Afghanistan

As we await the 'official' results of the recent election in Afghanistan and pundits ponder the possibilities of voter fraud it seems a very good time for a little deeper reflection on U.S. goals in the region. Although Iraq ca. 2006 posed significant problems for strategists debating the need for a change of course, Afghanistan ca. 2009 has those same policy wonks pining away for simpler days. I have no specific policy recommendations of my own to make, but I would like to draw your attention to a series of thoughtful articles examining the aims of the 'good war'. Each author supports interventionism in some form, but the different visions on offer in the selections below range from the 'minimalist' to the 'maximalist'.

In this article in the London Review of Books, Rory Stewart makes a strong case for more modest interventionist goals. Stewart suggests western forces should abandon their ambitious, but ambiguous 'state-building' project. In contrast to those who advocate further troop increases, Stewart argues for the necessity of leaving a very light footprint. I think those who disagree with Stewart will find him stimulating and refreshing because he is not afraid to question strategic 'sacred cows'. He may be wrong, but, given his knowledge of Afghanistan, he cannot be ignored.

Stewart's arguments can be usefully contrasted with those who support the 'maximalist' approach. In this interview, Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations explains why the Coalition needs to channel more resources into the improvement of Afghan governance. Frederick Kagan in this op-ed in the Washington Post strikes a similar note. Kagan, who hails from a prominent family of conservative intellectuals, was a major advocate of the surge in Iraq and he believes a similar approach can work in Afghanistan.