An Afghan dilemma

Given this election has placed a prime focus on foreign policy, it is no surprise that each candidate is dedicating alot of oratory to Afghanistan. But it is certainly troubling that they are both getting it so wrong. McCain and Obama are not the only ones misinterpreting the situation and drawing inaccurate comparisons: Patrick Fitzgerald at FP Passport says...

With the surge's success in bringing military (but not political) stability to Iraq, the spike of violence in Afghanistan led to calls for a similar surge there...[and] it's clear that more troops alone aren't going to solve the problem (emphasis mine).

Though Fitzgerald correctly calls for other means of aid, the analysis is problematic not only because it calls for more troops but because it is rooted in the same incorrect assumption that most politicians are making: namely, associating the recent decline in Iraqi violence with the surge alone. What everyone seems to be forgetting is that the surge followed the Sunni Awakening. To credit the surge for the lull in violence after 80,000 insurgents essentially switched sides is not only naive but irresponsible. How many times must we be reminded...Correlation is not causation!

If people were drawing the correct comparisons and actually learning any lessons from Iraq, then Afghanistan might also be on a slow but steady path to peace. But instead of engaging insurgent groups in a dialogue and drawing extremists into the political fold, US officials and Patrick Fitzgerald are calling for more troops. Given President Karzai's recent rhetoric, Afghanistan needs a reduction in troops (and an increase in clandestine intelligence and special forces) if America is to maintain any type of support from the Afghan public. If the US can couple such a drawdown with greater support for political participation and development then we just might have a recipe for success.

Alas, no one is saying anything to that effect. In the words of Brad DeLong: why, oh why, can't we have a better press corps?