Afghanistan and the art of quagmire diplomacy

What former vice-president Dick Cheney called “dithering” has been a careful and cautious development of a new American strategy going forward in Afghanistan. A widening array of diplomatic fronts has only compounded the unraveling enigma that the war in Afghanistan has proven itself to be. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) insists “wavering in Washington is disheartening American troops, demoralizing the people of Afghanistan and empowering our terrorist enemies”. But this is not a situation for snap judgment. It’s not as simple as politics-as-usual. Representative Tom Price (R-GA) gave the unfair assessment of the Obama administration adding “our men and women in Afghanistan deserve better than having their resources delayed until Rahm Emanuel can find a political solution to deal with his party’s base”. True, democrats have been all over the place on the topic of expanding our presence over there, but that is only the tip of the iceberg of complexities Obama has had to contend with. It’s difficult even listing them all here in this column, but we can give it a shot.

Throughout the process of mulling over the future of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, many nuclear-weaponized nations find themselves working together for the first time at the world’s table of diplomacy. Relations between Pakistan and India may be at an all-time low, but the US has encouraged a dialogue that offers a promising twist to the situation on the ground in Kabul. NATO’s evolving support for this decade long occupation has been substantiated by the European Union’s collective desire to bring stability to the Middle East, fiscal and otherwise. Iran’s quest for atomic energy (and/or atomic bombs), as well as China’s rise to supreme influence over most of Asia and beyond, add a considerable dynamic to an already complicated scene. With the majority-ruling democrats in Congress becoming increasingly unsettled over the Afghan war, president Obama walks a tightrope of negotiations that will surely factor into next year’s mid-term elections.

Afghan president Hamid Karzai found himself the recipient of a generous election outcome when he was confirmed as having won a second term of office earlier this month. Amid rampant fraud accusations, Karzai maintained control of Afghanistan despite a strong showing by opposition leader (and former foreign minister) Abdullah Abdullah. Several sources indicate he’ll be brought into the fold of a coalition government, an idea Karzai first rejected during his bid for re-election.

Ever since the Bush administration “oversaw” Karzai’s appointment to power in 2001, the people of Afghanistan have awaited an end to corruption in government. Karzai has yet to prove his commitment to rule “for the people, by the people”, but can now serve his country well by inviting Abdullah (and some of the dozens of others who ran against him) into a more representative form of democracy. As it stands now, the government installed by the Bush team following the US invasion consisted primarily of the former Northern Alliance, itself consisting of Afghanistan’s minority groups. The Taliban, backed by most of the Pashtun majority, have yet to be incorporated into serious involvement in governance. Obama has shown signs of promoting dialogue with the Taliban, considering their inclusion with the future of Afghanistan, but they have yet to accept terms of disarmament and shared rule.

Pakistan may end up serving as the keystone of hope, despite itself being a tumultuous hotbed of Islamic extremism. With one-third of Waziristan’s population consisting of foreign mujahedeen, Pakistan’s province bordering Afghanistan has become the new epicenter of Taliban resistance. India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Newsweek, “I’m not sure whether the U.S. and Pakistan have the same objectives. Pakistan would like Afghanistan to be under its control. And they would like the United States to get out soon.”

Singh wrapped up a visit to Washington D.C. last week, which might result in an Obama administration gently massaging the age-old Kashmir issue (the region of dispute between India and Pakistan). US Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, was recently deployed to the region to unofficially moderate discussions pertaining to Kashmir.

Since the gruesome Mumbai terrorist attacks (166 random acts of murder), relations have been further strained between the adjacent countries. The group believed responsible, Lashkar-e-Taiba, has been a sustained threat of Kashmiri separatists dedicated to extremism. Although officially banned by Pakistan in 2002, Lashkar-e-Taiba maintains a strong presence there, and seemed to have planned (and launched) their attacks from Pakistani soil last November. Once having recruited Pakistani college students on campus right out in the open, the group remains entrenched throughout the Pakistani government, and bringing the captured terrorists to justice has often met delays, mysterious loss of evidence, witness tampering, et al. Until India/Pakistan develops a lasting, peaceful coexistence, progress for a coordinated international effort against the Taliban will remain elusive.

On Wednesday, seven indictments were handed down by Pakistan’s Ministry of Justice, beginning the slow crawl toward soothing tensions. Time will tell, and the costly occupation of Afghanistan will be prolonged accordingly.

And then, of course, there is China, the 800-pound gorilla in the next room, also bordering Afghanistan. Since the U.S. invasion, the presence of American military forces has made China increasingly nervous, especially when words like “nation building” get thrown around. They openly oppose talks of permanent bases being established on Afghan soil, complete with Old Glory waving proudly.

The US/China relationship has historically fallen far short of “peas and carrots”. Given that the two lay in a bed made of banknotes, combined with the proximity of American tanks and Chinese territory, Obama’s recent trip to the Great Wall may serve as our “mending wall”. As with US/Mexico, “good walls make good neighbors”, symbolically and actually.

Additionally, the U.S. dollar is of great concern to China. They correlate its falling value to our never-ending involvement in Afghanistan which now costs $3.6 billion per month. This is in addition to the many financial assistance packages the U.S. provides the Afghan government, having just pledged $10 billion for 2010.

So the two power players took the next logical step, agreeing to work together for a shared, comprehensive solution. Currently, China invests billions in mining rights, purchasing fields of iron and copper throughout Afghanistan, which holds some of the largest known deposits in the world.

As Russia dwindles in power and prominence, Afghanistan becomes an exclusive raw material source for the massive, expanding industrial output of China.

One example of shared, bilateral cooperation involves the China Metallurgical Group, investing $3 billion for a 30-year-lease to mining rights in the copper-rich Aynak valley. U.S. special-forces are being deployed to these mining sites for security purposes, as sandbags and iron shipping containers fortify the perimeter. Royalties will bring $400 million annually, comprising 40% of Afghanistan’s state budget. These evolving trade relations help employ tens of thousands of Afghans, building a manufacturing sector that could sustain itself as the national economy attempts to rise up from the ashes of war.

This would be considered a promising new direction to an agrarian society that has become “addicted” to poppy-farming, supplying 92% of the world’s opium. Two-thirds of this opium flows as already-processed heroin, virtually unchecked from Afghanistan’s porous borders despite US occupation. Considering that the Taliban are taxing this crop cultivation to the tune of $160 million annually (that we know of), changing the mindset of a nation could directly translate into saving the lives of soldiers.

December 1st has been selected as Obama’s tentative date of revealing his long-awaited plans for impending adjustments to troop levels in Afghanistan. Already the largest contributor to the NATO alliance, the US will most likely be sending 30 to 40 thousand troops to the 65,000 American soldiers now in-country. According to the Washington Post, 9,000 are ready to leave immediately following the announcement. This would roughly be in league with the recommendations of General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander of American forces in Afghanistan, and will certainly be supplemented by other NATO allies, such as the UK and Georgia. McChrystal, whose appointment shocked anti-war activists due to his shady past of commanding “black-ops” in Iraq and covering up the truth of the infamous friendly-fire death of Pat Tillman, had already raised troop levels by 21,000 since assuming command in May of this year.

As 2009 has thus far been the deadliest of the conflict’s eight long years, Obama will be attempting to “surge” us into “victory” in a country dubbed the “graveyard of Empires”.

By and large, Republican congressional representatives have been in favor of following the inappropriately leaked advisements of McChrystal, even threatening to veto everything unless Obama met the general's requested minimum 40,000.

Democrats, on the other hand, have been decidedly fractured over the potential of expanding our presence in the war torn region. No one can honestly say Obama didn’t warn us of a robust effort in “winning” Afghanistan during his candidacy for the oval office. Still, his sizeable defeat of Arizona Senator John McCain in last year’s presidential election was seen by many as a clear and vociferous referendum of former president Bush’s perpetual engagement with Taliban forces.

The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey (D-WI), proposes tapping wealthy Americans for a “war surtax”, suggesting the impending troop surge will “wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy”.

Obey is joined by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) in asking “them to pay for it”. Having to promise that healthcare reform would come in “deficit neutral”, Levin and Obey plan to assure a troop surge won’t increase US debt levels any further amidst this prolonged recession.

Budgetary considerations never hampered the late Bush administration’s efforts to wage war for eight straight years on multiple fronts. Nevertheless, constraints on excessive spending have dominated the democrat-led agenda in Congress since Obama assumed power in January, and nothing seems to indicate that this pattern of monetary concerns will reverse itself anytime soon.

President Obama has fulfilled his campaign pledges to finish the job in Afghanistan, while simultaneously attempting to extract our military forces from Iraq. As the commander-in-chief prepares to announce just how many troops he’ll be adding to the foray, congressional motions are being introduced by his fellow democrats that may dampen the president’s efforts. Barbara Lee (D-CA) sponsored HR 3699, preventing the use of federal tax dollars for sending troops to Afghanistan. Another bill authored by Jim McGovern (D-MA), HR 2404, calls for a clear exit strategy. Obviously divided over the issue, the party does well to represent a divided nation of Americans, unwilling to commit to an open-ended conflict.

Obama envisions a stabilized and secure Afghanistan as necessary to forge ahead. Whether or not this comes to fruition will depend on the democrat party stabilizing and securing its own rank-and-file.

The war in Afghanistan is a complicated affair that has tested the very limits of President Obama’s year-one administration. As he took the baton from President Bush, he has set out to involve us in the very nation-building we claim not to be involved with. Foreign policy initiatives have the white house juggling several balls at once. Surging troops is just one piece of what will surely continue to be a puzzle of vast complexity. As the proverb suggests, it does take a village to raise a child. So too will it take a sustained, collective effort by many of the world’s super-powers for success in Afghanistan to be realized.

Ultimately, it takes a global village to nation-build, so long as you don’t call it that.