Ablogistan

Octopus blogging

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:44:56 -0500

A 600-pound octopus can squeeze itself through a passageway the size of a quarter. They could be anywhere...

Is Afghanistan Obama's war?

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:06:53 -0500

Clive Crook thinks so. So does Milton Beardon. And the LA Times. And PBS. Newsweek takes it a step further and asks if Afghanistan is Obama's Vietnam.

I guess it's an easy argument to make—Obama had a choice of which of the two wars to end and the option to pull out of both, and he made it clear even in the campaign that he wanted to double down on Afghanistan. Success or failure now rests on his shoulders, and even stems from his definitions of the terms. The money spent and lives lost—both American and Afghan—going forward are tied directly and indirectly to his decisions and orders.

But something about the phrase bothers me. It has become conventional wisdom too quickly, and the political value (for his opponents, at least) of anchoring the war so securely to Obama's future is too transparent. I recognize my own biases, that I want both Afghanistan and Obama to succeed for deeply personal reasons, so if those were my only objections I probably wouldn't bring it up. There's something else troubling about it, though. It's as if the ubiquity of the phrase represents some sort of collective memory lapse. In two words it rewrites—forgets, even—recent history.

We're talking about a war that went on for seven years before Obama even took office. Was it Bush's war before that? Iraq certainly was. But there was a lot more collective ownership of Afghanistan, and a sense that it was America's war of necessity, not that long ago.

And it didn't have to turn out the way it has. Today's memes rationalize the failures of the past eight years as inevitable consequences of Afghanistan's own flaws: It is the "empire of graveyards" and unbearably hostile; it will never be able to stand on its own legs under the weight of its own corruption, the pundits write.

But what if it was the priority in 2001, 2002, and 2003 that it has become today? What if more resources had been dedicated toward shaping the governing structure when its clay hadn't yet hardened? What if the United States hadn't lost so much goodwill in the region? Underlying all these questions: What if Bush hadn't turned the world's attention to Iraq before the dust had settled in Afghanistan?

There's a reason a pitcher isn't eligible for a save, and also isn't credited for a loss, in a baseball game he enters when his team is already down several runs. I don't want to get bogged down in a muddy metaphor, but Obama is entering in the seventh inning after Bush blew a lead by packing up half the team in the second to go play a game in another stadium. It'll take a lot to pull out a win, and Obama will deserve some of the credit. But if it's a loss? He can certainly make it worse (civilian deaths from more drone strikes aren't helping, for instance), but we're a long way from being able to put the entire mess on his shoulders.

I don't want to absolve the current administration from the repercussions of how it proceeds or create some sort of "heads Obama wins, tails Bush loses" scenario. I also don't want to waste too much time parsing a phrase that most likely only exists because a handful of editors and writers thought it made for a concise, catchy headline.

But I also don't want America's policymakers and wordsmiths to gloss over how Afghanistan got to where it is today or the decisions that got it there.

Runoff

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:32:21 -0500

Karzai has agreed to a runoff after the Afghan International Election Commission found that he didn't receive more than 50 percent of the vote after all. Nate Silver has the numbers from the fraud investigation, and they don't look good for Karzai.

But I'm a little surprised that Karzai agreed so easily to a runoff. It's almost an admission of fraud on his part. The statement attributed to him doesn't even attempt to defend his legitimacy or tactics in the election: "We welcome the decision made by the Independent Election Commission, we believe the session is legitimate, legal and according to the constitution of Afghanistan."

I'm guessing he's under some serious pressure from Washington, where a lot of people aren't happy with Karzai's leadership. I'm curious what happens next, though. I don't know if Abdullah Abdullah can win the runoff, and if he does, the results may have a legitimacy problem of their own. Will it be seen by certain Afghans as being rigged by the Americans this time?

If nothing else, the delay buys the Obama administration more time to make a decision about the next step in Afghanistan.

Bribe the Pashtuns, ctd.

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:03:16 -0500

Fred Kaplan and David Ignatius have seconded and thirded Fareed Zakaria's idea of bribing the Pashtuns, which I commented on last month. Joshua Foust, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, thinks it's a horrible idea based on a gross misunderstanding of Afghan people:

It didn't work, in part because in Afghanistan the word "tribe" is so ambiguous as to have almost no meaning. Seth Jones tries to use the idea of "tribe" (and a surprisingly backward concept of how power works in rural Afghanistan) to say that all we have to do is support the "tribes, sub-tribes, and clans" of the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan to inspire a native revolt against the Taliban. While he does us the courtesy of listing a few tribes in a few places, he doesn't actually say how knowing tribal grievances can help the U.S. win the war--if we know in one place that water is scarce, and people have divided into rival factions to gain access to that water, and those factions happen to be tribes... how does knowing someone's tribe actually help solve the problem? If you can figure it out, I'm sure ISAF is hiring.

The obsession with "tribe" and our apparently limitless funds for bribing them has its roots in a stereotype of Afghanistan, a false mythography that crowns them peerless warriors driven by xenophobia and locked into rigid cultural norms we'll never understand. The reality is, most Afghans are below-average fighters in a traditional sense: while they may have impressed nineteenth century British soldiers with their jezail marksmanship, today most Afghan marksmen--whethers shooting at us or with us--can't intentionally hit a barn. Similarly, while Afghans zealously guard their homes and communities--kind of like Americans, see?--there is nothing xenophobic or exotic about their zeal. Can you imagine how Americans would react if we had French soldiers patrolling our streets, handcuffing people?

Look, it's clear, as it was in Iraq, that military victories alone won't turn Afghanistan around. And maybe we're just talking semantics. If "bribes" involve providing resources and funds for some of the more remote areas of Afghanistan to rebuild infrastructure and restore some semblance of normal life, then I'm all for it. But both Kaplan and Ignatius acknowledge that bribery is only a short-term solution. Ignatius pulls from the British experience and concludes:

That was a cynical approach and it left Afghanistan a poor, backward country. But it worked adequately, especially compared with the alternative, which was unending bloodshed in a faraway country that refused to be colonized.

I understand wariness about nation building and the need to prioritize the actual security threat in Afghanistan, but I just don't see how the era of the Taliban can end with any real finality if Afghanistan is left as a "poor, backward country." If we're comfortable literally handing out cash to warlords former Taliban, why are we not discussing using that same cash to actually rebuild Afghanistan? I think we'd see a better return on investment.

Obama on journalism

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:26:06 -0500

Here's Obama in a recent interview about the state of journalism: "I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding."

Would it be considered ironic that blogs and online news outlets then proceeded to take him out of context and start shouting at each other across the void? Or is that too expected?

When Obama was asked what he thought about a bill introduced in the Senate that would allow newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks, he responded, "I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them."

The headline being used everywhere from the Drudgereport to Huffingtonpost: Obama Open to Newspaper Bailouts. Being open to looking at a proposal isn't really the same as being open to the proposal. Out of context: Check.

From that out-of-context headline the story has devolved into accusations about more big government bailouts and a socialist takeover of the media, followed by the usual frothing. Again, based on a willingness to read legislation. So, shouting across the void: Check.

Journalism is dying, and we really need to have a discussion about the media's future. Should consumers start paying for online content? Can a nonprofit news organization maintain its independence and stay afloat? Etc.

But how do you have that conversation when there's no medium for mutual understanding and honest debate?

How to win at Scrabble

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:06:38 -0500

Play defensively, wage psychological warfare. I probably shouldn't be sharing this video with my opponents...

Bribe the Pashtuns?

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:57:32 -0500

Fareed Zakaria thinks he has a solution for Afghanistan:

The central problem in Afghanistan is that the Pashtuns, who make up 45 percent of the country and almost 100 percent of the Taliban, do not feel empowered. We need to start talking to them, whether they are nominally Taliban or not. Buying, renting, or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America's stabilization strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan.

Zakaria is normally a thoughtful guy, but if Pashtuns not feeling empowered was Afghanistan's central problem then it would be in a lot better shape than it is. Being one of the poorest nations in the world, lacking a centralized and corrupt government, and having its infrastructure and population decimated by 30 years of war are all candidates for Afghanistan's "central problem." Pashtun disenfranchisement? Not so much.

But then, Zakaria and I have different goals:

A few years from now, we can be sure that Afghanistan will still be poor, corrupt, and dysfunctional. But if we make the right deals, it will be ruled by leaders who keep the country inhospitable to Al Qaeda and terrorist groups like it. That's my definition of success.

Afghanistan's police force

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:56:18 -0500

Anup Kaphle from The Atlantic is in Afghanistan and has an interesting piece up on its police force (the article is a bit old by Internet standards, but I've been traveling):

Unlike most police forces, Afghanistan's 77,000-strong national police deals less with civilian law and order, and more with an insurgency that has engulfed most of the southern part of the country and the tribal areas bordering Pakistan. From dawn to dusk and dusk to dawn, the policemen contend with one of the most fanatical and militant groups in recent history--all for a monthly salary of around $110 (about 7,000 Afghanis). While this is an improvement over the average monthly Afghan income of $25, it is nearly two and a half times less than that earned by the Afghan National Army (whose training is admittedly more rigorous, and whose missions are considered more involved than the routine but dangerous patrols carried out by the police). In light of this, one might imagine that everyone would simply sign up for the army instead of the police, but the army has quotas, which makes it more difficult to get into.

It's amazing how many of the current problems in Afghanistan boil down to basic economic security. The lower turnout rate in the most recent election was partially due to security concerns, but I've also read several interviews in which Afghans essentially say their worries about day-to-day financial struggles outweigh opinions about who should lead the country. Democracy will struggle until average Afghans can see some sort of correlation between their votes and their economic security.

"The stones and the trees of this country know how much fraud there was"

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:26:17 -0500

That comes from Abdullah Abdullah, who says he will not accept a Karzai victory after thousands of fraud claims have slowed the vote counting process. Karzai leads 47.2% - 32.5%, with about 60% of the votes counted, but the lead doesn't really matter as long as neither candidate breaks 50%, because it will go to a runoff.

The teenage years of Mohammed Jawad

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:26:35 -0500

They were spent in Guantanamo Bay. His family claims he was only 12 when the Afghanistan native was detained in 2002. The Pentagon claims a bone scan suggests he was 17, and a U.S. military lawyer says he was between 12 and 15.

Either way, he spent seven years locked up—being tortured, his family says—and now we find out that he probably shouldn't have even been there. He was accused of throwing a grenade at a U.S. vehicle and injuring two soldiers, but U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle, who ordered his release, described the government's case against him as "an outrage" that was "riddled with holes".

Twelve years old and locked up for what appears to be no go reason. It boggles the mind that there are still quite a few people who will defend the system that allowed this.

How cities make you stupid and angry

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:03:23 -0500

It's not me saying that, it's scientists. Researchers examining how environment affects the brain have found that the overstimulation of an urban environment changes basic mental processes, including the ability to retain information and a person's mood:

Now scientists have begun to examine how the city affects the brain, and the results are chastening. Just being in an urban environment, they have found, impairs our basic mental processes. After spending a few minutes on a crowded city street, the brain is less able to hold things in memory, and suffers from reduced self-control.
One of the main forces at work is a stark lack of nature, which is surprisingly beneficial for the brain. Studies have demonstrated, for instance, that hospital patients recover more quickly when they can see trees from their windows, and that women living in public housing are better able to focus when their apartment overlooks a grassy courtyard. Even these fleeting glimpses of nature improve brain performance, it seems, because they provide a mental break from the urban roil...

...City life can also lead to loss of emotional control. Kuo and her colleagues found less domestic violence in the apartments with views of greenery. These data build on earlier work that demonstrated how aspects of the urban environment, such as crowding and unpredictable noise, can also lead to increased levels of aggression. A tired brain, run down by the stimuli of city life, is more likely to lose its temper.

Read the whole article for more details about the research and other examples. It's interesting how the entire discussion is framed as if the brain is an organic computer: "While the human brain possesses incredible computational powers, it's surprisingly easy to short-circuit: all it takes is a hectic city street." I remember a biology class in college that looked at how common metaphors for the mind have evolved as we've developed new technologies for comparison. A few decades ago the brain-as-computer analogy wouldn't even have been possible.

I grew up in a rural environment—I'm talking in the middle of woods without a neighbor in sight—and have since moved to cities of various sizes, and these findings pretty much confirm what I've always known in my gut. I can't go more than a few months without venturing away from civilization to "reboot."

But that doesn't necessarily mean country living would turn us all into happy-go-lucky intellectuals. Just look at the voting patterns (sorry, couldn't resist). There's a lot of value in the diversity of the city, and I think it does a lot of good to routinely experience both settings.

Quotes from Kennedy

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:33:53 -0500

I don't have much in the way of a eulogy or thoughts on Kennedy's ultimate place in American history, but these two quotes stick out in my mind:

"My vote against this misbegotten war [in Iraq] was the best vote that I have cast since I was elected in 1962."

"[Health care erform] is the cause of my life. For four decades I have carried this cause -- from the floor of the United States Senate to every part of this country. It has never been merely a question of policy; it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society."

The man not only fought for many of the right policies, but he was passionate about doing so. Ezra Klein has a good piece about Kennedy's dream of reforming health care.

About that 72%

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:31:26 -0500

So yesterday's estimate of a massive lead for Karzai in Afghanistan's election efforts appears to be way off. Pajhwok is now saying Karzai only leads Abdullah 40.6% to 38.7% with only 10% of the votes tallied.

Disregard yesterday's post. I still wouldn't bet against Karzai winning (legitimately or not), but if he doesn't pull in a majority there will be a runoff.

Welcome to the future

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:23:40 -0500

Yesterday's science fiction is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from the science of today.

72% for Karzai

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:10:14 -0500

That seems awfully high, especially considering he only won about 55.4% of the vote in 2004. It isn't the final, official tally, but it's safe to assume that Karzai will be re-elected at this point. Abdullah Abdullah, his chief rival, is already claiming the election was rigged.

And this is what people had to go through just to participate: