Why Over is NOT Over — Afghanistan

By Jay Holmes

With the “ISIS crisis” occupying the headlines in Europe and North America, the US and NATO military operations in Afghanistan have been all but forgotten in the media.

 

US Marines patrolling poppy fields in Helmand Province
Image by Dept. of Defense.

 

On December 28, 2014, US President Obama announced that after thirteen years of combat, the longest war in US history, the war in Afghanistan, was ending. However, the president pointed out in the same speech that US forces would, in fact, remain in combat in Afghanistan.

The war that is “over” is not over.

To most accurately represent the President’s words from his December 28 speech, it is best that we offer a direct quote. The following is the entire fourth paragraph of President Obama’s speech:

“Afghanistan remains a dangerous place, and the Afghan people and their security forces continue to make tremendous sacrifices in defense of their country. At the invitation of the Afghan government, and to preserve the gains we have made together, the United States—along with our allies and partners—will maintain a limited military presence in Afghanistan to train, advise, and assist Afghan forces and to conduct counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al-Qaeda. Our personnel will continue to face risks, but this reflects the enduring commitment of the United States to the Afghan people and to a united, secure, and sovereign Afghanistan that is never again used as a source of attacks against our nation.” [emphasis added]

In attempting to interpret and understand the President’s intent in Afghanistan, I am left in the precarious position of trying to extract facts from a political speech.

In the above paragraph, we see the source of the “war is over, but not over” dilemma that the president and our troops at risk face in Afghanistan.

Clearly, the president and most Americans would love for peace to reign in Afghanistan, or at the very least, for Americans to no longer suffer the consequences of the complete lack of anything like peace in Afghanistan. While President Obama mentioned the sticky detail of the “remnants of al-Qaeda,” he failed to mention the larger obstacle to peace—namely, the Taliban and its dozens of local “taliclones” opposing peace and civilization in Afghanistan.

President Obama’s commitment to a “united, secure, and sovereign Afghanistan” is in keeping with US political opinion, but is, unfortunately, not at all descriptive of the reality in Afghanistan as it was on December 28, 2014, nor as it is today.

We in the US find ourselves again in a dilemma that resembles President Lyndon Johnson’s view of the Viet Nam war. The war that Johnson saw, understood, and valiantly attempted to manage was not terribly similar to the war that actually occurred in Viet Nam. My guess is that in reality, President Obama understands Afghanistan better than his speech would indicate, so I assume that the speech was a political exercise rather than an expression of the president’s real view of Afghanistan.

He knows it’s not over.

While most of us in the US were glad to see the Afghan people conduct their first democratic election, that election, unfortunately, has not led to any sign of unity in the Afghan political system. Being ever the incurable optimist, I hasten to point out an interesting, though less noticed, phenomenon in Afghanistan. The young people of Afghanistan are learning to use social media, and judging from their correspondence, they are more practical, more civilized, more intelligent, and far more united than their elders. They have clearly expressed that they want a functioning democracy and won’t let tribal loyalties and factionalism get in their way.

In practical terms, it seems that we will have about 11,000 US forces in Afghanistan instead of the previously estimated 10,000. NATO will continue in its feeble efforts by maintaining 2,000 troops in Afghanistan to back up the usual idealistic and vague European political agenda.

Political speeches and media trends aside, what might we reasonably expect from Afghanistan?

My best guess is that any hope for civilization in Afghanistan resides with its not-yet-empowered youth. Too many of Afghanistan’s most educated people reside outside of Afghanistan, and most of them have no intention of returning home.

We have to consider that the ongoing national political schizophrenia in neighboring Pakistan will continue to allow various tali-brand bandits to wage war against the Afghan people.

The American public’s dwindling enthusiasm for paying the Afghan bills in blood and treasure, combined with the fact that most European nations have never been willing to contribute much more than rhetoric to the Afghan war, means that the US will remain in combat in Afghanistan as quietly as possible for another ten years. As the next generation of Afghan leaders gradually replaces the current gang of intellectually arthritic old men that currently fail to run their country, hope for a “united, secure, and sovereign Afghanistan” will finally become more than political dogma.

 

Special Edition Libya: Worldwide Poker Game

By Jay Holmes

In our last post, Dave asked, “How much of the reluctance to act is the result of pressure from European allies concerned about their vulnerability to interruption in the flow of gas and oil from Libya? Or is this just homegrown lack of decisiveness?

This is Holmes’ response. . . .

Thank you for your question Dave. The quick answer is “both,” but if you are bored today keep reading. In my view, there are multiple factors that contribute to inertia in any military activity by the West in Libya. From the European point of view, Italy and the UK have the most to lose in Libya, except for the Libyan people, and they are both wanting to avoid mistakes. Sometimes failure to act while avoiding mistakes can, in itself, be a very big mistake.

The UK has a huge financial stake in Libya and is as oil-dependent as any industrial nation is. Current UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, made clear his disgust for the UK’s unsavory “terrorist prisoner release for oil” dealings with Libya, but he faces the same economic realities that his predecessors did. The UK needs oil from, and trade with, Libya.

In Italy, Berlusconi has been happy to deal openly with Libya, and 70% of Italy’s oil addiction is supplied by that country. Also, Italy has agreements in place with Libya for massive works projects to be completed, principally, by Italian construction companies.

France, and, to a lesser degree, Germany, had been attempting to sign significant trade agreements with Libya, as well. We cannot know what deals are being proposed by whom in the back alleys of Europe’s capitols or in US oil companys’ board rooms, but the motives are easy enough to imagine.

We are not the only one’s wondering about any “deals.” The rebels will naturally maintain their own suspicions about who wants what, but if they are smart they will understand the easy opportunity to make promises of future commercial cooperation in exchange for help now. Overall, Europe may be hoping for the US to act while they play the “slow” game. That way, they can avoid responsibility for any casualties or political fallout while reaping the rewards of any US military activity.

There is, in reality, no military reason why European military forces could not easily handle any intervention in Libya without involvement by US forces. Europe has been touting the superior magical qualities of the Euro-fighter since its conception. Europe now has the opportunity to demonstrate the “fight” aspect of the “Eurofighter,” and France could show us the superiority that they have been claiming for their fighter aircraft as well. Let’s see if it happens. Are they just tax-funded, expensive paperweights, or will they be used as Von Clausewitz, a political theorist, would recommend, as an extension of European political policy? Any desire by European governments for US intervention in Libya would be driven by the desire for the USA to pay the lion’s share of the fiscal and political costs.

As for the USA, Obama ran on a somewhat “anti-military” platform. He told us that he would quickly clean up the mess in Iraq, and that he would chase terrorists from Afghanistan while leaving a tidy little democracy in place. He has thus far achieved neither of these goals. In addition, the US courts have apparently crippled his controversial health care reform bill. Obama has used up lots of political capital without achieving any correspondent political victories since coming to power. And on top of these obvious failures, he still faces massive unemployment in the US.

Obama has proposed budget cuts for the Military while still having to feed the gods of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. War gods don’t usually work cheap. They require blood and treasure. For Obama to order US forces to intervene in Libya may be pragmatic in strategic terms and easy in military terms, but it would not be welcomed by his shrinking political base at home. Self-declared, lock-step American “liberals” are not likely to support a Republican candidate, but Obama and the rest of his party need the vote of pragmatic independents to avoid disaster in the next elections.

Naturally, North Korea was not going to let this period of Western stress pass without trying to improve crazy Kim’s position on the world’s geopolitical stage. Not surprisingly, Little Kimy has announced the development of a magnetic impulse nuclear weapon.

In case Obama didn’t have enough on his mind, he has had to respond to the sad tragedy in Japan by having the US Navy use 3rd Fleet (east Pacific) ships to reinforce the US 7th Fleet (far east fleet) in an attempt to deliver medical and logistical aid to the earthquake-ravaged northeastern Japan. Even the USA has a finite number of naval assets. And while the US 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean has been reinforced to deal with Libya, the US 5th Fleet (Indian Ocean) is continuing its operations in support of our forces in Afghanistan and must deal with ongoing threats by Iran in the straits of Hormuz. And then we have those nasty pirates in Somalia to contend with.

The US Navy is busy this month, and the Pentagon would love to have use of the US-financed bases in Italy to utilize US Air Force assets to conduct any air operations over Libya. If, after financing these bases and pouring in so many millions of dollars into the Italian economy for more than half a century, Italy refuses to cooperate on this point, I think it would represent a turning point for the USA in its troublesome and costly relations with Italy. Change would come quietly, but change would indeed come.

Both Obama and his European “allies” would love to see Gadhafi vanish from the world political stage. In this they are in agreement. But neither Europe, nor the US, wants to help usher in the world’s next theocratic tyrant state. The Libyan revolutionaries have yet to organize enough to present a clear image of themselves to the West so the West is not yet sure what it is being asked to support.

The Arab League has, in a sense, passed the ball back to the Western powers by quickly agreeing to a “no fly” operation over Libya. They are, at the same time, demanding “no military intervention by the West.” I guess in English we can translate that as “make Gadhafi go away, and then we’ll be mad at you for it.” Hardly a surprise.

It seems to me that the most critical need for the Libyan rebels is to establish believable communications with the Western powers. Against this obvious need, they feel a strong instinct to obtain their own “victory” without Western intervention. The rebels will have to get over their own cultural limitations if they wish assistance from the West in removing Gadhafi.

Obama and his policy formulators will have to make their best calculation of what the sum of all the forces at play add up to. This normally simple Newtonian calculation is complicated by everyone’s inability to accurately define the Libyan rebels.

Everyone wants that malodorous diaper changed, but no one wants to be the one to clean the offending baby.

Now take two aspirin and call me in the morning if you need another headache.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

 A history of Libya to help us understand the current dynamics of the unfolding situation:

Special Edition Libya: Timeline, Part I

Special Edition Libya: Timeline, Part II

Special Edition Libya: Timeline, Part III

An Analysis as of March 12, 2011.