Our Man in Kabul

by publius

It's clearly not as important as today's socialist infiltration of our (socialized) schools, but the Afghanistan election keeps getting smellier:

Afghans loyal to President Hamid Karzai set up hundreds of fictitious polling sites where no one voted but where hundreds of thousands of ballots were still recorded toward the president’s re-election . . . .  Besides creating the fake sites, Mr. Karzai’s supporters also took over approximately 800 legitimate polling centers and used them to fraudulently report tens of thousands of additional ballots for Mr. Karzai, the officials said.

Not good. 

The more you read (pdf) about the complexity and diversity of the "insurgency," the more you realize that many of the insurgents aren't being driven by ideology at all.  Instead, hostility toward Kabul has been a major source of the insurgency's growth.  Many of the new "insurgents" have been excluded from the government and its services.  And they're not happy about it.

The growing evidence of electoral fraud is itself evidence of this ever-increasing hostility.  Popular governments don't need to engage in this business.  But unpopular ones do.  And the more effort we spend propping up an unpopular regime, the more hostility we'll face.

The larger point is that we seem to be involved in an intra-country street fight among rival groups.  What we call the "government" could just as easily be seen as one of many warring factions.  And we don't have any business in this sort of fight.

It's more romantic, of course, to view this war in terms of a modernist liberal government battling ideologically-motivated radicals.  But that's not really what's happening (on either side).

All in all, it's just getting harder to see any coherent purpose for our steadily increasing presence.

[UPDATE:  Also, is it fair to be worried about the White House Afghanistan policy when this collection of people writes a letter supporting it?]

Comments

[jonst]

That "collection of people" is exactly who Obama is aligning himself with on this issue.

As they say in the streets, 'you been warned'.

[Fred]

Going after the Taliban because they blocked the takedown of al-Queda made sense. Since then there has been some mission creep.

Afghanistan cannot be rebuilt; It was never built in the first place. It's not at all clear why we need to shove elections, shopping malls and electricity down their throats.

That said, I am still ticked at al-Queda, especially for that 9-11 thing. The 8th anniversary is in a few days and Osama is still hiding, apparently in Pakistan.

I am not sure how important the elections are. I don't get the sense the Afghanis are united in a desire for Democracy.

[Pithlord]

I wish I had more time for a substantive argument, but I can't. I do want to suggest that the "look who supports this policy I oppose" fallacy is beneath you. You are on board with Pat Buchanan, and several neoNazi and Communist groups, but that has no logical bearing on whether you are right or wrong. Your PS is a demagogic instance of tribalism.

[liberal japonicus]

I've stated my reasons, so it is tough to imagine what would sort of thing would change my opinion (dropping nukes? Taliban fighters with the ability to manipulate the space-time continuum? a CNN poll that inarguably shows 99% of the people of Afghanistan want a Taliban government?), but the following two pieces hit the same notes, and the last one sort of gives a summary of the two sides..

link

link

link

[publius]

Pith - I think it's fair point. This was a throwaway and unnecessary line. But I don't think it's a completely ridiculous argument (how's that for a high threshold?)

Anyway, Buchanan is a loathsome odious person. No argument there. But his foreign policy judgment has been much better than those people. Same with the far Left.

Now, you might say they just got lucky. I would argue though that these people are just generally more skeptical of the efficacy of using military force to solve problems. And I think that this position leads to better policy results. And the reverse of that is true as well.

[janinsanfran]

Apparently part of what's going on there is that the military leadership is so demoralized by being asked to do the impossible that they are getting too hung over to work! I wouldn't have believed this -- except the resigned tone of the comments suggests that it is true that McChrystal had to shut shut down the bars to get his HQ staff functional. Yikes!

Sometimes you have to cut your losses -- especially when you can't define what victory would look like. And you sure don't let the likes of Fred Kagan define it for you ...we've seen that.

[Eric Martin]

So, to sum up, we're undertaking a massive COIN operation - and the foundation of COIN is to win over legitimacy for the government in question.

Off to a smashing success! And to think, I doubted the wisdom of pouring trillions of dollars and many thousands of lives down this particular drain.

On the plus side, at least our government is running a massive surplus, with all of our commitments funded for the foreseeable future, so the money we're incinerating on the altar of folly isn't exactly needed.

[mutt]

Yup.
i was gonna leave it at that, but theres a very false dichotomy (!) being touted by Pirthlord.
While it is irrelevant what personalities support something as a determinant of right & wrong, the opposing lineups dont come close to being of equal stench. (Tho Pat is the equal in spirit of any of his opposites here. )
Unlike US commies & even gnatsies, the lineup backing this war actually has a monstrous track record of enabling mass murder, torture, and the like. Not just cheering it on, but actually being part of the bureaucracy that implements it. A long record of material aid to scumbag regimes, & the like.
A long track record of lies & proven failure at horrific human cost.
In other words, profiteers of wholesale terror.
Compared to that, the locals got nothing, nothing at all. Retail, small potatoes, street corner thuggery or a goofy take on human nature.
If the Obamanists are attracting THAT sort of support for a specific policy, & its getting rave reviews from THAT bunch, rational minds have reason to take note.

[Ethan Hoddes]

I don't know if Buchanan is sceptical of military force, so much as he just doesn't give a damn about anyone outside America (and precious few in America). The US has a geopolitical position such that it doesn't really have the prospect of a war of self-defence in the strictest sense, and if you think that all foreigners are worthless, than you don't really buy the idea that US interests are intertwined with them.

I'm more disturbed that Weekly Standard writers seem to call Bill Kristol "the boss". Referring to anyone but Bruce Springsteen as THE boss (as opposed to MY or OUR boss) is just wrong.

[Eric Martin]

and if you think that all foreigners are worthless

Query: If I support wars that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of foreigners, is that evidence that I place a higher value on their lives than "worthless"?

If so, maybe said foreigners would prefer to be considered worthless than to find themselves incinerated by our deep concern for their well done being.

[mutt]

Among the many stupid reasons ( there ARE good reasons, just unobtainable) to stay in Afghanistan, this is high on the list. The writer seems incapable of understanding our soldiers are getting killed by people- out for revenge. Because we've already killed far more hapless bystanders- OK, suspects linked to militants- than were killed in a fat military target called the WTC.

Im reminded of the demand the US Marines take revenge for the mercs hung from that bridge outside Falloujah, from which so many bad things flowed.....
this strikes me as not very far ot.....

"But when we go -- if we go -- we will have to acknowledge that we have broken our vow not only to Afghans who have supported us -- the Taliban, unlike us, will get its revenge -- but also with the dead of Sept. 11, 2001. We meant well."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702069.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

[jeffkramerak]

I hope he doesn't terrorize like the rest of them...I’m not surprised this fraud took place, I mean, hello, look what country this is taking place…

[Isa Lube]

I hope he doesn't terrorize like the rest of them...I’m not surprised this fraud took place, I mean, hello, look what country this is taking place…

[Eric Martin]

Spammo!

[mutt]

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.php/national-security/1227-tom-engelhardt-
"Cost of a single gallon of gas delivered to the Afghan war zone on long, cumbersome, and dangerously embattled supply lines: Up to $100."

Germane to the subject at hand. As Ive written before, the PLAN, not new, is a disaster. Period. The above article has a great section about "metrics"- you know, benchmarks. Roadmaps. The drivel that gets shoveled out while things go to hell.