The Policy Farm Team

-Reese Neader-

Redefining the Long War:

Under the Obama Administration, U.S. military strategy has refocused on the conflict in Afghanistan. Military operations in Afghanistan have served as a crucible for refining counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, and counter-insurgency tactics that suit the new, geopolitical realties of warfighting in the early 21^st century. This new tactical and strategic conception of U.S. interests has generated “Afpak” operations.  These operations will mark a shift in strategy from force projection to population protection; considered by military experts to signal a sustainable security strategy for the region. Part of Sec. Gate’s new strategy in “Af-Pak” has included the appointment of Gen. Stan McChrystal as commander of operations. As U.S. strategy pivots towards population protection, ongoing efforts to arm and train local militias have been marginally successful. The strain placed on U.S. forces has given tremendous opportunites for young military officers who are staffed at remote firebases to train Afghan militia.

The Council on Foreign Relations has labeled Obama’s strategy a “reasonable first step.” But many high-profile U.S. analysts are calling for further reformulation of regional strategy, framing their debate as a switch to “PakAf” operations…

The Mystery of Pakistan:

The question over the stability of Pakistan is the true wild card in developing a successful AfPak strategy. Some analysts have deeply questioned the stability of the country. Pakistan is a country whose makeup reflects the growing issue of the effects of devolution on global stability. Even provinces within the country that are intimately connected to the national government, such as Sind and Baluchistan, are fractured and decrying efforts by the central government to centralize power. Government attempts to modernize the country’s infrastructure, such as the port of Gwadar, have had limited success and been criticized by regional interests. Sustained fighting in the lawless borderlands between Pakistan and Afghanistan has created a new, unified fighting force that is redefining military operations in the region and posing new challenges. The Islamic insurgency in Pakistan has gained political traction, and the northern and western portions of the country have become increasingly lawless and fallen under militant control. Tribal provinces in the border regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan have been traditional seats of rebel activity, but most recently Baluchistan,  a key western province in the country, has experienced separatist clashes.

Pakistan has signaled its willingness to shift troops from its contentious border with India, to fight the Taliban. The government of Pakistan has come under criticism from Western security officials for negotiating with militants. Concessions have included the institution of Sharia, or Islamic Law, in captured militant provinces. Attempts to appease the militant surge with legislation have been unsuccessful. The Swat Valley, formerly a peaceful area, has fallen under Taliban control. In April, President Zardari signed legislation that allowed the Malakand division of the NW Frontier Province to practice Sharia.  After Sharia was instituted, human rights groups jumped over stories of flagrant human rights abuses perpetrated under Taliban governance. But for the Pakistani Army, there is little choice other than negotiation. Previous forward operations in the border regions have been repulsed, and government police have been under assault.  Taliban militants have combined with frontier insurgents to bring the fighting within 100 miles of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. NATO supply lines located in Pakistan have become increasingly fragile, and recently have come under attack. In response, U.S. Predator drone attacks have escalated in tribal regions of Pakistan. U.S. counter-terrorism experts have lauded the success of drone strikes on alleged Al Qaeda targets. The stability of Pakistan is also challenged by an increasing volume of refugees, both from Afghanistan and from areas of heavy fighting between the government and regional separatists.

New Players in an Old Game:

As NATO expands the quest continues to define the mission of a post-Cold War, collective security organization.  The United States desperately needs Russian cooperation. Expect Russia to continue to press its advantage and seek demands and concessions in exchange for “pressing the reset button” with the U.S. Also involved in broader regional strategy is a newly defined role for Iran, who has offered to train Afghan police (but not in cooperation with NATO) in an attempt to help stabilize the situation. In Febuary, NATO’s commander publicly announced that the alliance would not oppose individual member states from forging bilateral agreements with Iran concerning supply lines. Recent developments involving low-level talks between Iran and the United States have revealed that the governments are prepared to strike a deal.

The U.S. has had to seek alternative roles for regional players in response to poor mission performance by NATO and the United Nations. U.S. attempts to outsource stabilization programs have been met with frustration. Recently, USAID was involved with a very public row involving the United Nations Development Program, which admitted to “shoddy construction” projects and “lapsed reports”.  Some experts, turning to regional non-state actors for potential solutions, have proposed recruiting the strong Sufi communities in the region that are under attack from the Taliban. Perhaps on a positive note, the increased tension placed on Pakistan has brought China into the fold of the Long War; the two countries have begun cooperating extensively to co-manage their lawless border areas.

Restatement of the Mission:

Cold War conceptions of traditional, large scale warfare have been replaced. Massive U.S. military expenditures have rendered the global arms race obsolete, but in the course of this process the mission of U.S. force projection has been transformed. “Shock and Awe” restated the ability of U.S. forces to fight a conventional war; and the aftermath demonstrated the striking vulnerabilities and limitations of conventional forces. But lessons have been learned and continue to be learned. Population protection strategies have been a game changer in Iraq. Counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operational strategy has been reinvented in the process. As a result of unfolding events from 2001, elite conceptions of warfighting and peacemaking are being revolutionized. U.S. Military strategists have discerned the imperative of global hegemonic stability. Their mission is to protect the global economic infrastructure and preserve a social system of client states and economic partners that are maintained by the engine of U.S. consumption and economic growth. Basing research off of traditional economic and sociological constructs of “periphery/core” relationships between the developing and developed world, top military experts have rendered new, holistic models of warfighting that perceive sustainable economic and social development as the foundation of military victory in the 21st century. By integrating the “AfPak” population into the global core, the United States achieves victory. By dislocating the financial assets of hostile regimes such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda from the global financial system the United States achieves victory. By strengthening and retooling the political, economic, and social infrastructure of failing states like Afghanistan the United States achieves victory. Erstwhile, by achieving energy independence and suffocating the commodities markets that hostile states rely on, the United States achieves victory in the Long War. Regrettably, hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and diplomatic political capital siphoned off to achieve this understanding.

Further,  the conflict in “AfPak” highlights the crucial, and regrettably forgotten element of the nature of the Long War. Militant Islamic extremism is not engaged in a war against the United States;  it is fighting a war within Islam about the expression of Islam. It is a bloody reformation; a war of religious extremism against the moderate, secular institutions that anchor Muslim states such as Pakistan and (hopefully, one day a stable) Afghanistan. These states are viewed as constructions of colonialism that pervert the teachings of Islam.  This conflict, and the broader conflict that has enveloped the Middle East, have direct security implications for Northern countries that profit from global stability and unchallenged flows of energy associated with it. Because of global commitment to critical international interests (the provision of natural resources as extension of energy security policy) the social ramifications of an Islamic civil war also produce major geopolitical security issues.  Thus, Islam as a social construct has fallen under attack, albeit in an abstract manner. Muslim conceptions of feminism and male hierarchy are used as weapons by Western human rights advocacy groups, an example being Taliban violence against girls’ education. Muslim conceptions of governance and finance are contested (and absorbed through dialogue) by the neo-liberal elite concensus. Western protests against the rise of Islamic political parties (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban) are used as a tool to question traditional ideological concepts of political sovereignty and territorial integrity in an attempt to justify the expansion of global governance mechanisms. It must be remembered that the ongoing struggle in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the broader Middle East is a war of ideologies as much as anything else. In his recent address to the “Muslim World”, President Obama called the War in Afghanistan a “…war of necessity.” It is a war of necessity, one that will define the possibilities and outcomes of the globalizing world system.

Welcome Back to the New America.

Wage Peace.