Two-Step Analysis of Mr Obama's War Plan: Step Two in Afghanistan

Latest Post: Mr Obama’s War for/on Pakistan-Afghanistan - Holes in the Middle
Related Post: Mr Biden’s War? An Afghanistan-Pakistan Strategy from 2007
Related Post: Two-Step Analysis of Mr Obama’s War Plan: Step One in Pakistan
Related Post: Mr Obama’s War - Today Proves Pakistan is Number One

There's a cold reality in today's Obama Administration war plan, with its projection of Pakistan as Crisis Number One. Yet there's also a bit of magic: in its presentation of Crisis Number Two in Afghanistan, the Administration has given the media two marvellous diversions.

AFGHANISTAN: THE HOLE IN THE MIDDLE

The first diversion is the headline of 4000 US trainers for Afghan security forces. This will enable the Administration to proclaim that its plan is to ensure Afghanistan can protect and police itself, offering the long-term prospect of a drawdown of American forces. In reality, however, this token deployment will do little to confront the immediate situation with the insurgency.

It does, however, allow Obama and Co., after the showdown compromise with the military earlier this year over troop increases, to show that it is still committed to "tough love" in Afghanistan. The commanders have gotten most of the 30,000 extra troops they wanted, and the Administration is making it well-known that this is not an "exit strategy".

The second bit of magic is the proclamation that the Administration, focusing on the threat of Al Qa'eda, is moving away from the Bush strategy of "democracy promotion" in Afghanistan. This is --- let me see if I can find the right academic word here --- rubbish.

The Bush Administration, beyond its surface proclamations of "liberation" after the fall of the Taliban, never saw spread of democracy as the mission in Afghanistan. Once it had installed the "right" leader in Hamid Karzai (yes, I know the obvious irony, given today's situation), the Bushmen --- as any examination of their approach to "nation-building" will establish in about two second --- just wanted a military presence to keep the Taliban in check while they moved on to their top goal of knocking off Saddam Hussein.

How, then, to read this convenient fiction? It has less to do with the strategy against the Afghan insurgency and more to do with the American strategy vis-a-vis the Government in Kabul and, beyond that, some folks in Pakistan.

Sharp-eyed readers will note that there is nothing in the advance spin on the Obama plan on possible talks with "former" insurgents, even though this has been in the wind for some time. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates held out the prospect last year, and it has been conflated with the Iraq precedent of the magical "surge" and linking up with Sunni groups.

But who is to talk to these "former" insurgents or "moderate" Taliban, given that is unlikely that these groups will go into direct discussions with the US? One possibility is that President Karzai could set himself up as the interlocutor --- indeed, he has been pressing for this for some time --- but Washington no longer trusts their former front-man. Another possibility is that the negotiations could go via Pakistan, but that is even more problematic. A former CIA official spelled it out for Time magazine:

[Pakistani contacts with] people we regard as enemies are not so much trying to aid them against America as preparing for a future when Americans and NATO are no longer in Afghanistan.

But the US doesn't want to get out of Afghanistan, at least not in the near-future, so it needs a "reliable" political centre to hold together its strategy.

And that is precisely what it does not have. The Karzai Administration is not to be trusted, but Washington has no successor lined up (thus its very "un-democratic" admission that Karzai will win re-election, whether that comes in April or August, and there really should be a "Chief Executive" or "Prime Minister" to offset him). The US has given up on NATO, since European countries will not increase their military investment, which rules out another external lever (if there was any prospect it might work) for change in Kabul.

So Washington is stuck putting more troops into Afghanistan with no strategy to underpin the commitment.
The alternative is to start striking agreements with local political leaders --- again under whatever label you want to give them --- but the US is not even in the lead position in those manoeuvres. Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and of course Pakistan can claim more of a foothold in various parts of Afghanistan. Perhaps more importantly, the illusion that the US can control a local movement --- the greatest magic trick of all, carried out in Petraeus Wonderland in Iraq from 2007 --- looks shaky here.

Of course, this reading may be premature. It may all come clear, without smoke and mirrors, when Hillary Clinton addresses the international summit in The Hague next week. But the more I look at this, the more it seems to a leak put out by the Obama Administration in January: if they could put in some troops, it would buy time. And then --- somewhere, somehow, much later --- they might figure out what to do.

Figuring out what to do, however, seems to be a solution via the elimination of the Pakistan "safe havens". If that is true, then more than seven years after 9-11, the magic isn't that Afghanistan is no longer to be a "democracy". The magic is that it has become sideshow.

It's a very expensive, very destructive sideshow, of course, but it's still a supporting act for the main event being set up across the border.

Mr Obama's War: The Spin is...It's Not Afghanistan. It's Pakistan.

Related Post: Pakistan Military, Prime Minister Act Against Zardari

We've found an intriguing article in Time, "The Afghanistan Problem: Can Obama Avoid a Quagmire?", valuable not as much for Joe Klein's analysis as for the inside information fed to him.

The immediate impression is of an Administration effort to build up the urgency of the Afghanistan crisis. So we get a glance at the first, "pretty alarming" meeting on the country, held three days after Obama's Inauguration. Of course, the President "was extremely cool and in control", rather than screaming wildly or crying in the corner, "but some people, especially political aides like Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod who hadn't been briefed on the situation, walked out of that meeting stunned". To sum up, from another participant, "Holy s***."

No spin surprises there, but then we get good stuff. Such as that General David Petraeus, the mastermind heading US Central Command, is pissed off he didn't get his way on policy. Trashing Obama's decision not to accept the recommendations from Petraeus' review, one of the General's acolytes complains about the meetings, "You had people from the Department of Agriculture weighing in. There were too many cooks. The end result was lowest-common-denominator stuff. The usual Petraeus acuity wasn't there."

Obama's people threw the criticism right back at Petraeus, praising instead another study by General Douglas Lute, the Bush Administration's "war czar", which was "very skeptical about the Pakistani army's willingness to fight the Taliban and equally critical of the Karzai government in Afghanistan" They added, however, that the report "didn't provide much detail about what to do next".

So the President has commissioned another review, headed by US envoy Richard Holbrooke and Bruce Riedel, who was his campaign advisor on South Asia and is now outside the Administration in the Brookings Institution.

And here's the stinger. Even though that review isn't due until end of review, its conclusions (or what Obama's officials will spin as its conclusions) are already being leaked:

Afghanistan pales in comparison to the problems in Pakistan. Our primary goal has to be to shut down the al-Qaeda and Taliban safe havens on the Pakistan side of the border. If that can be accomplished, then the insurgency in Afghanistan becomes manageable.

Klein gets a bit fuzzy at this point, primarily because the Administration is still fuzzy on what a Pakistan-first effort means. It can throw in the $1.5 billion/year authorised by Congress, running over five years, in economic aid, but officials are unsure how to distribute the money to have any effect. (It is irrelevant, of course, that Pakistan has a President who was charged/convicted in various countries with corruption.)

So what to do? This paragraph offers the most enlightening, but most disturbing, scenario:

"We have to re-establish close personal relationships with the army," said a senior member of the National Security Council, who was involved in an intense series of meetings with the Pakistani military leadership during the first week of March. "We have to be sure they're on the same page as we are. Based on what I saw, they aren't yet."

So, does this mean that the Pakistani military is kicking up a fuss about the US missile strikes and proposed American strategy in the Northwest Frontier Provinces? Or does this farther, with Washington envisaging a Pakistani military running Islamabad's policy, either behind the scenes or quite openly after toppling President Zardari?

Watch this space.

In response