Old War, New War, Bad News On Afghanistan

Dear Mr. President,
“Afghan Sign of Progress Turns Out To Be Error” (today’s New York Times, p. A4). The title tells the story: a NATO report that showed a 7% decrease last year in “enemy initiated attacks” (by guns, rockets, mortars or IEDs) turns out to be incorrect. The corrected report not only shows no decrease but a significant increase from 3 years ago. In July 2009, before the “Obama surge,” the number of “enemy initiated attacks” was 2,000; in July 2010 after all 30,000 “surgers” were in place, the number of attacks jumped to 4,000; and last July, after all those combatants and civilians were killed, maimed, traumatized and terrorized, after all the destruction and mayhem, the number of attacks was still 3,000. That 7% decrease was supposed to be a sign of progress. “Fewer attacks, the reasoning went, meant Afghans were safer and the Taliban were weaker.” But somebody left out a couple months of data and poof! so much for progress. With the corrected figures, and using the same reasoning, Afghans must be less safe and the Taliban stronger—by 50%. Professor Mary Kaldor of the London School of Economics draws a distinction between Old and New War. Old War, she says, was essentially a battle of wills between states or leaders; 2 sides, 2 armies, one side wins, one side loses. But New War is more complex with multiple combatants all seeking some form of political or economic gain “because violence provides an opportunity to spread political ideologies based on fear and polarization and to extract revenue through economic predation.” In an article to be published next month in the spring issue of War Crimes Times, Lesley Docksey points out that Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are hybrid wars, somewhere between Old War and New War where “an invading army finds itself at a loss as to how to fight what is essentially a guerrilla war fought by people trying to rid their country of a force that has come in from outside and is trying to impose its own solution on their state’s difficulties. But when, politicians having realized they are never going to win this war, the invading troops are pulled out, the fighting goes on. It morphs into a New War.” That’s Bush’s war in Iraq and your “smart” war in Afghanistan, Mr. President, and the War on Terror, one of those New Wars with no clear enemy and the only winner the war profiteers—the Halliburtons and Blackwaters, the Lockheeds and Raytheons—that Bush started and you continue will go on and on and on. Some legacy.