The Coming Shitstorm in Afghanistan

"There is no magic formula in Afghanistan. There is no Dayton agreement in Afghanistan. It's going to be a long difficult struggle."   ~Richard Holbrooke, special envoy for Afghanistan/Pakistan

Yes, the road forward in Afghanistan looks to be long and bumpy, with several articles of bad news in the past ten days. First off,

POPPIES!

The Wall Street Journal speculates that the Obama Administration will battle poppy production in Afghanistan, likely bringing in Iran, which has one of the highest rates of opium addiction in the world. That's good news but a tough task: The Taliban fund themselves through drugs, but agents of the Karzai government also skim a little off the top. The governors of "the two prime poppy provinces" are close to Karzai: Kandahar's head is Hamid's brother Ahmed. Helmand's was caught with nine tons of opium and has not yet been punished.

Meanwhile, the fledgling democracy faces its first

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!

Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission has decided to postpone the presidential election till August 20 in order to register more candidates, set up voting equipment, and instill order. The problem? Afghanistan's Constitution mandates that Karzai's term end on May 22, and that elections should be held 30 to 60 days beforehand. Opponents in Parliament have threatened to stop recognizing Karzai's legitimacy after May 22.

But the most serious problem is:

LOGISTICS!

The Taliban destroy a bridge along a crucial NATO supply route and torch ten supply trucks. The Kyrgyz president says American troops can no longer use the Manas supply base inside his country. Juan Cole puts it all together and says Obama might put the 30,000-troop surge to Afghanistan on hold.

Personally, I'm skeptical. Obama may be postponing the Afghanistan surge, but the reasons are probably more strategic than logistic. NATO does not seem to be too flustered by the disruption, having a 60-day supply of essentials in Afghan bases. Cole goes through various supply route options and considers routes by air. Why can't we fly supplies in via Pakistan? Cole gives no answer. Better question: If the land routes are so treacherous, why weren't we flying them in before?

Also worrying is that the Kyrgyz president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, announced the Manas decision in Moscow, after Russia promised $2 billion in credit and aid to Kyrgyzstan. Coincidence? Or does Russia feel threatened by the United States' involvement in Central Asia (and Eastern Europe)? Just like with Iran, the U.S. must work with Russia for their help in Afghanistan.

Today's meeting between the United States' and Russia's seconds-in-command (necks of state?), VP Joe Biden and Deputy PM Sergei Ivanov, was a positive step. The U.S. seems to be backpedaling on expanding NATO, which is good: Would the U.S. really want to go to war to defend Georgia? But America's insistence on a missile defense shield in Central Europe is mindboggling. I understand the possible threat from Iranian ICBMs, but shouldn't we wait until the technology has been proven and the threat is more imminent before we ruffle the Kremlin's feathers?

Headlines: 27 April 2008

• Oil refinery strikers hold rally
  

  A strike forces BP to close a pipeline that supplies Britain with 30% of its oil. Gas shortages have started to affect Scotland, ironically not because there isn't enough oil, but because people fearing a gas shortage are stocking up.
  

• Clinton Challenges Obama to Debate
  

  Clinton wants a moderator-less, Lincoln-Douglas-style debate. Nobody's told her that Douglas was the experience candidate.
  

• Bush pokes fun at his successors
  

  I'd tell him not to quit his day job, but he hasn't done so well at that either.
  

• Karzai unhurt after parade attack
  

  At least four dead and nine injured after Taliban militants fire into the grandstand.

Fortunate Son

The Drudge Report today broke the news that British Royal Prince Harry has been on the front lines in Afghanistan since December (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashph.htm). I say, right-o, chum!

I think this is fantastic. Of course, there's the possibility that publicizing this makes bonnie Prince Harry a target for the Taliban, and the Royal Family was right to keep it under wraps for as long as they did. But it's fantastic that he's right in there with honest-to-God soldiers, doing
honest-to-God fighting (reportedly). It's a lot more than the Bush twins can say, along with most of the sons and daughters of our Congressional officials and presidential candidates.

Granted, according to the article, he's only on a three-month tour, but given the fact that the British Regular Forces (including the Army, the Naval Service, and the RAF) have 20,000 fewer enlisted men and women than they did five years ago, perhaps he'll serve more (see http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/tsp1/gender.html). We'll have to keep an eye on what the Royal Family and British government have to say about that.

Whether you disagree with the greater War on Terror or not, I think most would say having Prince Harry, who's third in line for the crown, is a great morale boost and gives a little more integrity and credibility to the British war effort. Rather than say a Royal life is worth more than that of a regular Tommy in the trenches, Prince Harry is sending a message that he feels no more important than any one else his government sent to fight. It gives the phrase, "a government of laws, not of men," a greater ring of truth in the UK. Could this be a new trend? That would be a fantastic turnaround from the days of Vietnam and Creedence Clearwater Revival protest songs. But it will be a long time before we get there.