Insurgency is the point on that scale where the social contract breaks down and people become willing to kill to have their way. You cannot be committed to supporting one side or the other and remain neutral. You cannot deny that the potential application of violence seriously hinders any further political development until one side or the other establishes a monopoly on the use of force. This side would then be called the authority; the side which, by force of arms, has won the right to govern. The ability of that “government” to provide what we would consider as essential community services is immaterial at that point. They are the authority. Until one side or the other is the undisputed authority, having sole possession of the use of force as a legitimate actor, there is either insurgency or outright civil war.

This is an insurgency, which is the point on that human scale where non-authority violence ceases to be a criminal issue and becomes the lowest form of warfare. Make no mistake; it is warfare.

To sum up; we are decisively on the side of the GIRoA. The GIRoA is engaged in fighting an insurgency, and we are on their side. If we don’t support them militarily, they will struggle to provide that essential security piece (a basic governmental function) on a local level, what little services they provide will be assumed in some cases by the insurgents, and a state of outright civil war will erupt. We really really want and need for GIRoA to be the side that wins (maintains) that right to be the government. Our military support is essential. This is not about drones or similar toys other than, “is it a good idea to use them… do we gain more than we lose?” This is not driven by some silly nefarious goal like having a lock on the world rock supply. This is about a friendly nation who is at war with an enemy both internal and external. We help them fight; we try to push this conflict, through various means along several lines of effort (security, governance, economic development) further towards the political end of the scale, where non-state violence becomes a criminal problem rather than an issue of warfare. The military is best on the security leg of the stool, each of which is essential to a stable stool… stability.

Right now, it’s a war. You cannot half-ass your support for GIRoA. Either you do, or you don’t. There is no caveat. We are finally picking up on the non-military piece, but if you get all fluffy bunny on it now, you will just wind up with a lot of dead civilians and a really hateful regime. (And if the Taliban gain power again, they will be REALLY hateful.) If you don’t like the violence and you want to contribute, come over and do some governance work or find a way to contribute to economic development; but don’t for one minute think that all this country needs is a hug.

That is why it is a military issue; why violence is one of the clubs in our bag, and why it’s okay not to get that, as long as you’re doing something to contribute.

so you’re in favor of providing everything except military support to the GIRoA/ANSF? what are you in favor of doing, exactly?

@Josh:

I assume that you, like me, were against the Iraq war. But did you advocate a rapid troop withdrawal in 2006, at the height of the sectarian civil war? Were you of the opinion, regardless of the outcome, that instead of sending more troops the U.S. should have scaled back the mission like Casey recommended?

I’m a Surge skeptic, but just looking at the numbers I have to admit that in terms of casualties it did have a measure of success. Afghanistan at the moment is in a very similar place — except that withdrawal would mean catastrophe on a much grander scale because of the two nuclear rivals next door.

While you are right that the perhaps 2.5 million Iraqis died in the Iraqi civil war between 1980 and 2008 and the Iraq/Iran war that was a result of the Iraqi civil war, how could the international community have prevented that? I commend your compassion and empathy for Iraqis. It is difficult to feel the suffering of others and not want to help. The question is how to express compassion for Iraqis in action?

I don’t expect you to answer this because Iraq is off topic. Perhaps, however, you could describe what you would do if the Afghans were to elect you their president, and you had hundreds of billions of dollars in international grants pledged to you, and you had tens of thousands of foreign civilian advisers, and you had tens of thousands of international trainers and embedded training teams for the ANSF that you could coordinate.

Am I understanding you correctly? You say we should use violence in Afghanistan because

A) We’re already doing it and,

B) You’ve arbitrarily decided that the dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of people dying every month in real life Afghanistan is better than the hypothetical Afghanistan in your mind where thousands and thousands of people COULD BE dying every month?

I don’t believe that is a convincing argument to use violence and war in order to accomplish the stated objectives.

“Why is War the only tool we’re capable of conceiving here?”

It is not. But I believe we’re currently out of options. The patient, if you will, is on the operating table; if you didn’t intend to make him better, why did you cut him open in the first place? In short, I believe withdrawal now would have consequences far more catastrophic in terms of human life than staying. And let’s face it: it’s not like thousands upon thousands are being killed in Afghanistan every month, is it? It is a low intensity conflict that unfortunately is tying up a lot of resources, but ultimately pulling out would be far more costly.

You’re missing the point. I’m not saying nuclear war between India and Pakistan is a good thing, I’m asking if violence is the proper solution to preventing it.

However, if you just want to stack human corpses as a metric for determining the right course of action, I’d point out that between withering UN sanctions, US invasion/occupation, and the resulting civil war, almost 2.5 million people have died in Iraq. How does that rank in your “there’s killing and then there’s killing” scale?

Again, why is War the only tool we’re capable of conceiving here?