Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditHaving spent a while reading about Afghanistan, I've collected some resources for anyone who'd like to learn a little more about that godforsaken country and about what various strategists think ought to be done. Pretty much everything I've listed below is useful to read, even if you don't agree with all of the conclusions that analysts come up with.
A good place to start is The Forgotten Front, published more than a year ago by the Center for American Progress. Written by Caroline P. Wadhams, an extremely bright young analyst, and Lawrence Korb, a veteran defense expert, it's a primer about the war. Many progressives won't like their conclusion that the United States needs to send more troops. (At the time, when the US had 25,000 troops in country, CAP recommended adding 20,000 more. Currently, there are 36,000 US forces, and President Obama has ordered the deployment of 17,000 more.) And CAP puts too much emphasis on NATO, saying, "A failure in Afghanistan would throw NATO's relevance into doubt" -- as if the war were about NATO, not Afghanistan. But "The Forgotten Front," even though it is somewhat overtaken by events, is a very useful guide to the issues in the war, complete with maps, charts and graphs.
One of the very best analysts on Afghanistan is Seth Jones of the RAND Corporation. His book-length monograph is called Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. Especially valuable for those seeking to understand who, exactly, we're fighting in Afghanistan is Chapter 4 of Jones' report. "Insurgents and Their Support Network." He writes:
The insurgency in Afghanistan included six main insurgent groups: the Taliban, Hezb-i Islami, the Haqqani network, foreign fighters (mostly Arabs and Central Asians), tribes based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and criminal networks.
Jones provides an extremely useful tour of the insurgency, making clear to anyone who reads it that the United States is engaged in a struggle against an opponent far richer and more complex than "the Taliban." (You can read a lot more of Seth Jones' work here.)
In connection with Jones' report, read RAND's James Dobbins' testimony, on February 26, 2009, to the Senate Armed Service Committee, also called Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. Dobbins, President Bush's first envoy to Afghanistan who also served as liaison to the Afghan exile opposition before 2001, says that since the Taliban operate mostly in the country's south, with headquarters in Pakistan's Baluchistan region, that the United States ought to consider targeting the Taliban inner shura ("council") with the same Predator drones that it's using further north in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
If you want to get inside President Obama's Afghan review, start with the work of the man who's leading that review, Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution. I'd recommend reading several of his recent papers and analyses, including an interview Riedel did with the Council on Foreign Relations in January. Riedel's work on Pakistan is very insightful, and to start with read his Pakistan and Terror: The Eye of the Storm. First sentence: "Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world today."
For sheer detail, including hundreds of pages of charts and power point slides, slog your way through Anthony Cordesman's work at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Cordesman, a conservative military analyst who believes that the United States must dramatically escalate its effort in Afghanistan, has written dozens of reports on the subject. Your eyes may glaze over, but it's worthwhile stuff, and you'll learn a lot that you didn't know. Start with one of his most recent reports, The Afghan-Pakistan War: The Rising Threat, 2002-2008. You may not like Cordesman's solutions, but he's a no-nonsense analyst who doesn't sugar coat things.
The always useful International Crisis Group has a lot of material on Afghanistan, including a very good 2006 report called Countering Afghanistan's Insurgency: No Quick Fixes that, though somewhat dated, is extremely well written and comprehensive. Like the CAP report, it's a primer, and a good place to start for those unfamiliar with Afghanistan. The ICG also published, recently, a scathing report on Afghanistan's corrupt and disorganized police, Policing in Afghanistan: Still Searching for a Strategy.
A must-read, of course, is From Great Game to Grand Bargain in Foreign Affairs, byu Barnett Rubin and Ahmed Rashid. Rubin, one of America's premier Afghan analysts, and Rashid, a prominent Pakistani journalist, emphasize the need for a diplomatic solution in Afghanistan, bringing in Afghanistan's neighbors, Russia, China, and others. They write:
[The] medium- to long-term objective would require reducing the level of armed conflict, including by seeking a political settlement with current insurgents. In discussions about the terms of such a settlement, leaders linked to both the Taliban and other parts of the insurgency have asked, What are the goals for which the United States and the international community are waging war in Afghanistan?
Good question.
For even deeper analysis, besides Ahmed Rashid's recent book, Descent Into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, I strongly recommend The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan, edited by Robert D. Crews and Amin Tarzi, a chapter-by-chapter review of the war and its origins. Especially good are Chapter 7, "Moderate Taliban?" and Chapter 8, "The Neo-Taliban," for understanding the complex nature of the movement that the United States is taking on.
Happy reading!
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Seems Center for American Progress' solution is pretty much the mainstream solution on Afghanistan.
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2009 @ 10:28am
Re: Afghanistan & the Taliban....
There is an article in today's Hou. Chronicle about a Taliban living in Kabul, with a photo of him surfing the internet w/his iPhone. The guy was imprisoned at Club Gitmo for 4 years and has since been released and reconciled w/the Afghan gov't.
He was an official during the Taliban's reign when they banned anything `modern'. Today, 1/4 of the Afghan population have cell phones, half the country is at peace and moving into this century, and this Taliban (still is) acknowledges that advancements are needed.....
I'd call this PROGRESS! Not quite the "godforsaken country" of Dreyfuss.
Posted by Happy at 03/04/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by Happy at 03/04/2009 @ 11:37am
Actually, HAPP....you're making Mr Dreyfuss' usual case, since he supports us leaving Afghanistan immediately and that the Taliban have "changed their ways".
Odd, huh?
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2009 @ 11:54am
Odd, huh?
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2009 @ 11:54am
I assume you know I'm neutral on this Good War of your Messiah.....
I don't believe I'm making Dreyfuss' case.....since by implication--I recognize it's not explicit in my comments--the PROGRESS that has been made, can't be for any other reason than that we moved in, and by extension, the longer your Messiah chooses to stay, such PROGRESS will continue....NOT so "Odd"!
Thanks for the opportunity to help edumycate!
Posted by Happy at 03/04/2009 @ 12:03pm
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2009 @ 11:54am Happy is making the case that the anecdotal reportage of the Associated Press can be trusted.
Posted by nathanhale at 03/04/2009 @ 12:12pm
It's important to remember that worldly individuals of this part of the world (the east), view the US as a sort of Disneyland, a place to have some fun, marvel at the natural wonder & economic / resource plenty. Then perhaps to pursue an advanced education, but move back to the old country content in the knowledge of cultural certainty.
Look at the cultural battles among Muslims in Europe, even in Turkey, to see the resistance to mores of the West.
If you can't negotiate with these Muslim countries in respect of their beliefs, then the only "solution" lies with the military planners.
BTW, thanks Robert, for the reading list. This will help to disseminate some expert opinion,be it right or wrong.
Posted by Sorelish at 03/04/2009 @ 12:24pm
I'd call this PROGRESS! Not quite the "godforsaken country" of Dreyfuss.
Posted by Happy at 03/04/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person
Interesting observation Happy. Taliban had to do an about face on destruction of cell phone towers - the people were pissed off at Taliban for shutting down communications.
So if we can achieve a market penetration of say 85% (approximately US market rate) we can come home?
This sounds like a much cheaper way to fight the war. If we can sign them up for a two year contract, the cell companies will provide a free phone too. All we have to do is to build the towers - won't even have to defend them.
Also heard that text message dating is the new craze in Kabul.
Man, our foreign policy wonks ought to get a clue on how to win hearts and minds.
Posted by OneVote at 03/04/2009 @ 12:29pm
Posted by Happy at 03/04/2009 @ 12:03pm
But you supported us going into Afghanistan, didn't you, just like you supported us going into Iraq?
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2009 @ 1:23pm
I never liked the idea of NATO's activities going beyond Western Europe. As I have previously commented, we need to work with Afghanistan and her neighbors on this problem. These militants will eventually overplay their hand, and more opposition will build. Oddly enough, with all the bloodshed, the attack on the cricket team from Sri Lanka has really outraged the whole region. Cricket is almost a secular religion.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 03/04/2009 @ 1:35pm
"Look at the cultural battles among Muslims in Europe, even in Turkey, to see the resistance to mores of the West. "
True..but the battles are taking place in Europe are between the Muslims who want Europe(the West) to change EUROPE, to conform to the home muslim country mores. The problem is the guest in the host country want the HOST to change...instead of the guest respecting the host mores..which, if are offending the guest..leave freely and live where you are more at home with the mores you want to live within..
However,the libs in the west seem to be capitulating....to the demands of the "guests'..
and the ain't no libs in the Muslim world...if ever there was a religion that needs a Martin Luther(reformation from within)..it is the Muslim world.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/04/2009 @ 2:44pm
and the ain't no libs in the Muslim world...----Posted by YourJomamma at 03/04/2009 @ 2:44pm
So explain again how Bush was going to bring a "peaceful, FREE, friendly to the US democracy"....to Iraq, which is 97% Muslim?!??!?!??
(again, the classic paradox of the neocon who's also an Islamophobe!!!)
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2009 @ 2:48pm
.....you supported us going into Afghanistan, didn't you, just like you supported us going into Iraq?
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2009 @ 1:23pm
Yes on both counts....but I would have preferred an Iraq pull out after Saddam's capture AND their (first) purple-finger elections ....that said, I have no bones to pick (today) since The Surge worked and the upside far supercedes the downside.
I would have walked away from Afghanistan shortly after an Iraq pull-out; with the possible exception of a few thousand some special op troops and their support. Since we didn't pull out of Iraq, well.....you see why I'm neutral now? It's Mgaic's `hot' war now....he'll have a lot more troops at his disposal as we wind down in Iraq, let's just see how he performs! My guess is, he may well do better on a real war than the domestic economy.....a hole in which he just keeps on digging...soon, Bush's shadow will recede as the hole gets close to China... LOL!
Posted by Happy at 03/04/2009 @ 2:56pm
So explain again how Bush was going to bring a "peaceful, FREE, friendly to the US democracy"....to Iraq, which is 97% Muslim?!??!?!??
(again, the classic paradox of the neocon who's also an Islamophobe!!!)
Posted by Mask at 03/04/2009 @ 2:48pm
No need to expalin something that was never the case, in my opinion..
Kinda like Obama SAYS he wants to jump start the economy, help business get back to business, and get the banks to free up credit markets again...
...but in reality, everything he has done has the exact opposite effect, so one wonders what the goal was in the first place.....
I don't care what anyone else thinks...I believe we went there to turn Iraq, with it's secular population, into an area where we could keep a lid on terrorism, fundamentalism, and Iran under a close eye by being in the neighborhood.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/04/2009 @ 2:58pm
Posted by Happy at 03/04/2009 @ 2:56pm
I tend to agree here.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/04/2009 @ 3:09pm
Yojo- So your solution to Muslim adaptation of western ways in Europe would be at the barrel of a gun..or exile.. or incarceration? Or extermination?
Obviously, because that is your approach in the West's invasion & occupation of their native lands.
Btw, you seem to have no problem with those in your personal business dealings espousing radically different beliefs & practices. No Muslim customers yet, huh?
Posted by Sorelish at 03/04/2009 @ 3:37pm
Yojo- So your solution to Muslim adaptation of western ways in Europe would be at the barrel of a gun..or exile.. or incarceration? Or extermination?
no, why?
I am not interested in converting anyone to anything ..in my land or theirs..
Yers, I deal with Pakistanis all the time. I have no issues with them or anyone else..
I am just mentioning the issue of the mores in the west being a problem for many Muslims as the poster above pointed out as a problem..and I pointed mout that the Muslims in the west who have a problem are trying to forece the west(not assimilating) to change..that is a problem.
you post is silly..nonsense and with out any meaning or relevence to the posts above or issues at hand, even my businees dealings.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/04/2009 @ 3:48pm
"Obviously, because that is your approach in the West's invasion & occupation of their native lands. "
I might point out that there are a higher percentage of "peoples whose lands have been invaded and occupied by the west" living in the land of said invaders, than there are invading troops in the "victims" land....so, who is doing the...invading?
How many Germans have invaded, say Turkey? How many Dutch troops in Africa? How many French troops in the Arab world? How many British troops invaders in the Arab, India, Asian world?
Many European countrys have +10% muslim "guests'...not many countrys have 10% "invaders" to population ratios...not even the evil US in Iraq...
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/04/2009 @ 3:58pm
I am just mentioning the issue of the mores in the west being a problem for many Muslims as the poster above pointed out as a problem..and I pointed mout that the Muslims in the west who have a problem are trying to forece the west(not assimilating) to change..that is a problem.posted by YourJomamma
If anyone can translate this please let me know. Learn how to construct a coherent sentence. You need some remedial training, son.
Posted by Sorelish at 03/04/2009 @ 3:58pm
Sore..sorry..public school training along with no typing skills.
Muslims in west want west to change..
Muslims in west not want to change to assimluate in guest country.
Is a problem for both.
Why force west to change.
If problem for guest Muslim in West, maybe west not good place to be..go to place where happy.
Hows that ?
Remedial enough for you?
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/04/2009 @ 4:03pm
Lol. Wow. Is there an award of some kind for most sarcastic blog post?
Posted by FDR43 at 03/04/2009 @ 5:09pm
You might also want to read "The great gamble : the Soviet war in Afghanistan", by Gregory Feifer(Harper, 2009). The parallels between this "grueling, vicious" war and the current Afghan conflict are striking, though US & NATO troops have not yet approached anything like the level of brutality exhibited by the Soviet army. This is worth reading just for the account of the Russian-engineered coup in 1979 when KGB special forces poisoned the Afghan president twice, while doctors from the Soviet embasssy in Kabul (which was ignorant of the KGB activities) labored heroically to save him twice. The KGB forces shot him the third time round - and killed one of their own doctors at the same time.
Posted by malvern41 at 03/04/2009 @ 9:59pm
"BTW, thanks Robert, for the reading list. This will help to disseminate some expert opinion,be it right or wrong."
Posted by Sorelish at 03/04/2009 @ 12:24pm
I concur.
Thank you.
"This sounds like a much cheaper way to fight the war. "
"Man, our foreign policy wonks ought to get a clue on how to win hearts and minds."
Posted by OneVote at 03/04/2009 @ 12:29pm
Actually, I say give everybody laptops ... and have them made by students here in America. It would be hard to get mad and stay mad at the people who gave (fronted) you a laptop.
It would cost, but I think we could stand going this, other way ... at least as far as we went into war. And by the time we were finished we would have a lot of highly trained people in a high-tech field.
Just sayin ...
Posted by V at 03/04/2009 @ 10:19pm
Is the Obama administration really rethinking the current global security architecture, which comes straight from the Cold War era? And as a constitutive element of this, is the new American President really decided to make a u-turn in the relationship between Russia and USA? Vice President Joe Biden, at the Munich Security Conference, said "it is time to press the reset button" between Moscow and Washington. That's a realistic approach. But beyond good willing words, it is obvious that the Obama administration has not yet a full and integrated foreign policy plan, to replace the black Bush's heritage. Perhaps, it is too early for such a plan, but there are already some alarming symptoms: US's position on deploying anti-missile defense in Europe remains. Not a word about replacing START I, which expires this year. And, most disappointing of all, US continue to support Georgia's ambitions to join NATO, as a reward to war criminal Saakashvili for his aggression against South Ossetia and for the destabilization of the whole Caucasus region.
Obama is now facing a complicated reality. Geopolitics is not that easy, as an electoral rhetoric. The new American President has repeatedly underlined that the war in Afghanistan is his first priority. Now, after Kyrgyzstan's decision to close the American air base in Manas, he is dealing with a hard problem: In what way will he transfer soldiers and carry ammunition to Afghanistan? Which skyway and air corridor, will he use for that continual and critical operation? The solution has only one name: the Russian Federation. Obama needs Russia to win the war against Taliban's rebellious army. Moscow has already offered its help and full cooperation. But it is more than certain that there is implicitness: A package deal, on bilateral re
Posted by ilias at 03/05/2009 @ 2:48pm