Richard WarnickAfghanistan: Economy of Force?
From the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen:
“In the last six or seven months, we have a put a tremendous amount of focus on Afghanistan, and I think rightfully so,” he said. “It is an economy-of-force campaign, and by definition, that means we don’t have enough forces there.
“I am constrained on forces I can generate quite frankly because of Iraq,” Mullen stated. “Afghanistan is a significant challenge and is going to take a significant period of time.”
The military term “economy of force” is one of the nine Principles of War, and it reminds commanders to allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts. An economy-of-force operation is usually mounted as a distraction, to get the attention of the enemy focused on the wrong place in support of a strategy that is intended to play out decisively somewhere else.
Those of you familiar with my views know where I’m going with this. From the standpoint of al Qaeda, the Iraq fiasco is a spectacularly successful economy of force operation. Osama bin Laden has committed scarcely any of his own resources to Iraq, yet the USA currently has 155,000 troops there and the bulk of our land forces have been tied down for five years in the mistaken belief that it’s the central front in the so-called “Global War on Terror.” Nobody should be surprised that bin Laden has supported this idea with appropriate rhetoric, at zero cost.
To call Afghanistan an economy-of-force campaign is symptomatic of the back-asswards strategy the USA is pursuing. It ought to be the main effort, with the goal of securing the country and also eliminating the world’s principal terrorist base, which is now in neighboring Pakistan. Admiral Mullen is correct that this mission won’t be easy and will take many years.
Right now, things are not going well. June 2008 has already seen the highest monthly death toll of the war for foreign forces. The Taliban control large areas of southwestern Afghanistan. Despite aid efforts, even in Kabul most people live in conditions of extreme poverty.
Former intelligence analyst (and chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit) Michael Scheuer has observed that there is little likelihood that any government regarded as legitimate by Afghanistan’s religiously conservative population would also be acceptable to Washington. The Taliban expect to win by waiting for the U.S. and NATO to leave, as every foreign army has before. In the meantime, they will make our stay as unpleasant as possible.
The Bush administration has neglected Afghanistan because they were distracted by Iraq. The Afghanistan campaign could have been a model of international cooperation. It’s been dubbed the “World Cup” of multilateral wars, with 42 countries involved, as well as many of the major international organizations (NATO, United Nations, etc.) who were absent in Iraq. But the U.S. “Operation Enduring Freedom” (OEF-A) was kept separate from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). And OEF-A is about to become an overwhelmingly American operation as British forces are withdrawing.
It will be up to the next President to thoroughly re-think our approach to Afghanistan. The first step will have to be withdrawal from Iraq, followed by a major redeployment of forces to make up for the departure of our allies from OEF-A. Increased security in support of ramped-up nation-building efforts will be required. But no amount of combat forces can substitute for a well-thought-out strategy, that can go the distance.
Something constructive will have to be done about the Afghan opium economy– why not buy the stuff? It has medicinal uses, and opium derivatives are in short supply in many parts of the world. Eradication efforts just put farmers out of business and forced them to join the Taliban to support their families. Marijuana is also big in Afghanistan, and it’s not going away either. Afghan troops even smoke the stuff on combat missions.
Pakistan’s new government needs our support. The Bush administration has pursued a Musharraf policy in lieu of a Pakistan policy. They lavishly rewarded the Pakistani Army without providing any incentive for them to help us eliminate al Qaeda.
The complexities of Afghanistan/Pakistan make Iraq look simple by comparison. Unfortunately, we can’t hope for a nuanced debate in the heat of a presidential campaign.
More info: The Guardian’s Afghanistan home page.
UPDATE: In a blogger conference call with Spencer Ackerman, Marine Lt. Col. Richard Hall, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, made a practical observation. Afghanistan is ideal IED country because it has few paved roads. “So we’re aggressively working [to] get the roads blacktopped so they can’t place IEDs.”
UPDATE: On Friday, the Pentagon submitted a very pessimistic report about Afghanistan to the Congress. Inadequate force strength, the failure of training programs for Afghan army and police, sluggish aid efforts, and the Pakistan government’s cease-fire with the Taliban are all cited as reasons why we’re losing the war.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I guess that your exasperation with the military policy is due to your total misunderstanding of the mission.
The mission is not to wipe out Al Queda. It never was.
The mission is to change the political dynamic in the Mid East so there won’t be fertile ground for future groups like Al Queda.
Think of it as an anti-terror “War on Poverty” (hey! - notice the similar language - “Global War on Terror”).
Often when you, Richard, and I (and others) disagree on the Iraq war, it is (I think) because we’re talking past each other.
You think that the military should be on a police mission to punish the actors involved in 9-11. I think that the military is there to change the political climate that breeds the kind of people who would think of committing such an act.
In some circles, it’s often said that poverty breeds crime. That to beat crime, you need to lift people out of despair. The neo-cons believe that despotism breeds terrorism. That to truly end terrorism, you must change the political culture of despair.
A free and democratic Iraq would accomplish this.
So, yes. The general is correct, the Afghanistan front is an economy of force campaign. And it’s supposed to be. The real fight is in Iraq.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Thanks for a well-reasoned comment. I would answer that the neocon project of overthrowing every Middle Eastern government (except Israel) is impractical to say the least, and has never been put forth as official U.S. foreign policy– probably because there is no conceivable justification.
The original Iraq plan was simply regime change, not democracy. The Pentagon wanted to install a new dictator, Ahmed Chalabi, and leave within six months. It turned out that Chalabi had oversold his political appeal, which is how we ended up mired in an occupation.
I’m not sure when democracy became the goal, but when it did the Bush administration held elections without realizing that they would result in a narrowly-based sectarian “government” lacking in legitimacy. The result: more insurgency and civil war, pretty much the opposite of freedom and democracy. Despair is rampant– just ask the two million or so Iraqis who have fled the country.
Now, the Bush administration is trying to get Nouri al-Maliki to sign a “security” agreement that grants the U.S. colonial rights, including extraterritoriality for Americans, 58 permanent bases and complete authority to conduct combat operations anywhere in Iraq.
Nothing could make al Qaeda happier, if we try to make Iraq a U.S. possession we’ll validate everything bin Laden says about us.
So, jd, do you understand the mission?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Baby steps - Richard.
Chalabi may have been the Pentagon’s plan - but it wasn’t the complete plan.
Neither was the plan to “overthrow” every middle eastern government.
The idea (and it’s a neo-con idea) is that Democracy is viral. Citizens in States that border Iraq would see the “peace and prosperity” that democracy brings and want it for themselves. Will it work? Maybe. I’ve faith - but I’m also patient. It took more than 150 years from the founding of the modern democracy before all of Western Europe embraced the process.
So the Iraqi’s, by going with the Party Slate system of elections are experiencing some legislative difficulties. These things happen. Democracy is a painful experience. And it’s the worst form of government, except for all the others.
The Iraqis will have to birth their own version of representative government - we can help, though.
We can alleviate the threats of violence (to some extent). We can shepherd the process. Groups like NDI and NRI can access their expertise and experience to lend a hand.
But all is not lost.
Keep in mind that our constitution came about because the initial draft, the Articles of Confederation were such a disaster. And since then we’ve Amended that Constitution 17 times (not including the BOR).
To paraphrase an old sushi chef I knew, “Democracy art form, not fast food”.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
You say democracy is a painful experience. Iraqis have come to associate what we are pleased to call “democracy” with western hegemony and widespread death and destruction. One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, according to a March 2007 poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad.
I think we are doing al Qaeda’s work for them, while they kick back in Waziristan or wherever they are.
BTW, in September 2002 the Congressional Budget Office said the occupation of Iraq would cost “about $1 billion to $4 billion a month.” The occupation is costing us $12 billion a month.
Very little of this incredible amount of money is going for reconstruction or to help 4.5 million Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons. In fact, the Mahdi Army is providing more humanitarian assistance than any other organization in Iraq.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
What price is too high to bring peace and stability to a few hundred million people? Gosh, you almost sound like a Conservative arguing against social programs, there.
This is a blanket statement without attribution - and I’ll treat it as such.
Regarding “reconstruction” - I beg to differ. But I only have anecdotal evidence. Folks on the ground report amazing strides in repairing infrastructure. Kurdistan is undergoing a building boom (not BOOM!). Take a look at the Sheraton in Erbil.
But like I said, my evidence is anecdotal - and I can’t give sources for PERSEC reasons.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
jd– Read the last link of my Mosul post above, and tell me about the wonderful progress in Iraq reconstruction. I’ll link it here, too: Iraqis of Mosul speak of suffering. Take a look at the pictures in the article. I don’t think they have a Sheraton. Mosul is Iraq’s second-largest city, with around two million residents. Unemployment is running at 70 percent.
My point was that comparatively little of the $12 billion a month goes to reconstruction. Check out the website of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction– in five years, they’ve spent about $30 billion total on reconstruction, which averages out to $500 million a month.
Of course, a lot of that has been wasted or diverted to corrupt contractors. I’ve read the epic tales of corruption. But the bottom line is Iraq was better under Saddam than today for most of its citizens. Please re-examine your assumption that the U.S. occupation is bringing peace and stability– the evidence is overwhelming that we’ve wrecked the place.
If you believe in democracy above all, then what about this? Something like 70 percent of Iraqis and 68 percent of Americans want a quick end to the occupation.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Iraq was better under Saddam?
Are you suggesting that stability under a dictator is better than self determination? Is your first name really Benito?
I guess that the “majority” of Iraqis (or “most of its citizens”) are Sunni, according to you. Because I don’t recall the Shia and Kurds expressing much regret for Saddam’s departure. Of course, I could be wrong…
Finally, it’s important to differentiate between democracy and mob rule. Think segregation and slavery. And before you use amorphous statements like “quick end to the occupation” you should define them.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:42 am
OK, 68 percent of Americans in the latest poll want U.S. forces withdrawn from Iraq either RIGHT NOW or within a year. I’m for RIGHT NOW. Considering there should never have been an invasion in the first place, we’re more than five years too late with the withdrawal. And I think the Iraqi elections ought to include a plebiscite on the occupation!
Let’s compare Iraq under Saddam and now. Tens of thousands of people in prison without charges? Check. Torture? Check. British and American air attacks? Check. Daily terrorist bombings? Not under Saddam. Innocent people being shot at checkpoints? Saddam didn’t do that. Indiscriminate midnight raids invading people’s homes? Saddam’s police knew better. Electricity, water and other services? Saddam’s government delivered them, Maliki’s government can’t. Jobs? Most Iraqis could find a job before, now unemployment is over 50 percent.
Worst of all is the lack of security. Iraq Body Count has documented 85,318 – 93,060 civilian deaths as a result of the invasion/occupation and accompanying sectarian violence. People do not feel safe on the streets or in their homes. There are 4.5 million homeless Iraqis total, and two million of them are refugees who have fled the country. It’s the world’s biggest refugee crisis. You can’t have freedom without security.
Oh, by the way, the majority of Iraqis are Sunni. You are thinking of Sunni Arabs, but the Kurds are also Sunni.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Some math is appropriate here, Larry.
Look at the linked map.
Please show me how Sunnis can be a majority if 55% of the population is Shia.
Iraq Body Count hasn’t “documented” crap. Their methodology is horrible.
Finally, I’m enjoying your depiction of Saddam as “the guy who made the trains run on time”. Are there any other brutal dictators that you’re willing to give the ole “thumbs up” because at least the country is “orderly”?
Pinochet?
Franco?
Amin?
Castro?
Duvalier?
Kim Jong-Il?
Never in my life did I think that I’d live to see the day when “Progressives” would laud order over liberty.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Muslim Sects in Iraq:
Sunnis 60–62%
Sunni Arabs 42–44%
Sunni Kurds and Turks 16–18%
Shi’ites 38–40%
Shi’ite Kurds and Turks 2–4%
I think it’s time for jd to provide us with some facts to back up his assertion that things are going well in Iraq. Rhetorical bluster can only get you so far.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Nice source, Richard.
I bet that I can find 10 or more sources that state a Shia majority in Iraq. I doubt that you can find more than 3 that state the converse.
Since you’re basing your assumptions on a failed fact pattern, doesn’t that invalidate your conclusions?
Finally, I don’t need to “provide you with facts” regarding things going well in Iraq. As stated before, my evidence is anecdotal. I could of course point you to Casualty counts - but they are notoriously difficult to compile.
As far as political progress, I don’t think that even a magical transformation into the land of milk and honey where people danced and sang all day would satisy you. You’d probably complain that they weren’t productive enough and all that milk and honey would only cause kidney stones and rotting teeth.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Whoops - Here’s another source on demographics for you, Richard.
Ethnic groups:
Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian, or other 5%
Religions:
Muslim 97% (Shi’a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
June 30th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
JD,
The best evidence things are going well is the left stream media.
Think about it, how many news stories do we see in the media today about Iraq? It’s inversely proportional to how well things are going. Look at the recent news stories and compare to years ago, heck even a year ago; fewer and fewer stories.
Newsbusters.org is a great site to check out how biased the left stream media actually is.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:53 am
Bob S.– great argument, you say no news is good news.
I’m here to tell you that the news media are under-reporting the violence in Iraq, which is why we started the Iraq Newsladder. By the way, if you have links to news of positive developments, by all means please register on the Newsladder and post links.