All of a Sudden, Afghanistan's not going so well? Really?

Not for nuthin', but my April post on Afghanistan seemed to fly in the face of what other's were claiming as our "success" in the region. Lo and behold, a couple of months later, it turns out you really can predict the future by knowing the past and by knowing the way our military leaders refuse to learn from it. Who knows what "success" or even General Patreaus's "progress" even look like? My only real question is, if it is now clear we don't know what we want, how can any realist plans be made to get there? We will just keep trudging along - trying this - and trying that - only to face the same problem - which is that no one wants us there. Those who are violently opposed to our being there will kill anyone who collaborates, and those who may actually want to see a change in government still blame us for the violence. We cannot solve every problem in the world and the Bush strategy of "getting them over there so they don't come here" now seems as outdated as the cold war itself.

We should leave - sooner rather than later. And the reason is clear. With some philosophy of protecting the US or defeating the Taliban (who many want to believe are interchangeable with Al Queda) we are simply sending Americans into harms way with no clear benefit in sight. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Hell, even Iraq isn't Iraq. How many people died in Iraq over the past two weeks from bombings? Whether we seem to care or know about this is not the issue. The issue is that for all our money and all the lives wasted and for all the "surges" and strategies. Both places may only be marginally better for us having been there. And I repeat, MAY be different. It is entirely likely that both places will have a militant religious group in power, either running things or instilling enough fear so to have their way. We need to face that we cannot remake the Middle East anymore than Europe could and move on. Containment from abroad may be the better policy, as it most likely was when were containing Iraq before our invasion. But I'm just saying.

Still Not Winning Them Over in Afghanistan (or Iraq)

Once again I will ask the question. Why do we even bother writing History books? In a previous post on our follies in Afghanistan, I hearkened back to a day when our pre-Vietnam invasion plans might as well have been focused on Iceland for all we knew about Vietnamese culture and politics. So the questions remain, is it that our leaders continue to ask the Military to do things it can't - or does our Military convince leaders it can do things, when it has no clue what it is talking about? Or is it a little of both.? Either way, we should demand better. And we should at least demand that our political and Military leaders can pass the MCAS before they decide to wage war.

Some recent developments in the US's "Marjah" offensive may startle some. But to any of my former History students, it should be more like a "Ho, Hum - I coulda' told you that." Weeks ago, much was made of our "new" strategy in Afghanistan - and how Marjah was a great example - a successful - example of it. Nightly news shows ran with the story of our "control" over the area. That was then and this is now. And what is on the news shows about Marjah? Crickets. Silence.

According to Military officials in charge, things have changed. I would suggest that things never actually changed and that they are realizing the folly of the concept of having "control" over areas of Afghanistan. Here are some of the quotes. And if anything looks familiar to things you know about Vietnam or Iraq - well then you get to take a cookie from the cookie jar - and then cry for the pathetic way yet another war is being conducted in ignorance.


" ... the Taliban have reseized control and the momentum in a lot of ways’’ in northern Marja, Major James Coffman, civil affairs leader for the Third Battalion, Sixth Marines, said in an interview in late March. “We have to change tactics to get the locals back on our side.’’

“You shake hands with them, but you don’t know they are Taliban,’’ Colonel Ghulam Sakhi, an Afghan National Police commander said. “They have the same clothes, and the same style. And they are using the money [we provide to the community] against the Marines. They are buying [improvised explosive devices] and buying ammunition, everything.’’

One tribal elder from northern Marja, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being killed, said in an interview on Saturday that the killing and intimidation continued to worsen.
“Every day we are hearing that they kill people, and we are finding their dead bodies,’’ he said. “The Taliban are everywhere.’’

Oh my. Does any of this look familiar? Did you really expect them to be wearing badges or id bracelets? The Taliban are a part of the fabric of this society. They were allowed to rise again to such power because we were so focused on Iraq and lost the support of the non-Taliban elements of society. As always, the war was lost before it was fought.

The local problem points to the larger issue as American forces begin to expand operations in the predominantly Pashtun south, where the Taliban draw most of their support and the central government (the one nobody likes or understands) is deeply unpopular.

In Marja, the Taliban are hardly a distinct militant group, and the Marines have collided with a Taliban identity so dominant that the movement appears more like the only political organization in a one-party town, with an influence that touches everyone. Even the Marines admit to being somewhat flummoxed. And we've never, ever heard of that before right? Our own military, confused by an entire situation or context on the ground. And here are a couple of good quotes for you.

“We’ve got to reevaluate our definition of the word ‘enemy,’ ’’ said Brigadier General Larry Nicholson, commander of the Marine expeditionary brigade in Helmand Province. “Most people here identify themselves as Taliban.
“We have to readjust our thinking so we’re not trying to chase the Taliban out of Marja, we’re trying to chase the enemy out,’’ he said.

That's a peach isn't it. Its not about defeating the enemy (assuming we knew who it was) but about redefining who the enemy is so that we're actually succeeding instead of losing.

Right.

Now if you look back through these pages a few entries back, you will see that this is exactly what we did in Iraq and now hope to do in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we retreated behind a small enclave and let the rest of the country self destruct - and called it a victory for the surge. All we really did was protect our own troops better (no question an important element) and protect the Western styled central government. All the while, insurgents have been blowing the country apart. This has only increased as our departure is imminent. Again - not an excuse to stay - just the reason to stop the blow-hards clamoring about our success in Iraq.

And so too will any success we claim in Afghanistan be tainted by our delirium. We have no idea what we are doing in Afghanistan or what will lead to any real success. More than likely, we will define the Taliban as a political party and then say we have actually defeated any Taliban insurgents. Meanwhile, the Taliban will have actually take over the entire country again - just like the Vietnamese communists did - simply because we didn't realize how central a part of the country they actually were.

Don't you just love history.

(see more about this story here)

Jerusalem Emotions - When Two Rights Make a Wrong

---

My recent trip to Israel and the West Bank was certainly during a very interesting time. At home in the US, people were up in arms over actions by the Israeli government or actions of the US Government. In Israel - among Israeli's and Palestinians - the feelings were the same. No matter who you were, someone acted stupidly, someone acted insultingly, someone didn't act strongly enough or someone acted too strongly. The bottom line was that many were offended and hurt.

I will be blogging much more about my trip and about my conversations with both Israeli and Palestinian young leaders. But today, the topic of the day is Jerusalem. It is - and yet it isn't the appropriate topic however. I believe the appropriate topic is that grand ole' concept of FEELING information versus THINKING information (thank you Stephen Colbert).

I say this is the appropriate topic because however one feels about any issue relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the pundits and government officials never seem to take into account the FEELINGS of the other side. And more than any factoid, fact on the ground, or historical element - emotions, feelings, slights and indignity lie at the heart of almost every moment that brings us further away from peace.

Admittedly, I think the Israelis are better at insulting others with their matter of factness than any other group. With my political hat on I will say this may very well condemn them to a future of conflict and hostility in the world. But with my cultural hat on I will say - as I have to many students and colleagues - Israeli's are direct, factual, and honest. These are all traits that should be admired. But in a world that is so easily offended and "hurt" their honesty is often harsh and insulting - insulting being an incredibly subjective word of course. The corollary being - "Get Over It!"

But the Americans and Palestinians can share in their own brand of "insulting honesty" as well. And herein lies the crux of the Jerusalem dilemma as well.

One might think the Biden visit to Israel was an inopportune time for the Israeli government to release their announcement of scheduled construction in East Jerusalem. And one might think this announcement was meant to "hurt" or "insult" the Americans and Palestinians who have been clamoring about settlements and East Jerusalem. And in a way it was. But whenever I hear something on the Palestinian side of the equation that seems "insulting" or "hurtful" to Jews or Israel, I ask people to step back, count to ten, and ask WHY that action was taken. I actually reach out to my Palestinian friends and ask them to "Help me understand the motivation." And I have found that this approach not only helps me understand the motivation, but also makes me less angry AND gains me respect from my friends for bothering to ask rather than attacking them. If we had more of this kind of approach we would all be better off.

But in this blog what I am claiming is that so often, Westerners and Israelis are asked to understand the Palestinian perspective rather than the Israeli perspective. In fact, the United Nations stands almost singularly on many days to ask that we understand the Palestinian psyche and not the Israeli. This is no where more true - than on the issue of Jerusalem.

I will preface my upcoming comments by saying that in some way shape or form, autonomy over some portions of Jerusalem and a contiguous border or corridor of some kind will have to be a future reality in any two state solution. It just will - and there is no getting around that. The emotional attachment Palestinians have to Jerusalem being part of some kind of arrangement in the future is real. But right now - I am going to be weighing that attachment against that of World Jewry.

EMOTIONAL FACT - You don't TELL Jews or Israeli's what to do with Jerusalem.

Let me repeat - you DO NOT TELL Jews or Israeli's what to do with Jerusalem.

Jerusalem may be negotiated at some point and MANY Jews and Israeli's support that. But because of both Historical baggage and certain historical realities - to tell Israeli's what to do with Jerusalem is abhorrent and will get the hairs on their back so in a stir that YES, it will derail a peace process. It is that important and yes, it is emotional, and yes I believe more central to Jews than Palestinians.

I believe that both the US Government and the Palestinians need to come to grips with that, even though, as I have said, Palestinians are a people who the world has decided deserve an autonomous state of their own. I also support that. I will just remind, that the occupation of a people - by not allowing them certain rights and freedoms - which is the reality on the ground in the West Bank - is NOT the same as occupying someones established country through conquest or war.

It should be no crime to say that today's Palestinians did not have a state that Israel invaded. They were the indigenous Arabs who fought in a war to keep Jews from having a state and who did not want to share the land. Israel occupies their historic Judea Sumaria (volatile words I know) and formally occupy parts of Jordan. And as soon as I see Jordan demand a return of their land, I will be the first to give a Hechsher to the term "occupation". But since Jordan has formally given up that claim and the long History of Jerusalem is so, well, Judeo-Christian, I simply cannot give the same kind of credence to Arab shouts for Jerusalem. The Jewish baggage, I believe, IS actually more sensitive and is why you DO NOT TELL Israel or Jews what to do with Jerusalem.

Again - this does not mean you do not put it on the table and negotiate around it. It is also not a reason to deny the right of modern Palestinian's to the state they should have had in 1948 (whatever it would have been called - cause we all know it ironically would NOT have been Palestine.)

It is just an important reason why don't publicly TELL Israel what it can and cannot do with its ONLY historically spiritual center. And believe me this is not the same old right wing argument about the Muslim world having Mecca and Medina as more important places. It is about the fact that Israel DID NOT conquer or occupy a place called Palestine and is centrally, spiritually, and emotionally attached to Jerusalem like NO other place. And it actually is important - in this emotional context - that the same cannot be said for the Palestinians - no matter how intellectual a case they make. The reason it does cause such furor is because it seems like yet more of "their land" or their "future state" is being taken away. And that is important to be sensitive about about. But it really should matter that plans area already in place to compensate for that land.

Yes - Jerusalem will be a part of some arrangement going forward. But to hinge a future Palestinian state - that Israel will grant out of land it currently rules - on "settlements" and "apartments" in Jerusalem is a mistake. People that do this understand neither the geography of the area, the spirituality of the place, or the motivations of the Palestinians. As it has been rightly pointed out, settlements and apartments in East Jerusalem, while an important concern, have not been an impediment to negotiations for over 15 years. They are so now, ONLY because of those in the Obama administration who do not "GET" anything I just wrote above. They only believe that East Jerusalem is the same as a "settlement" on the West bank and frankly, it just isn't.

What we should be focused on is the land swaps that have been spelled out in multiple other agreements and the willingness of Israel to hand bank areas at ANY stage of development as they did in Gaza. Oh - and the already established willingness to discuss Jerusalem - but just not to be DICTATED TO about Jerusalem.

It is certainly understandable that the Palestinian Authority would try to "seize the day" with a more demanding US government. But if they were smart, they would not use this card to get more before negotiations begin. If they were smart, an advisor will tell them they will not get anywhere by publicly demanding anything in regard to Jerusalem before hand - but that they should use the Obama card to negotiate more on Jerusalem then they are likely to EVER get again.

But of course, as we travel ever so swiftly back to the beginning of this blog, they will not do that. And so the Israeli's will continue to think the Palestinians will never miss an opportunity to ask for more. And this is why Israel is building in East Jerusalem in the first place. They live in a world where they live as if there were no Palestinians - until such a time as they think they have a willing negotiating partner. That is not the same a s a partner mind you. They are waiting to hear someone say that all the previous plans that have been laid out are now alive again. Until they hear at least something like that, they will live as if tomorrow is the same as today. And they will talk that way as well.

What We Don't Know About Afghanistan - #1533

---

Please insert any other country into this entry, like Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq or Iran, but this story is just another fine example of how little our leaders EVER really know about what they are doing. It goes without saying that this is also another fine story about how little WE know about how little our leaders know about what they are doing in other countries.

One of my favorite stories (that is true and on tape) like this one is from the Vietnam era. Just hours after LBJ really kicked off the Vietnam war, he asked his advisors if we had people on staff who actually knew anything about the Vietnamese people. There was dead silence.

So on that same note it was amusing to hear from General Patraeus (you know the hero of the surge) that recently, the US brought the current Afghan Vice President to speak to the people of Marja on the recent offensive there. The Vice President began to speak and when he was done, there was - dead silence. No one in the audience spoke the language that was just spoken. You should be speechless.

I of course am not because this did not surprise me in the least. It is Afghanistan, and most of our foreign military follies in microcosm.

Before you start looking for reasons why this wasn't so bad, let's be clear about a few things.

1) No one in OUR government understood the country enough to even wonder about this.

2) No one in THEIR westernized, puppet government new enough about the country to care about this.

3) No one in EITHER government noticed during the speech that this was going on and no one there even said anything until it was over. This means they weren't really interested in the first place. They know who and what this guy is all about - so what did it matter. He's the guy who is nothing like them who demands money from them at gunpoint (a US gun.)

So yeah, ha ha, what a silly mix up.

But really, if you didn't know certain things about Afghanistan you should now.

And here they are ...

1) The people who are in charge in the central federal government DO NOT represent the majority of rural people in Afghanistan.

2) We support those federal officials and so most people in Afghanistan DO NOT believe we are acting in their best interest.

3) Afghanistan is a much more complex place and multi-faceted problem then even our best leaders know about AND THIS IS ALMOST TEN YEARS AFTER WE FIRST GOT THERE!

3b. Yes that is maybe the most outrageous thing here - that this stuff STILL happens!

4) Because of 1-3b, whatever our strategy is, when we leave, things will resort to a situation we would today consider unacceptable, but then will consider just fine and a natural part of our victory.

5) For example, even though American deaths have declined dramatically, Iraqi's are killed by insurgents on a DAILY basis in numbers ranging from 10-50. Is that STABILITY?

So enjoy whatever good comes out of the media on Afghanistan. It is a mess, we don't really understand what we are doing there, and they really don't like or get this centralized, federal representative government thing. Go figure.

---

Delahunt’s journey to Mideast upended - The Boston Globe

---

A very good analysis of J-Street and it's desired role in the American Jewish community and the Pro-Israel/Pro-Peace movement.

Delahunt’s journey to Mideast upended - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis

---

The Goldstone Illusion | The New Republic

---

An excellent and fairly balanced analysis of the Goldstone report and the unfortunate bias that is simply a reality at the U.N. and in reports like this. This article be Moshe Halertal by no means gives blanket support for the war. The alternatives are clearly pointed out. But in a manner that is clearer than most who have attempted it, the difference between traditional war and war with a terrorist entity is extremely well done. And again, the question is raised whether any war against such an entity embedded in a civilian population should be carried out at all, given the necessary moral compromises one is forced to make. And that is a valid point. Halbertal artfully allows the reader to entertain this possibility while at the same time asking the reader to put themselves in the shoes of those who do choose the option of war and do try to balance some kind of morality along the way.

The Goldstone Illusion The New Republic

---