Showing posts with label nyt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nyt. Show all posts

18 September 2012

We gave up in Afghanistan today

An American medic treats a wounded French soldier in Afghanistan.

Something huge happened today: we gave up in Afghanistan. This was a long time coming. American interest in the war has fallen substantially and is now nearly non-existent. The Republicans did not mention the war at their convention (Clint Eastwood's mention of Afghanistan in his speech, the only mention of the war in the Republican convention, does not count) and devoted just part of a paragraph to it in their platform while the Democrats mentioned the war just once at their convention. The war receives just two percent of all news coverage. Although everything from the high price and difficulty of the covering the war to the complexity of the conflict (which makes it too difficult for most Americans to understand), the main reason the war is not featured in the media is simple: people just don’t care about it. Three-fourths of Americans disapprove of the war, and almost none rank it as the most important issue in the Presidential election. Even the government is ignoring the war. Because of its unpopularity, the war in Afghanistan is ignored by the President. The most popular solution, speeding the withdrawal, is militarily impossible: the Afghan army is not ready to maintain order in Afghanistan or combat terrorism, evidenced by its systemic corruption, its failure in counter-terrorism operations (specifically in the Helmand region), and, most importantly, the huge number of green-on-blue attacks that raise questions about the loyalty and cohesiveness of the Afghan force. The President knows that he is in a double-bind: succumbing to popular opinion would lead to a partial collapse of the Afghan state at best and a Taliban resurgence at worst, neither of which would go over well with voters, while dragging on the expensive and bloody war is unpopular. The best solution for the President is to thus keep the war out of the spotlight, where it cannot hurt his chances for re-election.

All of this collective disgust with the war and ignorance towards it has an effect on the situation on the ground. The President’s sole focus in Afghanistan has, for the past year, been trying to end the war as quickly as possible. The entirety of the Afghanistan section in his platform is devoted to reminding the American people that he is orchestrating the withdrawal of American forces from the country. Indeed, his entire line of attack against Romney in his platform is that Romney “has suggested he would leave [American troops in Afghanistan] indefinitely.” The consequences of this have been his decision to publicly announce the withdrawal timeline (which is very useful for the Taliban because it gives them a clearly defined schedule for preparing to reconquer Afghanistan, a schedule that yesterday’s massive, complex attack on “impregnable” Camp Bastion proves they are following) and to leave no troops in Afghanistan after the deadline, which could contribute to instability there if the Afghan army is not ready by 2014, as now looks probable.

The president’s strategy vis-a-vis Afghanistan is now shifting to include another aim: keep the war out of the spotlight. This shift in strategy is best illustrated by today’s announcement that man-on-man training of the Afghan army, which is more effective than training in huge groups (think of the benefits of learning from a tutor over learning in a huge lecture hall), will be ended. This will surely reduce number of American casualties (which will also reduce the amount of news coverage the war receives), but it will make the Afghan army less effective. Although it can be argued that Obama is simply showing concern for our troops, we have to keep in mind that the point of sending soldiers somewhere is for them to go into harm’s way. While it is very generous of Obama to care for American troops, it runs counter to the point of deploying soldiers somewhere in the first place.

It’s hard to place the blame on Obama for America’s failure to fully commit to Afghanistan because it is brought on by the American people’s apathy and disgust towards the war. Mitt Romney’s vague plan for Afghanistan, which consists of little other than a promise to provide security in South and Central Asia (that’s about as specific as if he made his China policy “interact with China”) and a criticism of Obama’s public announcement of the withdrawal timeline. If we want to see change in our Afghanistan policy, we need to take interest in the war. We can’t have both a speedy withdrawal and a low-intensity war. We have to ramp up troop training efforts and supervision of the Afghan forces if we want order to stay in the country. Bases for drones and special operations will have to stay past the 2014 deadline in the likely event that terrorism threatens the Afghan government. We may even need to do a top-down restructuring of the Afghan government and military to root out corruption and diffuse power from the current elite to include more ethnic groups. Will this take a lot of effort and resources? Of course. But we have committed far too many resources to Afghanistan to simply half-ass the final, crucial transition and waste our 11 years of hard work there. Afghanistan is not just some backwards hellhole that we invaded in an imperialist fit of post-9/11 rage. It is a resource rich energy hub that, if its natural gas and minerals are exploited and the proposed pipelines through there are built, could change the balance of power in Asia depending on which country, China or India (or both or neither) exploits it first. It is a key piece in the struggle between India, a rising superpower, and Pakistan, an important player in the War on Terror, that shapes all of our interactions with South Asia and most of our policy towards the Indian Ocean. And, finally, it has the potential to become a terrorist base once again, which would allow for Al-Qaeda to launch another mass casualty attack on the American mainland. Afghanistan is still crucial to our country’s security, and if we give up now, all our resources spent their will be wasted. If the American public puts pressure on the Administration to go whole hog in Afghanistan, we may yet succeed. It is not yet too late.

22 January 2012

China really is a threat

Recently, I read an interesting article in the New York Times titled “To Save Our Economy, Ditch Taiwan.” The premise of the article was that the US should stop protecting Taiwan in exchange for cancellation of debts owed to China. The author raises an interesting point in the article: our main interests abroad are economic.

“He should make it clear that today American jobs and wealth matter more than military prowess,” Paul Kane, the author of the article and a former Harvard professor and Marine, wrote.
So I must ask: is he right? Should the US “go soft?” Here it is useful to look at the current policies of the government before analyzing it theoretically.

In their annual budget report, published in November 2011, the US Department of State wrote that the mission of the United States abroad was to, “Shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere."[1]

So we can see that the United States currently does not act in an economically self-interested way, it currently aims to help those around the globe. The question is: should it?

Those who support Kane will argue that under Locke’s theory of the social contract, which formed the basis for our society, governments primarily have an obligation to their people.2 However, it is interesting to note that governments must conform to the will of the people, not just to their interests, because we must first consult with the populace to know what their interests are. So it would be a misconstruction of Locke to say that we must place economic goals first.

In addition, this was adopted as our political philosophy back in the day when our government was too weak to be concerned about anything other than our own survival. Today, as the world’s most powerful nation, we are in a greatly different position. We have the ability to uphold goods such as democracy, liberty and free trade around the globe. Regular people have an obligation to be just, so the same principles should apply to governments.

In the case of China, we clearly have values and interests, including economic interests, that do not overlap with those of China. China is an authoritarian state that has been attempting to spread its influence around the region. The spread of China’s anti-human rights, anti-freedom model of government would not be desirable for our interests. Another policy of China’s that we should aim to stop is the attempt by China to assert its dominance over the South China Sea [3], through which 50% of world trade flows. [4] Almost all of our oil also flows through this region, and re-routing it would send the price of oil up drastically. [4] Even disregarding the fact that freedom of trade and navigation our two of our biggest goals internationally, giving a foreign country that does not share our values and believes that the U.S. is evil and ought to lose its hegemony control of our oil lifelines would not be desirable.

Economic interdependence is rarely a deterrent of war, as best illustrated by Britain and Germany in 1914 [5] (the two countries were each other’s largest trading partners on the eve of the war, but differences in values and desires to dominate the Earth led to war). For most people, defense of national values tend to surpass prosperity as their greatest interest. This is seen in many wars throughout history where civilians voluntarily put themselves through hardship to continue fighting.

Cites
1 http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/index.htm#mission United States Department of State Mission Statement
2 The Social Contract in America: From the Revolution to the Present Age, Mark Hulliung. September 2007, American Political Thought. ISBN: 978-0-7006-1540-7
3 http://www.indianexpress.com/news/s-china-sea-control-others-question-beijing-wary-india-tests-the-waters/877491/ S China Sea control: Others question Beijing, wary India tests the waters – Indian Express
4 http://www.siis.org.cn/en/zhuanti_view_en.aspx?id=10116
5 http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/papa.htm Interdependence, Institutions, and the Balance of Power: Britain, Germany, and World War I, International Security, Vol. 20, no. 4, Spring 1996