MORE ON THE AFGHAN DILEMMA - AT 9:17 A.M. ET:  An Urgent Agenda source, who  has traveled frequently to Afghanistan and has always been reliable, sends us this message about the situation there:

Some thoughts on Afghanistan, sparked by some items from around the internet:
 
Journalist Michael Yon weighed in with this:
 
"We've been losing the war in Afghanistan since at least 2006. Losing does not mean lost, but the trends are not looking good. Afghanistan will not be a 'civilized' country by 2020. Maybe by 2100 Afghanistan can honestly be called a stable, developing nation. If Afghanistan is to be lifted from the stone ages, progress here will be marked not year by year, but decade by decade."
 
As you know, I have been harping about the lack of adequate troops to conduct the counterinsurgency doctrine that seemed to work in Iraq and about the convoluted, fractured chain-of-command that hampers both the military and civilian sides of the effort to develop a unified strategy in Afghanistan.
 
But Yon puts his finger on a basic problem that I should probably be more emphatic about:  Afghanistan may be fundamentally unreformable:
 
1. No memory of itself as a nation.
2. No broadly shared concepts of civic governance beyond that of the local village in most places.
3. No economic foundations upon which to build and finance the trappings of civil government
4. No real prospects for trade
5. A dedication to and lack of shame about levels of corruption that completely undermine basic civic and corporate government.
6. No education system
7. No transportation system
8. No power grid
 
Very little that is natural in Afghanistan draws its people together as a "nation." 
 
Further, outside of NATO, it is in almost no one's interest that Afghanistan be a coherent,competent nation.  Regional powers Iran and Pakistan will be wary of a new competitor.  India doesn't mind a resurgent Afghanistan, but only to the degree that it be used as a stick to poke Pakistan in the eye.
 
Most Afghans do not see themselves as Afghans first.  They are first and foremost Pashtuns or Hazaras or Tajiks or what have you.  Their perspectives rarely go beyond their valleys or even their own villages.  Powers come and go...families remain.  They do not look to Kabul as a source of national strength or legitimacy.  General McKiernan related the story of when he was in central Afghanistan and asked how many members of a group had visited Kabul.  A smattering of hands went up.  Then he asked how many had been to Tehran.  Half the room raised their hands.  Anecdotal but telling...
 
The major drug warlords, who profit whether the Taliban or an inept western-style democracy is in power, do not want a central government powerful enough to disrupt their trade.
 
The Arab world has no real interest in the rise of a non-Arab Muslim power in the southern Asia, especially one with spotty adherence to "orthodox" Islam. 
 
The Russian "stans" prop up and support the northern tier Tajiks as a barrier to the less familiar and less friendly Pashtun world to their south. 
 
Afghanistan is always on the road to somewhere else, both literally and figuratively.  Today, it is seen by too many bad actors as a cudgel to be brandished against their enemies. 
 
Angelo Codevilla had this to say recently:
 
LOPEZ: What is going to happen in Iraq? In Afghanistan?
 
CODEVILLA: Iraq is breaking into its three constituent parts. The sooner the better. Let us hope that the Turkish government's peace initiative with the Kurds provides Kurdistan with what it needs to hold off whatever united Shia-Sunni assault Prime Minister al-Maliki can cobble together. Other than being anti-Kurdish, Iraq's Sunni and Shia will not agree on anything.
 
In Afghanistan, things will go from bad to worse, unless and until Pakistan wins its war against the new "Taliban." These are not to be confused with the version that existed up to 2002. The new breed are a product of the juncture between the Saudi-financed Madrassa movement and Nawaz Sharif's party. In Afghanistan itself, the attempt by foreigners to impose central government control will do nothing but increase opposition. We will not be as brutal as the Soviets, and will be less successful. Nation building is another manifestation of liberal hubris.
 
 LOPEZ: Will Afghanistan soon become Obama’s war?
 
CODEVILLA: It is already.

COMMENT:  Fascinating, if depressing, report.  Afghanistan is indeed Obama's war and he is, naturally, already getting heat from his political left, which wants to abandon Afghanistan as it wanted to abandon Iraq as it wanted to abandon Vietnam.

Like other foreign policy crises, Afghanistan is coming to a head for Mr. Obama, who will have an interesting second year in office.

August 12, 2009