Readers of this blog know that I am not a fan of the war in Afghanistan. That being said, I am not on board with the increasing calls that we leave. It’s not that I think its a good idea to stay or a bad idea to leave. Rather, the answer is I don’t know what would happen and that’s a problem.

Leaving Afghanistan could lead to renewed civil war between the Pasthun (i.e., Taliban) and non-Pasthuns (an Afghan solution for certain, but likely a very bloody one). It could lead to greater meddling by other countries in the region, primarily India, Iran, and Pakistan. Either could be highly destabilizing and most certainly could have consequences for the US (e.g., increasing tension between India and Pakistan). If parts of this sound familiar, they should because some of this  happened the last time the US hastily abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Perhaps the negative consequences of these scenarios don’t justify pouring more money into the country. I don’t know the answer to these questions and until we get some clarity on them, calls to leave Afghanistan strike me as irresponsible.

Afghanistan’s choices seem to be civil war or Taliban rule. Whatever happened to democracy?

The drive by President Hamid Karzai to strike a deal with Taliban leaders and their Pakistani backers is causing deep unease in Afghanistan’s minority communities, who fought the Taliban the longest and suffered the most during their rule.

The leaders of the country’s Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara communities, which make up close to half of Afghanistan’s population, are vowing to resist – and if necessary, fight – any deal that involves bringing members of the Taliban insurgency into a power-sharing arrangement with the government.

Alienated by discussions between President Karzai and the Pakistani military and intelligence officials, minority leaders are taking their first steps toward organizing against what they fear is Mr. Karzai’s long-held desire to restore the dominance of ethnic Pashtuns, who ruled the country for generations.

The dispute is breaking along lines nearly identical to those that formed during the final years of the Afghan civil war, which began after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union in 1989 and ended only with the American invasion following the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 100,000 Afghans died, mostly civilians; the Taliban, during their five-year reign in the capital, Kabul, carried out several large-scale massacres of Hazara civilians.

$300 billion very well spent.

According to Sharif Ahmed.  He makes some good points, but I”m not sure it is correct to say that the rest of the world thinks that Somalia is of no consequence: the piracy, terrorism and generally bad situation there means that lots of people are paying attention.

To make his case, Ahmed cites the underfunding of the AU mission and the need for more Somali troops.  He is right to say that more is needed in both cases, but I fail to see how either qualifies as evidence of neglect.   The AU is chronically underfunded, in part because it is an independent African association (or supposed to be) and African countries don’t have many resources to share.  This is a reason to help develop Africa, but that’s not entirely our fault (Ahmed appears to be addressing the West; if he is directing his remarks at African leaders – as he should be – then my apologies).

He also states that Somalia needs more troops.  Again, I’m sure he’s right, but this is not always a case of underfunding; witness Iraq and Afghanistan or Pakistan.  The US has poured in billions of dollars and all three still lack adequate forces, both national and otherwise.  Years of war across the globe have stretched everyone a little thin, even while there is will to help.  It is unfortunate, because peacekeeping troops probably could help Somalia stabilize, but I’m not sure where they’d come from.  Even with stability, there is no guarantee that Somalia will emerge from this as a successful state.  So far it seems that the Somalis just don’t like each other, and that is not a good start for nation-building.

I wish Ahmed luck.  I think he needs to lead the international community in rebuilding his country, and he can start by not expecting us to simply follow.

Oxfam released a bracing report on Sudan’s decent into violence:

2009 was an extremely violent year for southerners: more than 2,500 people were killed and 350,000 fled their homes. This is a higher toll than currently reported in Darfur…

The violence stems from multiple and sometimes overlapping sources. Tensions between northern and southern Sudan, including over CPA implementation, have resulted in clashes within joint north–south military units. Competition over natural resources combined with widespread ownership of small arms is fuelling violence between southern Sudan’s many tribes.

The Sudanese Government and representatives of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement say the report exaggerates the tensions in southern Sudan. Recent events suggest otherwise. While the cause of recent spike in violence is not entirely clear, according to the BBC,

Southern politicians accuse President Omar al-Bashir’s allies of arming rival groups in the south to stoke up trouble.

They say Mr Bashir wants to destabilise the region to sabotage a national election planned for April, and a referendum on southern independence the following year.

I think it would be a good idea to confirm whether this is true before the election.

Pessimistic prognosis on Sudan:

President Omar al Bashir’s government has failed to pass key democratic reforms promised by the Agreement, and without these reforms, there is no way the results of the elections will be accepted and offer a milestone for the peace process.

On the contrary, fraudulent elections engineered to strengthen Bashir’s National Congress Party (NCP), close the doors to political negotiations in Darfur and undermine the southern-based Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) both in the South and in national institutions.

A sham poll would most likely lead to a new escalation of violence in Darfur and compromise the holding of the referendum. And if the referendum does not go ahead on schedule, the South will probably declare unilateral independence, plunging. Sudan back into civil war.

Election observers from the Carter Center are concerned.  I guess they should be concerned, but it seems to me that they are neglecting the nature of the problem.  The BBC has a story today about how the country is going off the rails, focusing on one town in the south, Malakal.  The story quotes Dr. Gabriel Gatwech, one of the town’s residents.  According to Gatwech, “Northern and Southern Sudanese cannot live peacefully together. There is a total lack of trust.”  This seems to me to get closer to the problem and holding elections under these conditions is a terrible idea.  Upton Sinclair once said “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”  If your job is to run elections in Sudan, I suspect it’s difficult to understand how bad of an idea it is to hold them under these conditions.

The International Crisis Group has just released a frightening report on Sudan

Sudan is sliding towards violent breakup…Both parties want elections for the wrong reasons. The National Congress Party (NCP) wants votes in April 2010 that would allow it to regain the political legitimacy it needs both to protect President Bashir against the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant and to be in a stronger position to declare a state of emergency if needed, including in the event of a new war. The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) is concerned that derailed elections might jeopardize its overriding goal of holding the referendum [on independence for southern Sudan] on schedule. It threatens to declare unilateral independence if pushed to accept a referendum postponement…

It is essential to move rapidly on a number of fronts, including to negotiate a Darfur peace agreement that allows all Darfuris to vote in national elections; to implement legal reforms necessary for a free and fair national election process; and to agree on the commissions for the South’s self-determination referendum…Time is also required to negotiate a framework for the negotiations over how two highly interdependent states will relate to each other…These processes require strong, united international facilitation, as well as support from other major political forces in Sudan…

If implementation again lags badly, it will be necessary to concentrate on achieving the minimum essential to prevent return to deadly chaos: namely ensuring that the South’s referendum is held on schedule, with a day-after arrangement is in place.

It is quite ridiculous to believe that international negotiators can solve all of these issues in four months.  Thus, we need “to concentrate on achieving the minimum essential to prevent return to deadly chaos.” I had a long talk with someone who works on Sudan, and asked whether the US government was rethinking its strategy and calling to postpone the election.  The answer, sadly but predictably, was no.  I guess we have learned nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq, so let me make this clear: holding an election when we think it will cause a civil war is not a good idea.

Not good.  Not good at all.