Reality Check on Bruce Riedel’s Afghanistan Approach

Micheal O’Hanlon and Bruce Riedel’s defense of the Afghan situation in the September 1, 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal is humorously surprising. It goes to show how detached are some of President’s advisers from the reality. Bruce Riedel has been instrumental in giving shape to the Af-Pak strategy of the Obama Administration. The WSJ Article establishes the fact that armchair experts on Afghanistan over-look the obvious reality for the sake of supporting a policy. The article is an attempt to focus on the rays of lights in the overcast Afghan skies; an attempt which does not stand the test of reality.

The first contention of the authors is that the Afghan people want success. It is not necessary that the U.S. and Afghan definition of success should be overlapping. The description of Afghanistan as “graveyard of empires”, that Riedel refers to in the article, asserts the independent nature of the Afghan people. Success for many Afghans could imply (and in reality does) withdrawal of foreign troops from the country.

The second contention is that the Afghans are still largely pro-American. Really? Being anti-Taliban does not necessarily imply being pro American. Moreover, the Afghan people are outraged over the civilian casulties of the anti-Taliban operations conducted by the international forces. Afghan poeple in some regions have even taken up arms aganist the international forces.

Third, the Afghan Army is reasonably effective and the police are showing encouraging signs. This seems to be in direct conflict with General Stanley Mc Chrystal’s assessment of the Afghan Army and Police as insufficient. If the national forces in Afghanistan are gaining any modicum of strength then why are the international troop levels soaring? Many Afghans see the police as part of the problem especially when police operations leave behind a trail of devastation.

Fourth, the economy is better. It’s heartening to know that when the economic powers around the world are facing a downslide, the war-weary economy of Afghanistan is showing signs of recovery. The so-called stability of the Afghan economy is artificial as it continues to rest on international aid. The economy of Afghanistan faces some real challenges over the long term: unemployment, poverty, challenges to reviving agriculture, dependence of national economy on opium trade, devastation of power, transport and communication systems.

Finally, elections were not all bad. For Micheal and Bruce elections held in the midst of violent attacks and complaints of fraud are “not all bad”. This is not to mention the horror stories of how some of the people who voted in the elections were treated by the Taliban after the polling ended. Had a fraction of these discrepancies in the electoral process occurred in Saddam’s Iraq or Ahmadinejad’s Iran, the U.S. would have raised criticized it as non-democratic.  

The specifics apart, the over-all approach with regard to Afghanistan is disturbing. The Obama Administration seems to be more focused policy planning and envoy diplomacy and seem to over-look the ground reality. Participation and involvement of the Afghan people in the future of Afghanistan has become minimal. The U.S. might be equipped with policy experts, President Obama might be nurturing noble intentions with regard to addressing the problems of Afghanistan but the key to Afghanistan’s future is in the hands of the local people. Dr. Farid Younus, Prof. at the California State University, said something very interesting to me, “What will happen if the western forces leave Afghanistan? The country could witness another civil war, but we will solve our differences. The Afghans want to be in-charge and responsible for their own future.”