Richard Fernandez nee Wretchard of The Belmont Club comments on the interrelationships between Afghanistan and Iraq:
The strategic value of land-locked, impoverished Afghanistan to the Jihad was as a symbol rather than a geopolitical prize. The image of Jihadis defeating the Soviet Army was the ultimate source of al-Qaeda’s credibility; something that could prise money, men and political authority from their home front, treasury and recruitment depot. Given a choice between giving up Afghanistan and repeating reprising the defeat of a superpower in Iraq, al Qaeda would have clearly preferred the latter. This does not mean that Afghanistan is strategically unimportant, but it was always secondary to the Middle East
Having been very publicly ousted from the critical Middle East, al-Qaeda and its allies probably hope they can rebuild their political fortunes and retrieve their legend in Southwest Asia. Unlike the period immediately after 9/11, when al-Qaeda was regarded as burgeoning force, the rereat to Afghanistan is fundamentally defensive in character one which preserves the possibility of future victory rather than representing an advance in itself. As long as the Jihad can hold out against the US coalition, even if they cannot regain Kabul, survival in a sufficiently distant place where they can plausibly claim miracles and victories unfalsifiable by direct experience might let them live to rise another day.
I think that Mr. Fernandez overstates the extent of victory to date in Iraq somewhat: I don’t think that Al Qaeda has been “ousted from the critical Middle East”. There’s still plenty of Al Qaeda members, sympathizers, and supporters in the Middle East and will be for the foreseeable future since, essentially, we have no way of removing them in the short term. The current situation is certainly a loss of face for them, however, and I think that’s important, too.
My own view, as I have noted umpteen times in the past, is that victory in Afghanistan is something that will always elude our grasp. However, having at least some of the Al Qaeda leadership bottled up in the relatively isolated Afghanistan and tribal areas of Pakistan is a pretty fair substitute. At the very least it increases their cost of doing business. It does, however, require us to maintain a long-term commitment of troops, diplomatic support, and development support to Afghanistan. I’d much rather see our presidential candidates building domestic political support for that sort of engagement than by promising victory in Afghanistan, IMO the foreign policy equivalent of a chicken in every pot.
Neither Sen. Barack Obama nor Sen. John McCain has defined what would constitute victory in Afghanistan, its costs, nor how long it would be likely to take. With a combination of satisfaction and dismay I note that not a single commenter to my piece yesterday made the slightest attempt at engaging any of these questions. Rather clearly all that’s interesting about the subject to most people is its effect on domestic politics.
Dave, I didn’t accept your Afghanistan challenge because I think “victory” is a loaded term. Perhaps that’s your point. I think we are engaged in a worthwhile nation-building exercise. The end goal would be a unified nation in which its citizens look to Kabul and Kabul can keep the peace. In the meantime, that means U.S./NATO security to protect development of communications, electricity and transportation systems to knit the country together. Particular emphasis on the roads:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/world-in-numbers
How many troops does that require? Beats me. I think some of this has to do with NATO and barring an invasion of Pakistan, the proper number of American troops is probably the number that maximises NATO military and non-military contributions.
Indeed, it was my point. In this comment Jeff Medcalf hit the nail precisely on the head (as he often does).
I think that what desparately needs to happen is that both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain need to stop talking about victory (either in Iraq or Afghanistan) and more about engagement with the Middle East, with Asia, indeed, with Africa. We can’t achieve our objectives by defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban militarily and then bringing the troops home. Either we’re going to have a substantial commitment in troops and money to the region or we’re going to engage in a major course reversal—back eighty years or more.
There also won’t be any peace dividend—something Sen. Obama is relying on heavily for his domestic programs.
I can understand why neither senator wants to press the point but I’m quite concerned that by avoiding the subject they’re rather increasing the likelihood of an American return to isolationism.
Victory? That word is so Victorian. It is only useful in describing the result of conflicts between nation states. The current conflict, which started 1,400 years ago for the world and in 1794 for the U.S., is being waged in an area where the borders are recent and artificial – lines on a map but invisible on the ground.
What we have achieved strategically is an extensive military presence throughout the area. Pax Americana if we are lucky, strategic and tactical initiative if we are not.
End of history? More like a half-time without the marching bands.
It’s not my word, Roy. It’s the word being used by both of our presidential candidates. That’s why I’m asking what in the world they mean and how in the dickens they plan to achieve it.
You are spot on, Dave.
After reading Wretchard for a few years now, his gravitas is diminished because like many a blogger — even one as well versed as he is — he tends to cherry pick events to make his point.
AQ is still well embedded and well invested in the Middle East. It has, in fact, become a global force since 9/11, which speaks volumes about the U.S.’s GWOT pushback.
And “victory” will never be attainable in Afghanistan.
The word “victory” is inextricably linked with the word “war.” If the candidates drop victory they’ll be unable to maintain the self-flattering notion of being “war time president.”
If we’re not in a war it’s harder to get the people to go along with billions off-budget, and intrusions on personal liberty and even the minor quotidian inconveniences we accept because we are “at war.”
If what we’re doing is merely “engaging,” then the sense of crisis recedes and we go back to the tedious grind of diplomacy, buying influence, carrying out the occasional military action, acquiring and analyzing intelligence and so on.
But if we’re sticking with the war paradigm it automatically comes with a promise of an end-point. The alternative is war without end at that’s a bit much for Americans to stomach.
Dave,
I was not referring to your use of the word victory. I was trying to reinforce your argument.
Roy