Afghanistan : The False choice

Many self styled conservatives (republicans, democrats, independents, and nonentities alike) will argue that America’s only choice in Afghanistan is to essentially stay the course. And staying the course means adding to the current almost 70,000 US troops  and more than 30,000 NATO troops in the country. Their argument is that, the only way to keep Al Qaida on the run is to commit thousands of foreign troops to a fight in a land that for decades has been a no man’s land for all intent and purpose. Self styled doves in the US administration have suggested an alternative: maintain the current troop level. But the question they all seem to ignore is this: What is the US and its NATO allies doing in Afghanistan?

September 11, 2001 was a day of ignominy, one that every compassionate human being looks back to and wonders how we ever got there. The human damage was massive, but apparently, so was the terror impact of an attack that was meant to spur the world’s lone super power into a self-destructive spiral that will culminate in its bankruptcy. Since then, America has suffered two recessions and its national debt has more than quadrupled. It’s confidence shattered and its leadership role in the world questioned, on almost every front. The outcome so far is the exact same outcome Osama Bin Laden, and whoever his real sponsors were, had intended. Gradually, the lone super power has been baited into multiple quagmires in a region that has many times seen the end of empires, large and small.

In the mid 1980s, the United States secretly enabled an Afghani insurgency against the marching Soviet bully of the day. The USSR was humbled publicly in what was seen as the final blow that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and its ultimate bankruptcy. In the 1980s, the USSR was spending more than 50% of its annual budget on defense, a path that lead to its demise as a co-superpower. In 2009, America is spending 25% of its total budget (but 50% of what it does not have to borrow) on defense ~ bankruptcy does beckon, but the emperor still pretends it has a coat.

Afghanistan, like most nations in the Far East is famed graveyards of empires and albatross of emperors. Like many Middle and Far Eastern nations, they were all ruled by long lines of relatively powerful aristocracies and kingdoms which were ruthlessly deposed either by or with the collusion of European pillagers in the nineteenth century or earlier. In all the various instances, these nations where left, shadows of their original self, post the second world war, and soon became convenient pawns in the hands of the two cold-war nations (the United States and the USSR). By the end of the cold war in the late 1980s, the world had quite a few failed states. Of course, many of the failed states had strongmen in charge and so were treated by the international community as normal countries. But Africa, Eastern Europe and the far East had really bursting infernos for nations.  Somali, Namibia, Nigeria, Palestine, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and many more were raging; and many continue to rage even today.

In the aftermath of the cold war, the USSR essentially splintered into its constituent groups and the US started looking for ways to weaken the only powerful entity that survived that breakup, Russia. The burning places of the world were of no concern to America, at least not until September 11, 2001 (yeah, there was Mogadishu in 1993).

Before September 11, 2001, America was attacked indirectly through its various missions abroad as well as via well staged attacks on its most (evident) symbols of sovereignty; its war ships. The USS Cole bombing, off the Indian Ocean was a brazen attack by lawless criminals who called Yemen home. But America did not understand the signs and symbolism of what was going on. It has become the world’s lone superpower, and thus the world’s lone international policeman. Every failed state has become its responsibilities as are the denizens of those malfunctioning societies. In 2001, Bush did not reckon with that reality.

America compounded its own problem when it chose to expend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in pursuit of a group of less than 100 criminals (it expanded their number by casting a dragnet for everything that was ever in contact with the criminals) in 2001. President George Bush was convinced by a band of deluded so called foreign policy experts, each with his or her own personal agenda that waging a war against Al Qaida and by extension against Afghanistan was in the interest of the United States. And while he was at it, why not add Iraq to the mix. Almost nine years later, and a nation tottering at the brink of bankruptcy, the main actors in Al Qaida remain at large, and the fringe organization has become the world’s best known band of criminals. American war postures failed.

Haven lost all credibility as a moral compass for the world (albeit a fraudulent mien to start with) as a result of the exposure of Abu Ghraib atrocities and the legal-black hole that is Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; the United States finally cut a deal in Iraq, and is packing its tails back from that Region. And miraculously, Americans became smart enough that they elected a rational team to the White House in November of 2008. But that seems to be where all the good fortunes ended. The new President, while a candidate had argued that the nation had no business in Iraq, and rightfully so. But in order to bolster his machismo credentials, he also proclaimed that Afghanistan war was a good war. He was very off on that note. Neither war was or is worth the loss of human lives, the disruptions to international norm (or any semblance of one) and the loss of treasure.

Some in America, not having a real explanation for why the nation was fighting asymmetric war fares in two failed states (Iraq in 2003 qualified as one) , proclaimed an era of American nation building. While the primary motivation for the Iraq war was to depose Sadam Hussein from power (WMD was a ruse) and one of the primary motivation for the Afghan war was to depose the Taliban, the only justification for keeping Americans and a large contingent of NATO and other nations in those two countries was nation building! American arrogance is on full display!

Not that Nation building by itself was not laudable. Truth be told, the world needs a lot of that in at least two continents if not more.  Most African nations are failed states (regardless of the UN definition of that term) as are many in South America, the Middle East and the Far East. And the truth be told, most will need some help with nation building. But, who is to decide what nation gets that help, and who is to decide what nation will carry out the task? Indeed, America, many will argue is the least positioned, morally to take on such responsibility.

Sure, it remains the richest nation in the world (by GDP) and the most powerful nation in the world (by amount of money spent on defense), it falls far short in important national institutions and societal responsibilities. The only member of the G8 without some form of national health care, least performing member of the G8 with respect to educational achievements and increasingly a not so friendly place to migrate to. America needs some nation building at home.

So, the choice of what to do in Afghanistan is one the President of the United States has been saddled with for weeks now, and one that American self styled pundits have been brawling on for even longer. Should America expand its mission in Afghanistan as a measure to stop Al Qaida from gaining control through the Taliban at some future date? Should it take on a standoffish approach and willy-nilly strike at Al Qaida from the comfort of predator-drone controlled couches in Arizona? Is Obama’s only choices between doubling down (with more troops) and doubling down (with roughly the same troops)? Is pulling out of Afghanistan responsibly (to borrow the term from the Iraqi debate) before the end of this current Presidency (first term) an irresponsible act? Is war more important than global warming (whatever that is) or health care for all Americans? Are the wars worth it on the long run? Do they make America safer or the world better?

Only time will tell. And history as we all know is always kind to winners. But winners as we also all know change with time.

America today stands at the confluence of history, it can become the greatest nation in human history or it can go down the way of many empires, and would-be,  great nations before it.

The first path will require intelligent leadership, Machiavellian, no less, but intelligent nonetheless. It requires a clear understanding of its position today; its key weaknesses and innate strength. A clear appreciation that it cannot escalate any war and expect to remain the giant of anything for long. It must see China for what it is; the next lone superpower, if America should stumble. It must see Russia for what it is; a dying power with kill joy tendencies. It must understand Israel for what it is; a leech that will tag on to the next host it can find. Thus, it must understand that every nation has a stake in global harmony (if they say so), and must contribute their fair share (in today’s terms) – America is no longer that lone richest nation on the block: It owes just too much for such a honor.

The alternative strategy will soon bankrupt this nation. The cost of the Iraq war is already unsustainable. The cost of an escalated Afghan war will be a death knell. As the nation focuses on wars and its foes  focus on growth, it will soon be overtaken and then its war strength will mean nothing.

The Chinese army is already larger the Americans in number, and it can be grown even much larger if population alone is a factor. The Chinese military expenditure is matching its growing economic clout, but the disparity in currency and national currency indicators mask the true value of Chinese arsenal. That country continues to advance, san any real war to weary it down. And on other front’s Russia continues to play the fateful provocateur. An escalation of the Afghan war will be another avoidable distraction and ultimately will be the nation’s albatross.

Of course, the choice is not to abandon Afghanistan now either. Any decision about that country should include a clear, well decided, timeline and timetable for withdrawal.

Al Qaida is a threat, but one that has been made so by American policy that in the last decade has bolstered the rogue group. America must draw down on that rhetoric and get rid of Osama Bin Laden and co, once and for all. A hundred thousand US troops in Afghanistan does not further that goal. Hamid Karzai is as much a threat to America as is the Taliban, and Washington must recognize that fact. The man obviously is more interested in remaining in “power” forever, oblivious of the Taliban (or assuming the Americans do not have the guts to leave), and people like him were the reasons many nations remain failed states across the globe!

Some in the White House are already debating the “necessity” of pragmatism in their dealings with Karzai. In Africa and South America and most of the Middle East; it failed! After all Osama Bin Laden the 19 hijackers on 9/11 are obvious result of such pragmatism in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Nation building does not entail propping up corrupt governments at all cost. The chicken will ultimately come home to roost.

America (with the help of the United Nations and its NATO allies) must insist on a run-off election and demand that Karzai honor his people’s wishes or else. Karzai must understand that he stand to lose all, if he remains recalcitrant and stupid.

Obama is right about the nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India must be the first nations to disarm. And then Israel. Only after these nations have jettisoned their nuclear arsenal can the world hope to see some peace. Yes, Russia and America and every other nuclear nation too (France, Britain, China, North Korea) must wind down their programs sooner, rather than later.

But that is after the Afghan debacle has been resolved. A weakened America cannot negotiate a nuclear draw down with enough moral clarity. The world needs a strong America that can lead with a sense of moral clarity. Getting bankrupt in Afghanistan does not further that goal.