Policy in Afghanistan
By Patrick L. Lang on April 30, 2009 at 3:00 PM in Afghanistan, Islam, Muslim, Pakistan, President Barack Obama
I have been asked to "put up or shut up" about Afghanistan. In other words, I have been asked to make clear my views on an appropriate US policy for Afghanistan. I thought I had done that, but, no matter.
I think that we Americans need to stop exaggerating the level of threat to the United States that originates or will originate in Afghanistan. The temptation to see the activities and scheming of takfiri jihadis as parts of a world war between the Islamic "House of War" and the rest of us has caused us to begin to re-design our society(ies) for total war against an all powerful and virtually eternal enemy. This is nonsense. Islam, Islamdom, and Islamicate Civilization are much given, as are other such cultural constructs, to revivalism in a pattern that recurs over centuries as memory of the costs of each revival fades from the living collective mind. The present phenomenon of Islamic zealotry is not something new. It is something old come again. This wave of revivalism has peaked and will decline under the pressure of local government and religious establishments, foreign military intervention and the competition presented by other forms of Islam, each with its claim to universal authenticity and its own circle of adherents.
In Afghanistan there is always war; war for resources, honor, leadership, authenticity of Islamic identity. The causes of war are endless. There are many different peoples in Afghanistan; Pushtun, Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara, Turkmen, Nuristani, etc. etc. etc. Many of these groups speak mutually incomprehensible languages. They are mostly Sunni, but some, like the Hazara, are Shia. What we see now in Afghanistan is NOT a "theater of war" in a "global war on terror." Rather, it is a continuation of the ancient Afghan pattern of traditional warfare among the peoples, their groupings old and new, and sectarian definitions of Islamic truth. The minions of the Al-Qa'ida related zealot groups are scattered and hidden in the "landscape" of ever shifting conflict that is Afghanistan. They are like raisins in a cake. These "raisins" are a danger to the United States. They are a danger but not an "existential" threat to our "way of life" as they are sometimes described. Americans are not going to experience a mass conversion to the Al-Qa'ida version of Islam. Such a conversion would be a threat to our "way of life" but it will not happen. Nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in the hands of Al-Qa'ida? The "dirty bomb" thing? None of these threats are existential threats to the United States. The US is too big a country for that. The Soviet Union with its thousands of hydrogen bombs was an existential threat to the United States, but not Al-Qa'ida. Americans in their obsession with self tend to confuse personal survival with group survival. In this case, the group under consideration is the American polity. That entity is in no way threatened existentially by the raggedy jihadis in Afghanistan or their better dressed fellow enthusiasts elsewhere. For true Muslims, the survival of the 'Umma is all important. The base line truth is, as Cieran says, that attacks with 50kt. weapons would be met with retaliation with multi-megaton weapons. That would be the end of Islamdom in many places. It would not be the end of Islam but Muslim polities would suffer to an extent that few can imagine. Faced with that truth only a handful of fanatics would even consider such a thing. Therefore, it is the handful of fanatics that should be the objects of our attention. They are dangerous to us at the individual, familial and local levels.
President Obama in his announcement of policy with regard to Afghanistan, said that our goal would be to disrupt, disorganize and destroy our enemies. That is an appropriate goal given the actual size and intensity of the threat. Forget about nation building in Afghanistan. Forget about generational commitments of vast amounts of treasure that we no longer possess. Forget about Cheney's nonsensical 1% solution. This sounds like a half-baked "lift" from the Israeli Right. A decent regard for the opinion of mankind would point to the wisdom of infrastructure building aid for the Afghans on a multi-national basis. Past that point we should focus on killing and disrupting the adherents of tiny sects that opt for violent action against what they see as unbelief. Most Afghans, indeed most Pushtuns do not want an unending war with the US. They are more than willing, like Willie Sutton, to go where the money is. The goal of policy in Afghanistan should be to pit the majority(ies) against the handful of people who actively threaten us. Is this war? Yes. It is my kind of war.
In Pakistan the problem is very different. There, a developed post-colonial state is threatened by a reversion to ancient forms of conflict. Once again, the Pushtuns of the mountain and hill country seek to impose their will on the people of the plain of the Indus watershed. The nuclear arsenal of Pakistan makes a victory of the hillmen unacceptable to the US. As I wrote at the National Journal blog this week, a return to Pakistan Army control of the government and imposition of government control over the border country seems the only acceptable solution and the United States should stop impeding that outcome. — pl
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
I think that we Americans need to stop exagerating the level of threat to the United States that originates or will originate in Afghanistan. The temptation to see the activities and scheming of takfiri jihadis as parts of a world war between the Islamic “House of War” and the rest of us has caused us to begin to re-design our society(ies) for total war against an all powerful and virtually eternal enemy.
I respect your opinion, but I’d appreciate it if you came to NY to say this to the families of 2000 New Yorkers who lost their lives because we underestimated a resolute enemy.
I agree.
This is a movement that has been growing for generations. What makes it worse is that it is not a political movement – it is a religious movement that does not compromise its goals.
Right now there is a resurgent Taliban that is unafraid of the U.S. threat and is on the doorstep of acquiring Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
I cannot find any respect for this man’s opinion.
You have to study the history of region in order to understand what Lang is talking about. This extremism comes in cycles dependent on situations that radicals use to extend their movement. If the Bin Laden of today was around back in the early 20th century , no one would understand his rhetoric about the West — because the situation of today did not exist back then. They would all think he’s a loon.
This IS a political movement. A militant, dangerous far-right political movement. No one is saying that we shouldn’t fight this movement. Let’s just get the facts straight. There isn’t a vast 1 billion person militant Muslim movement trying to destroy Christianity and the “way of life” of the West. There hasn’t been a Muslim world for over 400 years. You can’t have ONE Muslim policy when you have so many different kinds of Muslims each with different political beliefs and goals.
We characterize these people as one-dimensional which causes an unrealistic foreign policy. In Turkey, we should focus Let’s approach the issue on a case-by-case scenario. By characterizing the war on terrorism as a war between West vs. Muslim world, we do serious harm in forming an intelligent and effective foreign policy.
I am sorry, but this comment comes across to me as a total non-sequitur.
What is your solution, massive invasion and occupation? Hmmmm, if I recall correctly, that has been tried, the last time by the Soviets and they had somewhata of a shorter supply line. As you recall, they “got their lunch eaten.”
i.m afraid that will happooen to us too.
Do you have any idea what are you talking about?
Hello? Anybody in there?
SAUDIS flew those planes into the WTC. Not the Taliban, not Iraqis.
We are allies of the Saudis. So, please make your reactionary arguments based on some form of truth and logic, instead of emotionalism and demogoguery.
Finally, someone who speaks the truth. However, since when does the truth mean anything to someone with an axe to grind? It would be nice if ANYONE could prove a definite link between 911 and the Taliban and/or Iraq. Those sick dudes were from Saudi Arabia. Why didn’t we ” shock and awe” them? Oh, I forget, we’ve already got access to their oil.
Was the architect of 9-11 hiding in a cave in Saudi Arabia? If it was about oil I guess we could just drill our own oil and be done with it. For some reason, it is so not about oil we can’t even do that much to help ourselves.
I don’t think he was hiding in downtown Baghdad, as well. Many of the “perps” were going to airline schools in Florida and Arizona; maybe we should have shocked and awed them first.
Did you know that the first name for the “war” on “terror” in Iraq was Operation Iraqi Liberation – until someone spotted the initials?
I understand your anger, but you cannot condemn an entire group or population because of an extremist minority. The US uses military action, these disparate groups use guerilla tactics.
The 9-11 attack was a perpetrated by a highly organized group, well funded, and took months, if not longer, to plan and co-ordinate. We were caught off-guard because we had become too complacent.
Actually, I found this pov refreshing. I never bought into the Iraq War, thought it was ill-conceived from the start. But I would have been in full support of nailing Bin Laden and his henchmen when we had a real chance of catching them. But we didn’t do that. We made a U-turn and accomplished killing and maiming 4000+ more of our own, countless Iraqis and throwing untold treasure down a rat hole.
Do I want a see a repeat of that in Afghanistan or Pakistan? Hell no. I have no problems giving aide, direction and infrastructure development funds to these countries, as long as we have a strict handle on how and where the funds are spent.
But at some point we need to step aside and start taking care of our own domestic problems, of which there are many.
So, thank you for the essay, Patrick Lang.
i agree too that america is not facing a mortal *military/terrorist* threat from afghanistan/radical muslims; even if terrorists got off a nuclear bomb in a major american city and killed 100,000 people every 10 years (which is highly unlikely), that death rate of 10K people per year is still far less than die in regular old street crime or car crashes in the US every year, and nobody is living in a state of panic over crime and auto accidents.
that being said, i think that the US and the entire western world is under a serious threat of “Talibanization,” shall we say. make no mistake, the number of actual terrorists may be relatively few, but their supporters are many, and there are even more in the muslim world (and other parts of the world) who favor forms of government and culture that would set america back hundreds of years in terms of human rights and quality of life.
these people are reproducing much more rapidly than westerners are, and they are not shy about using violence to force their way of life on others, or to outright eliminate them. we are in a race against time to convert them before they convert us (i am not talking about religion, per se – i’m an atheist, but i mean convert their worldview into something more modern).
Petraeus gives stark warning of potentially imminent Pakistani collapse.
Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, has told U.S. officials the next two weeks are critical to determining whether the Pakistani government will survive, FOX News has learned.
“The Pakistanis have run out of excuses” and are “finally getting serious” about combating the threat from Taliban and Al Qaeda extremists operating out of Northwest Pakistan, the general added.
But Petraeus also said wearily that “we’ve heard it all before” from the Pakistanis and he is looking to see concrete action by the government to destroy the Taliban in the next two weeks before determining the United States’ next course of action, which is presently set on propping up the Pakistani government and military with counterinsurgency training and foreign aid.
But let’s keep focused on waterboarding …
This from that article. Yes, and Kerry was on with Greta last night and he didn’t have the same somber tone. He did state about three times that Bush was the one who took the focus off Afghanistan. Then went on to state how helpful to foreign policy it was to have a President that the world “liked”. Everything is about Bush with these guys. Like us or not… if the Taliban gets nuclear weapons our congeniality isn’t going to help much.
I don’t understand, Obama’s reasons for war in Afghanistan, according to HIM, is that it’s the “right war” and is part of the “war on terror” even though they are looking for a new name, like “war on man caused disaster” or something.
You saying “President Obama in his announcement of policy with regard to Afghanistan, said that our goal would be to disrupt, disorganize and destroy our enemies.”, isn’t that just a talking point? Like the forever “we will destroy our enemies”, like Bush “fighting them over there instead of here” for reasons of staying in Iraq.
But, Obama IS making this an all out war, in Afghanistan, increasing destruction, death, operations. So that doesn’t fit with fighting with a few that mean us harm, does it?
And Obama expanding a war in Afghanistan on a peoples whom we should not be fighting or hurting. How is this changing foreign policy of the past 8 years. It’s worse. He’s keeping troops in his “dumb war” for much longer…YEARS and now starting a new one. ONLY MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL BE KILLED, HURT and suffering.
And some are just now starting to go to school. War they don’t need, nor deserve.
Shock and awe all over again.
Either that or he totally is over his head and was thinking about Saul’s tactics for “Community Orangizing”.
Docelder,
Shock and awe has many forms.
Getting into someones decision cycle takes many things, chief among them is accurate Intel and a pragmatic understanding of what ones’ end goal is.
Pissing munitions from great heights no doubt is one form, but even Rumsfield had one thing right, when saying;
All societies can be made to crumble under the right conditions. Look how far this country has devolved since 9/11. So I ask, destroy what?
Mr. Lang, your write-up displays basic naivete. This is exactly the prob with our hypothesis for the last few decades. And that sort of analysis would bring terrorism to our shores again.
Next time, do better than that.
benny! where’ve ya been?
hiya cat, I’ve been a little busy. been travelling all over on work. Hows you?
Exactly!
Why is it that unless the enemy has thermonukes they are harmless and a waste of our defensive time.
I bet Britain and their slide towards Sharia law would beg to differ about the harmlessness of muslims. It’s already starting to happen in America. And you know what? We are so fucking stupid that political correctness and not wanting to hurt the feelings of “good” muslims will send us down the road to having sharia law coded into our laws.
very informative post, PL, I would agree though that you already had put up, it still is useful to remind us of the specific factors of the history and culture which are at the heart of this, in terms of what approach is best for a strategy forward. I’m guessing you will be asked again to put up… Thanks for your patience.
I also think it’s funny that on one hand we’re condeming such “evil” torture tactics as face slapping and sleep deprivation that were being done to captured Taliban fighters is an insult to our American moral fiber, yet we’re lamenting that we need another military dictator to take over Pakistan and rule with an iron fist because the Taliban are bad.
How fucking hypocritical is that?
Thank you Mr. Lang for you Point of view.
Agree or not, it is good food for thought.
I am not sure that Pakistan needs a return to military rule, but I do agree the propable outcome my be just that.
When did we become “The former Soviet Union” in this country?
I just have to laugh at the incredible moronics we’ve all just adopted without even thinking. I have to laugh because otherwise, I might get a little overwhelmed by the transition we’ve made in this country over 8 years.
We have lost our rights under the 4th amendment–even as US citizens–everywhere, but particularly in a 100-mile from the border map around the entire country. You can be stopped, searched, have your vehicle seized or your property in the vehicle seized without legal redress.
We’re calling this the “HOMELAND.” We now have “CZARS” for everything from economics to health.
We use Soviet methods of Torture. Then we invoke “state secrets” privilege to hide it from the people.
Our media mirrors a state-run media if ever there was one. Any media who defied Bush was threatened; Obama is doing the same.
We hold prisoners without trial.
We “rendition” people secretly to dungeons and torture them to “confess.”
We’re running a gulag at Guantanamo.
And, we’re engaged in a no-win long war in Afghanistan. The Soviets were finally driven out after a decade; now we’re following in their footsteps. The American people don’t realize that yet, but they will. Moreover, if–when–Pakistan explodes, where will we get the troops and the money to jump into that war, too. And, what if Israel decides to attack Iran? Are we going to be able to deal with the consequences of that? How will we pay for it? The Soviets bankrupted their country in Afghanistan; so could we.
Nyet to it all, I say. I didn’t move to Russia, and I really am sick of imitating Russia in America.
Along that line, Russian oligarchs and US oligarchs. What’s the difference? Between our policy in Afghanistan, and our elites running things at home, we’re looking mighty similar.
Michael Panzner:
April 30, 2009
‘They Own the Place’
http://www.economicroadmap.com/2009/04/they-own-the-place.html
Simon Johnson:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_oligarch
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/692297.stm
Not quite so romantic as that scripted tale of forbidden love and the resultant story of the son of a goat herder made good. But then again the truth is rarely pretty.