The Kabul government wasn't party to this critter.
That, in itself, might be a dealbreaker in a sense. Because as sure as the sun rises the odd-lot of tribes currently reigning in Kabul is doomed to fall before the Pashtun factions that are the core of the Taliban. Right up there with "don't get involved in land wars in Asia" (oops!) is "never bet against the Pashtun in Afghan power politics". The critical factor will be the Talibs willingness to be patient and let the Trumpkins distance themselves from this thing, so when the inevitable collapse of the current Kabul regime happens they can wave their hands and make it none of Our Business.
There are also a lot of other people with interests in keeping the Afghan pot boiling, and it will not be simple for the main parties to this agreement to keep them from mucking things up. Various Islamic extremist factions, Afghan tribal interests, Americans who will see this as rightly a recognition that the past 19-odd years have been a complete and utter waste of blood and treasure...
But, frankly, it isn't Our Business; the U.S. has little reason to be picky about who is mulcting the opium trade from the gaddi in Kabul. Provided whoever they are keep the place relatively quiet and regional unrest on the downlow it's a "win" for U.S. interests. When the Taliban is the organization in charge? If they can do that, then more power to them, and us.
Nike employs people who helped kill GIs in Vietnam to make shoes for American feet; why shouldn't Talibs who shot down Americans in the Korengal Valley grow opium for American junkies?
Is this a "good" way to end this mess? Probably not. But, then, there really is no "good" ending, just a selection of bad and worse ones, and this is probably as good as it gets.
Update 3/2: As you might expect, the Kabul government immediately shoved a spoke in this deal, refusing to agree to the prisoner exchange portion.
Plus the Taliban - or some part of the anti-Kabul rebellion - bombed a soccer game almost immediately after a ten-day "reduction in violence" ended. Apparently the Taliban has committed to not whacking GIs but has left the Kabul government fair game.
As Trump famously said about presidenting; who knew this stuff would be so hard?
Agreed on all counts, Chief.
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with an old Bill Cosby routine about God? Part of it goes, "he's trying to figure out how to get us out of Vietnam without it obviously being a miracle."
There are only two ways to win a 4GW war as the invader of a country with a different culture and language:
1. Don't do it
2. Genocide and live with international defamation
The next best way to lose a 4GW war as the invader is to declare victory and go home. That's what happened in Vietnam and what we're trying now.
Tricky Dick Nixon was smart enough to make it look like a victory (which is what the US desperately needed at the time).
I'm not sure what we need this time so I'm watching with bated breath and praying it doesn't get screwed up somehow (like happens to nearly all Trump initiatives).
We've got what we "need"; an armed force that has become, in effect, a professional mercenary army - not that the people wearing the US uniform are "mercenaries" in the traditional sense, but that it is the opposite of "the nation in arms" that the republican tradition presumed it would be - and a We the People utterly disconnected from and disinterested in this "war".
DeleteThat's why I said that one important element is the Talibs being patient and letting the US forget this place before taking over. IF they do, by the time they get around to executing the former Northern Alliance leaders nobody in the Land of the Big PX will give a shit.
I note that this deal allows America to maintain 8,500 troops in Afghanistan.
ReplyDelete8,500 is a lot of hostages and there will be no end of villains to exploit them
Troops remain in AFG = no actual end to the wear for the U.S.
DeleteSeems like the usual kind of fake accomplishment AND usual kind of wannabe-imperial establishment prevails.
The 8,500 number is the target after four months. Yes, that's a lot (FWIW, that's where the numbers were at the end of Obama's second term). The deal then specifies that all NATO forces will be gone by fourteen months. So, no - if followed to the letter, not 8,500, not 850, not 85...gone.
ReplyDeleteWill that happen? Honestly? I doubt it. There's simply too many boobytraps there, the worst being the problem that way too many Afghans will be endangered by the return of the Taliban. Here's a good piece in the WaPo that lays out just exactly how difficult it will be for this NOT to break down:
ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/afghanistan-peace-deal-taliban/2020/02/29/c2d2ae14-5af2-11ea-9000-f3cffee23036_story.html
And, as I said in the piece; there are a fair number of people here in the US who aren't going to be rooting for this to happen; the "sunk cost" faction who will refuse to accept that the money and lives lost were for nothing.
Am I hopeful? Sorta. I'd like to see this place become simply the tribal backwater it has been for most of history. So this is, at least, a hope. Do I have MUCH hope?
No.
I have not seen the slightest indication that the Americans negotiated with authority given by their allies who have troops in AFG as well.
DeleteIs this an arrogant way of telling Europeans that they are mere unpaid auxiliaries?
No, of course not.
DeleteThey get paid just like any auxiliary.
Trumpkins are about NATO like von Stroheim in Five Graves to Cairo was about the Italians.
In the film the Afrika Korps staff is meeting and one of Rommel's dogrobbers gives a figure for the end strength of the army. "Four hundred thousand, if you count in the Italians!" pipes up one of the Italian staff pogues. Von Stroheim gives the Italian that cold, superior von Stroheim glance and replies:
"I never count in - or on - the Italians."
Same-same...
The Afrika Korps/Army and Kesselring were actually rather appreciative of the Italians in Africa, knowing about the poor conditions they had to fight in (inferior material et cetera).
DeleteBesides, I have a running gag about Italians, and this fits the opportunity:
https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/a0Rz23q_460swp.webp
Sadly, I think the Trumpkins are more like the movie Rommel than the real one.
DeleteAnd the Italian thing is awesome. IF you can't beat 'em...
Remember I mentioned that there were Americans who wanted this to fail?
ReplyDeleteOkay, well, here's Liz Cheney, the fucking numbskull spawn of the Prince of Darkness himself, as quoted in the WaPo piece:
"Warning that the agreement could threaten the security of the United States, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said in a statement that “releasing thousands of Taliban fighters, lifting sanctions on international terrorists, and agreeing to withdraw all U.S. forces in exchange for promises from the Taliban, with no disclosed mechanism to verify Taliban compliance, would be reminiscent of the worst aspects of the Obama Iran nuclear deal.”
Now Liz Cheney is, as noted above, a fatheaded oxygen-thief. But she's a wind dummy for every other fatheaded PNAC troll, and that's gonna be their take on this. The Taliban isn't the only obstacle.
Oh, and you know who else is name-checked in the WaPo article as ripping this deal as the worst since Obama played all that golf?
ReplyDeleteJohn Fucking Bolton
That right there tells you that this is probably the best peace deal since sliced white bread.
Bolton.
Jesus wept.
Of course all the Neocons will oppose this, that is a given. A lot of the R2P crown on the left are complaining about what will happen to women's right, etc. with this deal. The interventionists will always want to intervene.
ReplyDeleteBut since the final withdrawal happens after the election it brings up questions about what might happen depending on who wins. Ironically, as the establishment guy, Biden is probably the most like to want to keep troops there though the Afghanistan Papers revealed that he was a very strong and vocal advocate during the Obama administration for drawing down there and only focusing on counter-terrorism. I seem to remember that he was skeptical of the Afghanistan "surge" as well.
So it appears that any of the three likely future Presidents - Trump, Biden and Sanders, support either withdrawal or a far more limited presence.
The details and making it happen will, though, definitely be huge challenges. But I'm hopeful that we've, collectively, turned a corner on Afghanistan.
Oddly enough - since I was the one who posted this - I'm NOT particularly hopeful. It's everyone - neocons, theocons, thugs, mugs, buggerers, etc (insert Blazing Saddles list here...) that have vested interests in seeing it fail. The Kabul crowd will be justifiably terrified, knowing that they're getting what Saigon got back in the day. I'd be shocked if this actually came to anything.
DeleteThat said...it SHOULD happen. There's no way short of the Roman way for the foreign occupation to "win", and short of that it's simply pointless bloodshed. Like I said in the post; there's no "good" ending here, just a variety of bad and worse. This will be bad...but just shambling on bleeding is worse.
And while Libya has cost the "R2P crowd" whatever political power they had in the congeries of social democrats that constitute the American "left", don't count the PNAC gang out of the GOP. There's a lot of political and financial throw-weight there. I'm not convinced that if they can slew enough Fox and Friends segments around they'll convince Trump that there's enough gold in them thar Afghan hills or something to convince him to break with this deal...
I lauded the Berlin conference on peace of Libya as the way to go and was hopeful its process could work and prove a superior alternative to power adventurism.
ReplyDeleteNow the UN envoy resigned, presumably because he thinks it's a failure (officially, it's about personal health).
I wish success to AFG peace efforts, even if they are nothing but face-saving for a disengagement.
"Every war is easy to start, but it is extremely difficult to finish" - attributed to Sallustius (though I never found the Latin original)