Sending the NYPD to Afghanistan

Hot Air Balloon in the Cairo Haze - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com

Afghanistan has degenerated into a policing action where the rules and objectives of combat have given way to those of constables and social scientists.  The United States military has been asked to step into the void and stabilize a notoriously corrupt country where the only constancy is instability and the switching of allegiances to gain an advantage over rival clans.  American armed forces have been given the impossible task of making this backward country a forward one, while being constrained by rules of engagement which puts servicemen at great personal risk.  GIs should not be used as policemen in this hapless third world country which has a tradition of making uninvited guests miserable.  America would do better to send the NYPD to Afghanistan in their place and let soldiers be soldiers.

In August 2011 Scientific American published an article “How New York Beat Crime” by Franklin Zimring; it provided some fascinating insights.  In the last two decades New York has seen an 80% fall in homicide, robbery, and burglary -  a drop unprecedented in urban history.  The circumstances surrounding this accomplishment occurred under the following conditions:

“...without changes in racial or ethnic profile and without lowering poverty or unemployment more than other cities. It did so without either winning the war on drugs or participating in the mass incarceration that has taken place throughout the rest of the country.”

“...a hopeful message from New York’s experience is that most crimes are largely a result of circumstances that can be changed without making expensive structural and social changes.  People are not doomed to commit crimes, and communities are not hardwired by their ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic character to be at risk.”

The extraordinary levels of success sustained over long periods of time were due to a greater level of participation by police at the street level. 

Afghanistan needs policemen more than soldiers, as demonstrated by the success of the recent surge.  Stability and lower crimes rates are based on the number of cops on the beat, whether in Kabul or New York City.  However, at this stage in the  Afghanistan conflict, it is simply not worth the effort, money, or life of one more American soldier.  It is time to rely on efficient, covert intelligence networks and special operations and let this troubled land take charge of its domestic affairs and return to the glorious seventh century when life was simply perfect.  Along the way, if Afghanis want to emulate or hire the NYPD, it’s strictly up to them. 

Mexico or Afghanistan? Misplaced Priorities

Rhino at Tiger Tops Game Preserve, Nepal. Photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com

“Don't tell me where your priorities are. Show me where you spend your money and I'll tell you what they are.” James W. Frick

In terms of risk and benefit one wonders why United States foreign policy places a high priority on stabilizing Afghanistan while virtually ignoring Mexico. When comparing these countries, it is obvious America is expending much effort and many resources on a very small player.

By comparison the two countries are not close in size, population, gross domestic product (GDP), infrastructure, or life expectancy. In fact one can make the argument that Afghanistan is really not a country but an amalgam of competing tribes thrown together by Europeans and united only by hatred for a common enemy. An Afghani will identify himself as a Muslim and by tribal affiliation, while a Mexican is a Mexican first and foremost.

In the late 1700's and early 1800's the Sikhs under Maharaja Ranjit Singh successfully drove the Afghans from the Indus River valley and through the Khyber Pass. They conquered Peshawar but never subjugated their enemy or governed Afghanistan. From the outset the British realized the futility of garrisoning troops north of the Khyber and made little effort to permanently occupy the land. Punitive expeditions were launched from time to time to undermine the power of cantankerous war lords, but withdrawal quickly ensued, and the locals were soon fighting among themselves. For all of our loft intentions, energy, and military capability it is difficult to conceive that the United States will fare any differently.

By land area Mexico is the 15th largest country in the world. It is three times the size of Afghanistan and bordered by two oceans, whereas the latter has little arable land and is tucked away in rugged, mountainous terrain. In terms of population Mexico is the world's 11th largest country with 112 million people compared to Afghanistan's 41 million. Mexican life expectancy is 72 years compared to the Afghan's 41 years, even as the Afghani birth rate is double that of the Mexicans. Regarding GDP, Mexico has the 12th largest economy in the world – 54 times that of Afghanistan. Economically, Afghanistan’s only distinction is it is by far the largest producer of opium in the world. Mexico shares a 1969 mile long border with the United States while Kabul, Afghanistan, is 7000 miles from Washington, D.C. Culturally, the United States shares a rich heritage with Mexico and 15% or 46 million people living here claim Hispanic ethnicity. The influence of Afghan culture on the United States is vanishingly small.

This is not to say the United States should abandon its interest in Afghanistan, but we should learn our lesson from history. Good intelligence and aggressive use of special operations forces go a long way to quietly protect our interests in the area, while reducing expenses and freeing our military from a war that cannot be won in the conventional sense.

On the other hand an unstable, lawless Mexico represents a considerable threat to our national security. At times it seems as if the war against the drug lords cannot be won, yet many Americans do not realize an even more violent and disruptive situation occurred in Colombia twenty years ago as the Cali and Medellin cocaine cartels ravaged the country. Despite the seemingly hopeless nature of the conflict, it was solved with a comprehensive approach that can be applied to Mexico. See: FIYE "Can Mexico Be Saved?" 12/5/2010

We should be fighting the battle waging at our doorstep against the cartels' murderous thugs who kill indiscriminately and smuggle hard core drugs into our country. They represent an overt threat to our economy, safety of our citizens, and civilized behavior. A strong, stable ally on our southern border is the best option for the United States. It is time to tidy things up a bit and help a neighbor and friend and play a smarter game in the Afghan hinterland.

What Scott Brown and Afghanistan Have in Common

Souk in Fez, Morocco - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com


After Scott Brown's recent remarkable victory in Massachusetts, I was reminded of an article I read in the August 2009 edition of Foreign Affairs magazine discussing strategies on how to secure victory in Afghanistan. “Flipping the Taliban – How to Win in Afghanistan” proposed a novel way to prevail in a country that has proven impossible to conquer. The authors concluded that Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara, and Pashtun factions display an unusual talent for backing a winner. In other words they will shift alliances constantly to place themselves on the winning side. No act of treachery or deceit is beneath Afghan tribal leaders in their efforts to realign their clan into a more favorable position. The article fancifully recommended that the United States should take whatever steps were necessary to insure itself as the eventual winner, so all the warring groups will switch their support to our side and a final victory will be achieved.

This trite solution over simplifies the complexities of dealing with the Afghan problem. However, the proposal applies appropriately to the American political scene. The American professional politician is no different than his Afghan cousin – their priority is to stay in power by backing a winner and resorting to short term goals to achieve this end.

Scott Brown faced an electorate where registered Democrats out numbered Republicans three to one. In winning Ted Kennedy's lifetime Senate seat he demonstrated the traditional power base of the political class has been shaken. With the exception of safe havens represented by the likes of Pelosi, Franks, and Waters where only death or voluntary retirement can displace the incumbent, elections for United States senators, state governors, and most congressional seats offer a significant chance to redefine the balance of power. For the majority of politicians whose perpetual reelection is no longer certain and who face an angry constituency, it is clearly a time to scrap principle and back a winner.

Even the lamentable lame duck Chris Dodd, who is retiring from the Senate rather than lose in the November general election, is cautioning the Democratic leadership to move less recklessly in regard to health care reform. Vulnerable politicians who value life time tenure above all else are attempting to recast themselves as thoughtful statesmen who readily act independently of the Obama machine. They are not switching sides, of course, only realigning.

The results of the Massachusetts Senate contest serves notice that politicians of all parties must be aware they work for the people not the obverse. Not to downplay the Brown triumph, but he ran against an egregious candidate who was not an incumbent. The litmus test will occur this November when the power of the incumbency will be pitted against challengers who historically face 1:20 odds when contesting a sitting politician. Look for our Congressmen to make “fact finding” pilgrimages to Kabul this year to learn from the experts on how to switch sides while calling it a “strategic reconsideration.”

ADDENDUM:

The morning after I posted this article the local newspaper, the Fresno Bee, reported that two Democratic congressmen from California's Central Valley have developed a rift with the Obama administration. Dennis Cardoza of Merced and Jim Costa of Fresno are irate over the White House's dealings with issues germane to their districts. What makes this all the more curious is Cardoza and Costa identify themselves as Blue Dog Democrats, but Cardoza has voted with the Obama administration 96% of the time and Costa 93%. I expect both of them to be making the aforementioned trip to Kabul soon.