Rumsfeld is right, believe it or not, about Afghanistan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Did you happen to catch Rumsfeld's op-ed in the Times on Saturday? And did you happen to read it? I won't blame you if you didn't -- who cares what Rumsfeld thinks about anything at this point? -- but, believe it or not, once you get past the pro-Bush, pro-Iraq Surge self-aggrandizing, he actually had some interesting, and correct, things to say about what is needed in Afghanistan.

Specifically, he argues that success in Afghanistan will not be achieved "with the same tactics or strategies," that is, with the Surge, employed in Iraq. At the beginning of his piece, he calls the Surge "one of the most impressive military accomplishments in recent years," but it hasn't been nearly the overwhelming success he makes it out to be. Iraq may be less violent that it was, but the country is still a long way off from political reconciliation. Indeed, I would argue, as others have, that the Surge has just contributed, along with other factors and developments, to a temporary lull.

Regardless, Rumsfeld is right that:

The way forward in Afghanistan will need to reflect the current circumstances there -- not the circumstances in Iraq two years ago. Additional troops in Afghanistan may be necessary, but they will not, by themselves, be sufficient to lead to the results we saw in Iraq. A similar confluence of events that contributed to success in Iraq does not appear to exist in Afghanistan.

What's needed in Afghanistan is an Afghan solution, just as Iraqi solutions have contributed so fundamentally to progress in Iraq. And a surge, if it is to be successful, will need to be an Afghan surge.

Again, I would hesitate to call what has happened in Iraq genuine and lasting "progress," but his point is a sound one nonetheless. Simply sending more troops to Afghanistan isn't the answer, or the only answer. It may be part of the answer, but the situation there is not the same as in Iraq: "In a struggle with an adaptable, thinking enemy, there is no single template for success. More is not always better. One size does not fit all."

Of course, there's nothing really new about Rumsfeld's argument. Slate's Fred Kaplan, for example, made much the same point, without all the pro-Bush, pro-military, pro-war cheerleading, back in August. (I respect Kaplan as a serious, sober thinker on foreign and miliary policy. So I applaud Rumsfeld for agreeing with him, at least on some points.) But Rumsfeld is certainly right that there is an "emerging consensus" that more troops are needed in Afghanistan. It's what McCain supported, and it's also what Obama supports. To be sure, Obama clearly doesn't think that only sending more troops is the answer, but he will likely approve a troop increase -- and it does look like more troops are on the way.

I have been supportive of the war effort in Afghanistan in the past, but what concerns me is that there are different efforts at work here:

-- On the one hand, there is the effort to defeat the Taliban insurgents, support the elected government in Kabul, and provide security throughout the country, as least as much as possible.

-- On the other hand, there is the effort to find and destroy al Qaeda in the Afghan-Pakistan border region.

These efforts are not necessarily in conflict with one another -- on the contrary, establishing sustainable peace and security in Afghanistan would likely weaken al Qaeda's position and could possibly contribute to broader security throughout the region -- but it's not clear to me what the priority is. Are the U.S. and the allies, including Canada, my country, there to keep the peace, build a nation, or destroy an enemy? For all three, perhaps, but I'm not sure if, long-term, the first two are achievable objectives -- the third may not be either, but it's worth more of an effort than Bush gave it, what with his decision, supported by the likes of Rumsfeld, to switch focus to Iraq.

To his credit, though, Rumsfeld understands that military action is not enough. As he notes, "[l]eft unanswered in the current debate is the critical question of how thousands of additional American troops might actually bring long-term stability to Afghanistan -- a country 80,000 square miles larger than Iraq yet with security forces just one-fourth the size of Iraq's." As he puts it, only "indigenous forces" can ultimately succeed in bringing peace and stability to the country.

What is needed is a plan for Afghanistan that involves more than just more troops, more than just another Iraq-like surge. It needs to come from Obama, but it also needs to involve, and have the support of, the international coalition that is currently struggling to make any progress whatsoever.

I am now more skeptical than ever when it comes to the prospect of success in Afghanistan, and I am especially skeptical of the ongoing military campaign there, but Obama's statements on Afghanistan during the campaign do suggest that, unlike McCain, he understands the problem there to be more than just a military one. For example, he proposed increasing non-military aid and working collaboratively with Pakistan. However, as Juan Cole put it at Salon back in July, "[s]tepped-up military action... is still the central component of his plan," even though, it is not "at all clear that sending more U.S. troops to southern Afghanistan can resolve the problem of the resurgence of the Taliban there." What's more, it's not just Rumsfeld who is throwing cold water on the "more troops" plan. As Greg Mitchell wrote at Editor & Publisher yesterday, many experts have come out with "cautionary views" of the situation.

Of course, Obama hasn't yet presented his foreign policy team, and it's not clear what more nuanced plan he will offer. But if he is really about change, and I still think he is, then he should think outside the box on Afghanistan -- and not merely propose that a troop reduction in Iraq be matched with a troop increase in Afghanistan, as if the only real problem with the war in Afghanistan thus far has been too few troops.

You can send as many troops there as you like, after all, but it won't mean victory, however that is even defined, is at hand.