In Support of Disengagement in Afghanistan

It is a commonplace that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a massive drain upon the political, military, and financial resources of the United States. Although civilian leaders like to put deadlines for the achievement of objectives and troop withdrawals, “victory” is proving difficult to define and achieve. I do not doubt that a stable liberal democracy could eventually be established in Afghanistan, given enough time and effort on the part of the US military. However, in light of the tremendous financial, political, and military cost of a protracted war as well as the minimal strategic significance of Afghanistan, the best choice is to disengage.

Currently, the US has about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. At about 1 million dollars per soldier per year, that will cost the US well over 100 billion dollars per year. More importantly, our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other factors, preclude involvement in other countries like Iran and North Korea (see "Contain Iran" by James Robinson). These many woes of warfare will not go away in the near future; it will take years before Afghanistan has been molded into a stable democracy.

The strategic importance of Afghanistan, as well as the entire Middle East, is greatly overstated (see “The Middle of Nowhere” by Edward N. Luttwak). Afghanistan has few natural resources and no significance in the international network of trade. It is a nation of impoverished farmers who live in isolated hamlets. What do we hope to gain from Afghanistan? Proponents of the war will argue that the Taliban in Afghanistan poses a national-security threat to the US a la September 11, 2001. This argument is unpersuasive. No doubt, the existence of the Taliban is counter to our interests. However, we must consider the costs and benefits of pursuing the Taliban to every last cave and mountain. I believe that disengagement is preferable to our current strategy when we consider our costs and benefits.

Disengagement is not withdrawal. I advocate neither a sudden or gradual withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Rather, I propose that the most economical and effective use of our forces is to stop all major combat operations and fortify our ground forces into bases near urban centers. There they can protect the central government from large foreign and domestic threats which materialize, and they can thwart the machinations of the Taliban through extensive aerial bombardment (see “In Praise of Aerial Bombardment” by Edward N. Luttwak). This will minimize the material and human costs while maintaining a degree of stability acceptable to our interests.

This choice is certainly unpalatable for policy-makers. The increase in civilian casualties will be unpopular, not to mention the perception that we have “given up” the fight against terror or the hunt for Osama. However, considering the minimal strategic significance of the region and the tremendous resources and time required by our current strategy, disengagement is the best choice. True, it will surrender the Afghan people to instability and violence for the foreseeable future, but it will serve our own interests and enable us to deal with unforeseen problems which may emerge. After all, as Polybius says, “In war we must always leave room for strokes of fortune, and accidents that cannot be foreseen.”

Contain Iran

First off, welcome to Jon and Elke, our newest contributors! Excellent first posts guys, I'm glad everyone is getting involved.

In the past month there has been an uptick in the debate on Iran and its nuclear weapons program. The debate was largely sparked by this article in The Atlantic Monthly magazine, which details just how seriously the Israelis are preparing for a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. I cannot stress enough how large of a strategic mistake a preemptive strike would be for Israel and America.

Lets imagine for a second what would happen if Israel ordered an air strike:

- President Obama as well as America's military chain of command, both here in Washington and local commanders in the Middle East, would be notified with less than an hour to go before the strike would be launched. There would be no time to persuade the Israelis to stop, at that point the loss of face would be too great to swallow. No American President or military commander would order our forces to shoot down Israeli planes, so the strike would go through as planned.

- The strike would be largely successful in destroying the intended targets, although a number of Israelis would be shot down and either killed or captured. Iran would immediately respond by unleashing Hezbollah in south Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Israel would have no choice but to send ground forces into both areas to halt the rocket attacks. A possibility exists that Syria would openly declare war on Israel, although this is unlikely as this would give the IDF the green light to openly attack Syria's technologically inferior forces.

- In a best case scenario, Israel would claim responsibility for the attack and the US would deny all involvement, and Iran would focus its reprisals against Israel. However, it is not hard to imagine the Revolutionary Guard demanding reprisals again US forces as well. This would lead to the often threatened attempt to close the straights of Hormuz. The attempt would be largely unsuccessful, but the US Navy would probably lose several ships or at least have several suffer severe damage. Iran's Quds force of irregulars would probably infiltrate Iraq and target any American forces remaining as well as attempt to destabilize the Iraqi government. The US Military would be forced to respond by targeting Iranian Naval and Air assets with air strikes, as well as deploying special forces along the Iran-Iraq border and possibly sending forces back into Iraq to stabilize the situation.

-Now lets look at the big picture strategic consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran. International condemnation would occur on an unseen scale. The UN Security Council very well might condemn Israel, with only the US and UK abstaining or voting against the resolution. International public opinion would turn completely against Israel. Any prospect for resolving the Palestinian situation would be completely lost as other Arab nation would refuse to cooperate with Israel. In Iran, the Ayatollah's control over the country would be vastly strengthened, as would the role the Revolutionary Guard plays in that country's government and economy. The Green Movement would be completely discredited. Iranian nationalism would run at an all time high. Ironically enough, the Iranian government would probably use the strike as a "proof" that its once "peaceful" nuclear program must not be used to develop strategic deterrent weapons. At best the Iranian nuclear weapons program would be set back 10 years. Oil prices would skyrocket and remain high for sometime, possibly forcing countries to tap into their strategic reserves to stabilize the market. The rise in oil prices could shock the fragile financial market, possibly triggering another global recession. Diplomatic relations between Iran and the west would be ruined for years. Lastly, al-Qaeda would once again have another example of western/Israeli aggression to use as a rallying call for new forces.

Essentially, while a strike would accomplish the short term goal of delaying Iran's development of a nuclear bomb, it would ultimately harm Israel's long term security. Now let me be clear, I think Iran's nuclear program is designed to give them the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. However, just because Iran wants the ability to assemble a bomb doesn't mean it has decided it wants one. What Iran does want is to assume the mantle as a regional power and counterweight to America and Israel in the Middle East. So what should the United States do?

A recent article on Foreign Policy's website advocated a policy of containment. While I would highly recommend you read the whole article, its title perhaps is all that you really need to know. "It (containment) worked on Saddam" refers to the successful usage of containment on Iraq by the United States between Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The author is a former CIA case officer, and he explains how it was only after the ill advised invasion of Iraq that the US realized how successful containment had been.

I see no reason why a similar policy couldn't work on Iran. The recently passed sanctions against Iran are an excellent example of the sort of steps the US can take. Of course, Iran will not feel real pain unless Russia and China decide to cut off their patronage, and therein lies the catch-22 for Iran. If it were to test a nuclear weapon, or even declare that it had a weapon, it would lose much of the international sympathy it currently enjoys. Turkey and Brazil would sheepishly back away from their erstwhile friend, having had their fingers burned on their first foray onto the 21st century international affairs hotplate. China and Russia would be furious and embarrassed, and forced to allow strengthened sanctions to proceed through the UN. America and its allies position would be strengthened, and sympathy would even increase for Israel. The Green Movement would be strengthened, and might even be able to use the Iranian government's blunder as a catalyst for a new revolution.

I suspect that the Iranian government is aware of these strategic consequences, despite the occasional appearance of being completely insane. I think they are playing a very dangerous game to propel themselves into a more important international role, and have no true desire to have a nuclear weapon solely for the purpose of having one. I also suspect that, despite his rhetoric, President Obama has decided against a preemptive strike on Iran. The strategic price would be too high for the limited benefits. The US military is over strained as it is, stuck between dwindling bank accounts on one side and over committed forces on the other. The trick will be to restrain Israel from attacking Iran. I would point to the case of North Korea. The North Korean's have had a nuclear weapon for several years now. They reside in an equally volatile area of the world, and have the ability to destroy Seoul, Tokyo, and Guam if they wished. However, the US has not launched an invasion or strikes against North Korea because it understands that the strategic cost would be too high (i.e World War III with China). An even better example of containment would be the Cold War. For 45 year the US contained the Soviet Union, sometimes poorly, but it never had to use nuclear weapons or engage in open war with the Soviets. If we could contain the USSR, we can contain Iran.

RE: Islamic Culture Center; Islamic Culture in liberal democracies

I also just wanted to say bravo to James for that post. At least there are some people in this world who still believe in allowing the freedoms that makes Liberal Democracies great.

I also wanted to add to this discussion with some interesting points I have been recently reading about on the news especially concerning Islamic culture and the veil. (Sorry i don't have accompanying articles to go with this but I read them a while back and have been stewing this over)

1. As it turns out, France has banned the veil - an Item of clothing worn by an estimated 5,000 people in France. The president claimed that the veil is harmful to women's rights.

2. A poll was taken in Canada that showed that the majority of the population would like to see the veil banned.

3. Kosovo has banned the veil now too in the hope that it can join the EU (I know this one came from BBC world News)

4. A court in Australia ordered a Woman to remove her veil while making a testimony although it is not Australian Law. (ABC News Australia)

I believe the veil is a good example of a discussion on the government limiting civilian rights of self expression:

I firstly have no idea why liberal democracies have decided to begin banning an item of clothing that comes to represent someone's faith and why this is seen as popular. This really does make me uncomfortable as I see this as crossing the line - just because someone is wearing a veil does not mean that they are dangerous in any way.

Secondly, I find the Kosovar reaction to these bannings also rather disheartening. Ieeen trying to fit in to join the EU, they have not only alienated part of their population but have highlighted the discrimination taking place against Muslims in Western European society.

The forth case from Australia that I pointed out raises an important question about security. Although some Australians (especially of the older, more socially conservative generation) are very suspicious of Muslims, most urban Australians are in fact VERY liberal and have no desire to ban the veil. The judge's request for the witness to remove her veil was because they needed to see her facial expressions in order to judge whether she was being truthful in her testimony.

So I leave you all with this question: is it OK to ban the veil outright? Should it be mandatory to remove the Veil in certain high security areas ie. Banks, the Airport and Court? Where should the government draw the line?

Is the UK finally accepting that it isn't a world power?

I was reading this article that was posted on RCW from the Daily Telegraph about the debate on whether Britain should relinquish its nuclear armaments and accept that it is no longer a world power. To relinquish their Trident (Nuclear defence) Program, they would have to also relinquish their permanent seat on the UN security council and much of its global influence and status. To update Trident technology on the other hand would mean a serious reduction in the UK's military capabilities as the update the Trident deterrent system would be using Ministry of Defence (MoD) funds which are already being cut by 10%.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/7967116/If-Britain-wishes-to-remain-a-brglobal-power-it-needs-Trident.html

In my opinion this is just the next step in the British realising that they are no longer the Empire that they used to be. Although this has already been to a large extent realised when Britain severed itself from former colonies economically, closed its borders to immigrants from its own 'commonwealth' and began bandwagoning with the US, its posturing as a global power in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has demonstrated its audacity in holding onto its past well into the 21st century.

Greetings and War

Greetings everyone! I have just joined this "blog" and am eager to contribute my thoughts and comments. Althought I am no expert on foreign policy, nor even an international affairs student, I believe that my studies of antiquity and history may be of interest and possibly - dare I say it - relevant to issues in the modern world. I am currently completing a research paper which analyzes the role of limitanei and soldier-civilian interactions in Roman Arabia. However, for my first blog, I would like to write a brief summary and review of a book I read this summer (or last spring? I forget when I finished it).

The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Ancient Greece is a book by the historian Victor Davis Hanson which gives helpful insights into the uniquely Greek approach to warfare and how that approach still colors our perspective on waging war.

The conditions of an egalitarian and agrarian Greek society helped mold hoplite battle and thus western warfare. Farmer-soldiers needed to be present in their fields and preferred to be home with their families, so they opted for short, brutal, and decisive battles as opposed to extended campaigns of attrition. Hoplite battle is perfectly suited for these all-or-nothing battles. Two armies face off in an open field and clash in a head-to-head collision of shock infantry. Hanson goes into extensive detail regarding the sheer horror of this kind of battle. Although war only consisted of a few hours of combat a year for a Greek polis, it had a profound impact upon the psyche of the hoplite. Hanson argues that the glorification of war found in literature is merely a symptom of how tremendously the prospect of open battle weighed upon Greek men.

Because of the conditions of Greek warfare, battle was limited in scope, a few hours a year. While we have inherited the Greek preference for open and decisive battles, we have greatly expanded the scope, lethality, and consequences of war in the modern world. A hoplite might have fought a few hours a year, but a marine in Afghanistan has to deal with the prospect of conflict for months at a time. Gone are the days when soldier-civilians, after voting in the assembly, would take up shield and spear and fight out a war to defend their endangered lands. Now, with our professional armies and modern arsenals, cold and calculating decisions are made, and long drawn out campaigns are fought, sometimes with devastating consequences.

While Greek infantry battle was just as brutal as modern warfare, if not more so, we can learn from their perspective. For them, battle was a brutal necessity and a communal choice. Rather than seeking out the total domination of their enemies, as Alexander the Great would later do, Greek armies in the 5th and 6th centuries fought chiefly to resolve conflict through quick and decisive battle. Our problem is that we share the Greek desire for decisive and head-on battle but have greatly expanded the scope and aims of warfare. Now, we fight enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq who do not fight the "Western Way of War." This presents us with a quandary which talented strategists have tried to fix through various forms of "counter-insurgency." As we seek to serve the interests of the state through warfare, we should remember the material and human cost brought on by the modern way of war.

Embrace the Islamic Cultual Center

For a long time I've been embarrassed to be a member of a generation that gets most of its news from Jon Stewart. However, in response to Denise's post, I must apologize to Mr. Stewart. This "mosque (i.e. Islamic cultural center)" debate is the most absurd debate that the tea party has yet raised. Ok, not as bad as the conspiracy that the President was grown in a Kenyan lab by Nasser, Saddam, and Gadaffi as part of an intricate plot to place a sleeper agent in the White House...but almost.

As the Daily Show's investigation showed, intolerance towards Mosques is a growing trend in America. What is your goal Tea Party, to emulate the Know-Nothing Party and its fears of "Romanism (Catholicism)"? The cultural center will be blocks from Ground Zero, farther than an actual Mosque that already exists. Charles Krauthammer, the conservative Washington Post columnist, has compared building the cultural center to building a German cultural center at Auschwitz. While I sometimes agree with Mr. Krauthammer's views, he could not be more wrong with this analogy. Every Muslim is not a member of al-Qaeda, and virtually every Muslim-American was mortified by the events on 9/11. Just because the terrorists acted in the name of Islam does not mean that they represent the views of Islam. I certainly am not represented by deranged individuals who shoot up abortion clinics in the name of Christ.

I understand why people are uncomfortable about the location of the cultural center, although I suspect that is mostly because of a lack of information and the way the story has been covered by the media. There is of course nothing I can do to stop my own party from opposing the cultural center, as it continues to become increasingly beholden to the Tea Party. However, I am ashamed to see the Democrats rallying around the nativist banner as well. Incredibly Harry Reid and Howard Dean have publicly come out against the building of the mosque, but I suspect that this has something to do with the election in November.

I was pleasantly surprised when President Obama came out in support of the cultural center, and was bitterly disappointed when he backtracked the next day. Again, I suppose this is simply politicking, but I would urge the President to stand by his convictions here. Obama's term has been full of bold leadership and decisions on many issues, not all of which I agree with, but I respect that the President is focused on improving the country and not re-election. Mr. Obama, no American president has ever been more popular in the Islamic World. Come out in support of the Cultural Center. Explain how this shows America's openness and diversity. Make a tangible demonstration of why freedom and democracy should be embraced over sectarianism and bigotry. Show the world why bin-Laden and Ahmadinejad are wrong, and why America is better than them.

Jon Stewart on the Islamic Community Center

Honestly, I'm ashamed that this whole thing is an issue. I have to laugh to keep from crying. Thank you for making that easier, Jon Stewart. Too bad that when you actually stop to think about it, it shouldn't be an issue at all.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Municipal Land-Use Hearing Update
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

An Homage to Robert Gates

I read a good article from the Washington Post this morning about how Gates is alone as a true conservative in Washington.  It kinda made me long for the days where conservativism meant less bureaucracy and smaller deficits.

It's really a shame that he's planning to retire.  Although I completely understand why.

Authoritarianism is alive and well

I stumbled across a very interesting article on authoritarianism and its shortcomings against democracy.  It wasn't anything that I didn't already know, but the author uses a few good cases to prove his point.  What is most surprising is the countries that consider themselves modern (cough cough, Russia and Turkey) can still commit such egregious violations of the democratic system which they seem committed to upholding.

What is more surprising is that it was actually published in Russia (albeit in a Western newspaper).

Because I spent my morning poking around Foreign Policy

Just a few things that might be of interest to my fellow I Street contributors.

• Pat:  Since you disagreed with the idea that Obama was 0-4 on the big foreign policy issues, it seems that someone has agreed with you.
• Charlie:  Stephen Walt of Foreign Policy makes an interesting case about the role of nuclear weapons in today's foreign policy arena.

Also of interest:

• The world's worst dictators.  Not a whole lot of surprises here.  At least for as far as my slow, government computer let me get before he decided to freeze up every time a new page would load.
• An interesting take on American democracy.  Being as big of a fan of Fareed Zakaria as I am, I would be inclined to agree.

Tolerance for the Conservatives?

Here's an interesting article calling for tolerance among the conservatives.  Just another thing to add to their already long to-do list, I suppose.

Peter Beinart also makes a good point in his article on the ADL, here.