We must stay in Afghanistan to prevent atomic war!

This post examines one of the mechanisms maintaining support for the war.  Someone has a vision of a horrible possible future.  He believes this so important that we must devote vast resources to prevention, with…

• no thought of its probability of occurrence,
• no effort to calculate the costs in money and blood of his recommendations,
• no effort to evaluate this vs. the many other nightmare scenarios.

This example comes from a blog called “The Stupidest Man on Earth”, but the name is wrong.  Run by Jari Lindholm, the About page says that he…

is a Helsinki-based reporter covering armed conflict for the Finnish newsweekly Suomen Kuvalehti. His work has appeared in 16 countries in several newspapers and magazines, including The Sunday Times (UK), La Repubblica (Italy) and Die Welt (Germany).

He’s not stupid (the opposite, in fact, as a successful journalist), just exhibiting the mixture of hubris and paranoia that distinguishes our time (which I thought was uniquely American).    He sees a threat to our security.  We obviously have the resources to address this threat.  So we should do so.  No additional analysis required.  Budgets, balancing cost and benefits, analysis of relative dangers — these are unnecessary, except for those who live in the real world (rather than one of their imaginations).

Lindholm is not the stupidest man in the world.  But we might be.  If such feckless reasoning brings America down — falling who knows how far — then we will deserve to be called the Stupidest People in the World.

Contents

1. Lindholm warns about nuclear war if we weaken in Afghanistan
2. About Finland’s contribution to the war
3. Update:  Lindholm’s responses
4. Why we are still at war in Afghanistan
5. Afterword and For more information

(1)  A warning about nuclear war

“9/11, American Myopia and Nuclear War“, Jari Lindholm, posted at his blog, 20 August 2009 — Excerpt…

In Afghanistan, the Taleban celebrate their 13th year in power. In neighbouring Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf or another military dictator is toasting with them, comfortable in the knowledge that his country’s strategic interests are safe. Across the world, high-profile attacks by terrorist groups operating from Afghanistan are met with shock and horror, but no one is suggesting military intervention — after all, in the larger scheme of things this is a mere nuisance.

Then terrorists flying hijacked airplanes strike at the heart of India’s capital Delhi, wiping out the entire parliament and killing the prime minister.

Pakistan denies involvement, but India mobilises. A fighter jet is shot down, a town shelled, an incursion repelled. Both sides issue veiled threats as cries of total war grow louder.

Then terrorists strike again, this time in Mumbai, killing hundreds.  And then, just like that, before the outside world can utter a word, missiles are launched.

Years later, when the costs are counted, it is said, with some pride, that clearing the radioactive ruins of Delhi, Mumbai, Lahore and Islamabad is the greatest undertaking mankind has ever attempted.

If you think this is just an alarmist fantasy, well, what can I say — I don’t. In fact, I think it may be too optimistic.

The opening describes a shockwave: a low probability, high impact scenarios.  Climate change, atomic war, overpopulation, pollution — true believers cite these nightmares as though imaging something means that it is likely.  These single-minded zealots people clog our public space, clamoring for attention to their terrible dreams {correction done as this ad hominem was a violation of site policy}. His article grows more preposterous as it continues.

In reality, were the Taleban to return to power in Afghanistan today, they would be immensely more powerful, dedicated and internationalist in their outlook than they were in 2001. After years of jihad alongside al-Qaeda and other international militants, they would not merely allow terrorist organisations to use Afghanistan as a base; they would encourage it.

How does he know such things?  Esp what the Taliban would do.  They lost power by aiding al Qaeda’s mad dreams. They might have learned something from the experience, esp as the US will not allow a repetition.

Naturally, toppling the Pakistani government by supporting their Pashtun brethren would be high on the Taleban to-do list, as they would want to see a friendly, ISI-backed general return to power in Islamabad. In turn, they would gladly help in providing him with the terrorist cannon fodder he would need for his covert operations in India.

How easily he says this nonsense.  How odd that he’s not greeted with laughter for stating such speculation as authoritative.  Here are a few of the many objections.

1. Pashtuns are a small fraction of the Pakistani population, roughly 15% (source).
2. There is no evidence of widespread support for the Taliban — or its ideology — in Pakistan.
3. Although sources differ on its side, the Pakistan Army is large — 500+ thousand, plus another 500 thousand in the reserve.  Plus their Air Force.  (Wikipedia, Global Security)
4. The ISI’s relationship with the Taliban is not clear from public sources; Lindholm is probably just guessing at the nature and extent of the relationship.  Here is a typical example of the muddle, from the New York Times.

The rest of the article is even more absurd, esp the climax.

Do we need 101,000 soldiers in Afghanistan to prevent Pakistan and India from going to war? Yes — for lack of a better alternative. We need them there simply because we cannot pull them out. We cannot withdraw, we cannot scale down, and we certainly cannot turn the war into a counter-terrorist operation.

Lindholm posits a series of events, each with odds ranging from medium to microscopic.  Then declares the result to be a reason for war.  I suggest he sketch this out in an orderly fashion, estimating the probability of each step.  The end result will, I suspect, have a probability of well under 1%.

(2)  About Finland’s contribution

If the people of Finland share his belief, they should send more troops.  Their government’s website says there they have 110 troops in Afghanistan.  America’s population is approx 60x that of Finland’s.  Let’s reduce America’s troop count to 7 thousand until Finland — and our other NATO allies — boost their forces.

Another metric:  per icasualties, Finland’s troops have suffered one death in Afghanistan.  The UK and US totals are 206 and 796, respectively.

What do you mean by “we”, Mr. Lindholm.

(3)  Lindholm’s response

Neither makes much sense to me.  Perhaps somebody could explain in the comments.

(a)  Here are some excerpts from “Breaking: Finnish Blogger Nibbled to Death by Fellow Doves“, 24 August 2009.

Lindholm’s response to Matthew Yglesias observation that the Tailiban seems unlikely to defeat Pakistan’s army of one million soldiers (regular plus reserves):

So, dude, most of us kinda spent the 90s underestimating the Taliban. We were wrong so many times a dork like yours truly couldn’t even count that far. These hillbillies turned out to be pretty awesome at manipulating other bad guys to join them and making the rest really really pissed off at each other, and they weren’t too bad at waging war, either. And when they were done, we were, like, whoa, what just happened? Oh, and then there were these other yahoos called al-Qaeda (pronounced ‘Al Cayda’, like a mobster or something). But that’s another story.

That’s a rebuttal?  It reads like something from the Onion. Here is Lindholm’s response to this post.

1. In the space of just two and half years — that’s 32 months — after India’s second nuclear test and Pakistan carrying out its own in 1998, the two countries were on the brink of nuclear war twice. Both times, in the Kargil War of 1999 and the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001, the issue was Kashmir, a conflict greatly exacerbated by the instability in Afghanistan, where many of the pro-Pakistan terrorist groups formed and trained. In short, this is a uniquely dangerous place, and if you think the probability of nuclear war is “well under 1%”, as Fabiusdoes, please visit your local library, and we’ll talk more.

2. Contrary to what Fabius claims, I’m not declaring anything “to be a reason for war”. I’m merely suggesting we cannot disengage without risking a wider confrontation that may include the use of weapons of mass destruction. …

3. Pointing out Finland’s ludicrously small contribution to ISAF, something I have frequently criticised, Fabius asks: “What do you mean by ‘we’, Mr. Lindholm?” Well, let’s see. There are 42 countries fighting this war — or “managing the crisis”, as we say in Finland –, so by “we” I could mean a pretty good cross-section of the international community, right? Or, since Finland, Sweden and Norway, together with Germany, are securing ISAF’s northern flank, I could maybe mean “the European Union”, no? Or, hey, with Swedish and Finnish troops now engaged in firefights almost daily in Sar-e-Pol, and being hit with suicide bombers and IEDs in the meantime, could I possibly mean “we Scandinavians”? Alas, with Finland lagging so embarrassingly behind in the number of combat deaths, by “we” I couldn’t possible mean “we Finns” until we earn our place in Fabius Maximus’s short list of honourable warfighting nations, right?

His first point is wrong, IMO.  By the accounts I have read, the presence of nukes has put the fear of God into both India and Pakistan — forcing their hot war into a cold one.  Just as it did in between the US and Russia, and between Israel and its neighbors.  That is perhaps the primary effect of nukes.  Can anyone cite evidence that India seriously considered using nukes in 2001?

The second point is just odd.  He’s not giving a reason for the war, but says we have to fight because — well, just because.

The third paragraph ignores my simple point that proportionate to our population, the US contribution is far larger than Finland’s.  What is he attempting to say here?

Most important:  he totally ignores the primary point of this post about the need to  compare his nightmare scenario vs. other possible shockwaves.  We cannot allocate vast resources to them all; we can go broke trying to do so.

(b) From “Afghanistan: Answering Finel’s 10 Questions“, posted at his blog “The Stupidest Man on Earth”, 8 September 2009 — Excerpt:

Still, given the current state of the Afghanistan debate, where mobs carrying pitchforks and murmuring “Kill the warmonger!” have overpowered people who actually know what they’re talking about, it’s refreshing to see someone trying to advance the discussion in a civilised manner. So, for what it’s worth, here goes:”

Does anyone believe that “Kill the warmonger!” correctly represents the content of this post? Or is it another illustration of intellectual exhaustion of the war’s advocates?

(4)  Why we’re still at war in Afghanistan

Lindholm’s war-mongering has received gentle rebuttals.

1. From Bernard Finel in the comments to the post (Finel’s website is here)
2. “Who’s Being Myopic Here?“, Michael Cohen (New America Foundation, bio), Democracy Arsenal, 20 August 2009
3. “Don’t Overestimate the Taliban“, Matthew Yglesias, Think Progress, 21 August 2009

So long as people make such inflammatory claims of danger — and receive mild, technical rebuttals — then the public support for the war will remain high.  The war will continue. To stop the war we must have passion to match that of the war’s advocates.

(5)  For more information

Posts on the FM site about shockwaves:

1. The most dangerous form of Peak Oil.
2. The “Oil Shockwave” project: well-funded analysis of the obvious.
3. Peak Oil Doomsters debunked, end of civilization called off.
4. Spreading the news: the end is nigh!
5. What does $120 oil mean for the global economy?
6. There is no “peak water” crisis.
7. A reply to comments on FM site about Global Warming.
8. We are so vulnerable to so many things. What is the best response?
9. A serious threat to us – a top priority shockwave – a hidden danger!
10. Comment: warnings about a reversal of Earth’s magnetic field.
11. About our certain doom from the Yellowstone supervolcano.
12. More shockwave events to worry about, in addition to peak oil and global warming.