Bin Laden's dead. Should we get out of Afghanistan?
I am commenting on an article written by Fred Kaplan, a columnist at Slate.com. Mr. Kaplan is known as a hawk.
Now, to the article…
“…the war in Afghanistan has never been entirely about killing or capturing Bin Laden."
It wasn't? Bush lied about something else?
"It's a big deal that he's been killed. Al-Qaida has lost not merely a figurehead but its political and spiritual leader, the seemingly invincible embodiment of its whole mythic narrative. But the organization and its dream aren't dead; its franchise managers, however splintered and paranoid, can still wreak much damage.”
Before people like you came along, OBL was a loser hiding out in a cave in Tora Bora. But, people like you had to invest him with such tripe as, "...not merely a figurehead but its political and spiritual leader."
While nimrods like you have been investing heavily in the fear mongering trade, OBL has gone from hanging out in caves to a 'compound' in Abbottabad where he watched porn flicks. This is who you describe as the "invincible embodiment" of the whole myth. Your 'invincible embodiment' was sitting on his ass, on his mud floor studying for his next jihad by screening 'Debbie Does Kandahar" over and over again, just to make sure he got a good look at her technique.
OBL's death isn’t a big deal. Some people refuse to believe that OBL’s role in anything that Al Qaeda has done since 9/11 has been pretty much limited to making ant-American videos and shouting ‘Death to America.’ He was a nobody that the west clung to so as to justify starting two wars in the Middle East. OBL was much more important in the creation of the “National security” state, simply because he was an unknown.
As an unknown it was possible for the government to do anything they wanted, while pointing to the specter of OBL. I am not sure what they are going to do now that their scapegoat is no longer an unknown.
“More to the point, Afghanistan, in its current state, would very likely tumble into anarchy or civil war without the binding presence (however tenuous) of U.S. and NATO troops—and thus serve, again, as a sanctuary for terrorists.”
And we should care about this, why?
You invest OBL with powers of a 'super-terrorist' and then you say nothing much is going to change since his death. The minor leaguers will just step up their game and it will back to business as usual.
So, which is it - is he 'super-terrorist' who is the "...invincible embodiment..." or is he some old guy sitting on the floor, farting and watching porn? You can't have it both ways, but, somehow, I believe you are going to try. Fear mongering is like that.
You seem to believe that we can, somehow, force our way of life on the Afghanis, least the country become lousy with terrorists. If that is what we are doing, why aren’t we garrisoning most of the countries in the Middle-east and a few in Africa. They are, already, harboring "terrorists". So, why don’t we send a couple of cruise missiles over Jordan to get their attention? Better yet, why don’t we stop buying oil from the Saudis. That would really shut them up.
“Of particular concern here are the most-militant jihadists, who could turn the lawless terrain into a cross-border expanse from which to plan and execute their ambitions in nuclear-armed Pakistan.”
Okay, nice way you worked in "nuclear-armed Pakistan" into the whole doomsday scenario. Too bad what you said is just the wet dream of some guy who works for the CIA. In the basement. Emptying trash into the incinerator.
You are, sort, of like the Japanese before Pearl Harbor. Their entire doctrine, strategy and tactics were based on the belief that there would be one huge fleet encounter with American and Japanese navies engaged in a pitched battle, sending dump truck sized shells back and forth until one side was destroyed or withdrew in defeat. That's why they attacked Pearl Harbor, to kill battleships. Aircraft carriers were just a bonus; or not, because they weren't in port that day.
In your version of this nightmare, you are sure that a mass of Taliban are going to come running full-out towards an American base where they will be gunned down in an orderly, military manner. And afterwords, a gracious people will tolerate the occupation of their country and the senseless slaughter of their citizens. After all, we brought all the guns, so we get to make all the rules. And, of course, the Afghanis know how much to trust invading armies. It's always worked out so well for them in the past.
“The killing of Bin Laden would have momentous impact on the Afghan war—and on world politics—if some Pakistani leaders used the occasion to force systemic institutional reforms.”
Okay, so OBL wasn't important, it was that his death should have been used to "...force systemic institutional reforms." Yeah, that makes sense. OBL was just a blunt tool to force another ancient culture into adopting a world view the US/NATO can relate to.
"Many countries' leaders would be compelled to make vast changes if it were suddenly revealed that they'd been harboring the world's most wanted mass murderer for five years”
Where are these many countries you speak of?
The Mossad penetrated Argentina and kidnapped Adolf Eichmann in 1960. He had been living there since the end of WWII. He used false papers to enter and stay in the country. Eichmann collaborated with Reinhard Heydrich to solve the ‘Jewish question’ in Nazi Germany. This puts the blood of six million Jews on Eichmann’s hands. Eichmann was one of the most infamous mass murderers in history.
So, why didn’t Argentina complain to the UN or to the Israeli government about what amounted to an act of war against a sovereign nation? Because they weren’t really interested in abetting an individual responsible for killing 6 million Jews.
And what did Argentina do after the Israelis kidnapped Eichmann? Nothing.
The Pakistani government isn’t going to, all of the sudden, decide they have to be accountable to the rest of the world. They aren’t accountable. They have been harboring “terrorists” for a lot longer than OBL has been around. And they will go on harboring them now that OBL is dead. That is, if you define terrorism as one who has to be forced at the end of rifle to adopt your world view.
Pakistan didn't want to be responsible for what OBL did or what he stood for. Like Argentines, the Pakastanis weren't interested in hiding a mass murderer in their midst. So, the Pakistanis let the Americans solve their problem.
“—and that a foreign power can mount a military raid deep inside its borders without triggering the slightest detection, much less resistance.”
Look at map, Abbottabad isn't 'deep inside" Pakistan's border, it is right on the border.
What a bunch of BS. We BOUGHT our way into Pakistan. The Pakistani government knows who is giving it billions of dollars of aid. We could have detonated a tactical nuclear weapon in Abbottabad, killed everyone, turned the ground into radioactive glass and they wouldn’t have said anything. They know not to bite the hand that feeds them.
And it was not like Pakistan had any interest in saving OBL...
“…in just about any other country on earth, a leader would use this double embarrassment as an opportunity to clean house, chop heads, overhaul rival power networks.”
In other words, become more fascist. Isn’t this what Stalin did after WWII – purges and pogroms? Isn’t that what is happening in the US? This is desirable?
You seem to have trouble with the concept of ‘accountability’. Pakistan has none. They don’t think they need it. They don’t want it. And they sure as hell are not going to be accountable to a non-Muslim nation full of infidels.
“Should India invade (and there have been a few wars between the two countries since the 1947 partition), a friendly Afghanistan would be a strategic reserve. In the meantime, a strong Taliban helps counter India's efforts to create a presence in Afghanistan—in other words, helps to pre-empt India's encirclement of Pakistan.”
Again, I have to ask why this should matter to the US?
India and Pakistan and been fighting since Pakistan was created. It didn’t start when, or if, Al Qaeda showed up.
The Taliban are many things, but being an effective military force is not one of them. Most of them aren’t even sure what they are doing, besides joining in the chorus of “Death to America.” The leadership, if there is any, is completely decentralized and would be impossible to control. They have no articulable goals. By their very nature, they are tribal warlords who aren’t going to line up to fight any invaders on behalf of the Pakistanis, much less an Indian attempt to invade Pakistan.
They know that an insurgency will win every time over an army dedicated to direct confrontation. In other words, the Taliban - probably without reading it - understand the tenants of Sun Tzu's Art of War better than we do. They, like the North Vietnamese are in it for the long war. They know that they can drag any foreign army down by refusing to fight on their terms.
Maybe we should run your scenario by a couple of our guests at Camp X-ray and ask them if their ‘jihad’ was ultimately to serve as a fighting reserve for Pakistan.
Let’s make something perfectly clear. Power comes with having nuclear weapons, not using them. They act as a deterrent only as long as you have them. Use them and you are naked in the face of nuclear weapons from the other side – who you have just really pissed off.
Neither India nor Pakistan is going to throw away what they see as their ‘trump card’ over a border war that has been going for fifty years and will continue almost indefinitely into the future.
It does fit into your doomsday scenario, though.
It also begs the question: Pakistan is our ally. We don’t want them to be overrun by the Indians. And, according to you, the Taliban are serving as a strategic reserve against an Indian invasion of Pakistan. So, why are trying to kill the very people you claim are functioning as a reserve army for our ally?
“The death of Osama Bin Laden doesn't alter these factors.”
You’re right. This fantasy you have concocted is just that, a fantasy. A reason for us to stay and fight a non-existent enemy, living among a populace that doesn’t want us there. Who is tired of their friends and neighbors being killed in the effort to bring them a liberal democracy. They don’t like us, because they don’t want to adopt a world view that is consistent with ours. They, rightly, don’t think that it is just or humane for one group of people to make another group of people ‘hew the line’ just because it can.
“But if it matters to U.S. interests how the war ends—whither Afghanistan and its effects on the broader region—then it's a bad idea simply to walk away. And it's fairly clear that the outcome does matter to U.S. interests.”
Do you read history? Do you really believe the US can materially change what is going to happen in Afghanistan’s future? That we, finally, are the invading force that will save them from themselves and get them to embrace a way of life that they are willing to kill and die to avoid?
Whose interests are we talking about protecting? What you are saying is that this war, like every other war, isn’t about anything but RESOURCES. Business. Not political activism. Not humanitarianism. We just want their resources. All wars are about resources. War is just theft writ large.
Look around at your kids and your kids’ friends. Now, tell me that you think these human beings are worth sacrificing so Exxon-Mobil can make an extra ten million in profit?
“So we should exploit this situation, use it as leverage to get Karzai to step up reforms, especially to take meaningful steps toward ending corruption."
The Afghan people elected Karzai once. They let him steal another election with hardly a blink. The only people who were upset that Karzai stole the election were people not in Afghanistan.
Now, you expect Karzai to stop being a kleptocrat and start caring what the US thinks of him?
Where there is no accountability, there is no leverage. It is more beneficial for Karzai to maintain the status quo. The U.S. gives Afghanistan money and Karzai steals it and uses it to consolidate his power. Then he gets to play victim whenever NATO does something he doesn't like – and he, pretty much, doesn’t like anything NATO does. I see no upside for Karzai to quit being the head of a kleptocracy and to suddenly become accountable to his people or to a NATO, that seemingly goes around killing people at their leisure.
"At the same time, commanders and diplomats should exploit whatever fissures Bin Laden's death might have opened up—not just between the various Taliban factions but, more, between the insurgent commanders, who tend to lounge in the shelters of Pakistan, and the foot soldiers bleeding on the battlefields of Afghanistan. It's unclear at this point whether a diplomatic settlement is possible, or what it would look like—but it's time to start seriously crafting its foundations."
In the first part of this article, you claimed that OBL's death wouldn't be that significant. Now you are saying it can be leveraged to, somehow, force a diplomatic solution to a war without any goals and without an exit strategy.
Why would the 'minor leaguers' you describe as being below OBL agree to anything? They are prevailing. They are chasing NATO around Afghanistan, making NATO spend billions of dollars and gallons of blood just to achieve some kind of weird status quo.
They know, for certain, that we do not have the political will to stomach another [insert number of years] in Afghanistan. We have already announced that fact by saying we will start a draw-down of troops this summer and will be gone by 2013.
These people aren't idiots - mostly - they will not agree to a diplomatic solution when they are already winning.
Even if there were to be a diplomatic solution, who would we join with to provide it? That guy who showed up at NATO's doorstep, claiming to be a representative of some of the leaders of the Taliban, but was really just a scam artist?
To posit that killing OBL will influence other Al Qaeda leaders to surface and agree to a diplomatic solution is ludicrous. All the Afghanis have to do is sit around their TVs, watch video porn and complain about the west's decadence. And wait for NATO leave.
They know they can put the west, especially, the US into a panic by not blowing things - i.e.; the Times Square bomb. Why risk direct action against a highly technical and sophisticated army, when you can get rich guys who are losing their homes to foreclosure to do stupid things and take all the heat?
There is no evidence of any discord among the leaders of the Taliban. Why would they give up now, if we are going to be gone in two years? All they have to do is wait us out. And they know that means waiting two years. Would you negotiate a political solution to a war that you are winning?
Let’s take a minute here to reflection how well this whole “peace with honor” thing has worked out. Kissinger negotiated the Paris Peace Accords and ended American involovement in the Vietnam war. We – including the government of N. Vietnam – more or less agreed to maintain the status quo until a referendum was held to decide about the partitioning of the country.
And, of course, the N. Vietnamese stopped fighting. After all they had agreed to not keep fighting. Why wouldn’t keep their word? Because they didn’t have to. They weren’t accountable to anyone. They could do whatever they wanted – and they wanted to be on tanks that rolled into Saigon and forced the evacuation of hundreds of people from the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon.
I may be cynical, but I really can’t see where the Taliban would be anymore pre-disposed to honor their commitment to a diplomatic solution than the North Vietnamese were.
In fact, I can’t see any upside in it for them. So, why do it?
“…and we will have no leverage if everyone thinks we're getting out quickly.”
Everyone doesn’t just think we are getting out quickly. They know we are getting out quickly. How can a force that will disappear after 2 years leverage anything?
“There are two alternatives to this approach: keep doing what we've been doing and stay there forever while the regional politics continue to stagnate—or just get out and watch it all crumble.”
The ‘crumbling’ of the current corrupt government and the substitution of an Islamic leader is already pre-determined. Once we get out, they will stop making even the most facile attempts to do what they promised to do.
They will revert back to what they have known for thousands of years – inter-tribal warfare, theocracy and corruption on such as massive scale it will dwarf what is happening now.
It appears that Mr. Kaplan lives in an alternate universe where people act exactly as he predicts they will. No matter how unreasonable he is.
He still believes that we can force our world view on the Afghanis by display of military force. He still believes the government of Afghanistan can be bribed or scared into doing the “right thing” by an omnipotent US that, in ten years, has failed to make any sustainable change in Afghanistan.
He still believes that might makes right and everyone who possesses a world view inconsistent with his will fall, if we just ‘rattle our sabers’ loud enough.
Unfortunately for the American/NATO soldiers, sailors and airmen who have died in the fruitless effort to achieve any kind of permanent change, we are not omnipotent.
We have no leverage. We cannot use foreign aid to force a conclusion that we like. We are completely and utterly irrelevant to what Afghanistan will be like after we leave. What little influence we have we have because we bought it.
There is no way for us to influence what will happen in the future. If we stay we will just see more Americans die. And watch billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money circle the drain and disappear into never neverland.
And hawks like Mr. Kaplan need to learn to accept that. Before any more Americans die and before billions of dollars disappear down the rabbit hole.
