This week I happened to meet one of the panjandrums of the British Foreign Office, a man who has been at the center of issues involving the Middle East and Afghanistan. What he had to say was a fine example of the FO’s persistent institutional personality. The invasion of Iraq, this man held, had been a mistake, and he was against it. The campaign in Afghanistan is an even more dire mistake. George W. Bush, he believed, had greatly over-reacted to 9/11. The Taliban were disposed at first to throw al-Qaeda out of the country, and a subtler president could have served the national interest better and at less cost by manipulating an open split between the two groups. In his view, fighting has achieved nothing, and never will. The only course of action now is to strike a deal that gives the Taliban what they want. You cannot put down an insurgency with military measures, he concluded as though this was the last word, and the Communist insurgency in Malaya, for instance, had not been defeated.
Listening to this Foreign Office grandee, I couldn’t help being reminded of my old friend Professor J. B. Kelly, in his day the foremost authority on the Persian Gulf and who also coined the immortal phrase “the preemptive cringe” to describe the FO’s manner of operating. In a rather obscure but telling dispute, the Sultan of Oman had retained him as an adviser when Saudi Arabia seized the Omani oasis of Buraimi. The Saudis were completely in the wrong, but they were more important than the Omanis and therefore the Foreign Office was determined to let them have their way. Just a glance round the room was enough, John Kelly told me, to reveal officials whose careers had been devoted to internalizing all the bad things ambitious foreigners charged them with, and consequently devising how best to haul down the flag. They were so long accustomed to appease and surrender to strength and violence that they couldn’t imagine anything else.
To come to terms with the Taliban now would expose Afghans and Pakistanis to tyranny, with many of them becoming refugees or corpses. In his recent pronouncements, President Obama is similarly pressuring Israelis to come to terms with Fatah-Hamas who would make refugees or corpses of them. The preemptive cringe is turning into policy, and it’s deadly.
For once, I have to disagree. Afghanistan has not changed as a society in 2,000 years. They are tribal and xenophobic and will never make anything like a nation state. Iraq had the potential to be a modern state, or at least as close to one as Islam allows. That will never be true of Afghanistan. Our entire enterprise is dependent for logistics on a hostile Pakistan which is our real enemy. The Russians have successfully limited our ability to use alternate bases in the republics to the north. I think it is time to get out and see what happens to Pakistan when we cut off aid. Our natural ally is India.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey are tribal,xenophobic, and will never make anything like a nation-state.
That being said, however, coming to terms with the Taliban will end up putting the Taliban in charge again, with the same murderous, psychotic oppression they inflicted on Afghanistan the first time.
It won't be a nation-state, but that will be small consolation for the raped, mutilated, and murdered.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe policy you outline is simply the internal dynamics of a government bureaucracy externalized on to the world stage.
Leadership is leftist/secularist, decision making is risk-avoiding, the career is to putter on through until retirement. Its the tyranny of clerks. The employees who are hired and advance in these social systems should never be put into positions of decision-making, but they are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDavid:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think enough is enough. Afghanistan is unwinnable. It's not a war. It's a place where our soldiers go to lose legs and worse while trying to win "hearts and minds." Our boys are not fighting for their country. At best, they are there to kill Taliban and Al Qaeda, but their collateral damage has turned the population off. As a former officer, I wouldn't want to serve in Afghanistan (or Libya, for that matter). I certainly wouldn't want my son to do so either. Look at Steyne's and West's article in the current NR. For a great book by a foreign correspondent about her life in Afghanistan and Pakistan over the last decade, read "The Taliban Shuffle" by Kim Barker for color and insight into the leaders of that country. In conclusion, like the song says, you have to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
You are assuming, sir, that these men or women operate under the courage of their convictions; they do not. People who do rarely, if ever, are hesitant in their decision-making, or reclusive in their honor. Here in America, we have had an Executive Branch and, until November of last year, a Legislative Branch that has been nothing short of dastardly in their collective cowardliness. I hope you'll give us some more time (say, till January 2012) to fix our native problems, and return this country of mine to the pre-eminent position on the planet that is its' destiny.
As for the United Kingdom, we are from your stock, sir, and have shed blood and guarded many a wall with you. Our friendship, devotion, and duty to one another - despite recent events - will never falter ... no matter how many idiots we elect who send back your Churchills and treat you with less than the respect and honor you deserve.
We will return to the forefront, and so will you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Michael Kennedy. Sorry Leveut, but if the only thing preventing the rapes, mutilations and murders is our continuous blood and treasure, and if the Afghans don't ever step up - like after 10 years - we'll have to be there forever. And that's just not doable and no one is ever going to put up with that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOur experience in Afghanistan is painfully similar to that of the British oh so long ago, and for the reason expressed above: Afghanistan has not changed from Kipling's day. We should declare victory, give a stern warning, and decamp.
I am no fan of Pakistan, which is shown in the dictionary under the definition for 'treachery.' We should not be supporting them to the tune that we are, but if we leave, China will simply move in and establish itself as the regional troublemaker.
This the Chinese century, and I fear that it will be long and ugly in ways we cannot yet even imagine.
[PS I have a way to combat the CAPTCHAs: I keep the sound off and will not do business with any company so advertised. Sorry, NRO.]
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusebandmom
Sorry, Michael Kennedy is wrong in his analysis of Afghanistan, and is simplistic with respect to Pakistan and India.
That is separate and distinct from what the proper role of the US is with respect to Aghanistan, and Pakistan and India.
"and if the Afghans don't ever step up - like after 10 years - we'll have to be there forever. And that's just not doable and no one is ever going to put up with that."
When did WW2 and the Korean war end? When did all of our troops finally leave Europe, Korea, and Japan? "We" have put up with defending those areas with our troops for 65+ years now. 65+ years is not forever, but 10 years so far pales in comparison.
Some things are "too hard." Invading Iran to overturn Ahmadoinjihad and the Moolahs would be "too hard." Invading China to "save" Tibet would be "too hard." The Afghanistan "thing" might be "too hard." But preemptively cringing is not the way to determine whether it is "too hard" or not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a wonderful and disturbing phrase, 'preemptive cringe'. I don't think that Britain or France will surrender in full to the forces of Islam and PC; I fear that we will see some sort of fascism rear its ugly head. Both nations are socialist but the socialism tends to be at the expense of natives. Militarily, however, both nations are proving to be impotent. Even with the help of the US, they are neither able to articulate a coherent goal for a war nor are they able to carry it out (running out of bombs after a few months). The preemptive cringe in diplomacy has resulted in the inability to do much more than cringe militarily.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah Leveut. Everyday we hear about our troops getting maimed and killed in Germany and Japan and Korea. If, after 10 years Afghanistan was like Korea after 10 years there would be no problem.
Let's face it. Those countries are civilized. Afghanistan is not. We can be there 1000 years and on the day we leave they go back to the 7th century.
Enough is enough. We need to leave now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVery interesting.
As an American I wonder about Britain's press for adventure and expedition in Libya. Presumably the FO scholars are cunning enough to justify it while condemning similar activities. Perhaps that's their stock in trade.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse