By Steve Hynd
I had so hoped I wouldn't be disappointed in the "Plan B" for Afghanistan proposed by Steve Clemons' Afghanistan Study Group, which is out today. (Full report PDF)
But, like the report from Britain's International Institute for Strategic Studies also out today, it relies on a continued, at least decade long - admittedly reduced - military presence in Afghanistan and telling the Afghans how to run their country to our preferences at gunpoint. There's no real answer to "how does this end?"
The IISS wants to tell Afghans, at gunpoint, that:
Afghanistan would become more federal with Kabul giving up �practical sovereignty on most issues to the provinces� so that the provinces �pretend to be ruled by the centre,� which would still control foreign and financial policy.
The ASG wants to tell Afghans, at gunpoint, that:
the Afghan Parliament should be given confirmation authority for major appointments, district councils should be elected, budgeting authority decentralized, and elected provincial representatives should be included in the national level council that determines the portion of funds distributed. The ethnic base of the Afghan army should be broadened. More generally, governance should depend more heavily on local, traditional, and community-based structures.
I want to tell both of them that such things aren't our place to impose, be we ever-so well meaning about it, even if they might be a good idea (and I'll leave moot whether they are).
The real Pottery barn rule should apply - one that emphasizes self-determination for Afghanistan. The real rule is, and has always been: "You broke it, you pay for it and get the f**k out of our store." At that point, it's up to the store owners whether they rebuild, re-open as a different kind of shop or burn the whole edifice down around their own ears.
Curious that Anatol Lieven would publish the article you noted this morning via Twitter in Current Intelligence ( http://bit.ly/9fYZ7a ) & have his name associated with Clemons' Afghan Study Group. I've struggled to get past the 1st few pages of the Clemons group's plan. I keep coughing on the two bogus reasons for USA's i.e. America's Interests: the safe haven boogyman & the maintain stability so terrorists won't get nuclear capacity canard. I wonder whether the IISS plan is serious or simple ballast to counter the Kagan et al - including maybe US senior military types - usual wisdom.
ReplyDeleteSteve & Geoff -- thanks for the careful read of the report. The ASG represented a number of views which we sewed together. I want out of Afghanistan and think that the only credible way at the moment of getting people to listen is to propose something that draws down and breaks down the logic that US forces stabilize in civil war/proxy struggle situations like Afghanistan. I can understand your frustration with the report -- but I want something that will neutralize the competing logic, and calling for immediate, full withdrawal won't be heard, and will have no effect...regrettably.
ReplyDeletebest, steve clemons
Hi Steve, and thanks for responding.
ReplyDeleteI understand exactly where you're coming from on this and respect the hard work and thought you and your team put into your report.
I hope, though, that you also understand that there are some of us who'll keep pushing from even further out in the FP boonies than your own team, so that if and when the "serious people" finally get over their desire to apply Powell's version of the Pottery Barn Rule, there'll be somewhere else to move towards rather than just "OK, we're at the USG's position, and there we stay".
You had a lot of smart people on your team and you may well be right that offering a drawdown rather than a withdrawal is the only thing that'll be listened to right now by the DC set. In the meantime, I think it's still useful for some others to be setting out a position that demands withdrawal, not just drawdown. We progressives keep being told that if we don't ask - and ask, and ask, and demand - we won't get.
Regards, Steve