No Good War Goes Unpunished

I haven't been pressing the panic button over our prospects for victory in Afghanistan after we leave. I don't have high objectives for our war there, and think that even with a lack of a central government that we can support sub-state actors to resist the Taliban and keep al Qaeda on their heels. But there is a contrary analysis that shares my assumptions about government capacity.

Stratfor is not optimistic about Afghanistan after we leave:

The United States has stated plans to maintain a sizable military presence through 2014, but its ultimate goal is to leave. Washington understands that the Taliban are the single-most powerful force in Afghanistan but also that there are other factions that could block them. However, the United States is not prepared to plunge into the complexities of Afghan politics. Its failures leading up to this moment have left it with no confidence in its ability to do so -- and with no interest in trying. ...

What matters is the military reality on the ground. Karzai does not have a reliable force, and soon there will be virtually no U.S. presence in the country. The Karzai regime's fate is sealed. What may be open is the degree to which the Taliban control the country after the U.S. exit, and whether the pretense that there is such a thing as a Karzai government is maintained. The United States will make some cosmetic concessions to Karzai, but there will be no strategic adjustment.

First, this is pretty damning when you consider that President Obama ordered two separate surges in order to fight the "good" war in Afghanistan. Now, after many added casualties from tripling our troop strength our president doesn't care if we win? That's cold.

Second, I don't assume that the relatively localized Taliban threat can't be beaten with our continued help after 2014. Yes, government forces are infiltrated by Taliban sympathizers. But that doesn't mean the government troops and police still can't be effective enough to defeat the Taliban. Don't assume the Taliban are so monolithic in contrast. They have fissures and defectors, too.

On the other hand, even I thought that our decision to abandon a post-2011 troop presence in Iraq was a mistake, I didn't assume it doomed Iraq. I'm less sure about that. Although external events in Syria are increasing this problem. We still might have an acceptable outcome, depending on our steps in Iraq, and on Iran and Syria are in the future.

It's a shame. Our president talked like Afghanistan was important; sacrificed troops like Afghanistan was important; but seemingly prepares to walk away now like it just doesn't matter to us.

This nuance stuff is making me sick.