Maziar Bahari’s Detention

Newsweek recently published a fascinating article by Iranian journalist Maziar Bahari in which he details his imprisonment and interrogation by the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s elite security organization (http://www.newsweek.com/id/223862/page/1).  Among the most interesting revelations are: his interrogators’ belief that his faux interview with Jason Jones, a correspondent for the satirical Daily Show who the Guards believe is an American spy, was real; his main interrogator’s obsession with New Jersey; Ayatollah Khamenei’s belief that there is a “cultural NATO” network comprised of journalists, activists, scholars and lawyers who are trying to bring down the Iranian regime at the behest of Western powers; the Guards’ disdain for the clerical establishment; the ascension of the Guards as a political force; skewed Iranian assumptions about Western sexual mores, including the prevalence of orgies, free love and anonymous sexual encounters; the fact that international pressure to free Mr. Bahari was effective; and the high level of paranoia about the West felt by Iranian leaders.

I highly recommend this article to anyone who is interested in the political situation in Iran and the attitudes of hardcore militants there.

Supporting Afghan Militias

Anti-Taliban militias have recently emerged in Afghanistan, and American and Afghan officials are assisting them.  The new plan to expand the armed groups is called the Community Defense Initiative, and it involves the use of Special Forces teams to train local militiamen.  Right now there are hundreds of such fighters, and the US hopes to create thousands more.  The militias are mostly led by tribal elders who oppose the Taliban, but officials hope to incorporate them into the government security forces at some point.

The independent emergence of local militias is a positive development for the Western coalition.  It indicates that some Afghans outside the government are serious about battling the Taliban, and they could serve as  alternative allies for the US, which is frustrated with Afghan President Hamid Karzai whose administration has been plagued by corruption and failure.

Some of the potential benefits of expanding local militias include: an increase in the number of anti-Taliban fighters; more effective protection of towns and villages (as a result of superior local knowledge, respected leadership and reduced ethnic tensions); more intelligence sources; and the reduced likelihood that the Taliban will be able to gain strength and geographical reach in areas of the country where they are relatively weak.

Some of the potential weaknesses of the plan include: the limited power of tribes (especially in relation to the Sunni tribes in Iraq that eventually helped the US fight Al Qaeda there;); the prospect of warlordism by militia leaders; the risk that tribes will feel betrayed if the coalition fails to support them sufficiently; and the likelihood that the Taliban will retaliate against civilians who live in areas where the militias operate.

The Community Defense Initiative is a smart move at a time when Western forces and the Afghan government are having difficulty dealing with the Taliban insurgency and US military commanders have requested more troops.  How well the Afghan militias will be able to combat the Taliban is difficult to predict, but Western efforts to train and assist them may pay major dividends.

Humor About Afghanistan

The Onion, a satirical newspaper, has recently published humorous articles about Afghanistan as the Obama administration debates how to proceed there.  Below are links to a few of them.

This one is about America’s strategic options:
http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/obama_weighs_options_in

This one is about heroin addicts’ support for the war effort:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/heroin_addicts_pressure

This one is about the recent Afghan presidential election:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/afghan_presidential_election_a

President Obama’s Trip to China

President Obama’s recent trip to China has been called a failure by many policy analysts and media personalities.  The president failed to reach any substantive agreement with Chinese leaders on issues like currency policy, human rights, climate change or Iran’s nuclear program.  Stephen Walt attributes this diplomatic disappointment to American policies and calamities over the last eight years , such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the financial crisis and large budget deficits(http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/18/chastened_in_china). 

But Mr. Walt ignores the core interests of Chinese leaders, which influence China’s policies much more than US actions.  Top officials in the Chinese Communist Party/Chinese government are focused on maintaining power, and they believe that sustaining economic growth and limiting political freedoms are the keys to success in that regard.  To foster economic development, China’s leaders seek energy resources and high levels of exports.  They do not want to set limits on emissions, let their currency appreciate, or impose sanctions on Iran (a country that is major source of oil and gas for China) because such policies could adversely affect the Chinese economy.  Basic liberties such as democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and the right to assemble are viewed as sources of instability that could threaten the Communist Party’s hold on power, so Chinese leaders have no interest in promoting Western notions of human rights.

Thus, even if the US were not plagued by two wars, a major economic downturn and large deficits, it is unlikely that American leaders would be able to extract the concessions that they seek from Chinese policymakers.

Decision About Troop Levels Imminent

During a recent interview with CNN at a hotel in Beijing, President Obama said that a decision about troop levels in Afghanistan will be forthcoming in the next several weeks, and he will explain his new policy to the American people.

He said “I am very confident that when I announce the decision, the American people will have a lot of clarity about what we’re doing, how we’re going to succeed, how much this thing is going to cost, what’s the end game on this thing, which I think is something that, unless you impose that kind of discipline, could end up leading to a multiyear occupation that won’t serve the interests of the United States.”

He also said that “We have a vital interest in making sure that Afghanistan is sufficiently stable,” and added that he would prefer not to hand off the problem to the next president.

It is a pipedream to think that Afghanistan could be stabilized by 2012, the year of the next American presidential election, and it is highly unlikely that it could be done by Jan. 2017, the month that the next president will take office if President Obama wins a second term.

If the end game is to strenghten the Afghan security forces to the extent that they can neutralize the Taliban, which the president has suggested is America’s goal, a multiyear occupation is inevitable.  It is also dubious that the administration can accurately forecast how much more money the war will cost given that it is unclear how much longer the conflict will last.  Unless the president plans to set a firm date for withdrawal, which would mean that the US might pullout before the insurgency is sufficiently weakened, the end of the mission is not in sight.

It should also be noted that a complete withdrawal of American troops in the foreseeable future is infeasible  because the US will want to keep airbases in Afghanistan from which to launch Predator drone attacks against Al Qaeda militants in Pakistan, and ground forces will be needed to protect those airbases.