Thursday, February 11, 2010

Victory in Afghanistan

I think the war in Afghanistan has been from the beginning very important and necessary.

Initially it was done very well with Special Forces aiding Northern Alliance troops in defeating the Taliban. Also American troops engaging Taliban and Al Qaeda in open battle was an important part of victory.

I am concerned that the fight has become folly lately though. That we are doing nation building wrong, and that we are creating enemies where we don't need to be.
And I think that McChrystal is a great general, everything I have read and heard about him says that he is on the right track. His knowledge and understanding of the situation, above tactical culturally and strategically is above par. I greatly admire the guy. I also admire his boss Gen Patreaus, as well as the National Security Adviser that Obama appointed. I believe that they understand the strategic situation, and the minefield that they are walking in. And that they understand where other powerful militaries have gone wrong.

I don't know what strategic and policy recommendations the generals are making to the president, or if they feel that it is their place to make the policy recommendations that would make the war much more easily winnable.

They must know these two truths:
1 truth is that the war on drugs is not winnable. Whether to fight it as a war can ease at all the pain of drug addicts or their communities is debatable i suppose. I personally don't think there is any net positive effect to having government try to stop people from using drugs that they want to use. But that is arguable I suppose. But I think we can agree that to propose that the war on drugs is winnable is delusional.
2nd truth is that the result of war on drugs in Afghanistan and Colombia gives money/power/recruits/legitimacy to our enemy. To an enemy that otherwise would have none of the above.

So, I fear that the war in Afghanistan will turn our like the war in Columbia, only worse. Worse because the consequences of not winning are graver than those of not winning in Colombia. The war in Colombia has been going on as long as I have been alive, but the only consequence of not winning that war is that the lives of many Colombian civilians are destroyed, and the crime rate in Columbia, Mexico, and the US is higher than it would otherwise be.
The consequences of not winning in Afghanistan are graver, because of the goals of our enemy in the region. The enemy in Afghanistan that we empower with the war on drugs is an enemy that will destroy us if they can. Pakistan is one of the stakes in the war, and Pakistan has nukes.

I guess another consequence of the drug war in Colombia (and the US) is a loss of liberties in the US. I suppose the necessities of those liberties, or whether those liberties would be lost for another reason without the drug war, can be argued.

I fear because of the drug war, that the war in Afghanistan comes to resemble the war in Colombia (with the added danger that radical Islam is far more viable than Communism).
But I do maintain some hope that instead of resembling Colombia, that McChrystal is able to win the larger war. To discredit the Taliban, and Al Qaeda, and to make the unwinnable drug war part of the war, a minor part of the war, and not important to the overall situation on the ground to the majority of Afghans, or to American strategy.
With our current policy that enables the Taliban to enrich and empower itself from our futile efforts at drug control, I fear that might be wishful thinking.