What Failure in Afghanistan?
At the heart of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for a major surge in troops is the assumption that we are failing in Afghanistan. But are we really? The United States has had one central objective: to deny al-Qaeda the means to reconstitute, to train and to plan major terrorist attacks. This mission has been largely successful for the past eight years. Al-Qaeda is dispersed, on the run and unable to direct attacks of the kind it planned and executed routinely in the 1990s. Fourteen of the top 20 leaders of the group have been killed by drone attacks. Its funding sources are drying up, and its political appeal is at an all-time low. All this is not an accident but rather a product of the U.S. presence in the region and efforts to disrupt terrorists, track funds, gain intelligence, aid development, help allies and kill enemies.
It's true that the security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated considerably. While it is nothing like Iraq in 2006 -- civilian deaths are a tenth as numerous -- parts of the country are effectively controlled by the Taliban. Other parts are no man's land. But these areas are sparsely populated tracts of countryside. All the major population centers remain in the hands of the Kabul government. Is it worth the effort to gain control of all 35,000 Afghan villages scattered throughout the country? That goal has eluded most Afghan governments for the past 200 years and is a very high bar to set for the U.S. mission there.
Why has security gotten worse? Largely because Hamid Karzai's government is ineffective and corrupt and has alienated large numbers of Pashtuns, who have migrated to the Taliban. It is not clear that this problem can be solved by force, even using a smart counterinsurgency strategy. In fact, more troops injected into the current climate could provoke an anti-government or nationalist backlash.
It's important to remember that the crucial, lasting element of the surge in Iraq was not the influx of troops but getting Sunni tribes to switch sides, by offering them security, money and a place at the table. U.S. troops are now drawing down and yet -- despite some violence -- the Sunnis have not resumed fighting because Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is courting their support.
The United States and the Afghan government need to make much greater efforts to wean Pashtun tribes away from the most radical Taliban factions. It is unclear how many Taliban fighters believe in a global jihadist ideology, but most U.S. commanders with whom I've spoken feel that the number is less than 30 percent. The other 70 percent are driven by money, gangland peer pressure or opposition to Karzai.
And when we think through our strategy in Afghanistan, let's please remember that there is virtually no al-Qaeda presence there. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently acknowledged what U.S. intelligence and all independent observers have long said: Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, as is the leadership of the hard-core Afghan Taliban. (That's why it's called the Quetta Shura, Quetta being a Pakistani city.) All attacks against Western targets that have emanated from the region in the past eight years have come from Pakistan, not from Afghanistan. Even the most recently foiled plot in the United States, which involved the first Afghan that I know of to be implicated in global terrorism, originated in Pakistan. Yet we spend $30 in Afghanistan for every dollar in Pakistan.
There's little evidence that Pakistan's generals have truly accepted that they must defeat all the jihadis in their country (as opposed to just those who threaten the Pakistani state). But they have been more cooperative and active in the past year than ever before. A civilian government, the jihadi takeover of the Swat Valley, a change in public attitudes and increased American aid have all contributed to a more effective U.S.- Pakistan relationship. Greater energy, attention, and resources will surely yield even more.
What about the argument that Osama bin Laden and his minions will simply shift back across the border if the Taliban is allowed free rein? Well, they haven't done so yet, despite the pockets of turf the insurgents control. And it is easier for us to deny them territory than to insist that we control it all ourselves -- we can fight like guerrillas, too. Remember that the United States and its allies have close to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan now. Keeping them there is the right commitment, one that keeps in mind the stakes, but also the costs, and most important, the other vital interests around the world to which U.S. foreign policy must also be attentive.
Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International and the author of "The Post-American World." His e-mail address is comments@fareedzakaria.com.
My Analysis
I think Fareed's article commits gross misjudgment of the Afghan quagmire on several counts. He paints nice picture of a losing cause as admitted by Gen. McChrystal. He is content with killing 14/20 top leaders whereas statistics show much grimmer situation on the ground this year than at any time during the eight year struggle.
From Taliban's perspective this war is not fought around personalities as Washington portrays it to be (Osama Bin Laden) but an ideological fight. US has not done itself much good by conducting drone attacks or pushing Pakistan Army against the insurgents as Talibans continue to enjoy greater support among the decision makers due to several reasons. US is not a trustable ally as history has proven on several occasions and admitted by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator John Kerry among many others.
Equating reduced civilian deaths to relative peace in Afghanistan is an error of judgment. Washington tries to hide its military incompetence by blaming Karzai's corrupt regime which is nothing but a puppet government. It does not enjoy the confidence of Afghan people not because he is corrupt but because he is just a pawn in a greater game whose moves are orchestrated in Washington.
Fareed thinks that just by controlling Kabul or other bigger cities will do it for US. That is a misconception which is making them pay. How long are they going to stick around protecting bigger cities. Yes I agree with him that violence has been reduced due to presence of US troops in Afghanistan. I couldn't help but ask if US eternal presence is the solution to keeping Afghanistan peaceful, are Americans ready to commit to that?
Pentagon has fed Fareed with erroneous data which he easily seems to have digested. US would not be in a miserable position as it is today if it were for the money. Like I said its an ideological fight and as noted by a British expert on the region, "Pathans can only unite on religion and when they do, they set aside their differences". Economic motive is not a variable in this equation.
Pointing out Quetta Shura and shifting the theatre of war to Pakistan's Balochistan province has several other motives working behind it. US policy makers have been unilateral in their approach by addressing only their own national interests. This is what they are paid to do but here the problem is much more complex and requires allowing leverage to some of the other stakeholders as well. US not just needs to 'listen' to partners but also care for their interests in the region. They have been neglectign this and as a consequence allies like Pakistan's support have been half-hearted as they have to watch for their own interests(Indian threat in Afghanistan as admitted by Gen. McChrystal). As John Nash said while revising Adam Smith,
"The best result comes from everyone in the group doing what’s best for himself and the group"
Sooner or later US has to pull out as regional neighbours and powers will never reconcile to US success in Afghanistan.
