RSS
Home
Obama Afghan strategy shift has been tried
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
(U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Isaac A. Graham)
The New York Times delivers an interview with President Obama which focuses on the war in Afghanistan. According to the Times, President Obama is considering pursuing a reconciliation policy, like that which helped to turn around Iraq, by peeling off Taliban elements from pro al Qaeda tribes of the Taliban.
“Mr. Obama said on the campaign trail last year that the possibility of breaking away some elements of the Taliban “should be explored,” an idea also considered by some military leaders. But now he has started a review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan intended to find a new strategy, and he signaled that reconciliation could emerge as an important initiative, mirroring the strategy used by Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq.”
As you might expect, those on the right are opposed to dealing with any elements of the Taliban. Those on the left are receiving the news as some sort of fundamental shift. In this case, both are wrong. The “new” strategy is not new. It has been tried repeatedly. The United States has continuously attempted such maneuvers in Afghanistan.
The situation in Afghanistan makes it nearly impossible to achieve total victory. I define “victory” here simply as a stable, democratic version of self governance that prevents Islamic extremists from staging attacks around the world. The mountainous areas are unmanageable without a sympathetic, local population. We have to get them on our side in order to achieve victory, it is just that simple.
The Pashtun people are a remote, uneducated, poverty stricken lot who have succumbed to an Islamic ideology that mirrors “Wahhabbism” in Saudi Arabia. They live on both sides of the Afghanistan – Pakistan border, there are millions of them, and they have existed as warrior tribes for centuries. They will always fight foreign troops and a centralized Afghan government until we achieve one of two options: change their minds or commit genocide. Almost nobody is up for genocide. We aren’t going to nuke Pakistan, nor launch a massive invasion into the tribal territories. This has always left one option to end the violence, reconciliation.
Reconciliation, despite President Obama’s campaign rhetoric about his predecessor, was always on the table. For every Afghanistan battle you read about in The New York Times, you can bet there are three or four battles that were avoided because some backroom deals were struck with a tribal chief to bring them onto our side.
And at a much more expansive level, some consider the death of Bhutto to have brought a sour end to a political maneuver which would have unified the Pakistan power elements of the Democratic movement, the military, and some Islamic political parties. The death of Bhutto then led to the removal of Mushareef and put much of the reconciliation effort back to square one. While it damaged al Qaeda immeasurably in the eyes of the Pakistani populace, it resulted in a tactical victory for al Qaeda and sympathetic Taliban elements.
On the other hand, these tribes have one overriding operating principle, self-interest. President Obama has got to find a way to make the power of self-interest an ally in dealing with them. It must be strong enough motivation to trump the theocratic necessities of Deobandism, their Islamic sect.
Here is what Barack Obama must do.
Forget mediating via the Pakistani government. The Taliban has reneged on every agreement it has made with the Pakistan government. We must hold direct talks so that we can hold the tribal chiefs directly responsible, no matter what side of the border they live on.
We must inform Pakistan that the border is no longer sacrosanct. If we want to launch a dozen missiles into a terror training facility near Quetta, you better get your people out now because there will be no notice.
Then do it. We know where many of these camps are. Start taking them out.
If we want to launch an air assault battalion into the Kyber Pass or Swat Valley, we will go in and kill anybody that points a gun our way. We don’t have to clear and hold villages like in Afghanistan or Iraq but instead just kill a lot of their fighters and fly back out. Bring the threat home to their villages, and now we have something to negotiate against.
Make them more afraid of us than of al Qaeda. Turn them one tribe at a time. Most importantly, exploit tribal feuds to break the ice. Get them to fight each other by telling us where the enemy tribes are hiding al Qaeda, or training Taliban fighters.
But this must be accompanied by a massive PR effort. Obama enjoys the magnanimity of the press, something that Bush never really had. He must show the world that those who aligned with us are enjoying prestige and power unlike anything they ever dreamed of in their mud-brick villages. Bring them to the White House to meet with American Muslim leaders. Do everything possible to avoid it appearing like a new holy war.
A clear and hold strategy won’t work in the tribal regions. It’s impossible. A carrot and stick strategy will. Remember, it wasn’t long after President Bush went to the Anbar province of Iraq, the cradle of the insurgency, and met directly with some tribal chiefs who led the “Awakening” that things really began to change.
Obama has made it clear he is willing to offer the carrot. My only concern is - will he swing the stick? I don’t consider his recent deployment order for two brigades to be solid evidence of his commitment to win in Afghanistan – though it is a good sign.
In an interview with Gwen Ifill while he was a senator they discussed Darfur. He has been a constant supporter of military intervention in Darfur. But when pressed on the issue by Ifill of whether or not American troops should directly fight in Sudan, versus mere support roles, he blinked. I hope he was simply covering his liberal, peace movement bona fides at the time. There is a way to win, let’s hope he finds it.
