I know this is already a day old but I was writing an evaluation of the McChrystal report as part of my list of Obama scandals and I thought I would share it. I sought to summarize the points that I and others have made about it and our presence in Afghanistan.
On September 21, 2009, a copy of McChrystal’s report was leaked to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post which the Post then released online. The report had been completed August 30, 2009 and had been the subject of debate and disagreement in the White House and Congress. Shortly before the leak, military officials had been expressing frustration at the delay in the report’s acceptance. The leak was likely meant to increase such pressure.
The report which stresses understanding Afghanistan in depth was put together over a month by a group of a dozen mostly defense hawks, including several neocons, without any Afghanistan expertise. It stated that the US policy goal was to keep Afghanistan from becoming again “a base for terrorism.” That is an incredibly vague policy and does not take into account how conditions have changed since the initial US invasion. al Qaeda has morphed over the last 8 years into a loosely affiliated terrorist network. Despite our efforts and those of Pakistan, al Qaeda has succeeded in maintaining headquarters for its senior officials across the border in Pakistan. At the same time, it is no longer tied down to any one country and has or can move bases to other countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Why we need a large, comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, as the report recommends, but not in these other countries goes unaddressed and unexplained.
McChrystal defines his strategy as a two pronged approach, first to protect the civilian population rather than “seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces” and second to “elevate the importance of governance.” These two ideas while sounding good illustrate the hopelessly contradictory nature of the report. In effect, McChrystal is saying that Afghanistan’s people need to be protected from both the Taliban (the insurgents) and the central government (the crooks and warlords), the same government McChrystal seeks to preserve.
While he says, “Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it,” he wants an unspecified increase in the number of US troops and to increase the size of the Afghan army, on an accelerated basis, to 134,000 by October 2010 and to 240,000 thereafter. The police would be increased to 160,000 for a total national security force ultimately of 400,000. This is vastly in excess of Afghanistan’s own resources to support. The report never really comes to terms with the fact that these forces who are supposed to fight the Taliban (the first part of McChrystal’s plan) are the same ones involved in all the corruption and graft (which McChrystal wishes to fight in the second part). Even less touched on is the ethnic makeup of these forces. Northern forces in the Pushtun south would be seen as hostile, not protective, and vice versa. How such forces could be integrated isn’t discussed at all. Nor is their motivation, their quality, why a few thousand Taliban are such effective fighters and hundreds of thousands of government troops are not.
McChrystal says that a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign is not primarily military in nature, that we risk “strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage,” but the first phase of his strategy is exactly that. He envisages an upsurge in military activities during the first 12 months of his plan to “reverse insurgent momentum.”
A poorly articulated policy, an incommensurate strategy, and a poorly thought through report riven with contradictions, what we have is a war that lost its justification years ago, and politicians and generals still searching for some new reason for it or to win it. One of the most noxious aspects of empire is how persistence in error is transformed into a false contest of wills. The real act of will would be to acknowledge that Afghanistan is not central to our interests and move on.



38 Comments







He envisages an upsurge in military activities
I read this as an upsurge in military presence, a different thing from activity, which to me means “operations”.
My skimming of the report suggests that his ideas are good ones. In fact, they look like textbook COIN strategy to me. My problem with it is that it’s several years too late to have a chance of working.
Right on, Hugh! The only way to “win,” apparently, is to destroy. There is no winning in leaving…
I take it Stan didn’t serve in Viet Nam.
Interesting poll results announced by MSNBC:
The longer this goes on with no resolution in sight, the bigger those first two numbers will get.
McChrystal (and some of militarist) has learned some profound things on the lives of thousands and late in the game. And, alas, Vietnamization, Westmoreland … now that we destroyed the villages in order to save them … ooops…. maybe we should not destroy said villages and protect the SURVIVORS who …funny… don’t seem to trust us…. Maybe hearts and minds were important to win …. hmmmm… 7 years after the fact? After Bush’s “now we’re gonna kick some ass”… the hell with war crime laws … even though not one of 9/11 perpetrators was Aghan … or that they were working on behalf of the country of Afghanistan…. and AQ in Pakistan is playing the crazymaking game.
So after 7 years of shock and awe, whereby even the WOMEN of Afghanistan want us gone …. now humanist considerations enter the strategy.. better late than never… but hello?
Generals and Majors
McChrystal describes this initial phase the following way pp. 26-27 of the pdf.
I am not sure in this context if there is much difference between presence and operations. I think you are right about this being textbook COIN. The problem is that Afghanistan is a fairly atypical place given its ethnic fragmentation and the real lack of the foundations and institutions of what makes up a state in the rest of the world. I agree with Ann Jones that it is highly unlikely that McChrystal will be able to bring the security forces up to the numbers or standards to make them effective “partners” as called for in his plan. Then too the length of deployments of US troops make long term relationships with local Afghans unlikely as well.
There is also the point you raise that we have worn out our welcome. But again this is all methods. The crucial question is do we have a policy objective to justify this kind of presence in Afghanistan. My answer is no.
What I had in mind when I wrote that was that there would be less emphasis on whatever they’re calling “search and destroy” kinds of missions – the long, drawn out chases and so forth. Whether that translates to less operations or just operations closer to home is probably debatable.
Afghanistan hardly qualifies as a real country. It’s always struck me more as a bunch of warlords and other groups who barely tolerate each other. In the end, the place may break up into its constituent parts and re-form into some other country or countries, no matter what we do.
We may have had an opportunity to create a stable central government there, or we may not have ever had it. The only thing I’m pretty confident of now is that we don’t have that opportunity anymore.
If there’s one thing I’m sure I’ll never envy Obama for, it’s having to deal with this situation. None of the options look like pleasant ones.
BTW, more of my reaction to all this.
Great read Hugh, thanks for all your work.
I remain VERY skeptical and confused about pulling back into population centers but asking for more troop presence, be they enablers or warriors.
I smell BIG ass rats in this all.
And opium.
Wasn’t the Opium moved in body bags during Vietnam?
Is Opium always a part of our “wars”? No, Iran contra ran on cocaine.
But the drugs keep popping up, so this must be the supply side of the drug “war”?
There is no reason for this war. Only that we failed our objective to get Osama, and we have to cover the asses of our military that failed us so badly. Our troops are suffering to make the Generals look good, and that is a sin this Country can never live down. The lives and treasure spent is not in vane, but in disgrace. Until the people wake up and realize that our military does what it needs to just to sustain itself, and promote itself, we are the losers. Wars not to defeat ones ememies, but to make political policies, meet what the objectives of what fools are, does not make a Country Great. We have sold out the sole of this Nation to the war mongers, who look for profit and power from what they think is right.
Hugh “The real act of will would be to acknowledge that Afghanistan is not central to our interests and move on.”
The situation in Afghanistan is so confusing. I did not support the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. Did not support either invasion one iota.
But after spending two and a half years getting to know a young man (34) from Afghanistan who was studying here at Ohio University. We had hundreds of hours of conversations about his country, his family (4 children and wife, mother, father, lots of siblings and cousins etc that he missed terribly while he was here.
He was quite young when the Russians invaded, his father was a Brigadier General in the Afghanistan army. When Russia invaded his father walked his whole family to Peshawar, Pakistan after the Russians dropped a bomb of some sort close to his family’s compound and his oldest sister (12 siblings at that time) was killed. He has clear memories of his mother picking up his sisters body parts and weeping for what seemed to be months.
After his father walked (part of the way in trucks0 the family to Peshawar his father went back into Afghanistan to fight the Russians with the Mujahadeen. Many many more stories like this that he shared
When the Bush administration invaded Iraq I had the privilege of asking his father questions on line about what he thought about his thoughts about the invasion of Afghanistan that he always referred to as a U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.
Both my friend and his father shared that the Taliban had really been on the run after the invasion of their country. They also share that the “convoy of death” did everything to harm any negotiations with the Taliban. Remember those 200O or more Taliban that surrendered in the fall of 2001 and then were murdered by suffocation in those convoys. So much for surrendering.
When the Bush administration took their eyes off of Afghanistan my friends father kept asking “do the Americans want to lose Afghanistan again” “do they want the people of Afghanistan to suffer even more” This was the questions he kept asking while the Taliban regained control of vast areas of Afghanistan in 2003 until the U.S started to focus on Afghanistan again in late 2007 early 2008.
From what my friend shared is that he and his father really believe that we should be putting our money into subsidizing poppy farmers while they replant pomegrante, almond, grape and apricot orchards that were destroyed during the war with Russia. A subsidy program where they could feed their families and replant at the same time.
They often shared that all of the Taliban are not as radical as our media likes to portray them. That there are more moderate Taliban that could be pulled into the negotiating circles.
Monies for water access, roads, medical centers, etc
They also shared how there are no processing plants to turn any agricultural produce into products. Almonds into almond butter etc
We abandoned the people of Afghanistan after the Russian war, we abandoned the people of Afghanistan when we invaded Iraq… I know my friends say that the people of Afghanistan do not want to be occupied.
I’m just not so sure.
They have suffered so much and for so many all they know is war.
My friend and I are still in touch and as you know the situation is not good for the people there
Thanks for sharing the story of your friends. We had an opportunity, a window if you will, in which to help stabilize Afghanistan. That is as Cujo359 points out probably gone. I am not advocating abandoning Afghanistan. I think at this point though less might be more, certainly less military involvement would be good for all concerned. There is an article in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09…..cy.html?hp
that indicates that the Obama Administration may be rethinking its escalation. This may only be smoke and mirrors but perhaps it may be slowly sinking into their brains that as we are currently going there winning looks an awful lot like losing.
to “elevate the importance of governance.”[of the people, by the people, for the people]
Couldn’t we use a little of that here at home?
There’s never any root cause analysis, just a one-size-fits-all solution to problems like failed nation-states. In reading the report, I can’t imagine McChrystal asked himself and others, “Why is Afghanistan such a mess?”
He’s only asking himself, “How can I prevent the illusion that I’m not in control and I’ve lost Afghanistan?”
Nor can I see any patience on his part to find the underlying root cause; he just wants this off his hands and on somebody else’s, hence the leak to force Obama to make a yes-or-no answer.
BTW, I think Woodward had this longer than the same day; I suspect it went out in response to Sen. Levin’s remarks after his trip to Afghanistan. Woodward ensured it wouldn’t get dumped deep in the weekend but closer to Monday for early week pickup.
Levin’s remarks, while making heavy use of McChrystal’s work, don’t jibe with McChrystal’s report. Somebody subverted not only the POTUS, but the Senate as well.
Just finished reading Zeitoun by Dave Eggers. Zeitoun is a Syrian Muslim guy who ran a successful contracting business in New Orleans pre-Katrina. He decided to remain in New Orleans at first because there had been many false alarms about storms and then to protect his property and help others. To make a long story short, he ended up in a FEMA prison; spent almost a month there; was not allowed to telephone his wife or anyone-as a small aside, the food they served invariably contained pork which he would not eat.
My point is Afghanistan is but a symptom of the undemocratic state we have fallen into. We claim a majority of Americans want out of Afghanistan just as we claim a majority of Americans want a public option for health insurance. It looks like that majority will get neither. This is the problem we must address. If we can do something about our broken political system, maybe we can then do something about Afghanistan and public options.
I don’t have a problem with the critique of the report. But, I do have a big problem with the delays in sending it. Just silly to tell the person, “Well, don’t it send it over just now.”
Make a decision one way of the other. Or accept the report and announce you need to get a second opinion if you don’t want to make a decision right then. But, to sit there while everyone knows there is a report and just think that by saying, “Don’t send it just yet,” you can avoid deciding yes or no, is ridiculous.
To me, this is setting the stage for deciding to increase the troops and just getting the pieces assembled so that when you piss off your main supporters, you are covered.
Stage setting?
McChrystal pissed on his commander-in-chief’s shoes. He had no business leaking the report; it should have gone directly to the CiC before going public. What’s McChrystal’s intent here? Forcing the CiC to choose between two options, accept or not accept? This is insubordinate bullshit.
The CiC likely had less than a week to digest the feedback received from the Senate Armed Services Committee members’ trip to Afghanistan as it is, before McChrystal decides he’s going to demand a yes/no answer?
Somebody else set the stage eight years ago, and the guy with eight months under his belt is supposed to get backed into a yes/no solution to the most “unconquerable place on earth“?
Stage setting. Right.
Afghanistan will never be a safe and secure country without the elimination of poppies, the introduction of culturally suitable and sustainable replacements for that crop, and consistent, global support for the same in addition to other economic development efforts. As long as the economic conditions continue to favor lawlessness, even a million troops won’t work. Smart people know this requires more time and thought.
And smart people also know that the bigger problem is the tiger next door; throwing more money and bodies at Afghanistan doesn’t solve that problem. It might only make the existing problems in Afghanistan even worse.
Do you think he is setting the stage to give a decision that makes you happy?
I also didn’t say he had to rush. I said it was silly to tell someone not to send a report just because you don’t want to hear the report at that moment or you are trying to put it off. Have them send the report. Say you need a second opinion or need more information, etc. if you need to look into it further. Many legitimate ways to handle the situation, but “Don’t send it just yet,” isn’t one of them.
And, I believe the reason for the delay is that he is going to approve the increase but didn’t have the ducks in a row right now. And, didn’t want to piss off the progressive congressmen he needs to pass health care.
One of the big failings of the McChrystal report is the perspective. It’s all about us. All about how the citizenry can help us defeat the insurgency, or win, or whatever. That’s also a failing with so many of the posts and comments, both for and against the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Leen’s comment (many thanks for putting that up) brings some of this into stark relief. But a couple of questions that flow from my current stream of consciousness:
Cujo359. Afghanistan has had stable governments, and has been a single country (borders may vary with era) many times and also quite recently (up to the mid-1970’s). The perception that it’s always been tribes and warlords comes from the very American trait of believing that whatever a society looks like when America first pays attention to it is what it has looked like for millenia.
Laruh. I put up a response on KarenM’s thread. What makes you think the drug trade is all about us? Even more, what makes you think that the Americans are the only people in any country or location that descend into the dark side?
Hugh. Why would 160,000 police be excessive? Afghanistan has 32 million people, roughly the population of California, which has 100,000 police and is much less rugged terrain and dispersed (full disclosure: I don’t think the police should be trained by soldiers or should be nationalized, two things I’m not happy about). Why do you assume that no military is necessary when the country is recovering from war, and has aggressive powers on its borders? Why do you assume that the U.S. motive is empire? The dyed in the wool imperialists of the last administration couldn’t have cared less about the place, and made it obvious. Are the U.N. and, let’s say, Japan interested in U.S. empire? Why would they be coordinating if not?
The war is currently about a Taliban offensive launched starting in 2006. The goal all along, except for Operation Enduring Freedom, was to end conflict in Afghanistan and stabilize the place. Those are very positive goals. By all means argue that they are being botched, even argue that they are being botched hopelessly. Argue that the military isn’t the right tool for the job. Argue what you want. But full discussion of them involves not having us as the primary focus. And regional hegemonic powers have agency, Afghans have agency, and local drug lords have agency. The world is not a giant video game where all the bad done everywhere is in the name of grand empire and is centrally controlled by a computer at the CIA. If it were, it would long since have become a charred cinder, given their well established record for covert bunglement with extreme prejudice.
Where to begin? Afghanistan is not California. Afghan policemen do not function like Californian policemen. I can not think of a more inapt comparison. The Afghan police force does not protect the Afghan population. It is one of the major forces of corruption in one of the most corrupt places on the planet. That is why increasing their numbers is not going to help the situation.
Where have you been the last 60 years? Why do you think we are still in a place like Afghanistan? Why do you think we keep hundreds of military installations all over the world? Why do you think we have a military that can project power anywhere in the world? This is like Greenspan asking why I assume there was a housing bubble.
I see. I asked how many police you thought Afghanistan needed. It’s a reasonable question. I did stipulate about their training and locality (I agree with neither implementation right now). I can’t see the “inapt”-ness of the comparison, nor can I see not having police there because the ones currently in many places there are corrupt. The UNDP regards the establishment of a competent police force to be the primary pre-requisite to the rule of law. Do they have any expertise?
It is perhaps easier to consider Afghanistan a country than a state because so many of the basic institutions and principles which underlie a state are missing.
The operative word in your comment is “competent”, something obviously missing in the Afghanistan context where we are often talking about poor, illiterate, corrupt tribesmen with only a few weeks of training. You seem to think that a policeman is a policeman is a policeman, that they are the same whether in Afghanistan or California. They aren’t.
The question of numbers is beside the point. It is not how many policemen Afghanistan needs but how many competent policemen it is likely to get, and that is very few. The police are an important part of McChrystal’s strategy but the question is whether they are more likely to protect Afghan civilians, per the general’s plan, or victimize them, and so undercut McChrystal’s goals.
Then how would you train them and how many would you train? It isn’t an idle question. The place will never stabilize properly without them. Just put everything aside, the current level of training, the McChrystal proposed level of training, and decide: How would you train police for Afghanistan and how many would you train? Because otherwise, criticizing the number of police McChrystal intends to train on its face makes little sense.
These are the kind of questions that show that the situation is far more complex than either ramming the place with military might or throwing up hands and withdrawing. A successful strategy for changing current U.S. policy needs to make such estimates and say how they are going to be accomplished, one would think. You are aware that it wasn’t the U.S. that originally was supposed to create the competent, trained police force?
I am tempted to respond that Afghan police recruits should be sent to California for training. You keep seeming to miss the point. It isn’t for me to say how the Afghan police should be trained. I am not a police trainer. I never claimed to be. The issue is that McChrystal has a strategy. It is based on having a certain number of police to “protect” the civilian population. Afghanistan is a very corrupt place. Its police are very corrupt. They do not protect the civilian population. They victimize it. I am pointing out that McChrystal’s strategy with reference to the police (among many other problems) is based on a fallacy. McChrystal has a force which vitimizes the population he seeks to protect. How will increasing the number of victimizers improve the situation?
No. I am not interested in deciding how the war should be fought better. I am interested in asking if it should be fought at all. Our Afghan policy is unclear and the current and proposed strategies are largely irrelevant to even that.
As for the Germans training the Afghan police, they wanted to train them to do some basic things, like direct traffic. This was not in keeping with US goals. We wanted them as paramilitaries.
“Police officials from some of Afghanistan’s most violent regions have questioned the need for more American troops, saying it would increase the perception that the US is an occupying power and that the money would be better spent on local forces.”
From Here but there are many sources with the same story.
Supporting a regime that the vast majority of the population regards as incompetent and corrupt is not the way to achieve the goals you think have been set out.
And what no one seems to be mentioning is the decades old dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan about the border area. Or Pakistan’s fear of India using Afghanistan and vice versa for each nations perceived needs.
This is not what I was discussing in my comment, but I personally think the whole thing is overmilitarized. Money spent on local forces is fine with me, if it is going to work. The minimum is that the local structures to rebuild a peace-time country need to get built, if that can be done with less military, fine. At the very least, military, relief (as opposed to development) agencies, and military contractors have no business doing essential civilian redevelopment tasks. To the extent that those tasks would fall to the Americans, my view is that America is obligated to recruit and train such civilians to do them.
They aren’t the goals I think have been set out, they are the goals signed to in the Bonn Agreement, and its subsequent updates. I agree about supporting a corrupt regime. I haven’t said so in this thread, because that isn’t the subject matter, but I think the elections should be nullified if the complaints committee finds they are fraudulent beyond repair.
You’re right, it hasn’t been mentioned here. The position of the border is not a very relevant question right now, the flux of fighters and/or drones over it is, as is the flow of drugs. Pakistan’s interests are very much relevant, and the Taliban represent their hegemonic proxy. India wants the training camps not to exist, be they in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, or in POK/Azad-Kashmir (depending on your point of view). I’m fine with having a discussion about all of that, but my comment on the establishment of a competent and trained police force in Afghanistan stands, regardless. It’s necessary for the rule of law to exist.
This is a quote I used in my “intelligence” diary:
http://www.informationclearing…..e23548.htm"
Thanks again, Hugh.
Shorter:
There is no mission.. we can’t even create one with credibility after eight years.
Who the fuck are we.. to decide Afghanistan’s fate?
And a new t-shirt – bumper sticker
Don’t drink the COIN liquor!
Both what McChrystal is asking for and the current debate in the Obama White House are good indications that there is no agreed upon mission. McChrystal is talking about the kind of war he would like to fight but not whether the war is worth fighting or fighting his way.
Great post. Thanks.
“what we have is a war that lost its justification years ago” –
There never was any justification. It was always vengeance. Bomb somebody.
Do you have a source for this? I hadn’t heard this at all. Traffic control is not what UNDP had in mind when they made the statement about rule of law. The police are corrupt largely because Germany failed on this.
I understand what it is you are interested in, believe me, it’s one of the two main poles in opinion in the country on this issue right now. From my point of view, if either your side or the superhawk side wins this debate, people in Afghanistan will suffer and die. I’m not trying to be obtuse or difficult.
from the Ann Jones article.
I am not sure why asking for a comprehensible policy and a strategy to go with it is considered a pole. We can not even solve our own problems. How are we to fix those of a country without a real government on the other side of the world with a culture we scarcely understand and many of whose people do not want us there? That is the hubris of empire.
How sane sounding is she! Thanks for this.
No, asking for clarification is not a pole. This is a pole (my bold)
That isn’t asking for clarification, that’s saying get out. Get out is a pole.
Ms. Jones herself says that the Afghan police are sitting ducks to war violence. Training them as unarmed traffic cops sounds like very sound thinking, doesn’t it? But then, ideology trumps reality, like when the NRA was allowed to forbid the U.S. military from disarming the countryside in Iraq, because it wasn’t spreading American (read Second Amendment) democracy.
At any rate, here is what Ahmed Rashid says:
The military, or military contractors shouldn’t be training police, and yes they do need more than three weeks of training. They should be locally oriented. But that doesn’t mean they don’t need to exist, they exist in sufficient numbers, or that many who are in the role don’t need to be replaced. After all, replacement is one of the normal methods for dealing with corrupt police.
I am saying that we should bring our presence in Afghanistan in line with what are interests are there, which you are right I do not see as being very great. Curiously, we do not need an army (preferably a large one) in every country we have relations with. It only seems that way.
As for the Germans, as your citation indicates, their goal was not to train the whole Afghanistan police force but only the officers for one. The way the numbers are given makes it seem like they sent way too few trainers. But 3500 recruits over 3 years is 1200 a year meaning that each instructor was dealing with about 30 trainees at a time. That is actually a good student instructor ratio. The duration of training is not given. If each of these had been responsible for the subsequent hiring and training of 20 regular police (a fairly reasonable assumption), the total number of police would have been 70,000. This is a little under half of what McChrystal wants. But the Germans were training a civilian police force not the paramilitary one he envisioned. Even so if you extend it out, the German program running 7 years would at its rate have produced 8400 officers. Using the same ratio of one officer to 20 men, this would have created a police force of 168,000 by this year. This didn’t happen because A)the US wanted a militarized police and B) neither the Afghans nor we wanted to fund local police adequately. Neither of these were commitments the Germans signed on to.
Watch what is about to happen in Pakistan. Obama is about to say a partial no to McCrystal as part of a placating game BUT to set scary things in motion in Pakistan. IMHO He has been mentioning Pakistan since the campaign days, and has been awaiting this move. Once again, the military HAMMER. It creates more enemies… but the partriarchal, power and control paradigm, won’t go for partnership and cooperation. I hope I am wrong about obama but he keeps channeling Reagan and Gates, and his history since the cold war, is a neocon.
I think it was often averred by those opposed to the American aggression against Iraq and the murder of Saddam Hussein that the war should instead be fought against some perceived foe situated in Afghanistan. The president responded to this call, though, nothing has really changed in Iraq, more attention has been given to pursuing the bogeyman du jour in the originally targeted country following the blowback of early September 2001.
You might recall, btw, that Afghanistan was under attack by American air assaults in the spring and summer before said blowback moment. There seem to be some issue having to do with transportation of oil and gas that involved that country. What has come of that?
At any rate, liberals, neoliberals, or what have you on the so-called leftwing of the Democratic party were for getting out of Iraq and returning to what they believed was the center of “terrorism” — a notion that is utter bunk. It’s more tit for tat than anything else.