America needs an Afghan strategy, not an alibi: Henry Kissenger in the Washington Post
I have long had a very creepy feeling about Henry Kissenger. Very long, very creepy. But he also has been a very astute interpreter of international relations, and he has a highly developed strategic sense. That is reason enough to attend to what he has to say about a knotty problem like Afghanistan. One does not always know what game he’s playing, but often he does seem to call them like he sees them.
This is a passage from a piece he wrote for the Washington Post.
*********************
America needs an Afghan strategy, not an alibi
by Henry Kissenger
Washington Post, June 24, 2010
…
We have a basic national interest to prevent jihadist Islam from gaining additional momentum, which it will surely do if it can claim to have defeated the United States and its allies after overcoming the Soviet Union. A precipitate withdrawal would weaken governments in many countries with significant Islamic minorities. It would be seen in India as an abdication of the U.S. role in stabilizing the Middle East and South Asia and spur radical drift in Pakistan. It would, almost everywhere, raise questions about America’s ability to define or execute its proclaimed goals. A militant Iran building its nuclear capacity would assess its new opportunities as the United States withdraws from both Iraq and Afghanistan and is unable to break the diplomatic stalemate over Iran’s nuclear program. But an obtrusive presence would, in time, isolate us in Afghanistan as well as internationally.
Afghan strategy needs to be modified in four ways. The military effort should be conducted substantially on a provincial basis rather than in pursuit of a Western-style central government. The time scale for a political effort exceeds by a wide margin that available for military operations. We need a regional diplomatic framework for the next stage of Afghan strategy, whatever the military outcome. Artificial deadlines should be abandoned.
A regional diplomacy is desirable because our interests coincide substantially with those of many of the regional powers. All of them, from a strategic perspective, are more threatened than is the United States by an Afghanistan hospitable to terrorism. China in Sinkiang, Russia in its southern regions, India with respect to its Muslim minority of 160 million, Pakistan as to its political structure, and the smaller states in the region would face a major threat from an Afghanistan encouraging, or even tolerating, centers of terrorism. Regional diplomacy becomes all the more necessary to forestall a neocolonial struggle if reports about the prevalence of natural resources in Afghanistan prove accurate.
…
June 27th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
In July 2009 Rory Stewart wrote a long informative and opinonated piece on Afghanistan titled The irresistible delusion – a London Review of Books essay.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n13/rory-stewart/the-irresistible-illusion
At the recent UK election Rory was elected to parliament and recently wrote a short piece:
Afghan war is a mission impossible: British MP
* Stewart says NATO should heavily reduce presence or risk a Vietnam-style defeat
LONDON: The war in Afghanistan is a “mission impossible” and Britain and other NATO allies should heavily reduce their presence next summer or risk a Vietnam-style defeat, a new Conservative MP Rory Stewart said on Saturday.
Stewart, a former soldier and diplomat, believes that a radical rethink is the only option if the NATO-led surge of 40,000 extra troops fails to achieve results by next July. “I do not believe we can win a counterinsurgency campaign. We are never going to have the time or the troop numbers. Even if you put 600,000 troops on the ground, I can’t see a credible, effective, legitimate Afghan Government emerging,” he said.
“If you keep going like this the backlash that will build up, the spectres of Vietnam that will emerge in the minds of the British public will mean that we will end up leaving entirely and the country will be much worse off.”
His message to US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron is, “OK, you have sent your 40,000 extra troops. You are going to be in there until July of next year. But enough already, no more, let this be the last. Let’s start now talking about a plan B, not exit but reduction.”
As newly-elected member of parliament’s influential Foreign Affairs Select Committee, he believes that only a few thousand troops perhaps 1,000 of them British should remain in Afghanistan after next summer.
“You would have a few planes around but you would no longer do counter-insurgency. You would no longer be in the game of trying to hold huge swathes of rural Afghanistan.”
He conceded that a partial withdrawal would throw up dangers particularly for those Afghans who sided with the British. app”
Historian JR Cole in his blog Informed Comment writes:
The public are souring on the Afghanistan war and refers to a new Rasmussen poll.
A strategy is needed. Doing what we have been doing is self-defeating.
June 27th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
The diplomats are unemployed at the moment – once the dogs are war are unleashed, it is very hard to chase them down. This illegal war is criminal in nature but no country has a bigger stick than the US; W’s advisers served the purpose well. 9/11 was the impetus for going in and catching Bin Laden, but he was innocent of the strike on the Twin Towers: W said he was guilty anyway and “hand him over.” The Taliban had an obligation to protect him under their code of ethics, so the invasion was launched, only to be abandoned for Iraq (Saddam). Now the jig is up, for the struggle is one of divergent cultures determined to win the hundred years war of (US interests and Muslim rejection of Western ideology), whatever way one wants to see it!
Iran is supporting the enemy with provocateurs and weapons; Pakistan is on their side; and Russia has business interests and investment there. US obtrusiveness is a thorn in the side of investment – Japan has been touted to receive the first crack at those mineral resources and Karzai is negotiating with the Taliban and asking for Pakistan’s help. The Taliban have no interest in attacking the United States other than to expel the US from their territory and were not a threat to anyone outside of their borders in the past: the Mujahideen did cause the Russians a headache.
Americans are not schooled in the language or culture of the region and the diplomats are stymied by their stab-in-the-back reasoning. You can’t defeat the enemy or reason with them; so let the countries with minority Islam populations deal with the problem on their own.
June 27th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
When Henry speaks, My first question is, whats in it for him?
Its my understanding that those natural resources have been known of for many many years…….
I think Henry is a slimeball…
June 27th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
I don’t .necessarily believe Henry. His reasoning resembles the so called domino effect that kept Johnson wasting America in Vietnam.
If all these other governments fear an American defeat/withdrawal in the Afghanistan mis-adventure ‘we’ would not be essentially alone there.
Henry is an ‘insider’ in my view, and an expert mis-leader.
If we could put his brain on the screen we would understand even what GWB was all about and unravel a few other ‘mysteries’.
June 28th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
I guess the same Rory Stewart wrote “The Places in Between” which IMO is an interesting look at Afghanistan “on the ground” while the Taliban was still being (temporarily?) deposed and the Karzai government was forming.
A couple of paragraphs from the NY Times book review:
Rory Stewart’s first book, “The Places in Between,” recounts his journey across Afghanistan in January 2002. Even in mild weather in an Abrams tank, such a trip would be mane-whitening. But Stewart goes in the middle of winter, crossing through some territory still shakily held by the Taliban — and entirely on foot. There are some Medusa-slayingly gutsy travel writers out there — Redmond O’Hanlon, Jeffrey Tayler, Robert Young Pelton — but Stewart makes them look like Hilton sisters.
Paul Theroux once described a certain kind of travel book as having mainly “human sacrifice” allure, and how close Stewart comes to being killed on his journey won’t be disclosed here. He is, however, sternly warned before he begins his walk. “You are the first tourist in Afghanistan,” observes an Afghan from the country’s recently resurrected Security Service. “It is mid-winter,” he adds. “There are three meters of snow on the high passes, there are wolves, and this is a war. You will die, I can guarantee.” For perhaps the first time in the history of travel writing, a secret-police goon emerges as the voice of sobriety and reason.
See http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/books/review/11cover_bissel.html
June 30th, 2010 at 7:12 am
Unless all of Stewart’s adventure is well documented I’d be a little slow
to embrace the whole of it.
The Capricorn moon, with all its abilities is also a great fabricator (one of the best at it, too)