I never get tired of Lewis Black's observation about the two parties: Republicans are the party of bad ideas; Democrats are the party of no ideas. A reasonable person might well conclude that George Bush was wrong to launch an invasion of Iraq, and that he bungled the first three years of the occupation. But if that person were honest as well, he would have to admit that Bush did manage to salvage his Iraq policy, and that Bush at least had a policy.
The Democrats have never been able or even interested in generating a coherent policy alternative for the region. During the recent election, they maintained the semblance of a policy: "Iraq war bad; Afghanistan war good." That was more or less the stated policy idea, and the implementation would be to shift American forces from the one to the other. Of course that is only thinkable now that Bush's Iraq policy has largely succeeded, a policy that the Democrats vociferously opposed when it was announced; though not so vociferously as to actually act to block it.
But if there is any evidence that Obama or his party gave any serious thought to what victory in Afghanistan might mean or how it would be achieved, the press has not reported on it. In fact, the bad war/good war positioning was pure election posturing. There was no substance behind it. It's like the seal that Obama has on his podium these days: "Office of the President-Elect." Is there such an office? Or is this more evidence of a political culture that can't tell the difference between the magazine cover and the story it reports. Very soon now Obama is going to have to start moving armed men about.
Joe Klein may be the first Democrat to start thinking about Afghanistan. It is not for the faint of heart.
We know what the mission used to be — to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and destroy his al-Qaeda command. But once bin Laden slipped away, the mission morphed into a vast, messy nation — building effort to support the allegedly democratic Karzai government. There was a certain logic to that. The Taliban and al-Qaeda can't base themselves in Afghanistan if something resembling a stable, secure nation-state exists there. But the mission was also historically implausible: Afghanistan has never had a strong central government. It has been governed for thousands of years by local and regional tribal coalitions. The tribes have often been at one another's throats — a good part of the current "Taliban" uprising is nothing more than standard tribal rivalries juiced by Western arms and opium profits — except when foreigners have invaded the area, in which case the Afghans have united and slowly humiliated conquerors from Alexander the Great to the Soviets.
Whatever you think of Bush, there were good reasons to think that a war in Iraq could be won. It was a relatively developed nation, by regional standards, with a significant middle class. It had at least some history of coherent government and modern civil institutions.
Afghanistan, by contrast, has always been the heart of darkness in the region. It is a nation with no functioning railroads or navigable rivers. Think about that for a moment. It has no access to any ocean. It is surrounded by Iran, a bunch of former Soviet Republics, and Pakistan. Think about that for another moment. Its terrain makes it almost impossible for any power to bring order without making deals with countless little gangster chiefs. Now: what are we going to do with this place? What does Obama hope to accomplish with all the troops he has promised to put there? I don't know, and I'm guessing neither does he.
There are really only three possible policies. One is to ignore Afghanistan. That is the most attractive policy, and the Clinton Administration tried it. The result was two collapsed skyscrapers in the heart of New York. Another is to go in in force and try to civilize the place. Ask the British about that one. The third is to go in only when you have to and then get the Hell right out. Bush had to, after an attack against the United States was launched from that territory. But if you are going to do that, you have to gut the place. Level the cities and everything else that stands out and let the survivors fight over the newly available real estate. Whoever emerges from the rubble won't want to see you come back again.
The trouble is, we can't do the latter. Not yet. But we aren't willing and may be unable to do the second. How much power will be enough, and can we spare it? As it is, we have gone in half-assed and half-hearted. That was Bush's policy, and Obama will most likely continue it. No wonder no one wants to think about this. I'll leave you with a bit of Kipling:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
and the women come out to cut up what remains,
jest roll to your rifle and blow out
your brains
and go to your gawd like a soldier.
Recent Comments