No Insurgency Here

Let's be honest: What Afghanistan has on its hands isn't an insurgency, it's a civil war.

BY NADER MOUSAVIZADEH | NOVEMBER 5, 2009

Two conclusions are inescapable from the fiasco of Afghanistan's presidential elections and the McChrystal assessment: There is no electoral solution to Afghan government's crisis of legitimacy, and there is no military solution to the challenge of the Taliban. And when observing the current Afghan conflict not from the perspective of America's post-9/11 intervention, but from Afghanistan's own quarter-century of warfare, a third conclusion becomes still more apparent: What we confront is not, in fact, an insurgency but rather a civil war -- one whose resolution can only be found in a new decentralized Afghan politics based on the enduring, if ugly, realities of power there, and not through another decade of Western military intervention.

If there is one lesson to be drawn from the withdrawal of Hamid Karzai's main rival from the second round of the elections -- and his own subsequent appointment as president for another term -- it is that the ability of outsiders to influence the existing politics of Afghanistan is now near zero, even when the object of our entreaties is a politician whose very existence has long depended entirely on Western support and funding. Like a patient rising from a hospital bed after a near-death experience only to rob his doctor blind on the way out the door, Karzai has conclusively demonstrated that his utility to Western interests -- as well as to the Afghan people whom he's grossly robbed of a chance for representative government -- is over. 

This leaves the West with a stark dilemma. We can proceed to invest a government we ourselves have called fraudulent with an authority that few Afghans are willing to grant it, hoping it will eventually eschew the corrupt behavior that has sustained its power to date. Or we can make the unquestionably more difficult decision and insist, as a condition of our continued support, that a new political compact be put in place. 

The reality is that the War of 9/11 against al Qaeda and its backers will not be won -- or lost -- in Afghanistan.

It is time to help Afghans resolve their civil war in the only way that is likely to help, and not further hinder, their search for security and stability. Painful as it is, the time has come to set aside the illusion of Afghan democracy and implement a new federal power-sharing agreement between those Afghans willing and able to provide security and governance in a sustainable manner for the Afghan people. The best chance we have of achieving minimal Afghan objectives at an acceptable cost to the West is by establishing a new Loya Jirga -- drawing on the shrewd diplomacy of the 2001 Bonn Conference and the persistent muscle of the 1995 Dayton Agreement, but looking forward as a New Afghanistan Conference.

Majid Saeedi/Getty Images

 

Nader Mousavizadeh, a special assistant to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan from 1997 to 2003, is a consulting senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. 

PG1923

10:17 AM ET

November 6, 2009

Kofi Annan

Kofi Annan was one of the most corrupt UN leaders of all time. So I would assume Mr. Mousavizadeh knows a lot about corruption. This new Loya Jirga he wants will be even more corrupt then the current government. Afghanistan is corrupt and will remain so for the foreseeable future with or without the Americans.

This is hardly a civil war. It is a war between the Americans and the Taliban who they removed as the government of Afghanistan. If the Americans leave, the Taliban will assume control and probably will not want to be removed again by the Americans. I doubt they will be wanting to bring the bad guys back for an encore.

At some point, the American public will insist their troops leave, and they will. How long it takes for the Americans to leave is anybody's guess, but for Obama it better be before 2012.

 

EXOTTOYUHR

10:18 AM ET

November 6, 2009

The North Caucasus?

I recommend that you look into the way Russia has been governing the North Caucasus, with a network of local warlords backed by Russian troops; this has worked out very badly, as pointed out here on ForeignPolicy.com. The US would hopefully not have its own soldiers deliberately terrorize the populace (unlike the Russians, if I remember rightly); but in a decentralized arrangement in Afghanistan, I don't think we'd be able to keep control of the secular Afghan warlords we'd be backing. I think they would be as brutal as their counterparts in Chechnya, Dagestan, and Ingushetia -- or Tajikstan and Uzbekistan, to cite more local countries.

I've complained bitterly about the cruelty and depravity of the Pashtuns in the past, but I've learned that the other peoples of Afghanistan, even seemingly benign cultures like the Tajiks (Ahmed Shah Massoud's ethnicity) or the Hazaras, are really not much better -- the Tajiks in particular are about equally bad. (Both the Tajiks and the Pashtuns got their pederasty from Persia, which got it in turn from classical Greece; and no culturally-Persian or Persian-influenced culture has ever been unwilling to use torture early and often.)

However, the people of Afghanistan will remember that we came promising democracy and human rights. If we abandon them, we will be hated; if we retreat, we'll be handing Osama bin Laden an enormous propaganda coup (remember how much Ahmed Shah Massoud's stock rose after the Soviet Union made peace with the Panjshir?), as well as the strategic initiative if he wants to use it. Our credibility is already at a low ebb, between Bush's failure to respond well to Putin's invasion of Georgia and Obama's inability or unwillingness to oppose any totalitarian du jour (Putin certainly included).

I think we need to show that we still have fight in us, and we still mean to keep our promises -- especially our military ones. If we don't, I hope we don't mind letting Japan and Germany become military powers again; world affairs will certainly be in need of another stabilizing, ah, axis. (If they don't prove up to the task -- which is certainly not impossible, we did a number on their national wills in WWII -- I suppose I'd better start learning Chinese.)

 

JOHNUW93

10:23 AM ET

November 6, 2009

What is the objective

If the objective is to set the stage for various warlords, tribal leaders, and other local actors to assume the reigns of power, then the best way to bring that about is immediate withdrawal. A new conference sponsored by the UN and a Holbrooke-led US delegation would only signal that turning things over to the Afghans is not on the agenda. It would say that only an outcome acceptable to the West would be allowed. This author wants to have it both ways, and that is simply not going to happen.

The original objective was to smash Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They are smashed, and moved across the border to Pakistan. If the only viable objective is to reestablish feudal social relations, then there is no reason to stay at all.

 

GRANT

10:00 PM ET

November 6, 2009

Just because it is a civil

Just because it is a civil war does not mean that it cannot be an insurgency as well. All that is required for it to be an insurgency is a focus on asymmetric warfare instead of conventional fighting. Of course we must also remember that the governments involved like to avoid calling these things civil wars simply because of the bad sound it has, but we should call an insurgency an insurgency.

 

TLWINSLOW

5:02 PM ET

November 9, 2009

It's not about Afghanistan it's about Pakistan

The game, set and match to stop radical Islam is to keep them from getting nukes. Right now Pakistan has them, and Osama bin Laden's not dumb, is he? The Quran tells him to spread the territory of Sharia by force and kill all who resist, and he's already written the Great Satan U.S. off, so once he's got nukes he'll have plenty of suicide jihadists willing to take them to the U.S. and set them off. It's sad that Westerners are history ignoramuses when it comes to Islam, since so-called fundamentalists have their heads in the 7th century when it began its rise and spread. Where can you catch up on the history lessons fast accurate and free? Try the Historyscoper's site at http://go.to/islamhistory

 

GERONIMO

6:12 PM ET

November 9, 2009

No insurgency here

Nader Mousavizaden proposes dumping the Karzai regime and instead letting a loya jirga take it from there. No objection on principle,but the steps this would take according to Mousavizaden are far too complicated, time-consumintg and abstract for the temper aof the times as well as for the cast of characters involved. Lookit, what we want in order to be able to pull out is an undertaking by the confederation of tribes and notables which takes over that it will actively prohibit the presence on Afghan soil of any group intent on launching terror attacks on the United States. As a bond to this we would demand the presence of an American inspection force on Afghan soil.The confederation guaranteeing all this would have to include the Taliban.