Why Afghanistan War Strategy Must Change

As day three of the killing frenzy over an American Christian zealot’s Quran-burning unfolded, it has become increasingly clear to me—after agonizing over it for several months—that those who argue for an expedited drawdown leading to a pullout of combat troops in Afghanistan are right. That seems to be the wisest course to take, despite the fact that there are good, but not sufficient, reasons to stay.

The latest deadly unrest highlights two arguments for a swifter withdrawal than President Obama has outlined:

1) Hamid Karzai will never be a reliable partner.

2) General David Petraeus’ “winning hearts and minds” strategy won’t work in Afghanistan.

In addition to the many problems we’ve had with him in the past, the latest outrage is partly Karzai’s responsibility. As has been reported, most Afghans did not even know about the burning of the Quran in Florida—which happened on March 20—until Karzai tried to politicize it. From the New York Times:

Both Afghan and international news media had initially played down or ignored the actions of Mr. Jones, the Florida pastor. On Thursday, however, President Karzai made a speech and issued statements condemning the Koran burning and calling for the arrest of Mr. Jones for his actions. On Friday, that theme was picked up in mosques throughout Afghanistan.

“Karzai brought this issue back to life, and he has to take some responsibility for starting this up,” said a prominent Afghan businessman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution if he was identified as a critic of the president.

“Karzai’s speech itself provoked people to take such actions,” said Qayum Baabak, a political analyst in Mazar-i-Sharif. “Karzai should have called on people to be patient rather than making people more angry.”

Karzai, through education and experience with American culture, knows perfectly well that Pastor Terry Jones cannot be arrested. Stupidity is legal in the United States, after all. But Karzai’s irresponsibility continued today, as Reuters reported:

Afghan President Hamid Karzai called on Sunday for the U.S. Congress to condemn the burning of a Koran by a radical fundamentalist U.S. pastor and prevent it from happening again, his office said in a statement.

Karzai made the request at a meeting with U.S. ambassador Karl Eikenberry and General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the statement said.

Echoing this nonsense, the Taliban released a statement today:

The U.S. government should have punished the perpetrators, but the American authorities and those in other countries not only did not have a serious reaction, but defended (the burning) to some extent in the name of freedom of religion and speech.

One report included this paragraph:

The Taliban said in a statement emailed to media outlets that the U.S. and other Western countries have wrongly excused the burning a Quran by the pastor of a Florida church on March 20 as freedom of speech and that Afghans “cannot accept this un-Islamic act.”

That last phrase, Afghans “cannot accept this un-Islamic act,” leads to the other persuasive argument against our Afghanistan war policy: Petraeus’ strategy. There are just too many things in this war that the Taliban can exploit as “un-Islamic acts,” as the Washington Post suggests:

The protests, which began Friday, also appear to be fueled more broadly by the resentment that has been building for years in Afghanistan over the operations of Western military forces, blamed for killing and mistreating civilians, and international contractors, seen by many as enriching themselves and fueling corruption at the expense of ordinary Afghans.

General Petraeus is doing his best. Our troops are, of course, fighting admirably, despite the occasional horrific stories about “kill teams” and other atrocities.

The problem is that the strategy—winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans—is so tenuous that a combination of an idiotic American evangelical extremist pastor and a stupidly opportunistic Afghan president can, wittingly or unwittingly, conspire to cripple that delicate strategy in just a few days and undo much of the good our soldiers have done.

Another strategy, perhaps along the lines originally proposed by Vice President Joe Biden, is in order. From the New York Times in September of 2009:

…Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.

Oddly, whatever it was that Pastor Jones and President Karzai were trying to accomplish, news reports inform us of the results:                                             

“Death to America” and “Death to Karzai” chanted the demonstrators.

 

7 Comments

  1. Duane, I consider that you nailed this one dead-on. I couldn’t agree more.

    Nation-building is a bad idea, but it’s a continuum and at the very worst end of the nation-building spectrum has to be a country like Afghanistan filled with illiterate, women-abusing, drug-crazed, economic and politically corrupt religious fanatics who hate those who try to help them. But then, I repeat myself.

    Jim

    Like

  2. “General David Petraeus’ “winning hearts and minds” strategy won’t work in Afghanistan.”

    We paint this perception that we are deliverers of peace and hope but in reality we’re nothing more than conquerors. Conquerors can subdue the body and instill fear for a time, but hearts and minds can never be conquered.

    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are pointless and expensive especially when the cost is measured in the lives.

    Like

    • Sadly, HL, we are NOT conquerors. If conqueroring Afghanistan were our motivation, that at least might make some sense. After all I have read that there is considerable mineral wealth to be exploited in that country. That is, if the accounts can be believed. (Similar myths have been planted before and proven false, however.)

      No, our mission with our 100,000-strong army seeks only to remake a nation of conniving, illiterate, goat-herding, drug-abusing religious fanatics into some kind of democratic nation that will not harbor Osama’s kind, even though he isn’t there any more.

      I would describe our motivation as pure cultural hubris. It isn’t politically practical in this country to admit that in a fit of pique over a terrorist attack we sent troops to die in a strange land and accomplished nothing. Nothing.

      Like

      • Jim,

        I wouldn’t say we accomplished nothing. After all, we drove out al-Qaeda. The problem is that the price of keeping them out is just too high, at least in terms of boots on the ground. Another strategy is needed that doesn’t involved any attempt at either “conquering” them or “remaking” them.

        Duane

        Like

  3. “Sadly, HL, we are NOT conquerors. If conqueroring Afghanistan were our motivation, that at least might make some sense.”

    Sorry but we’re conquerors just the same, and that’s how we’re perceived by the Iraqis and Afghans. To conquer means victorious by force of arms and we were that and could easily be it again. Like most conquerors we’re learning that it’s far more difficult to occupy, because hearts and minds of people can never be conquered.

    Like

  1. News and Analysis 04 April : South Asian Idea