Obama must decide whether to talk to the Taliban

Neighboring countries and most Afghans believe that the endgame has begun for a post-U.S. Afghanistan. There are just 14 months for the U.S. military surge to show results while Washington simultaneously prepares to begin its July 2011 troop withdrawal and handover to the Afghan government. Already, efforts to jockey for future control of Afghanistan have been seen among Pakistan, India, Iran and even Russia. Several NATO countries eager to withdraw forces are frustrated. It is clear in the region that someone will have to mediate with the Taliban, but in the absence of U.S. leadership, a tug of war is taking place over who will do it, when, how and where.

Two Claim to Lead Afghan Race for President

Barack the Great?

Citing an increase in attacks and outlining many of the problems in Afghanistan, Michael Gordon of the New York Times states that:

Military experts agree that more troops are required to carry out an effective counterinsurgency campaign, but they also caution that the reinforcements are unlikely to lead to the sort of rapid turnaround that the so-called troop surge in Iraq produced after its start in 2007.

After seven years of war, Afghanistan presents a unique set of problems: a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain.

So what now, President-elect Obama? It appears that more troops will be on their way to Afghanistan, but with the additional troops will come some more problems. The troops must be used in the correct fashion and, undoubtedly, many of them have never been to Afghanistan (e.g. the Marines). There will be a learning curve and with it, unfortunately, more casualties. Can an Obama administration withstand criticism from his own party for such an increase in casualties? Can an Obama administration withstand the long war? We will soon see... For all of his faults, President Bush never budged when it came to casualty count criticism.

Although some of the counterinsurgency lessons learned in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan, it is a very different war zone. Iraq is semi-urban, Afghanistan is rural. Iraq was once a relatively powerful Second World nation, Afghanistan has never been more than a loose confederation of agrarian/nomadic tribes not conquered since Alexander the Great around 300 B.C. Iraq's borders are porous, but not as porous as the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Remember in Eastern Iraq (Western Iraq is a different story...), despite interference from Shiite Iran, there is a mountain range between Iraq and Iran and that mountain range divides Arabs from Persians, which in my mind is one of the key factors undermining Iranian influence in Iraq; there are Shiite Arabs in Iraq, but not many Shiite Persians in Iraq. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, Muslims are Sunni without much to differentiate themselves other than tribal affiliation.

As stated on numerous occasions, I feel the key to Afghanistan is the opium trade that props up the Afghan narcostate. Links between President Hamid Karzai's brother and the opium trade have been speculated for quite some time. In sum, the key to Afghanistan is the tribe and the key to the tribe is making tribes prosperous without the opium trade. President-elect Obama must quickly sound the call to serve and beef up PRTs with agricultural experts and not rely on the military as much as the Bush administration has done.

Reports Link Karzai's Brother to Heroin Trade

I have said this for quite some time - follow the drugs. It is the drug trade that is the main underlying problem in Afghanistan. If we can get the farmers to grow something more profitable than poppies, then there will be less problems in Afghanistan. Too bad we have a shortage of agricultural specialists and USAID/State Department officials willing to go to Afghanistan and work on the PRTs...