Thursday, June 9, 2011

Operation Enduring Quagmire

It disturbs me to hear people speaking about 21st century conflicts using 20th or even 19th century terminology.  It is especially jarring when the person is foreign policy godfather Henry Kissinger.

I think his plan for getting out of Afghanistan is perfect...  For ending the trench warfare stalemate of World War I...
For negotiation to turn into a viable exit strategy, four conditions must be met: a cease-fire; withdrawal of all or most American and allied forces; the creation of a coalition government or division of territories among the contending parties (or both); and an enforcement mechanism. (Kissinger – WaPo)
A cease fire? Among who? This isn’t the Franco-Prussian war, with identifiable states and armies. Afghanistan is a motley clash of Taliban, Al Qaeda and drug gangs, with the Pakistani ISI and Iranian operatives thrown in for good measure.  Add to that a supporting cast of unemployed locals who can’t even be classified as terrorists or belligerents. They just live there and don’t like strangers in their neighborhood, so they play jihadi rock and roll for the highest bidder with guns and bombs.

Withdrawal. OK. I get that. An exit strategy is pretty much dead if you don’t exit.

Creation of a Coalition Government? Didn't we do that already?  Klepto king Karzai has stolen billions, and his policemen we've trained have developed a nasty twitch which results in them killing their US and NATO "allies."  Does Henry Kissinger read the newspaper?

Division of Territories? That’s problematic, as Kissenger later admits. Leading us to…
Enforcement. Kissenger says this requires “a residual American force, some international guarantee or presence, or — best — a combination of both.”
Let’s see… We couldn’t impose order with a big presence, so we’re going to leave only a small residual presence in order to enforce an agreement among anarchic, violent drug and terrorist gangs who hate outsiders. Yeah, that'll work.

Kissenger rightly predicts chaos upon withdrawal, but his solution of international conferences and agreements with people who won’t honor them is no solution at all.
“Such an outcome would threaten the security of Afghanistan’s neighbors more than America’s.”
He identifies the immediate neighbors, Iran, Russia, China and Pakistan as the ones most negatively affected by this all tipping over after we leave.  He's right, so they will end up dealing with it.  No sense in us getting involved.  China having to resort to communist butchery in order to continue extracting Afghanistan's mineral wealth troubles me not at all.  Our only residual role should be to offer noncombatant assistance to India when the inevitable chaos breaks out in Kashmir.

Henry Kissinger is a brilliant man, so I realize I’m just a little kid trying to kick him in the shins.  His insight is valuable and never to be ignored, but we need to remember he is working for China now, and that will obviously bias his opinions.

My plan for getting out?
Get out!  Turn everything over to Rashid Dostum and our nominal allies in the north so they can cover us as we kiss that hellhole goodbye.  Leave north through Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and tell Pakistan to kiss our ass, we're taking that $3 billion per year in aid with us.