This morning’s recommended reading: “How to Lose in Afghanistan“, Anthony H. Cordesman (Center for Strategic and International Studies), op-ed in the Washington Post, 31 August 2009.
Nothing illustrates the essential irrationality of our Af-pak war better than the illogic of the war’s advocates. They must exist in a self-referential bubble to believe this nonsense. {This post was expaned on 31 August}
I was going to write about this latest example, but others have done so faster and better:
- “Afghanistan Mission Creep Watch – The Cordesman Version“, Michael Cohen (New America Foundation), Democracy Arsenal, 31 August 2009
- “Defining ‘Victory’ in Afghanistan“, Matthew Yglesias, ThinkProgress, 31 August 2009
- “And Still No Definition of What ‘Winning’ Means“, Bernard Finel (American Security Project), 31 August 2009
Excerpts
Cohen’s rebuttal is brilliant and complex. I recommend reading it in full. It’s brillant and brief, so I will quote it in full below. Yglesias has a few pithy observations, which appear in the following excerpt.
(2) “Defining ‘Victory’ in Afghanistan“, Matthew Yglesias, ThinkProgress, 31 August 2009 — Excerpt:
Another note I would offer on the Cordesman piece is that he defines the problems we need to confront in the region as including not only the Taliban, but also the government of Afghanistan … and the government of Pakistan … This of course raises the question of on whose behalf this fighting is happening? The stability of Pakistan is often offered as the reason we need to be fighting the Taliban, but if it’s folly to be treating Pakistan as an ally then how much sense does this make? And if Karzai is part of the problem, too, then who’s side are we on?
Last but by no means least, it seems ridiculous to premise strategy on the idea that we need to somehow get Pakistan to stop trying to manipulate Afghan Pashtuns to Pakistan’s advantage. Are they supposed to manipulate them to Pakistan’s disadvantage? Is Pakistan supposed to become more indifferent to events in an adjacent country than the United States is? As long as Pakistan is stronger than Afghanistan — and it’s much, much stronger—then of course it will try to manipulate the situation there to its advantage.
(3) “And Still No Definition of What ‘Winning’ Means“, Bernard Finel (American Security Project), 31 August 2009 — Text in full:
I am really, really trying to see the best in the Afghan war advocates. But I just don’t know what to do with a op-ed like this: “A Chance to Avoid Defeat in Afghanistan“, Anthony H. Cordesman, Washington Post. I feel like all of these people — Biddle, Cordesman, Holbrooke, Ricks — whose work I have admired over the years have just lost their way.
I don’t know if it comes from the heady rush of being close to power and wanting to stay there — how many people with good reputations embraced lunacy during the Bush years as well? Or whether they are so closed off from critical assessments that they are stuck in some sort of groupthink loop. Or whether they just think the public would be too dumb to understand the strategic logic of their arguments, so they keep dumbing it down.
Cordesman’s solution to Afghanistan is: throw resources at the problem, eliminate civilian oversight of strategy in the country, and a grand hand wave, “build the provincial, district and local government capabilities.”
To what end? Apparently either the strategic goals are so obvious or Cordesman so doubts our ability to understand them that he does not bother to explain.
So, we’re left with three possible explanations for this sort of essay — strategic incoherence, unbridled arrogance, or inscrutable ulterior motives.
Afterword
For information about this site see the About page, at the top of the right-side menu bar.
Please share your comments by posting below. Per the FM site’s Comment Policy, please make them brief (250 word max), civil and relevant to this post. Or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).
Please state the author and site of links you post in the comments, so that people see the source of your information without having to click through.
For more information about this topic
To see all posts about our new wars: