Andrew J. Bacevich: Afghanistan - the proxy war

Afghanistan - the proxy war

By Andrew J. Bacevich | October 11, 2009

NO SERIOUS person thinks that Afghanistan - remote, impoverished, barely qualifying as a nation-state - seriously matters to the United States. Yet with the war in its ninth year, the passions raised by the debate over how to proceed there are serious indeed. Afghanistan elicits such passions because people understand that in rendering his decision on Afghanistan, President Obama will declare himself on several much larger issues. In this sense, Afghanistan is a classic proxy war, with the main protagonists here in the United States.

The question of the moment, framed by the prowar camp, goes like this: Will the president approve the Afghanistan strategy proposed by his handpicked commander General Stanley McChrystal? Or will he reject that plan and accept defeat, thereby inviting the recurrence of 9/11 on an even larger scale? Yet within this camp the appeal of the McChrystal plan lies less in its intrinsic merits, which are exceedingly dubious, than in its implications.

If the president approves the McChrystal plan he will implicitly:

■ Anoint counterinsurgency - protracted campaigns of armed nation-building - as the new American way of war.

■ Embrace George W. Bush’s concept of open-ended war as the essential response to violent jihadism (even if the Obama White House has jettisoned the label “global war on terror’’).

■ Affirm that military might will remain the principal instrument for exercising American global leadership, as has been the case for decades.

Implementing the McChrystal plan will perpetuate the longstanding fundamentals of US national security policy: maintaining a global military presence, configuring US forces for global power projection, and employing those forces to intervene on a global basis. The McChrystal plan modestly updates these fundamentals to account for the lessons of 9/11 and Iraq, cultural awareness and sensitivity nudging aside advanced technology as the signature of American military power, for example. Yet at its core, the McChrystal plan aims to avert change. Its purpose - despite 9/11 and despite the failures of Iraq - is to preserve the status quo.

Hawks understand this. That’s why they are intent on framing the debate so narrowly - it’s either give McChrystal what he wants or accept abject defeat. It’s also why they insist that Obama needs to decide immediately.

Yet people in the antiwar camp also understand the stakes. Obama ran for the presidency promising change. The doves sense correctly that Obama’s decision on Afghanistan may well determine how much - if any - substantive change is in the offing.

<more>

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/10/11/afghanistan___the_proxy_war/

He comes from a conservative military background but is an independent and honest thinker. I respect his views and I think he is correct that Obama's decision on Afghanistan will be pivotal in this presidency and in the course of US foreign & military policy.

Several good commentaries have been written lately about why we should get out of Afghanistan. I don't find myself in disagreement, but so far those arguments have lacked an thorough assessment of the consequences that would follow our withdrawal.

It seems likely the Taliban would regain their former control. Would Afghanistan become a safe haven for international terrorist organizations, and would this increase the possibilty of attacks on US soil? What impact would this have on the stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan? If the Taliban march triumphantly into Kabul and radical Islamists throughout the world celebrate the defeat of the "Great Satan" ... what impact would this have on politics here at home? That last question is important because it could herald the revival of GOP political fortunes and therefore the implementation of policies both domestic and foreign that could have long term disastrous results.

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think realistic answers are needed in order to make an informed decision on what course of action President Obama should take.

Let's Beat the Extremists Like We Beat the Soviets

By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, September 27, 2009

America's long war, which began on Oct. 7, 2001, when U.S. bombs and missiles started falling on Afghanistan, has become the longest in this country's history. The eighth anniversary of the conflict beckons, with no end in sight.

The counterinsurgency campaign proposed in Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's strategic assessment will prolong the war for an additional five or 10 years. The war's most ardent proponents insist that President Obama has no choice: It's either fight on or invite another 9/11.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to a global counterinsurgency campaign. Instead of fighting an endless hot war in a vain effort to eliminate the jihadist threat, the United States should wage a cold war to keep the threat at bay. Such a strategy worked before. It can work again. ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092502011.html
*

We had a multi-decade standoff with the Bear but we're scared of the stateless Qaeda.

I value Bacevich for his historian's long view. I don't think he's an apparatchik for any faction in the current set-up.

He believes in a robust national defense but not foreign entanglement. I'm sure this includes an effective clandestine service. We have to know what the little bastards are doing & adjust the game plan accordingly.

Not-war is better & cheaper than war. It's the viewpoint that's almost never represented by the Military-Industrial-MEDIA Complex. No mystery there.

I don't know how to wise-up the marks (regular citizens). They (we) could start by turning off the TV & reading Bacevich & Chalmers Johnson.

You're right about the reactionary wing of the Money Party using the 'weak on national defense' line to get elected. It works.

Who can redefine 'National Security' for our numb-skull, pop culture saturated, consumer society?

Beats me.

:hi:

Thanks, that was a very good article with Bacevich spelling out a sane and practical strategy for dealing with Islamic extremists/terrorists. He doesn't really talk about the specifics of what would happen if we abandon Afghanistan, but I like his alternatives.

The bottom line with that unfortunate country is that our ostensible mission there (create a stable democracy) is almost certainly mission impossible. If so, it makes no sense to keep pouring blood and treasure into an inevitable failure. Let's hope that President Obama is getting objective analysis and is willing to make the truly brave decision if it is the wisest course of action -- begin withdrawing our forces.

However, I think he'll probably keep trying to "succeed" in Afghanistan because of how much we have already invested; because of Pakistan; and because of the political fallout from the "cut and run" option. How long he keeps trying remains to be seen.