The reality of war in 30 seconds…..

I just finished watching Questar’s Modern Warfare ‘Russia in Afghanistan’ documentary and it contained some great and dramatic footage of the ten year war, which ended in yet another defeat of a world power in the Hindu Kush.  Many elements of this bygone war are strikingly similar to the current NATO/Afghan government led war against the Taliban and other insurgents.

Though I could not find an excerpt of the film I watched, here is one from CNN that covers some of the same literal and visual material:

One of  the main themes of the Afghan-Russia war was the Russian use of heavy, large military units and vehicles, which were countered effectively by the mobile and translucent mujahideen.  The Russians massive mechanical army and tactics, like their insurgents’ small, but dedicated efforts, were visual symbols of actors in the conflict.  The Soviets were a great power with resources and technology at their side and the Pashtun mujahideen were seemingly weak and backward.  We of course all now know what was the side to bet on, as the Russians were forced to leave their Soviet-backed government to be overrun at the end of ten years of fighting in 1989.  

Many of the reasons for the Soviet defeat can be seen in today’s NATO/US conflict, but there are some ‘hopeful’ differences.  The documentary wonderfully shows the beautiful, yet amazingly challenging terrain and weather of the Hindu Kush. The Mujahideen skillfully used the terrain to their advantage forcing the Soviets into bottlenecks and treacherous corridors were they could inflict the most damage.  They also used an intricate system of caves to hide and fallback from Soviet offensives.  Both of these attributes can be seen today, as the Taliban attack and then retreat into their mountain caves, daring US/NATO troops to come after them.  Another similarity is mujahideen’s growing strategic skills and aggressiveness.  As the Soviet-Afghan war went on, mujahideen forces became more and more aggressive and started successfully targeting major military and government bases inside of Afghanistan.  These attacks greatly reduced morale and the legitimacy of the Soviet-backed Afghan army.  Unfortunately, this tactic has been used somewhat successfully by the insurgents in today’s conflict, as there has been increasing attacks in Kabul against government institutions, a major attack on French held military base, and of course the tremendously successful assault on a large prison, freeing hundreds of captured insurgents.  These type of offensive attacks have led people in the West to question are ability to win the conflict.  Lastly, the amount of resources, troops and money, being spent in Afghanistan by an outside power, before Russia, now the US, is another accurate comparison.  The Russians spent millions updating their military and sending in ever more troops for the conflict and the US is indeed following a similar path.

As much as the similarities are evident in the two Afghan conflicts, there is also much different, with hopefully in a few years a stable, democratic Afghan society being the greatest example.  The first major difference that comes to mind is the difference in Soviet and NATO tactics.  The Soviets used a much harsher and blunt military and political strategy in the conflict, displacing millions of Afghans and killing hundreds of thousands.  Though the US/NATO led conflict has indeed led to the displacement and deaths of thousands, the degree is to much less an extent, and it is definitely not the professed policy to do so. There is also a major difference in the Western and Soviet-backed governments in place during the conflict, as though both lack(ed) full legitimacy, there is still an important difference in degrees.  The Karzai government was partially elected and is up for reelection this coming new year and has the support of almost the entire international community.  This brings up another key difference, and that is the international and multilateral backing and participation of the current situation, something missing from the Soviet invasion.  

Lastly, in a disturbing trend, the use of suicide attacks during this conflict is a dramatic change from the 1980s Soviet conflict.  Though the Soviet war had many elements involving religious sentiments, including support by Saudi Arabia and from Muslims around the world, this current conflict involves tremendous religious overtones and Islam is a major recruiting tool for the Taliban and other insurgent groups.  To me there is a stark difference in a guerilla war involving insurgency tactics and motivations and one involving suicide missions.  It is a disturbing trend in the Muslim world.

There are many similarities and differences between the two conflicts that I may have missed or did not have time to elaborate, so please fill me and my readers in by commenting.  Do any of the similarities portend to what the conclusion of the conflict may be?  Any of the differences?

For more of a background on the history of Afghanistan/Pakistan and how the Russia conflict helped shape what we are seeing today check out these two articles:

1. Seth G. Jones. “The Rise of Afghanistan’s Insurgency: State Failure and Jihad.” International Security 32 4 (Spring 2008): 7-40.

2. Thomas H. Johnson and M. Chris Mason. “No Sign until the Burst of Fire: Understanding the Pakistan-Afghanistan Frontier.” International Security 32 4 (Spring 2008): 41-77.

Tags: Afghanistan-Russia War, Mujahideen, NATO, Soviets, war

Recent Developments in the Mumbai Massacre effect on Pakistani-Indian relations:

Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based militant group suspected of conducting the Mumbai attacks, has quietly gained strength in recent years with the help of Pakistan’s main spy service, assistance that has allowed the group to train and raise money while other militants have been under siege, American intelligence and counterterrorism officials say.  American officials say there is no hard evidence to link the spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, to the Mumbai attacks. But the ISI has shared intelligence with Lashkar and provided protection for it, the officials said, and investigators are focusing on one Lashkar leader they believe is a main liaison with the spy service and a mastermind of the attacks.

and:

The authorities in Pakistan have raided a camp run by the Pakistani-based militant group suspected by Indian and American officials of conducting the Mumbai attacks, a Pakistani official and an American military official said.  

In the first hours after news of the raid emerged on Pakistani television and in news agencies, a senior Pakistani security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that a man suspected of being the mastermind of the Mumbai attacks had been arrested. But the same official later said that even though about a dozen people had been arrested in the raid at the camp, the suspect, Zaki ur-Rehman Lakhvi, had not been arrested.

First off, this is the second major claim by a US intelligence official connecting Pakistan’s ISI with Lashkar militants being blamed by India and the US for the Mumbai Massacre, and this claim makes the relationship between the entities seem a little closer.  Assisting the Lashkar militants in training and funding does not directly implicate Pakistani officials in the Mumbai attack (An American counterterrorism official said: “It’s one thing to say the ISI is tied to Lashkar and quite another to say the ISI was behind the Mumbai attacks. The evidence at this point doesn’t get you there.”), but it is too darn close.  

States are supposed to be responsible for what goes on in their borders and when elements from within their borders causes security issues for other countries, it is an international security problem.  The ISI helped to create Lashkar-e-Taiba to fight for Pakistani’s rights in the Kashmir region and it appears the government, or at least the ISI and military, have continued to align themselves with the group.  I have been covering Pakistan’s military actions in regards to supporting/battling insurgent groups in and around Afghanistan and they are a maddening to follow, as at times it seems that they are fighting the insurgents bravely and with much sacrifice, but at so many other times, they have been found to be not only in bed with the militants, but seemingly proposing marriage as well!

Pakistan at peace

How is one (say the US, India, Afghanistan) supposed to deal with such an unstable, disjointed, and schizophrenic state.  In one way, the state is aiding and abetting terrorists, and at the same time arresting and raiding them.  The Pakistani government is difficult to analyze because it is hard to know who is actually in charge at any one moment.  Is it the Army Chief Kayani?  The new civilian government lead by President Zardari?  Is the ISI running the whole show, or just itself?  

The US and India, and most likely a majority of Pakistani’s want a strong, stable government that can speak in one voice, but how does one help bring this about?  India may want to retaliate for the Mumbai attack, but doing so would probably further destabilize a Pakistani state, which though deeply, deeply flawed is still better than the complete chaos of a failed one.

Pakistan at war

The rising conflict has already put US interests in Afghanistan on high alert as Pakistan has threatened to move nearly of its 100,000 Afghan border troops to its Indian border if the conflict grows.  And just yesterday, in Peshawar, militants destroyed 160 vehicles meant to be deployed to  support US/Allied forces in Afghanistan.  Once again, Pakistani police and government officials were MIA.

Here is one of best pieces I have read about the conflict: Robert D. Kaplan’s ‘Trouble for the Other Middle East‘

Tags: India, intelligence, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Mumbai, Pakistan, US, war

A French NATO solider looking over Kabul

In September, with the Afghanistan situation becoming more untenable and dangerous, the Bush administration ordered an extensive review of the conflict. The review was headed by War czar Lt. Gen Douglas Lute and included many expert voices from inside and outside government and was due to be completed in time for the new administration. Pieces of the reports assessments and recommendations are finally coming out. Here is what we know about its assessment so far.

The Afghan security situation is definitely precarious and risks becoming worse if the Afghan government continuous to be unable to stretch its authority further outside of Kabul. The report acknowledges that the US/NATO and other international aid groups need to focus on extending good governance and services throughout the country and do whatever they can to bring enough security to cities and towns so economic activity can blossom.

One of the central parts of the review seems to be a greater emphasis on viewing the conflict in a more regional light, especially regarding Pakistan. Though the report does not seem to weigh too much one side or the other on attacks in Pakistani territory, it does strongly admit that the two nations’ futures are forever intertwined and any solution to one involves the other. A senior military official stated:

In this regard, the review urges Mr. Obama to take a far more regional approach to the problem, as Barnett R. Rubin and Ahmed Rashid suggested in their latest Foreign Affairs piece. Another US senior official, involved in writing the report, discussed the lack of progress made by American public and financial report to Pakistan since 9/11:

“We’ve gone seven long years proclaiming that Pakistan was an ally and that it was doing everything we asked in the war on terror. And the truth is that $10 billion later, they still don’t have the basic capacity for counterinsurgency operations. What we are telling Obama and his people is that has to be reversed.”

Of course the destabilizing Mumbai attack makes all of this that much more complicated as the US/NATO desperately want to avoid any serious military build-up or clash between India and Pakistan, as just the fear of such a thing would cause Pakistan’s military to redeploy their Afghan border troops to the south.

From what I’ve read about the report so far, it seems to agree that the Afghan situation needs more troops, but I could not get any specifics. The US military announced that the first brigade, about 3,500 to 4,000 troops, will be deployed to Afghanistan this January and the location of their placement speaks volumes about the war’s progress. Most of these soldiers will be based just south of the capitol Kabul and its nearby Logar and Wardak Provinces, with only a few heading to country’s deep east and south, where most of the major fighting has occurred. Kabul and its adjacent provinces at one time were considered rather safe, but attacks by insurgents have risen steadily in the past year, and it is hoped that these troops can provide greater security. It is unknown exactly where or when the rest of what is reportedly to total 20,000 additional American troops will be deployed, but one can assume the nation’s southeastern border with Pakistan a likely site.

Also of note, according to American commanders, the Taliban is expected to have more of their fighters remain in the country (instead of going back to Pakistan), in order to continue the momentum and territorial gains. So this winter is not expected to be as calm as hoped.

(Photo Source: First two by Zainal Halim, last one by Center for Sacred Story)

Tags: Afghanistan, Bush, NATO, Obama, Pakistan, war

One might think its strange to do a book review on a work published over 40 years ago, but too bad, I just finished Kenneth Waltz’s ‘Man, the State, and War‘ two days ago, so deal with it! Actually, there are many good reasons to discuss Waltz’s first major publication in international relations, mainly the fact that his analysis and conclusions are still largely spot on. The world has changed in a multitude of ways in recent decades, but one thing that has not changed is the anarchial structure of the international system.

In ‘Man’, Waltz layouts three ways one can view the sources of peace and war in world politics. To do this he performs extensive literature of all those who took on the questions of war and peace, including Hobbes, Kant, Rousseau, Cobden, Marx and many more.

1st View - Human Behavior - ” Wars result from selfishness, from misdirected aggressive impulses, from stupidity. If these are the primary causes, the elimination of war must come through uplifting and enlightening men (p.16)” In other words it is the human faults of our leaders and population which lead to war and if we can correct or mitigate these imperfections, war would be less likely.

2nd View - “The internal organization of states is the key to understanding war and peace. Removing the defects of states would establish the basis for peace.” Definition of a “good” state: (a) Marx - according to the means of production, (b) Kant - according to abstract principles of right, (c) Woodrow Wilson - according to national self-determination and democracy. This view argues for basically the Democratic Peace Theory, which states that democratic governments do not fight war with each other and therefore if the world was full of them, war would no longer exist. So the internal nature of a state is the most important factor in world peace.

3rd View - “With many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable among them, with each state judging its grievances and ambitions according to the dictates of its own reason or desire - conflict, sometimes leading to war, is bound to occur. To achieve a favorable outcome from such a conflict, a state has to rely on its own devices, the relative efficiency of which must be its constant concern (p.159).” Waltz is describing a world where states live with no higher authority. A world where each state lives in a self-help system where they must watch out for only themselves as that is what every other state is doing.

Waltz, who twenty years later would write the immensely influential neo-realist doctrine ‘Theory of International Politics‘, admits that all three views have a place in the study of ‘why states do what they do’, but largely leans on the 3rd view that the anarchial state system is the largest influence on state behavior and war and peace. As was mentioned before, much has changed since this remarkable piece was written, the United Nations has grown, the EU was formed, greater and greater legitimacy has been given to multilateral institutions and policies, the global economy has brought states closer together, but states still live in a self-help world where there is no authoritative body to come to their aid.

The battle of what makes states, and for that matter non-state actors, tick and act the way they do will always be debated and Waltz’s ‘Man, the State, and War’ does an excellent job laying out three major frameworks. However, I must emphasize that this is a ‘theory’ book and will not be the smoothest, quickest read.

Which view of world politics makes the most sense to you? Are all three equally important? What views may be missing? Was this the nerdiest post you’ve ever read?

Tags: anarchy, international relations, self-help, theory, Waltz, war, world politics

Tomorrow, leaders and representatives from most of the world’s most powerful states, 20 to be exact, will convene in Washington DC to see what they can do to stop the present economic bleeding and protect against future breakdowns. These leaders face quite the challenge, as the Economist has pointed out in great depth, and I for one am not expecting Bretton Woods II. However, a lot of good can come out of this summit, stronger international financial systems with a greater mandate for action, a greater shared understanding of domestic problems, and a renewed sense of global cooperation that can be transferred to other problems with global reach, aka climate change, terrorism, poverty. According to the Economist, this summit at the very least provides a bull market for new schemes for global economic governance.

Browsing through the American newspapers and television news channels, I could not find much coverage about this weekend’s summit to my chagrin, they were too busy speculating on Hillary Clinton’s role in Obama’s administration. An important subject undoubtedly, but the current economic crisis and its affects spanning the entire globe take precedence. Here is a telling quote from Kevin Warsh, a Federal Reserve governor:

“We are witnessing a fundamental reassessment of the value of every asset everywhere in the world. The establishment of a new financial architecture, thus, is the essential policy response to the greatest economic challenge of our time.”

Now, the issues to be covered at the conference, the regulation and restructuring of international and domestic financial and banking systems, is mostly beyond my expertise for me to comment further, but what I do know is geopolitics, and oh baby does this economic downturn have some consequences in the world of interstate and intrastate conflict.

A world facing a shrinking global economy or one barely growing is a world with a greater amount of dissatisfied states and citizens. In other words, there is less of the pie to pass around within and among states. In some ways, this may lead to more measured and cautious policies, as is the hope with Iran and Russia, with their dwindling energy supply returns, but this is no guarantee. When it comes to China, the world should definitely be concerned of a dramatic domestic economic crisis as its government’s legitimacy is tightly tied to economic progress. All of a sudden, internal unrest may foment to ever greater degrees, destabilizing the country, East Asia, and the rest of the globe.

WR Mead, a primo expert on US foreign policy, argued in his book ‘God and Gold‘ that the greatest fear for world security was not the rise of China or India, but in fact the failure of one. This would mean that East and Southeast Asia would be an off-balanced region, which may be prone to conflict, a la Europe in the early 20th century. Of course any conflict in East and Southeast Asia would involve the US, which is the guarantor of security for several key states in the region.

This short list of possible conflicts exacerbated or brought on by the economic crisis, is just that short, and unfortunately it is more likely that smaller, but still quite deadly and destructive conflicts, could occur in Africa, Central Asia, etc.

So let us hope that the leaders of the DC Summit can get to work and mitigate the effects of this crisis.

(Photo Source: The Economist’s Bill Butcher)

Update: The Washington Post wrote and excellent piece detailing some of the US intelligence communities strongest security concerns related to the economic downturn. Examples are fears that China’s gaining geopolitical leverage and that Al Qaeda may use security holes created by governments facing budget difficulties, on border security for instance. Check it out: Experts See Security Risks in Downturn: Global Financial Crisis May Fuel Instability and Weaken U.S. Defenses

Tags: China, conflict, India, Russia, summit, war