reduced loss of life to both Americans and Afghans - and secure a stable future for the country which has been left in ruins following thirty years of warfare.

I sometimes wonder if as an institution the military purposely perpetuates warfare so as to ensure it's own survival. That's probably not true, but it sure feels like that sometimes. I think what we really ought to do is fire most of our military commanders, and instead bring in some economists to manage Afghanistan. It's clear the Afghan people are not pushovers, we can not bully them into submission, which means we are forced to work with the Afghan people - not impose upon them a solution which is convenient for us. I could be wrong, but this is the type of solution that seems to be needed - not drone attacks or special operation forces. I just hope that the damage isn't so great that Afghanistan isn't doomed to forever be a failed nation...

Myopia

In the discussion today one issue was briefly mentioned which I think is a huge problem in American politics and highly relevant to the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq - the reluctance for politicians to see the bigger picture, and to base their decisions on the long-term rather than the short.

One can find examples of this everywhere, but in keeping this relevant to the war you could look at the Reagan Administrations funding of the Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion, and their subsequent "abandonment" of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. The short term-goal was to cause problems for the Soviets, which we did. No thought was given to what affect arming rag-tag militias might have on the long-term, and when the Soviets left, no thought was given on what was to become of Afghanistan. Where there are no short-term gains, it seems America is reluctant to act.

Even in the present decade, the focus of Iraq and the under-focus on Afghanistan by Donald Rumsfeld showed extreme short-sightedness. Going beyond the scope of this discussion, alternative energy, investment in scientific research and development, improving education and many other issues with great potential for enormous gains over the long-term are often pushed aside for the more expedient ones. The private sector understands the long-term, the government seems to not. That's really not that surprising though.

When a President, or Congressman enters office, one of the things that must constantly be on their mind is to do all they can to help ensure their re-elected in the next four or two years. From the moment they step into their position they are in a short-sighted mindset. This is an inherent feature of the way our government works, and it certainly is major oversight, in my opinion, by the architects of our country. From an economists point of view, there is almost no motivation for a President or Congressman to support a policy or legislation which does not have any short term gains, or worse yet may have short term losses, despite how great the gains may be in the long-run. Apart from running the country, Congress and the President must also constantly be nurturing their careers, and that means focusing on public opinion now not thirty years from now when, with clarity of hindsight, people may look back fondly on their foresight.

I really don't believe that the American government is stupid, and if I can reason about the long-term than so can they. They do, however, have to make conscious choices about not only how their decision affect the country, but how they affect their own careers. For example, suppose Bush was able to see that invading Afghanistan may result in a huge mess (this is, however, extremely unlikely although I'm sure people around him did) ten years down the road. A man who is only motivated by the interests of the country might reassure his people, who are calling for blood, and attempt to convey the difficulties involved, despite the enormous criticism he may receive. A man motivated by self-interest, however, would see this as an opportunity to show himself as a strong leader and gain large popular support, despite the damage is may cause after he's long gone from office.

This is a problem to me. It's not a problem with the people in government - it is only human nature to want to preserve your own interests - but it is a problem with the structure of the government its self. I suppose the idea originally was prevent the emergence of monarchies and rule by succession that had dominated Europe for hundreds of years, but these things are almost entirely a thing of the past in western society. Is it reasonable to assume that a system which was designed to address the problems of the 18th century will remain adequate for the modern world? I don't think so, and I would propose modifying the way we think about terms and election to address the weaknesses that are beginning to show themselves as the world around us changes.

I would propose eliminating consecutive terms, and merging a president's term to a single term of eight (or possibly ten) years, with no chance for re-election. This really has no disadvantage over the current system (except for keeping bad presidents in power longer, but it seems that two consecutive terms is a growing trend, regardless of actual performance). This at least liberates the President from having to worry about his immediate political future and perhaps some incentive to take political risks which may pay off in the long run. I would propose the same sort of idea for congress as well.

It may be naive to assume that this would have any real effect, and I'm certainly not claiming that my simple suggestion is all it would take or is the only possible solution, but what I am firmly saying is I feel that this is a real issue in American politics, and one which seems to be responsible for many of crisis we face in the coming years (terrorism, climate change, oil and energy, our technological superiority, and the list goes on...), and a blatant example now of the failure of foresight is Afghanistan. The lessons of history are there to be heeded or ignored, and I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail.

We Do Not Negotiate With Terrorists

We've talked in class about how the most likely resolution to the war in Afghanistan will be some sort of political settlement following a negotiation with the Taliban. We also discussed how presidential politics can influence the conduct of the war and a presidents decisions regarding it. So I wonder, where, when and how are these two facets of the war going to meet? Allow me to elaborate.

In the beginning, the Bush administration wanted to paint a direct connection between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which may or may not be fair, but I believe they also took it a step further and tried to paint the picture - or at least strongly imply - of a direction connection to the Taliban and the September 11th attacks, which of course is ridiculous. Since that time the American public has remained largely ignorant of who the Taliban are, the history of Afghanistan and the events of the war it's self. If asked who the Taliban are, I think it's fair to say, most people would say "terrorists", or something closely along those lines. (I called my sister up and asked her this question and she responded as I expected). If this is the general perception in America, how is it going to look when we try to begin talks with these "terrorists"? Which President is going to be the guy who "gave up" as will certainly be the impression the opposition partly will attempt to paint?

I think by vilifying the Taliban and labeling them as essentially the same as Al Qaeda, it makes bringing the conflict to an end significantly more complicated. The war in Afghanistan remains unpopular, but not nearly as much as Iraq was, and I think generally most people forget we're even there in their day to day lives. I don't feel that there is any real pressure for a President to seek a quick end to the fighting at the expense of dealing with the shit storm certain people will stir up over the thought of negotiating with these radical jihad waging muslims. I can only begin to imagine the headlines FOX news would begin coming up with. With President Obama already having been accused in the past of  being sympathetic to the Muslim world (which many Americans, ignorant as they may be, group broadly as an enemy of the United States with little distinction between countries), I don't see how he could ever realistically offer some kind of deal to the Taliban and ever have a chance of being re-elected.

I may be misjudging the American public, but to me it seems that negotiations with the Taliban will put a very bad tastes in the mouths of people who've for ten years have learned very little about Afghanistan and mainly rely on the U.S. media which generally doesn't make any distinction between the Taliban and a true terrorist organization. Even if you accept the Taliban aren't terrorists, still many people take issue with their treatment of women, their brutality toward the Hazara and other genuinely horrific acts they've committed. It seems we're stuck fighting an enemy we can't defeat militarily, and whom we can't compromise with politically. It's a very tricky situation.

An ideal solution would be if we could begin to withdraw and let the Afghan government handle the talks - in that way the American leadership would be somewhat shielded from accusations of caving to the Taliban or something along those lines. In order for that to happen though, it would require that Afghanistan build up a strong army capable of maintaining the government in the event of continued fighting - otherwise if America withdraws the Taliban would have little insentive to negotiate if they sense they can defeat the Afghan government - in which case we've come full circle back to the civil war of the mid 1990's.

So while the fighting continues on the ground, and all of the vast challenges that face Afghanistan, it seems if America wants to end its involvement there soon we have to not only find a way to begin talks with the Taliban but perhaps more challengingly find a way to make those talks politically palatable at home. Nothing is easy about Afghanistan...

The Progress of War

 This is something that came up in class today which got me thinking. During lecture, the Professor (YOU) posed the question of how one measures progress in an unconventional war. The comparison was made to that of a conventional war where you may have a clearly defined front or some position you wish to advance on (a city, a bridge, a hilltop) and progress is measured literally in yards and movement of the front.

In an unconventional war, the argument was made, goals are not always so clearly defined and there is no defined "front". Winning a battle may mean very little, and result in no gain, save perhaps your side killed more than their side did. So can one measure "progress" in a war where goals are at times ambiguous and in a country which has experienced thirty years of continuous warfare? Well I think you can, however even the best "measurements" of progress under such circumstances are only really indicators of progress. Still, I think its necessary to evaluate progress in somehow, because how else can you plan for the future if you don't know where you stand now?

First in order to measure progress, one has to know what they are supposed to be progressing towards. In Afghanistan, I think one can state our main goal there fairly simply as such:

To establish a stable, democratic and pro-American government capable of running the countries affairs and maintaining internal stability. 

Those are my own words, not the military's, but I think that's a pretty fair assessment. No doubt there are other goals and agendas, but I think the above is the main overarching goal in Afghanistan. If that's the case, then one needs to consider how is such a goal achieved or how is it prevented. To establish a stable state, this generally requires there aren't large numbers of insurgents who are actively fighting the government. This is itself a complex issue - who exactly is an insurgent, how do you combat insurgency effectively and prevent it from re-emerging? The latter is a clearly part of the larger goal, and I think that is where progress is made and measured.

First though, allow me to give my answer to the question "who is an insurgent?". I think an insurgent is quite simply anyone who is willing to pick up a gun and fight against the government or the U.S. military. There may be complex and important social factors that play into why that person chooses to fight, but as far as the issue from an American perspective is concerned, if you are willing to take up arms against the Afghan forces then you are an insurgent. As mentioned above, progress will only come when the insurgency dies down, however that may happen. So a measure of the progress of the War in Afghanistan I think (and this may be simplifying things greatly) is a measure of the status of the insurgency. If there was no one to fight, we'd have no reason to continue staying there.

In this regard, I think progress is measurable. One can talk about the success of "reintegration" programs - programs that are designed to get young men to put down their Kalashnikovs and rejoin society (and one can debate what "Afghan society" actually means, but that's another blog post). I think it's much more tempting to give up the resistance and go home when you aren't facing arrest for doing so. The fact that these programs even exist is surely a sign of progress, and the expansion and spread of these programs will indicate progress.

Relations with influential groups is another important indication of progress I believe. Negotiations and ultimately a political settlement with the Taliban is admittedly how the war is likely to end, and so any kind of talk or debate or building of a dialogue is progress. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening yet, but when and if it does it will surely be a step towards ending this conflict. The trickiest aspect of all this, however, is how to prevent the insurgency from returning. There is an ebb and flow to these things, and while one might be able to stamp out resisitance for a period of time and declare "Mission Accomplished", if the insurgency re-emerges then you are back to square one. Preventing further fighting and insurgency is a huge part of achieving our goals, and is probably the true step toward progress.

I think even here though one can make some generalizations. Economic opportunity is a huge problem in Afghanistan - that is the lack thereof. It's tempting to go off and fight when you're frustrated with your situation in life and have no job prospects or really any hope of improving your life. When you have a good job though and are able to make money and raise a healthy family, suddenly running off to the hill to wage jihad doesn't seem so appealing. I think the ultimate progress in the war will come from economic progress - and that won't be easy. In my opinion, America is going to have to do some nation building if its ever going to give these men some incentive to support the government. It's one thing to support a government who is providing jobs and a chance to earn a living, it's entirely something else to support a government who seems to do nothing for you and which you view as an affront on your freedom and way of life.

So while even at best, the situation is not black and white, I feel that one can draw conclusions about the progress we're making in Afghanistan and if you examine things closely you'd probably be forced to conclude that so far, it ain't much.

Restrepo

Restrepo is a great piece of journalism. It offers a not often seen glimpse into the day to day lives of the soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, and I think it does a far better job of showing the reality of the war than the U.S. media. It doesn't attempt to directly state anything and I think offers an unbiased view, as much as is possible at least, given that it is shot only from an American perspective for obvious reasons. Still, several key themes stand out throughout the film, and it is a candid look into the experience and the views of Americans stationed over there.

The first thing that struck me is how lush and beautiful the Korangal Valley is. I suppose you get the impression of Afghanistan as this harsh, dessert wasteland, but the Korangal isn't too much different than the American southwest. Another striking feature is just how rough the terrain is. Afghanistan is infamous for being mountainous, but it's not until you see the villages dug into the sides of the hills and the sharp maze of "spurs" that you really appreciate that this is not an easy land to navigate. The beautiful landscape is soon contrasted with the ugliness of war, and the frequent skirmishes between the Americans and the Taliban become a daily part of life.

Lack of Infrastructure: This is one of the major themes in the film. Most of the time spent with the Americans takes place in a little hovel of a base called OP Restrepo. It was built ontop of a hill by the Americans using picks and shovels. They have no running water, no electricity, and very little in the way of any sort of modern comforts. It's somewhat surprising to think that even today U.S. soldiers are living and fighting out of what are little more than tents and basically living on the bare ground. The position is fortified with the lowest of the low tech - bags of dirt - yet still manages to sport some impressive weaponry.

In fact the American's don't have much more than the local population, who live in stone houses dug mainly into the mountainsides and hills. The film follows the Americans as they go on frequent patrols and occasionally interrogate the local population, searching for Insurgents and contraband. This leads into the next theme...

Tensions: I got the impression that the "hearts and minds" campaign isn't going very well. The villagers seem to be respectful of the Americans, but you get the sense that this is motivated by fear, and that there is a deep distrust for the soldiers. The Americans may often show up abruptly at peoples homes, going door to door and looking for intelligence on the Taliban or a number of other things. I think most people have experience with salesmen or people looking for donations who go door to door, and how unpleasant is can be having strangers approach you wanting your time or money. It's hard to imagine though what that's like when these strangers come in groups of 10 or more, armed with automatic weapons. I can't blame the Afghans for disliking or even hating the Americans, and I'm sure the Americans don't enjoy having to do that kind of work either.

We get to sit in on several Shura with village elders and the American commanders. These meetings are apparently an attempt  to get the locals involved in decision making, and to give them a sense of responsibility for their own futures. They don't appear to be very productive for the most part though. The Americans don't seem to take the Afghans very seriously and are not willing to compromise much, and the Afghans are not willing to forget the injustices and grievances they have. Perhaps its the start of progress, but I think at least in the Korangal American and Afghan relations have a long way to go.

Unseen Enemy: Throughout the film, despite the numerous firefights we never actually see the Taliban. I don't think this is intentional either, but rather speaks to the guerrilla nature of the war. The Taliban seem to employ "shoot and scoot" tactics, taking advantage of the rugged terrain to disappear after they've unleashed a volley of gunfire on the Americans below. They often shoot at the Americans from across the valley, which puts them at a great advantage - they always know where the Americans are, but the Americans never know where they are. The difficulties in fighting this kind of war, coupled with the difficulties of daily life, are made apparent in this film.

Cost of war: The movie is named after "Doc Restrepo" a soldier who was killed there during deployment. We also hear the names of other soldiers who were killed, and even are witness to a Sergent killed in a particularly hair-raising battle. It's not just the Americans who suffer losses though, we also see the devastating effect of an air strike on a home in a village. We see injured women and children standing around, terrified and helpless as the Americans go through the rubble looking for weapons. In one shot a man stands in silence holding a small injured child in his hands, and the hatred on his face for the Americans who are casually walking around him is obvious, and frankly I don't blame him. No one in that position would react in any other way than to hate the people who nearly killed your family. Both sides face losses, the Americans and the Taliban. but somehow I feel the villagers and the local people are the ones who really suffer.

Restrepo is great because it doesn't attempt to filter the war, put a slant on things, or send any type of message. It's simply an honest account, and the viewer is left to make up his own mind - even if that means making the Americans don't end up looking good. It's a welcome relief from some of the bullshit reporting that the major news networks show on T.V. and I think would be a big surprise to the average American. The themes that arise naturally in the film run deep throughout all of Afghanistan, and are at the heart of this ten year war that doesn't seem to have an end in sight.