The Brilliant Failure of the Afghan Surge (So Far)

Emphasizing casualty figures relating to the “Afghan Surge,” and predicting a further unraveling in Afghanistan subsequent to American withdrawal, Stephen M. Walt asks “”What does that tell you about the people who lobbied forcefully for the surge back in 2009?”

The question is offered rhetorically, but it can be answered: What “it” tells us is that they, the Surge proponents, were still powerful and influential enough to have turned the most likely results of the main alternative approach – accelerated withdrawal – into a political catastrophe for the President and the peace coalition:  “Here,” they would have asserted, argued, shouted, and mostly believed, “we had this proven Surge thing advocated by Saint Genius Petraeus the Great, but the Kenyan socialist incompetent – reneging on his own promises and instead of listening to a man much braver, smarter, more experienced, and whiter than he – turned tail, cut, and ran, betraying our valiant Afghan democrat allies and forcing them into the arms of the Taliban; encouraging Al Qaeda; destabilizing Pakistan; consigning millions to Islamofascist darkness; making ourselves look weak and therefore more vulnerable to our enemies; and increasing the likelihood of one, two, or many 9/11s and the end of all that’s good and holy.”

Obama alone – rather than Obama, both parties, the military establishment together with critical opinion – would be sole owner of actual results that eventually would have been linked in chains of radiant horror all around the globe. Even conditions in AfPak and beyond that were by some objective standard much better than those obtaining now would be made politically worse for him – which means not just for him, but for everyone associated with him.

So, yes, a larger number of people died, and many more were injured, and a lot of time and money was spent building a “framework for withdrawal” or conducting a “fighting retreat,” because the political-military risks of an attempted accelerated withdrawal or simple retreat – both within Afghanistan and far beyond – were unacceptable, just as any decision for such retreat, given the real existing correlation of political interests and forces in 2009, was actually impossible.

Instead, the Afghan Surge – a retreat that looked like an offensive, an offensive screening a retreat, a cynical ploy that was equally an indulgence in idealism – worked brilliantly if not supernaturally, which means politically. Politically, it was a tremendous success. The American election results from two weeks ago are strong evidence to that effect. Of course, seen narrowly, as a scheme to re-make Afghanistan into something other than Afghanistan, Surge operations never had prospects – as was clearly visible, not least to the President, in late 2009 when the intensively studied and re-negotiated policy was announced. It’s not even clear that the COIN-Surge proponents ever really believed what they sometimes seemed to be saying. The dream of a free, secure, stable, and friendly Afghanistan may always have been something of a straw man argument for Surge opponents, otherwise a merely possible-enough improbability within the zone of general uncertainty about human events.

More realistically, it was always “Hello, I must be going,” and the narrowly defined military-political failure – the failure to transform Afghanistan into Texas at bargain prices – has the further benefit of removing further illusions about what is and isn’t possible even for the best data-driven school- and park-building expeditionary killing machine the world has ever seen. Among other things we now know the truth about Petraeus’ COIN strategy: It’s a retailing of the costs in time and commitment we are not willing or able to pay in far away and hostile places like Afghanistan. The Afghan COIN-Surge bought us a path of escape from Afghanistan and from the COIN-Surge stratagem itself. Same as in Iraq.

To assume that things must now go very, very badly in AfPak or Iraq, or anyway must go worse than they would have under some alternative policy, would be to indulge in another form of overreaching. That such overreaching is, predictably, already well advanced should also temper any premature declarations regarding great lessons finally and truly learned.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

6 comments on “The Brilliant Failure of the Afghan Surge (So Far)

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Eleven years is a long time to be at war, and Karzai has turned to be a jerk, although it’s arguable if the administration’s treatment of him, led him there, we are the Strongest Tribe over there, so everyone from the ISI to the Pasdaran have his attention, Vince Flynn’s latest featuring treacherous ISI deputy chiefs, gives a flavor of this, also some inklings of what would
    later transpire with Petraeus,

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins