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...

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)

On Georgia and Russia

Reports are coming in that a peace plan has been agreed by Georgia and Russia. The details remain largely unclear, but French (and current EU) president Sarkozy, who helped broker the deal, assures that Georgia's territorial sovereignty will be guaranteed by the "spirit of the text." Whatever that means, an end to hostilities is welcome news in and of itself: this has truly been a nasty little war, and our deepest sympathy goes out to everyone who has been affected.

There has been an enormous amount of quality analysis of this mini-war from every conceivable angle. I imagine the military types in particular are falling over themselves for a chance to analyze how Russia's army has performed in a large-scale conventional military operation. We here at Zeitgeist have had several conversations about how we could add to the debate. Rather than trying to analyze the outcomes or their implications, we want to try to provide a framework for understanding why the major players behaved as they did (or in some cases, didn't.)

In situations like these, international politics looks a bit like a high-stakes card game. Each player makes a bet and wins or loses depending on how the other players react. In this particular hand, we had:

President Mikhail Saakashivili; President Saakashivili knows that tensions with Russia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been brewing for a very long time. Also, he perceives his own personal credibility to rest in large part on whether he can keep his election promises to bring the breakaway regions under control. He understands the power disparity between Russia and Georgia, but calculates that any response would have to be limited, because the terrority nominally belongs to Georgia, and also because Georgia has been seriously courting Western allies for the past few years. They have a disproportionate number of troops in Iraq and have upgraded their military with American weapons technology. Mr. Saakashivili doesn't think that the West will stand idly by if Russia does overreact.

President Medvedev/Prime Minister Putin; Leaving aside any discussion of who's actually in charge, Russia is keen to maintain hegemony in its 'near abroad', the area which comprises the former Soviet Union. The color revolutions and reorientation of Ukraine and Georgia toward the West have infuriated Russia, and Russia perceives Georgia's desire to join NATO as a direct threat. Combine all of this with the fact that Russia believes that NATO helped facilitate Kosovo's secession from Serbia. Russia is therefore looking for any plausible reason to further destabilize Georgia by encouraging the breakaway regions, both to punish Georgia and send a message to the West.

EU President Sarkozy; The European Union is keen to not antagonize Russia, a key energy supplier for much of Western Europe. Most of Europe is also much less enthusiastic about Georgia joining NATO than the United States. There is almost no chance that any European country would forcefully intervene in the conflict. Any actions would likely be primarily face-saving (carefully condemn the use of violence and work for any sort of deal that stops hostilities as soon as possible.)

President Bush; Georgia was a key pillar of Mr. Bush's freedom agenda, and relations between the two countries have been especially strong during his tenure. Mr. Bush is clearly unhappy with Russia's actions, but his hands are tied. He is personally extremely unpopular, American troops are busy fighting two other wars, and the injection of American forces into the conflict would be tantamount to a serious escalation. The US pushes a tougher rhetorical line than the EU and agrees to help transport Georgian troops back from Iraq to take part in fighting, but is highly unlikely to intervene otherwise.

Given the motivations and limitations of the main players, it is perhaps a bit easier to understand why things happened the way they did. Unfortunately, this was not a card game. This was real life, and there were real consequences.