Onward to Kandahar

The United States and its ISAF allies are inching closer to the next big battleground in Afghanistan–the assault on Kandahar City. Kandahar, of course, is both the hometown of Afghan President and sometimes U.S. buddy Hamid Karzai and the main urban redoubt of the Taliban. This juxaposition in itself creates the parameters for the mission and the controversy surrounding it. Put simply (some might say too simply), the U.S./ISAF wants to drive the Taliban out as part of pacifying the country and “winning the war”; Karzai is more concerned that the dislodging of the Taliban will alienate residents of Kandahar even more than they already are.

The result is a scenario worthy of Larry, Curley, and Mo. The Taliban are smart enough not to emulate General Hood in the fall of 1864, when he marched his defending Confederate army out of Atlanta where they could conveniently be slaughtered by Union forces. Instead, they are likely (gasp!) to remain in the city, imbedded with the population and offering sporadic resistance until the Americans weary of the whole operation and leave. The Americans will be faced with impossible tactical situations where they cannot secure parts of the city without leveling them (thereby driving more citizens into the arms of the opposition), and where anything they do that harms anybody or anything will likely be opposed by Karzai and his merry band of thieves. Anybody like to volunteer to organize or lead the “Cooperation in Kandahar” campaign?

The Kandahar campaign is now being trumpeted as fundamental to the entire American effort in Afghanistan: if we succeed here, the chances of success nationally are much improved. If we fail, well…. The problem is that this mission is almost certainly destined to fail. Does anybody hear much of anything about the last great thrust in Helmand province? Is Marja now a shining example of liberated freedom and prosperity? Does anybody seriously believe that a year from now, we will look back at Kandahar and say, “nice job?” Anyone who answers any of these questions positively should have his or her drinking water analyzed immediately.

Why are we doing this? Is it because we simply have no idea what else to do? Do leaders from Stan McChrystal on down understand this whole thing is a fool’s errand that cannot succeed under the best of circumstances?

Let me suggest a diabolical interpretation worthy of a political pot boiler. Assume that the leadership in the Obama White House does understand that we cannot win in Afghanistan but feels it cannot simply fold the tent and leave in the current political climate. That perception is certainly not a stretch. Assume further that they understand that cutting our losses and withdrawing is in the American best interest. Also not a very difficult assumption to make. Assume further that it needs to devise a way out that conforms to its stated goal of beginning the withdrawal next summer. Also not hard to imagine.

The question is how, and the feckless assault on Kandahar is the answer. It won’t work, and they know it. What it might do, however, is to create the public perception that we have tried our hardest, they do not appreciate our efforts, and so we are leaving them to their own devices. A pox on their houses! Karzai is almost certain to cooperate, whimpering for the home folks whenever a brick gets blown up during the operation. If it temporarily succeeds in a few places, the situation will almost certainly unravel quickly as the Americans turn over those parts of the city they liberate to the Afghans, who either bumble or steal away whatever temporary gains that were made. We can then throw our hands in the air and say, “We tried. Lord knows we tried,”and then pack our bags and leave.

Would such a solution please evertyone. Of course not–particularly in the current poisonous political atmosphere. But if it served to begin the withdrawal and even to be reflected in reduced spending that was coinciding with an improving economy, would it make political sense as the 2012 political season began to take shape?

The United States had a similar opportunity in 1963 after the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam. At that point, some analysts who were spurned at the time but look much more prescient in retrospect, argued that this was the golden opportunity to cut the umbilical cord with Vietnam, basically on the same ”mission impossible” grounds that exist in Afghanistan today. The United States blew the opportunity then. Are there cooler heads in the White House now who are ready to seize, rather than abandon, an opportunity? Stay tuned.

Evaluating “Surging”

Since the American offensive in Iraq in 2007 designed to suppress the Sunni-led insurgency in central Iraq, the term “surge” has entered the lexicon of American military activities, achieving an almost iconic position as the answer to multiple politico-military problems. Most recently, it has been used to describe–and justify–the American Marine incursion into Helmand province in Afghanistan, one of the major stronghold areas of the Taliban and the heart of opium country in that country. The operation to capture the city of Marjah has been the centerpiece of this activity.

What exactly is a “surge?” It is a relatively new term that is not found in American military doctrinal statements. Indeed, a quick perusal of the United States’ primary document on cointerinsurgency or COIN (The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual: U.S. Army Field Manual 3-24, Marine Corps Warfighting Publication No. 3-33.5) does not reveal a single reference to the term. Instead, the actions that collectively comprise surging are found under the much more descriptive (if arguably less catchy) description “clear, hold, build” (see Sections 5-51 and 5-80 of the Manual). 

According to FM 3-24/Warfighting Document 3-33.5, a clear-hold-build operation “is executed on a specific, high-priority area experiencing over insurgent operations,” by which both the Iraqi action and the Marjah initiative qualify. The operations has a three-fold and sequential set of purposes: to “create a secure physical and psychological environment”; to “establish firm government control of the populace and area”; and to “gain the populace’s support.” The first of these goals (clear) is accomplished by the “destruction or expulsion of insurgent” forces. The second (hold) is attained by the “deployment of security forces.” The third (build) is gained by “improving living conditions and restoring normalcy.”

The success of this kind of operation depends on sequentially succeeding in each task. Clearing hostile territory is the first and most visible activity; that is what the Marines have most obviously been doing in Marjah over the past few weeks, and its success is a sine qua non for the others (if one does not wrest physical control from the enemy, one can neither deploy one’s own security forces and thereby begin the battle for the hearts and minds of the target population). In and of itself, however, it is neither sufficient nor necessarily indicative of the ultimate success of the operation.

Why is this the case? Ultimately, the object in COIN is to turn a population that has either been hostile or indifferent to your side into one that supports your side and is hostile or indifferent to the opposition. If a particular area has been under enemy control, this calculus is not initially in your favor and must be reversed. This, in turn, requires proving security for those “liberating through clearing operations (hold) and then improving the situation of the population (build) to something superior to that they experienced under the enemy–in this case, the Taliban. Unless all three elements of the strategy succeed, the operation does not, because presumably the opponent will simply return at some point.

Three things must be said about the playing out of this entire sequence. The first is that it requires that those who provide the clearing operation remain in place (or at least be replaced by surrogates). In the current case, that means the Marines principally do the clearing, and the holding is done by joint operations bythem and Afghan government forces. Second, ultimately the holding operation must be turned over to and conducted by the government itself–outside military forces may provide the shield behind which these operations begin, but ultimately the battle for hearts and minds is an internal matter–which Afghans do the people want? Third, it takes a long time for these dynamics to reach conclusion. We know the interim outcome of the surge in Iraq, for instance, but will the apparent tranquility created by the surge survive the full removal of American forces there? That answer is only knowable sometime in the future. We are still at the clear stage in Helmand.

Each of these concerns has problems associated with it. The first surrounds clearing and then staying to provide the atmosphere for holding and building. Attacking and routing insurgents is one thing, but keeping the liberated areas free of their return requires occupation, which is a manpower intense problem. The Field Manual suggests a “force density” of one occupier for every fifty people being protected. We cannot do that in Afghanistan, even with the considerable expansion of Afghan government resources. If one clears but cannot stick around to hold, the situation is likely simply to revert to the status quo ante.

The second problem is that ultimately, holding and building are tasks that must be done by and clearly associated with the natives–the Afghan government–whom those liberated must come to adopt as their legitimate representatives. The current Afghan government is one of the most corrupt in the world (which is part of the Taliban’s appeal). It is not clear they are up to the task or that the Afghans being liberated will be converted. Third, these operations take a long time to bear ultimate fruit. The answer to the real success in Marjah is years away; the question is whether Americans care enough to hang around for the outcome.

So, does surging work? Well, the first stage (clear) certainly does, and that is what we have evaluated and deemed successful in Iraq and now Afghanistan. But the criteria we have for ourselves suggests that success can only be judged somewhere down the road. General David Petraeus understands this, but do the rest of us? The honest answer to the question is, “We don’t know yet.”

The “Opening Act” in Marja(h)

The battle for the Helmand provincial town/city (population around 80,000) is now well underway. It has been advertised as the center of the current “surge” in Afghanistan, an entirely unveiled reference to and comparison with the 2007 exercise in Iraq that lowered the level of violence there sufficiently. It is also the new centerpiece of the American COIN (counterinsurgency ) doctrine in Afghanistan. As goes Marja (or Marjah, depending on who is writing it), so well may go the U.S. effort to Afghanicize the war: like the 2007 surge in Iraq, Marja may well be the substantive opening of the process of Afghanization of the war (turning over responsibility for conducting the war to the Afghans and thus providing a pretext for American withdrawal).

So how is it going? On the face of reporting, it seems to be going pretty well. Most of Marja has been taken by the Marines, and despite continuing Taliban resistance, the battle seems to be going well, at least as measured in comparative casualties and other battlefield measures. Unlike the experience three years ago in Iraq, however, no one is quite ready to report the “light at the end of the tunnel” in Marja and the war more generally. As one State Department official on the scene summarized it, “We are just in the opening act” in Marja. The real challenge is still ahead of us.” He adds, “Marja will be a test for everyone.” (The quotes are from today’s Washington Post.)

Such circumspection is commendable. The heart of a successful COIN campaign is not the ability to dislodge the opposition from some piece of territory for a time, although doing so initially is necessary at the beginning in order to be able to do the real, decisive job of political conversion of the population away from the insurgents and toward the government. Marja has not, for a long time, been exactly a hotbed of support for the Karzai government, or any other regime operating out of Kabul. That process requires a long, patient process of convincing a skeptical population that loyalty to your side beats loyalty to the other side, generally because your side makes life better than it was when your opponents were in charge. Moreover, that conversion must be  complete enough so that the target population will resist the return of the currently vanquished Taliban when, inevitably, American forces leave and only Afghan government forces remain.

That conversion, if it is possible at all, will take time. Among Afghans in the area, there is apparent distrust of and suspicion about the central government–a phenomenon not uncommon throughout the country. As if to fuel that dynamic, the new provincial governor on his way to Kabul “recently returned to Afghanistan after 15 years in Germany.” In the American South after the Civil War, such governors were called “carpetbaggers” and were widely suspected and opposed. Maybe the situation is different in Marja. Possibly it is not.

The natives, of course, know that it is dangerous to switch sides too fast, and they are obviously  not entirely convinced who the good and bad guys are. As one Marjan told the Post reporter, “We are afraid of the Taliban and we’re afraid of the Marines.” Probably not an imprudent attitude, and one that likely can only be overcome by a long, patient, benign, and positive experience with our side.

The Americans appear to understand this and are trying to convince the natives that we do. As a Marine commander is reported to have assured a group of Marjans, “We’re going to be here for many months.” The audience was apparently skeptical, and their skepticism will only dissipate as many months pass and the Marines are still there. The question is how long the Marines will stay. Factors militating toward shortening their commitment include their need elsewhere in the country and the desire for the United States to withdraw from the country.

So, how is the “opening act” in Marja going? At one level, pretty well, but that is obviously only part of the story by which a judgment about this application of “surginess” (apologies to the Colbert Report) can be rendered. At this point, the real answer is we don’t know how the contest for the loyalty–the hearts and minds–of the Marjans is going, and we won’t know for a fairly long time. It would probably be better to ask the question a year or so from now, when there will be some indication of what the citizens of Marja feel. Unfortunately, our attention span toward Marja will probably have been exceeded by then, and we will be on to asking different questions. At that, even a year may not be long enough: it can be argued (I have argued it) that the success of the surge in 2007 in Iraq will not really be known until fairly well after the American withdrawal is complete and the shape of postwar Iraq has settled in. The same likely will be true in Afghanistan. That is not a very satisfying answer and certainly not a very politically salable reply, but at least it is an honest answer.

Extending Vietnamization to Afghanistan

 The war in Afghanistan took a familiar turn this week, as the U.S. Marines began an Aghan “surge” to wrest the city of Marja in the opium-infested province of Helmand from the Taliban. The term “surge” kept coming up to describe the purpose and intent of the operation, presumably because of the widely advertised “success” of similar operations in Iraq in 2007. The surge in Iraq, however, was only the first step in a process of Iraqification that is unfolding in that country and will be fully implemented by the end of 2011, if current timetables are honored. Is the Afghan surge the first step in a policy of Afghanization? It sure looks like it.

Consider the prototype: Vietnamization. In 1969, the new Nixon administration finally realized that it was not going to be able to achieve a World War II-style victory in Vietnam and that the American public (in no small part because of the impact of the Tet offensvie of 1968) would not tolerate an indefinite extension of a war with no decisive ending in sight. The solution was to turn the war over to America’s South Vietnamese allies: Vietnamization.

To implement the decision to quit the war without appearing simply to bug out with our tails between our legs and leaving our erstwhile allies to the wolves, the policy of Vietnamization entailed two essential elements. The first was to train and equip the South Vietnamese (to “stand them up,” in a truly awful military term) so that they had a chance of winning the war themselves. The other element was to stabilize the military situation as best possible to give the ARVNs (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) the best possible chance of success. This amounted to “preparing the battlefield” and included such things as the incursion into Cambodia and extensive attempts to interrupt the Ho Chih Minh Trail through Laos.

In the process of formulating and implementing Vietnamization, the American political objective changed as well. During active American combat operations (1965-1973), the goal had been to guarantee the territorial integrity of South Vietnam. Under Vietnamization, that goal was modified to providing a “reasonable chance” the South Vietnamese could succeed.

How do Iraq and Afghanistan measure up in these terms. Remarkably similarly. In Iraq, the United States has spent a great deal of time and energy training and equipping the Iraqi armed forces, and the purpose of the 2007 surge was clearly to weaken opponents of the regime, thereby preparing the battlefield for the Iraqis once the Americans leave. The same process is underway in Afghanistan, although it is not as far along. The United States is currently trying to “stand up” the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), including the army (ANA) and has put additional human training and monetary resources into the effort. Whether that will succeed is problematical, for reasons discussed in this space. At the same time, the current, first surge in Marja looks and sounds a lot like “preparing the battelfield” for the ANA by rooting the Taliban out of places they have historically dominated.

How did Vietnamization work out? It is a fair question if the intent of Iraqification and Afghanization is roughly the same as the intent in Vietnam. In Vietnam, obviously, the answer is unhappy and negative, since the “reasonable chance” proved not enough to prevent the fall of the Republic of Vietnam in 1975. While some apologists continue to argue that had the United States not effectively left our South Vietnamese allies out to dry that this would not have been the outcome, The objection misses the point that the primary purpose of the policy was to extricate the United States from a no-win situation, which it accomplished. Our allies surviving was a hoped-for outcome, but not the heart of the policy and implementing strategy.

Will the outcome extend to Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer is that we do not know, since the policies of Iraqification and Afghanization are not fully implemented and won’t be until the final American withdrawal. Certainly, the process is further along in Iraq, and we should have some idea not too long after the final U.S. withdrawal scheduled for 2011. In Afghanistan, the process is less far along, with the first U.S. troop draw down not scheduled to begin until mid-2011 and no date for total withdrawal yet established. The answer in Iraq is closer than it is in Afghanistan, but in both cases it is a matter of conjecture.

The Vietnamization prcedent does, however, suggest a couple of probable parts of the outcome. The first is that the United States will leave before there is a definitive politico-military outcome in either country. If one assumes U.S. presence artificially affects the environment in both countries and is part both of the solution and problem and a barrier to natural internal process reaching fruition, the outcome cannot be decided until we leave. When that occurs, however, there will be no surrender by either side, no white flags waving, and nobody holding up one finger (presumably the index) crying “we’re number one.” The second is that since American withdrawal will only begin the process of internal settling of the war in an atmosphere in which the United States no longer has much leverage, there will be recriminations over leaving. These will be especially hysterical if our side fails (as it may well in both cases), but charges of “bugging out”–which, of course, is the ultimate purpose of the policy–will be frequent and shrill.

The current surge is almost certainly the first step in the policy of Afghanization of the war there, beginning a painful process of disengagement. It is not, of course, being advertised that way, for fear that admitting it to be the case would submit the administration to withering rhetorical fire from the right. It is, however, likely the policy in Afghanistan (and Iraq) for the same reason it was the policy in Vietnam: it was the only real option available. The only way to have avoided Iraqifying or Afghanizing those wars would have been to heed what many at the time thought was the lesson of Vietnam: to avoid those kinds of wars in the first place. If you ignore that entreaty, count on the same thing happening again, and again, etc.

Lipsticking Pigs in Afghanistan?

Two events over the weekend have dominated news from Afghanistan. One involves voting in the presidential election, results of which will not be final for several weeks but which have aroused much passionate rhetoric anyway. The other is the not very surprising conclusion by the  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the situation is going from bad to worse and that the only apparent solution is–gasp!–more American troops to save the day. In both cases, attempts to put the best possible face on events has borne a strong resemblance to lipsticking the pig.

First, the Presidential elections were held on Saturday. The issues going in were how many Afghans would vote, how effective the Taliban would be in suppressing the vote, whether the elections would be held fairly, and, of course, who would win. Each question was and remains a matter of controversy open to wildly different interpretations.

The first two questions are related: the more people voted, the less Taliban influence could be inferred, and vice versa. Early results have elicited contrasting interpretations. Apparently, about five million Afghans voted, out of 15 million registered and an overall population of 33 million. There was apparently great regional diversity: basically, very few people voted in the Pashtun, Taliban-dominated south, whereas there were comparatively large turnouts in parts of the country with a non-Pashtun majority (notably areas formerly controlled by the largely defunct Northern Alliance). The percentage of Afghans voting will certainly not send thrills up anyone’s spines, at one-third resembling the turnout for American local elections. Where the Taliban was not in control to threaten retaliation, it was better, but the very low turnout in Taliban-controlled elements suggest the Taliban is a force. I have not seen estimates of turnout from Helmand Province, the Taliban stronghold which the Marines sought to liberate to allow a large voter participation: the numbers of voters from Helmand should tell us quite a bit about the effectiveness of our strategy in the country.

The third and fourth questions are also related. There are already indications of voting irregularities, and Abdullah Abdullah, Hamid Karzai’s principal opponent who apparently lags in the vote, has accused the government of massive vote fraud. Sounds a lot like Iran. Two points might be noted. Karzai is a Pashtun (although one with whom rural Pashtuns do not much identify), voting was very low in Pashtun areas, and yet Karzai is apparently winning. Abdullah, on the other hand, is of mixed ethnic background (Pashtun father, Tajik mother), is closely associated with the Northern Alliance (he was their foreign minister for a time), voting was relatively high in those areas, and he is apparently losing. Draw your own conclusions. As to the winner, it will clearly not be western-style democracy.

While all this was going on, the military side of the war was proceeding along its increasingly Vietnam-like course. Mike Mullen announced on Sunday morning talk TV that the war continues to go poorly, that the Taliban are getting better and better at what they do, and that unless things change, the situation could become even more dire. The solution: more American troops! Moreover, expect General Stanley McChrystal (whose role has an increasingly William Westmoreland-like feel to it) to come back to the United States, hat in hand, and ask for more troops. Do not expect him to specify how a few more (e.g. 10,000 or so) will make any real difference, because a) they won’t make any real difference, and b) he knows it but wants to form the foundation for yet some more troops a little way down the road. Anyone who can find a happy ending in all of this is welcome to share it with me.

Are we putting lipstick on a pig that is inherently homely and is getting uglier by the minute? In other words, are positive interpretations about what is happening and what we are doing honest appraisals or wishful thinking? Politically, does this election, regardless of who wins, signal a real movement forward for Afghanistan, or is it mere kabuki for the American television audience? Probably a little of both, but which part predominates? Militarily, what would it really take for the United States to make a significant difference in the war in Afghanistan? Are 10,000 troops going to make a difference, or is a more realistic number more like 250,000? Once again, the answer is probably somewhere in between, but probably toward the high side.

In the end, it is my fear–and reluctant conclusion–that yes, we are slapping the Revlon lip gloss on the pig, and while it may make the pig look a little prettier for awhile, it will eventually wear off, and underneath, we will still find a swine.