Afghanistan

Afghanistan is approaching a major inflection point in its long and turbulent history. In 2014 most of the foreign military forces are due to pull out. With them will go the bulk of foreign financing that has accounted for almost all of the state's budget. Twenty fourteen is also the year that Afghanistan is due to hold presidential elections. Hamid Karzai, the only president the country has known since the fall of the Taliban, has said he will not seek another term in office. Thus Afghanistan is likely to have a new president to lead it into a new era. This era will be shaped by many factors, principally decisions made by Afghans themselves, but the United States has the ability to affect the outcome if it makes a sustained commitment to maintain security, improve the political process, and reduce Pakistani interference so as to build on the tenuous gains achieved by the U.S. troop surge since 2010. The Problem The signing of a U.S.-Afghan Security Partnership Accord in April 2012 and the Chicago Summit Declaration in May alleviated some of the uncertainty about the post-2014 period—but only some. President Barack Obama and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) heads of state agreed to remain committed in Afghanistan after 2014. However, the nature and extent of that commitment remain opaque. At times Obama has depicted the U.S. mission in Afghanistan in fairly narrow terms—designed, as he said in announcing the troop surge on December 1, 2009, to "deny al-Qaeda a safe haven," deny the Taliban "the ability to overthrow the government," and "strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government." The Chicago Declaration commits the United States to the more ambitious goals of helping craft "a democratic society, based on rule of law and good governance." However attractive the maximalist position, it would require an increased deployment of foreign troops and political advisers, and changes in Afghanistan's political culture, that are unlikely to occur. Yet even the minimalist objective, designed to prevent a return to power by the Taliban (which has consistently refused to renounce its long-standing ties with al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorist groups based in Pakistan and would be likely to provide them a safe haven in Afghanistan), will be impossible to achieve absent a substantial commitment. Attempts to safeguard U.S. interests "on the cheap" are likely to fail. If the security situation deteriorates, a small number of Special Operations Forces (SOF) would have difficulty operating—as they do today in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. The Kabul government is only likely to extend cooperation to SOF if, in return, it receives substantial support to maintain its fragile authority. This memo recommends seven specific steps the United States can take to buttress the fragile forces of authority in Afghanistan, grouped into three categories: security, politics, and Pakistan's role. The Way Ahead Security The United States and its allies should commit to provide $6 billion a year for the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) indefinitely to support a force of 350,000 soldiers and police. The administration's plan calls for a cut in funding to $4.1 billion after 2014, from $6 billion this year. This would necessitate laying off 120,000 soldiers and police from the current force of 350,000 soldiers and police, which the Afghans are able to manage with U.S. help. Many would no doubt find work with insurgents or narco-traffickers, further exacerbating the security situation. The administration defends its plan in the interests of fiscal prudence. But while $2 billion in savings will not make much difference in the context of a $3.8 trillion U.S. budget, that sum could make a huge difference on the ground in Afghanistan. Hold off making any further cuts to the force of sixty-eight thousand U.S. troops between September 2012 and December 2014 unless conditions on the ground improve dramatically. There will be pressure in Washington to announce another troop drawdown in late 2012 or early 2013. The next U.S. president—either Obama or Mitt Romney—would be wise to resist that pressure. Only the presence of large numbers of American troops can ensure that security continues to improve. For all the dissatisfaction with the war effort revealed in polls, there is little intensity to the opposition—there are no antiwar demonstrations and the war has not become a major political issue. Thus the next president will have a relatively free hand to maintain current troop levels until 2015 even though the move will not be popular. Pledge to maintain a substantial advisory and counterterrorism presence after 2014 of twenty-five thousand to thirty-five thousand troops. Washington will be tempted to leave the smallest possible presence after 2014 and to confine troops to safe bases. This would be a mistake unless peace breaks out between now and then. A force of, say, five thousand troops would have a hard time defending itself, much less carrying out its mission. And advisers who are confined to base would not be able to effectively mentor the ANSF or gain "situational awareness." It would be safer and more effective to have a more robust presence so that U.S. troops could protect themselves while also helping the ANSF with logistics, planning, air support, medevac, route clearance, and other important functions. The estimated force size of 23,500 to 35,000, which would cost $25 billion to $35 billion annually, is based on work by David Barno and Andrew Exum of the Center for a New American Security. Such a commitment should be sustainable for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, even with reduced end-strength, because they have left Iraq and do not have a major role in most Pacific Command contingencies. It would also be sustainable fiscally since it represents just 0.2 percent of U.S. GDP ($14.6 trillion) and 0.8 percent of the federal budget ($3.7 trillion). Politics Go slow on peace talks. U.S. officials want a peace deal with the Taliban that would enable a faster U.S. drawdown. But a grand bargain on acceptable terms—with the Taliban giving up their arms and becoming a normal political party—is unlikely. Taliban foot soldiers in Afghanistan may feel coalition pressure, but their leaders remain safe in Pakistan, and Pakistan's generals are loathe to permit the Taliban to sign a peace treaty that could allow them to slip out of Islamabad's grip. Under those conditions, putting too much pressure on Kabul to reach a deal with the Taliban could backfire by causing the Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks to recreate the Northern Alliance and renew the devastating civil war of the 1990s. A better course of action would be to pursue deals with individual Taliban commanders—offering them incentives to stop fighting—and thus try to split the insurgency. Identify and groom a successor to Karzai. Afghanistan would benefit from a leader more committed to fighting corruption and establishing the rule of law. But the political process is unlikely to produce such a leader on its own. Iran, Pakistan, and various Afghan warlords will back their favored candidates. The United States should do the same. It is doubtful that an ideal candidate can be found, but, at a minimum, it should be possible to identify the "least bad" one. Admittedly American policymakers erred in picking Karzai in late 2001 and they may err again—but they at least know much more about Afghanistan than they did then. And to avoid making any choice is to cede the decisive vote to malign actors. Pakistan's Role End American subsidies for the Pakistani military. The Obama administration cut $800 million in U.S. military aid to Pakistan in the summer of 2011 after the two countries clashed over the Osama bin Laden raid and other issues. But the administration has held out the prospect of restoring that funding, and it wants to budget roughly $2 billion for aid to Pakistan in fiscal year 2013. Some payments for the use of Pakistani territory to move supplies to Afghanistan make sense even at the expense of continuing a small degree of reliance on Islamabad, but all other military aid should be terminated because Pakistan has consistently shown that it is a foe of U.S. interests in Afghanistan. Further subsidizing the Pakistani military sends an indirect subsidy to the Taliban and Haqqani Network. Contrary to Washington's worst fears, even after an aid cutoff, Pakistan's army would remain strong enough to keep jihadists from seizing power in Islamabad—an outcome that is opposed by most Pakistanis and, more to the point, most Pakistani generals. Launch drone and/or SOF strikes on Haqqani and Taliban leaders in Pakistan. Though the CIA and SOF have long targeted terrorist leaders in Pakistan, primarily using drones, their targets have been mostly confined to al-Qaeda. A few Pakistani Taliban and Haqqani leaders have also been eliminated, but senior Taliban figures have not been targeted, because Washington wants to avoid antagonizing Islamabad. But U.S. forces, even at the current force level of eighty-seven thousand, have shown they can survive without the Pakistani logistics line; they have done so since November 2011. Pakistan may also withdraw cooperation in drone strikes on al-Qaeda, but that organization has been so weakened that the strikes are less important now than a few years ago. Regardless of Islamabad's reaction, it is necessary to undertake an aggressive campaign of drone strikes to increase the pressure on the Taliban and the Haqqani Network to prevent them from taking advantage of the NATO drawdown. Conclusion Most or all of these steps will be necessary to secure Afghanistan's future, not as an ideal state—a Switzerland of Central Asia—but as a minimally functioning state with security forces that can prevent the reemergence of Taliban rule and the likely reestablishment of al-Qaeda sanctuaries given the close ties between the two organizations. U.S. policymakers may decide that they would rather commit scarce resources elsewhere. But, if so, they should be under no illusions about the ability of the United States to prevent the reemergence of the conditions that led to 9/11. It is difficult enough to shape events in Afghanistan with a substantial U.S. commitment; it will become nearly impossible without it. The good news is that the vast majority of Afghans do not want a return to Taliban rule, and with continuing American support, their post-2001 state should be able to survive the challenges ahead.

Governance reform is crucial to stability in Afghanistan, but time is running out. To avoid failure, the United States should focus its efforts on the critical subset of its original reform agenda that can be achieved on a short timetable. This triage could take many forms. But the longer the delay and the smaller the investment, the lower the achievable target. Institutional reforms to broaden Afghan political participation and punish corruption would be preferable, but institution building is fast slipping beyond reach. It may soon be necessary to settle for constraining cronyism at the margin by renegotiating today's political deals between Kabul and subnational power brokers to exclude only the worst abuses. In particular, land taking by criminal patronage networks is uniquely destructive; with Western patience and resources dwindling, preventing official land grabs could soon be the limit of the achievable. The Limits of Institution Building The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is increasingly aware of the need for triage. Its response emphasizes formal institution building by creating an independent, effective attorney general's office plus a military equivalent for the security forces. At the same time, electoral reform is intended to open political participation and strengthen the parliament as a check on executive excesses. These are noble goals. But they are very ambitious, and will require more time and resources than the West now seems willing to commit. This is because formal institutions have the weaknesses of their strengths: if effective, they pose a permanent, uncontrollable threat to any official with corruption in the past or present. As such, they threaten a wide array of major figures, creating potent opposition that today's limited leverage will be hard-pressed to overcome. Unless ISAF is willing to deploy very sweet carrots and very big sticks, this agenda, too, is likely to prove unrealistic: the West will probably not get the attorney general's office it wants or the electoral reforms it seeks. If one lacks the means, one must adjust the ends. One way to do this would be to focus on limited and informal political rather than formal institutional approaches to governance reform. Afghan governance is now shaped by a series of powerful patron-client networks designed to provide political top cover for corruption that enriches the network at the citizenry's expense. President Hamid Karzai depends on the networks' leadership to deliver political support; in exchange, he empowers them with critical appointments, protects them from prosecution, and allows them to prey on the public. The result is a government of informal political deal making rather than rule-based administration by publicly accountable institutions. If the West is unwilling to do the work required to replace the former with the latter, the next best approach might be to reshape these deals at the margin to make them less damaging. An Informal Approach: Restrict Land Taking Corruption is pervasive in Afghanistan, but it is not all equally harmful. Petty bribery, customs skimming, and even shakedowns at police checkpoints, while damaging, are probably not disastrous to the war effort. Land grabs, by contrast, could be fatal. In Afghanistan, land is often the difference between feeding one's family and destitution; the future of many families, tribes, and communities depends on their land holdings. Yet it is common for the powerful in Afghanistan to throw people off their land, often for economic development projects that serve chiefly as vehicles for fraudulent loans and financial schemes that benefit officials and their associates. When landholders are cast out, they often have no legal recourse. The local courts and police, along with district and provincial councils, are usually beholden to the same patron-client network that took their land. To many victims, Americans seem to be part of the problem: after all, U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine tells commanders to connect the people to their government; when that government is the apparent problem, Americans who back it understandably look complicit to many Afghans. Instead, many victims turn to the Taliban. Few Afghans want Taliban rule. But the Taliban have astutely positioned themselves as defenders of the downtrodden and dispossessed. Land grabs that create radically victimized subgroups thus drive them to support an unpopular insurgency as their only means of recovering their livelihood. Nor is this limited solely to the already dispossessed. When others see their neighbors victimized by an apparently unconstrained patronage network, many expect the same fate for themselves soon. The longer this situation continues, the greater the fear and the greater the opening for the Taliban. Harnessing U.S. Leverage The best solution to this problem would be institutional reform of the kind mentioned above. But this approach requires time and effort, which are in short supply. A second-best alternative would use the West's remaining leverage to change malign officials' incentives and persuade them to accept limits on their take that would exclude land grabs while tolerating much of the rest. The patronage networks that are the heart of the problem seek profit and influence; they behave the way they do now because it serves their economic self-interest. But this implies that a different cost-benefit calculus deriving from a reconfigured political deal with Kabul could change their behavior. Such a reconfigured deal would need several components. First, Kabul would prohibit illegal land grabs, but would allow power brokers substantial economic autonomy otherwise. Of course, the networks would have to observe other critical limits as well, such as denying the use of territory they control for terrorism and limiting destabilizing violence against rival warlords. Even so, a critical restriction would be drawn at land taking as beyond the limit of tolerable corruption. Second, Kabul and the international community would enforce the deals via a combination of carrots and sticks. The carrots would be a share of the foreign assistance flowing into the country through Kabul. As this assistance would be controlled by the international community, the United States and its allies could thus condition their aid on effective enforcement of a ban on illegal land grabs, giving both Kabul and the power brokers a positive incentive for compliance. The sticks would be the threat of punitive sanction, both the potential withdrawal of assistance and the potential for nationally controlled security forces to repossess illegally taken lands. This sticks-and-carrots approach would require U.S. diplomats to use their remaining leverage to persuade Karzai to accept this restraint on his domestic allies. The United States would also need to beef up intelligence monitoring of power brokers' behavior, follow through on threats to withhold aid unless Kabul acts when that monitoring detects violations, and follow through in providing aid if Afghans cooperate. Neither these carrots nor sticks are overwhelmingly powerful—this is the central problem for governance reform today. But if U.S. demands are limited to reducing the scale of malfeasance at the margin while permitting substantial autonomy otherwise, modest incentives might be enough. Of course, this approach requires continued engagement from the international community, both in aid and in attention to monitor compliance and coordinate enforcement. Any feasible approach to a stable Afghanistan will require this involvement. Afghanistan was at peace with itself and its neighbors for most of the twentieth century, but it was a ward of the international system throughout, with annual aid flows of $200 million to $300 million in today's dollars. Today's requirements could differ. Even so, if the international community is unwilling to sustain modest but nontrivial assistance, the prognosis will be grim regardless of its security efforts. The purpose of strategy is to align ambition and resources; but if resources vanish altogether, then no strategy can bring an acceptable outcome. Will Governance Reform Suffice? Is an acceptable outcome possible even with the steps proposed here? There are many uncertainties, but for now a tolerable outcome is still possible—if there is real governance reform, and soon. In years of polling, Afghans have repeatedly said they do not want Taliban rule. This is a powerful advantage in a conflict widely seen as a struggle for the political allegiance of the public. Coalition reinforcements since 2009 have made important security gains, and Taliban counterattacks have failed to retake the ground they have lost. The Bush administration's original war aims may have been unattainable, but a compromise settlement involving some role for a legalized Taliban ought to be acceptable to the West, the Afghans, and the Taliban if insurgents' military prospects can be kept dim enough and if the complexities of reaching agreement among such a wide cast of parties can be managed. This kind of compromise settlement is still at least possible. But it requires commitments of time, troops, money—and governance reform. Any negotiated settlement would be undermined by gross misgovernance on today's scale: the Taliban may not be liked, but if the alternative is ever-increasing corruption by unconstrained, unaccountable power brokers, then this will eventually empower an unpopular but honest Taliban to grab far greater power on the inside than it could ever have seized on the battlefield. Against an enemy as unpopular as the Taliban, partial governance reform may suffice. But without it, no acceptable outcome can be sustained, and further sacrifices will be wasted.