The new Chiang Kai-Shek?
Tom Ricks summarizes a speech by counter-insurgency expert David Kilcullen, wherein he says that the U.S. basically needs to go all or nothing -- either put in at least 40,000 troops to control corruption, or start pulling out. Related true story: A to-remain-nameless national security expert told me of a conversation he had the other day, when a congressional aide asked if the U.S. should be all in or all out in Afghanistan, and this security wonk replied, "That’s the stupidest fucking question I’ve ever heard on national security.” Kilcullen's polarity fixation aside, check the post for his comparison of Karzai to the Kuomintang in 1949 and his description of the corruption cycle. Like Ricks, I was most surprised by Kilcullen's take on Al Qaeda. One surprise to me was that he isn't particularly worried about the possibility of al Qaeda moving back into Afghanistan. "I hope so," he said, explaining that it would be a strategic gain for us to see the terrorist group leave Pakistan and move into parts of Afghanistan that essentially are "the moon with gravity."If Kilcullen thinks this al Qaeda problem is sorted, and that the situation would in fact be better if they did move back into Afghanistan, why is escalation even on the table? If the justification for being in Afghanistan isn't al Qaeda, then a lot of folks -- particularly President Barack Obama -- are going to be surprised.
-- Tim Fernholz
