What is happening in Central Asia?

Pakistan is so bad that we're highlighting trash pick-up and the former American ambassador may soon be effectively governing Afghanistan.

Mr. Holbrooke has his work cut out for him...

Holbrooke's heroes

Obama's Afghanistan policy review and the following talks at the Hague are being praised for the inclusion of Iran. I've long advocated the inclusion of Iran in Afghan dealings; but a regional solution will only work if every country is involved in shaping strategy. Instead of opening the table to debate, Holbrooke and his team are essentially dictating policy. Apparently, they expect India to accept the notion that Pakistan is a victim of terrorism and a trustworthy partner. Guess what? They're not buying; nor should they be.

The fact that the Obama administration is still supporting Pakistan and now talking with Iran, without any significant conditions, is a huge slight in the eyes of India. Prime Minister Singh has essentially banked his career on the new strategic relationship with the US he helped usher in with the nuclear deal. India, after reorienting their entire foreign policy to align with the US, is being cornered into supporting their enemy, who have still not pursued the planners of 26/11 or even shared evidence.

Treating our strongest ally and partner in South Asia as an afterthought is a huge mistake. Indian elections are this month; the economy is obviously the central issue, but if Mr. Holbrooke continues to talk to India instead of with it, you better believe we will have a much less sympathetic ear in Delhi. Replacing a centrist, liberalized government with a nationalist, populist alliance hostile to most US activity isn't exactly a good change.

(Photo from Politics and Meetings)

Afghanistan: the weak link in a stronger global chain?

The war in Afghanistan may not end well for the US; history has not been kind to foreign forces. But there are signs that it will become the key linkage in the Obama administration's attempts at redefining US foreign relations.

NATO announced today that it was restoring high-level contacts with Russia. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that, amongst others, Afghanistan was an issue of "mutual concern." She also expressed her support for a conference on Afghanistan that would bring together all of the key stakeholders in the region, including Iran. From the BBC:

"If we move forward with such a meeting, it is expected that Iran would be invited as a neighbour of Afghanistan," she said.

The challenges posed by Afghanistan are shared by each country in the region (whether there by geography, choice or military alliance). Beyond the obvious interest of each stakeholder in the country's success, Afghanistan may provide the conduit for a diplomatic thaw in US-Russia (a "reset"), US-Iran relations (a handshake, maybe?). Stay tuned...

The Great Game revisited

The Great Game is a term used to describe the 19th century struggles between the British and Russian Empires for supremacy in Central Asia. It’s henceforth been a term that also tends to get thrown around anytime Russia butts heads with a Western power over territory in Central Asia. It happens to be a great day to revisit the Great Game.

Last week, Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev announced in Moscow that Kyrgyzstan will discontinue U.S. access to an air base that is key to military operations in Afghanistan. Why did he make this announcement from Russia? Well, because he had just finished a meeting where Russian President Medvedev pledged to lend Kyrgyzstan $2 billion, write off $180 million in debt, and add another $150 million in aid.

Where to begin? No one wins the Great Game. The base in Kyrgyzstan is currently the only good US access point to Afghanistan, as the Uzbekistani government stopped allowing US operations back in 2005. This will drastically affect the war on terrorism right as the Obama administration was preparing to deploy as many as 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan this week. Oops.

Moreover, the Kyrgyz sanctioned US use of the base was really the last show of any good relations between the Kyrgyz Republic and the US. Since Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution in 2005, freedom and human rights have not taken off as the West would have hoped. The country is increasingly turning to its closer neighbor - Russia - for support. Now with this large fiscal promise from Medvedev, the Central Asian country is sure to back slide even further away from the goals of the color revolutions.

Sounds bad? It gets worse. Russia is angling for leverage in running the war on terrorism on its own terms, but she is in no position to make these promises of loans and aid. If history is any indication, Russia is now setting a precedent. It cannot follow through on similar promises to the other Central Asian nations, but will certainly have to go through the motions. Unless the economy hits a dramatic up-turn, Russia is setting itself up to fail.

And the big loser in the Great Game? Well, that continues to be the people of Central Asia. Human rights, independent media, and basic freedoms will continue to decline. The initial capital from Russia will most likely boost a number of government programs, but nothing will be sustained. My advice? We’re all better off playing Risk.

(Photo via markusbc)

Legalize it!

No, not that.

For the past couple of years I have relentlessly advocated the legalization of poppy growth in Afghanistan. And now an expert agrees!

Poppy grows really well in Afghanistan and is easily converted into very transportable tar, a primary ingredient for heroin. The Taliban had effectively outlawed poppy farming; but Anti-Government Forces (taliban with a "little t") have found it an incredibly effective means of filling their coffers (taking a page from the narco-terrorist FARC's playbook). Poppy growth rates exploded the past few years, especially in the more dangerous and uncontrollable southern and eastern provinces of Afghanistan - which now contain 82% of the global area under opium poppy cultivation.

Counterinsurgency 101 tells us to cut off financial support for insurgents, but with drugs this can be really tricky. You will isolate/anger a non-aligned farmer by destroying his crop, whatever it might be. After all, he's just trying to get by. It's hard enough to win hearts and minds in rural areas where the central government has little presence and it doesn't help when the first government official a farmer might ever meet comes to eradicate his income. So I advocate legalizing poppy growth with an important caveat: government monopsony.

Perhaps such an effort would need to be subsidized, but a legal market for poppy could feed legitimate morphine production by pharmaceutical companies. And in the spirit of Obama-mania, we could probably even engage with Iran in this effort; which is suffering high levels of opium use these days, especially in their youth population (and we know why dissatisfied youth are dangerous).

(Photo: LA Times) 

Mistaken for mujahideen

Finally in Afghanistan we are starting to see a bit of cohesion: an actual plan, not imposed by NATO or the US, but brought in conjunction with Karzai's Afghan development and support. The New York Times reports that

American and Afghan officials intend to set up local militias of 100 to 200 fighters in each provincial district...militiamen will be given a brief period of training, along with weapons like assault rifles and grenade launchers...

What I've been saying about Afghanistan all this time included a call for greater tribal engagement. This doesn't mean we arm the people! Despite Petraeus being the genius of Iraq, or something similar depending what weeklies you read, a universal re-application of his Sunni Awakening media campaign tactic probably won't work in Afghanistan. Council members who we continue to pay in Iraq as local militia police forces are mostly in urban areas - Baghdad was where we needed the most help in Iraq. In Afghanistan, the border region is vast, sparsely populated, and without central organization. The tribes cannot and won't act in unison. They speak different languages and have wildly different social and religious customs, even within those who follow Islam and not animist religions. Militias will be forced to cover vast regions beyond their traditional tribal lands - not their small, local neighborhood.

For tribal engagement to work as a defense tactic against the Taliban we need to build roads, schools, and civic centers. Tribal groups obviously need to feel safe to help US forces in the fight against the Taliban, but this doesn't mean they should have to do it themselves. Embedded forces combined with greater development efforts is the way to stop the Taliban's second coming. Let's hope this is something the US and Afghans can figure out together.

(Photo by erwinlux)

Prosthetics and Foreign Policy

Ok, so this is a few months old but still amazing:

That's right, the monkey controlled a robotic arm with its mind! Then, if you combine it with a jet pack...

...you could put together quite the little techno-monkey mercenary army! (Monkey mercenaries are actually not new; Morocco sent the United States 2,000 monkeys to act as mine sweepers in Iraq back in 2003.) But aside from an army of flying monkeys, to be dispatched by the Wicked Witch of the West, prosthetics technology is making important advances these days. The monkey controlled the robotic arm through about one hundred electrodes placed directly into his motor cortex, which is responsible for physical motions. Amazingly, primate brains have enough plasticity to learn how to control a whole new arm.

Looking back through history, the First World War was an impetus and a catalyst for major advances in neuroscience. A large number of young soldiers returned home from the horrors of trench warfare with very localized brain injuries from shrapnel wounds. (What does what in the brain is often deduced from what happens when something is missing or wounded.) In our own time, over 30,000 American soldiers have been wounded in Iraq by official tallies. One of the least discussed costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are limb amputations, but this will also be a catalyst for many new medical advances, such as the first successful hand transplant.

War is a terrible, terrible thing, but then again necessity is the mother of invention. No matter what your thoughts on the man, let's hope that part of Bush's foreign policy legacy is a number of important medical advances to care for wounded coalition members and Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Machine-brain interface prosthetics and transplants seem like as good a place to start as any.

COIN in the news

The New York Times revealed today a 2004 blanket order was signed by President Bush allowing secret covert action pretty much wherever the Pentagon wants, and in some cases, without his express permission. This shines a little light on the recent operations in Syria, but military attacks on sovereign countries, without specific Presidential permission to do so, are not what God, Clausewitz, or the Constitution intended!

Accountability is fundamental in a democracy, including ours! It is not acceptable for the Commander in Chief of the world’s most expensive military to delegate the most important statecraft decision! What is Bush thinking? Where is the outrage? Oh wait, right here…

It seems especially odd that such measures are allowed as US forces are already "innovating" on their own. Case in point? Task Force ODIN is heading to Afghanistan. 

ODIN, also the Norse god of war and death, stands for “Observe, Detect, Identify, Neutralize.” This entity, a Bob Gates creation developed for Iraqi COIN, is a unit of approximately 400 people. Equipped with monitoring aircraft, analysts, and quick attack forces, ODIN specializes in detecting IEDs along the road, and has been responsible for neutralizing over 3,000 insurgents. The measure of their success in Iraq seems to be much more effective than secretive air strikes that rely on dubious intelligence and kill more than a few civilians.

The intention is for Task Force ODIN in Afghanistan is to protect the nearly complete “Ring Road," which connects the major cities and is crucial for commerce, development, and general security. This represents an interesting evolution of the usual strictly hierarchically structured American military, which was designed to take on the Soviet Union in the Fulda Gap. ODIN is flexible and fast, much like the enemy coalition forces face.  

When the Taliban can jack a NATO convoy in Pakistan and move scot-free into Afghanistan, it's obvious the tribal belt is pretty lawless.  Scary stuff for sure, but it seems that it will be ODIN, not the propensity of the US military to ignore borders, that will get these guys and their new toy.

Who to believe?

Depending on who you believe, the Taliban and Afghan government are either in, or preparing for, negotiations sponsored by Saudi Arabia. President Karzai has admitted that negotiations are forthcoming, Taliban officials either set conditions or deny them, and rumors are circulating in policy circles that Pakistan has been speaking with the Saudis for at least a few months in an effort to secure their involvement.

Given the way information comes out of Afghanistan, it is likely that the Saudis are increasing their involvement in some way; but no clear picture has yet emerged on what these talks are meant to achieve. Supposedly "moderate" elements of the Taliban have split from Al-Qaeda and are interested in entering into the political arena. But without real consensus within the Taliban, can any agreement be trusted? Do we have any other choice with seemingly all our allies calling our efforts futile and useless?

I've said for a while that regional consensus and negotiation is necessary for any type of Afghan stability. Any form of coalition government is a bit scary given the Taliban's track record. The best scenario such a peace deal would yield involves peacekeepers, long-term border forces, and a weakened (and nonviolent form) of the Taliban as a minor opposition group to centrist political parties fashioned in Karzai's model. The likelihood of this is obviously slim so what we need before any more "talks" is a defined end goal and confirmation whether all actors would be willing to accept a less than ideal result in exchange for hopeful stability.

All quiet on the Western front?

Any talk of Afghanistan these days usually revolves around its porous border with Pakistan. Common sense wisdom says that Tailban militants are hiding out in the terrain that straddles the desolate area known under a variety of guises: FATA, Warizistan, North West Frontier Province.

While it's certainly true that funds and arms pour in from Pakistan, well-founded rumors are also circulating that Iran is smuggling arms and cash in exchange for drugs to the Taliban over the western border as well. This is scary, probably true, and should be just as high on our security agenda as the Pakistani border. Iranian influence was what caused, in part, the severe sectarian strife in Iraq. It's pretty obvious that's the last thing we need in Afghanistan. And it is certainly true that the violence once contained in the south and east has been increasing in the western countryside.

As a possible nuclear power with delusions of dominance and influence throughout Central and South Asia, Iran's role in Afghanistan offers a chance to pursue a more fruitful strategy of engagement and stabilization in both countries. The US can either rebuff Iranian efforts unilaterally in which case arms will continue to flow into Afghanistan and probably increase. Or measured steps can be taken to allow Iranian efforts greater importance. Iranian desire to expand their regional influence through aid efforts is a concern but much less than an increase in their arms smuggling. Iran has been a heavy giver in the international reconstruction effort and was a vital lynchpin in negotiating the Bonn Agreement, which established Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. They want a greater role in guiding the future of Afghanistan and if they aren't given a seat at the table will continue to destabilize our efforts in the country.

Their role gathering support from normally aloof countries, with little desire to be tied to an American led invasion, was vital to securing international and regional support in 2001. Let's treat it as such and give them something better to do in Afghanistan than run guns.

(Photo: fallenwattle)

Tread carefully

Human Rights Watch reported today that civilian deaths in Afghanistan tripled from 2006 to 2007. The main culprit? US and NATO air strikes. Unfortunately this is a trend that has continued unabated in 2008. These developments are more than "regrettable" but spell serious trouble for military efforts in the region.

As strikes continue to kill more and more civilians, the US is fast losing support, not only from the Afghan and Pakistani public, but also the governments of both countries. The recent death of 90 civilians - confirmed by the UN - has led to increasingly tough rhetoric from President Karzai and the recent border crossing strikes in Pakistan are leading Zardari, soon to be President of Pakistan, to step up criticism of US and NATO efforts.

Unless the US is careful and starts heeding the very warranted criticisms of both Presidents, then we will soon find ourselves lacking allies and support in the region. Using targeted strikes instead of increasing troop levels is the right move; I've noted this before. But our forces must take great care to verify intelligence before bombing these frontier areas. Any semblance of success hinges on cooperation and support from the independent tribes that inhabit the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This vital section of the populace will not stand for many more civilian deaths...nor should they. As politicians continue to gather support by distancing themselves from American efforts, this administration must realize that our focus should be winning the hearts and minds of the populace. Small, focused special forces groups are the right approach to purging this area of radicalism. While air strikes by drones may decrease the risk to our troops they lack the capability to define civilians and assess information gathered on the ground. Increased intelligence will win this war but don't expect civilians to offer much help if we keep killing their families.

(AP Photo)

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?

The rise of nation building

Ok, last post Afghanistan or Pakistan for a while. Promise.

Today, I had the pleasure of meeting James Dobbins. He was former special envoy to Afghanistan and spoke at the New America Foundation about the lessons he learned while engineering the Bonn Agreement, which established the Afghan government following the US invasion and was a foundation for their new Constitution. His discussion leant itself toward more technical aspects of political development and nation building but allow me to summarize two of his more interesting points regarding the current situation in South Asia.

The Pakistani government regards the current conflict in FATA as a problem between the US and extremists NOT as a problem between Pakistan and extremist militants.

I have said something to this effect before. A large part of this sentiment stems from Pakistan's longstanding support of separatist rebels in Kashmir. The country has a history of harboring extremist groups that may benefit Pakistan at some point (and the Taliban serves to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan).

The current icy relations with Iran are a result of misguided confidence in Iraq.

This sounds controversial. Conventional knowledge says Iran has been adversarial since Khomeini came to power. Not true. Iran has played an instrumental role in the reconstruction (and financial support) of Afghanistan and wanted to be heavily involved in development efforts. By shunning Iranian attempts to aid in reconstruction (when they were willing to capitulate to a host of US demands), the Bush administration seriously miscalculated their position. Seeing quick "success" in Afghanistan and hoping for the same after a quick military takeover of Iraq, Rumsfeld's belief was that once surrounded by two functioning democracies, built from the ground up by the US and allies, Iran would be forced to meet ALL US demands. Well I don't need to remind you that's not quite how events unfolded.

These were two of the more interesting and provoking stances Dobbins took but the entire event is worth checking out.

Talibanistan?

Pakistan is quickly becoming home to more foreign terrorists than ever before. This is not helped by the truce being cut between the government and tribal groups from the northwestern FATA region. Baitullah Mehsud, a warlord widely suspected of plotting Benazir Bhutto's assassination, is leading the charge. The deal comes fresh on the heels of a suicide bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed 41 civilians and injured 139.

While the US demurly denies any direct link between Pakistan and the bombing, the Afghan government has been more than forthright sharing its belief that Pakistan, specifically their ISI intelligence arm, was behind the attack. The rumor mill is awash with tales of varying veracity but one thing is certain. The possibility of success in Afghanistan is directly hinged on a working relationship between its two tenuous neighbors: India and Pakistan.

The lack of news from Afghanistan - a $4 billion G8 pledge for Afghani security and development was pushed to the back page this week - reflects a worrying sense of idleness and complacency. The situation in Afghanistan is growing worse by the day and requires delicate maneuvering by its neighbors to prevent any further decline.

The relationship between India and Pakistan is shaky at best. Foreign pressure and nuclear co-habitation are the two main reasons they still talk and flare-ups, such as the recent protests in Kashmir, are still common, though violence is at an all-time low. But if there is to be success in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India must restrain their public voices and defuse the situation using diplomatic back channels. Their relationship is too perilous to permit unfounded nationalist rhetoric.

Regional stability is at risk but Afghanistan also needs all the help it can get - especially from two such powerful players. The country's development and freedom requires the military cooperation of Pakistan and the economic support and guidance of India. Without these two pillars, peace may never take hold. The bombing represents many things but not a personal attack on India; the Taliban agents carrying out such work are not Pakistani but Chechnians, Uzbeks, and Arabs. Their fight is a global one. India must realize this and work with Pakistan to stamp out such extremism in Afghanistan. The US must help.

It is unwise and unfair for the US to openly criticize the tribal negotiations. Though more jihadis are now in the FATA, this reflects a perceived chance of success in Afghanistan and one of defeat in Iraq. In this case, correlation is not causation. The negotiations may not be to the US' liking but after supporting an autocratic ruler like Musharraf for so long we must be willing to back a democratically elected government, regardless of whether we like their actions. If Karzai can maintain his grasp on Afghanistan and Pakistan can bring quiet to the FATA, even through devolution of power, then the billions of development dollars pouring into both countries may be put to some use. Without security, and at least the semblance of due political process, extremists will continue to prevent any advancement or peace. NATO forces are already planning their withdrawal: shouldn't they at least leave the Afghans a chance of success?