David Allen, Professor of Strategic Management, Instituto de Empresa, has a very interesting blog about strategy. He is able to speak from the Real Madrid’s situation to issues concerning his country of origin, always using his strategic mind and tools. He is speaking today about Afghanistan, taking on an article from Lawrence Gelb in the New York times. The Afghan conundrum has haunted many countries and we have seen that due to many factors (the geography being an important one) is not so easy to get in control of the country. How is it possible that after 7 years of USA-NATO operations we are still speaking about it? This is an issue I would leave to military historians but the argument of Gelband and Allen are quite compelling in terms of saving the bits we can and try another way of doing things. Many NATO Generals agreed that the war there is not going well. The Afghans are not very happy with the military operations in their territory. So, what else? In many cases, we all are facing a similar problem. We have a trend to say we have to stay put and ensure we are getting our way. We even have an obligation. It is not blindness, is just human nature not to admit defeat. However, sometimes is better to make a “strategic withdrawal” and let new thinking come inside to open new views than to cling to the illusion that time will provide a solution. I think that Allen is trying to put the finger on the wound and make ourselves to ask if what is going on in Afghanistan is what we all expected or what we all would like to see. I am not working in this area, do not know really the internal thinking. Nevertheless, I would agree that at least a thoughtful rethinking is needed in order to provide a rationale for the war in Afghanistan. I mean, the main objective was to deny Al-Qaeda a base to operate. That objective has been achieved. What is the objective now? Are we so afraid that without international presence Bin Laden moves back to Afghanistan? If yes, is it not possible to prevent it by other means that having an standing army there?
Getting out of Afghanistan, Getting out of Iraq
I admit that I am gloating. Support for bailing out of Afghanistan is growing. Today, Lawrence Gelb
in the New York Times made the same argument I made last year: 1) The Taliban and Muslim terrorism are a bigger threat to China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan then they are to the United States; 2) Our goal is to stop Muslim terrorism not save Iraq and Afghanistan; 3) We can’t win in Afghanistan without losing at home. Of course, Mr. Gelb said this much more politely and professionally, including all the necessary historical and geo-political references, etc. and so on.
Mr. Gelb calls his approach “common sense”. I don’t much like common sense. I prefer strategy. To President Obama, his common sense and common decency tells him that Americans have a responsibility to the Iraqis and the Afghans now that we are involved in their lives. The strategist in me says, Oops we got this wrong, let’s get out of her as fast as we can. (Out of politeness, the strategist does say he is sorry as he leaves.)
The apology is probably unnecessary. It turns out that the strategist’s approach has two fundamental advantages. It works better, and it may even be morally superior. Psychologists agree. Rule number 1. Bad relationships make you crazy. In order think straight, you have to get out first. Once you are out, then you can think about how to fix the mess left behind. Rule number 2. You end up hurting yourself and others less when you close down bad relationships. It’s the right thing to do.
Unhappily, Obama remains trapped in our never-ending Iraqi guilt trip. He wants to “withdraw responsibly” from Iraq. The phrase sounds likes something teenager lovers say when it is already too late. I realize the joke is in bad taste, but that precisely why it is necessary. The consequences in Iraqi are shocking and in even worse taste. Every day American soldiers are fighting in Iraq means that more young American are wounded or killed unnecessarily.
We need to withdraw from Iraq now in an orderly fashion. Orderly is not the same as responsible. Orderly means that we announce that we have achieved our goals and we organize the logistics of withdrawal. I expect to be accused of cynicism and ignorance. I am happy to take the risk, and I accept part of the charge of ignorance. I have no idea what will happen in when we withdraw from Iraq, but I suspect that no one else does either.
Obama and the generals prefer to pretend that they have things under control. This means pulling out in stages, leaving a contingent behind to help the Iraqis, and so on. If it works, Obama can take the credit; if it doesn’t work, Obama can say he did the right thing. In either case, Obama will feel good about himself, though this will be small consolation for wounded and dead Americans and their families.
On the other hand, if Obama does it my way and Iraq falls apart, he will be villified. He might even feel guilty. Of course, the American soldiers who went home won’t complain, nor will the rest of Americans whose tax dollars may go to something useful for a change.
Ditto on Afghanistan. As I have said on numerous occasions, let the Iranians, Pakistanis and the Chinese fight the Taliban and Muslim terrorism. This a backyard problem for them, not for us.
Entries (RSS)