Holbrooke and a Dam too Far
High in the Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, a 55 year-old dam holds immense potential for the stability and development of Afghanistan’s second largest city. If only the Taliban would let the concrete delivery arrive.
Kajakai Dam
Built in 1953 by Morrison-Knudsen, the same American company that contributed to building the Hoover Dam, the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge, and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, the Kajaki Dam suffers from decades of neglected maintenance and inefficient hydroelectric turbines. According to reporting by Rajiv Chandrasekaran in the Washington Post, “the dam produces about 33 megawatts of electricity with two rehabilitated turbines, of which only about 30 percent of the power reaches Kandahar. Along the route, as much as 40 percent of the electricity is lost to theft and transmission inefficiencies.
As a consequence, Kandahar residents fortunate enough to have their homes and shops connected to the city’s rickety network of electricity wires typically receive about six hours of power a day. But there are days and nights without a flicker of light, the whir of a fan, the distraction of television. Frequent blackouts have shut down factories and kept people locked indoors after sunset.”
On Wednesday, the Obama administration’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke said the electric supply to Kandahar, a former Taliban stronghold, is currently a central goal of the US’s strategy to win the war. He told PBS’s Gwenn Ifill that General David Petraeus, the new US commander in charge of the multi-national force in Afghanistan, raised this issue with him on a conference call last Saturday.
As much as 40% of the electricity is lost to theft and transmission inefficiencies.
However, the means and methods by which to provide this electricity differ greatly amongst the various departments and policy circles working on Afghanistan’s problems. Military leaders, eager to meet the draw down deadline next summer favor a short-term solution to purchase three huge diesel generators and thousands of gallons of fuel. US Embassy and State Department officials however, favor a more comprehensive plan to upgrade the Dam’s generators and finish installing a third turbine to boost long-term production. In 2008, an operation involving 5,000 British troops, attempted to deliver and install the third turbine to the Dam, but the Taliban fought furiously along the roads leading up the mountainside, making it impossible for trucks to haul cement in to install it. (You can read an excellent account of that mission by Lieutenant-Col Rufus McNeil here)
Herein lies the conundrum, restoring consistent power to Kandahar, a city of 450,000 is a necessary task, but the most effective and cost-efficient means of doing so is blocked by the Taliban. The Afghan government will never be able to afford the diesel fuel for the power generators after the American forces leave, once again plunging the city into darkness if the military’s short-term fix is implemented. That long term perspective however, seems rather wishful when one considers recently ousted US General Stanley McChrystal’s point, who was quoted by the Economist last week telling his staff: “While I think Kajaki is critical for a long-term solution, there ain’t no long-term if we don’t win short-term.”
A decision on the city’s electricity and the Dam’s future should come soon as General Petraeus is highly likely to receive full Senate confirmation on his new appointment today and depart for the region by the weekend. To fix a dam or not to fix a dam, that is the question.
US Team Identifies Trillion $ Mineral Deposits in Afghanistan
Monday’s New York Times leads with a blockbuster story and while its extraordinary news, its not surprising.
The mountains, valleys and high rock passes of Afghanistan have lured global powers and interests for centuries. The foreign parries and thrusts between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia’s Great Game throughout the 1800′s would absolutely have been fiercer had they known about this treasure. In modern terms however, this public revelation adds complexity to any continued US engagement in Afghanistan and its neighbor Pakistan, which offers the fastest land route for the minerals to the Indian Ocean and world markets. Both countries’ populations and governments are going to have cocked ears to this news and while President Karzai of Afghanistan has known for sometime, its unlikely to have spread far outside his inner circle.
US Geological Survey Mineral Map of Afghanistan, pre trillion $ find. USGS
As the world’s population grows up digitally and elements like copper and lithium continue to be highly valued, Afghanistan’s deposits set up a second Great Game scenario between China and the United States. Both countries already have small mining operations in Afghanistan, and the Chinese have already demonstrated their willingness to play outside the lines, accused of bribing an Afghan minister with $30 million while lobbying for more mining contracts. In economic development terms this extraction of wealth from the ground could spawn immensely proportional changes in one of the poorest regions of the world. However, the sophisticated technology needed to cultivate the rich veins of ore and “foot in the door” position of the US to identify and expose these deposits probably means little equity in the discoveries will belong to Afghans.
Obama’s New War: A Tough Sell
By: Ricardo Rodriguez*
Having campaigned on an ostensibly anti-war platform, Obama will likely disappoint a large percentage of his base with the announcement of the new Afghan surge. For those on the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, feelings of abandonment may be a more appropriate term.
The fact remains, however, that Obama’s presidential campaign was no more anti-war than his proponents care to admit. While he certainly hammered on the point that he voted against the war in Iraq and to an extent called for a scaling-down, he was vociferous in his condemnation of the Bush administration for neglecting Afghanistan, which Obama consistently added was the ‘true war.’ In other words, there was nothing subtle about his views on the Afghan war and the signals he conveyed regarding a potential escalation of troops.
President Barack Obama finishes his speech about the war in Afghanistan at the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., on Tuesday night. (Charles Dharapak/AP)
After hearing his speech last night, appropriately delivered at West Point in front of 4,000 cadets, one cannot help but sense the urgency and sincerity in Obama’s voice and demeanor. He appeared tired and worn out from deliberation, eyes glossy with underlying sadness. Often invoking history, from the strong words of Eisenhower to the leadership of FDR, he sought to provide an overarching context for his decision in an attempt to rally the confidence of those who would be called upon to make the most immediate sacrifice—American soldiers. Obama was not there to placate his base of progressives, much less the hawks on the right who will likely criticize any decision he would have made short of an unconditional surge, with no timeline whatsoever. Nonetheless, for many on both sides, Obama’s plea was far too abstract, lacking the logistics needed to justify what will likely be another long-term commitment.
Indeed, the fallout coming from both sides was immediate and stark. Sean Hannity called Obama weak, and not surprisingly cited the imprudence of setting an 18-month timeline. Chris Matthews, although visibly bewildered by Obama’s decision, was much more subtle in his critique, calling the surge a “Rube Goldberg”—an unnecessary, ostentatiously engineered contraption designed to complete a fairly simple task.
Hannity’s critique was expected, but still unfortunate; he of all people should have commended Obama for showing a clear commitment to US security, the lynchpin issue of conservatives. Matthews, on the other hand, was simply misguided in his interpretation; to say that al-Qaeda’s potential reemergence vis-à-vis an unstable Afghanistan need not be prevented through a complex, comprehensive effort minimizes a dire situation. Even more so, it shows an utter failure in understanding the big picture.
With his approval ratings at their lowest since he took office—most notably exacerbated by the fragile economy—Obama faces tremendous risks with the Afghan decision. Perhaps the most telling sign of long-term political risk is growing isolationist sentiment among the American people, which according to an upcoming report from the Pew Research Center has reached a 4-decade high. Combined with a 35 percent approval rating on his handling of Afghanistan and 50 percent opposition to a troop escalation, according to Gallup polls, Obama faces an uphill battle in selling what is clearly an unpopular war.
After having deliberated for over two-months since General McChrystal submitted his request for more troops, it is hard to imagine that someone who is perceived to be as reasonable as Obama would make such an unpopular decision had he not truly deemed the worse case scenario far too grave to ignore. Unfortunately for Obama, as Ron Reagan Jr. so aptly stated, the big picture cannot fit on a bumper sticker. Suffice to say, for an economically downtrodden American people, this will be a tough sell.
*Ricardo Rodriguez is the Associate Editor of www.politics3.com
30,000 More Troops, For What?
Last night, after a long awaited and highly scrutinized build up President Obama addressed the country from West Point Military Academy on the future of the war in Afghanistan. His speech was methodic, organized and tried to explain the reasoning behind the surge. After announcing his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan as soon as this month, he immediately announced his timetable to bring them back home in the next sentence. The 18 month timetable was a clear warning to many groups including the American military, the Afghans, the Pakistanis and Al Qaeda aligned groups that the open ended U.S. commitment in Afghanistan was over.
An Afghan National Policeman (ANP) fires a rocket-propelled grenade during a live-fire exercise near Beshud, Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan, Feb. 13, 2008. The range is for U.S. forces to evaluate the ANP on thier marksmanship skills. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Justin French)
The core of his speech and strategy was all about one word, transition. President Obama’s core argument is complex, but his attempt to make his explanation palpable to the audience was overly simplified at the expense of substance. In his argument he outlined a 3-prong strategy. The United States seeks to introduce additional troops into Afghanistan to foster the right environment for the Afghan government, its troops and people to take responsibility for their own security and prosperity. The U.S. will work within civilian political and developmental channels to support the Afghan people and lastly continue the partnership with Pakistan to strengthen their military and political institutions.
However, the President glossed over the massive corruption challenges in Afghanistan, the illegitimacy of the most recent election which gave President Hamid Karzai another term, and he never mentioned the main source of Taliban and al Qaeda funding in the country – heroin.
The President hoped to convince the American people, anti-war members of Congress and allies around the world to support an escalation of this war. He did a good job explaining the value of securing Afghanistan and its connection to the attacks of 9-11. He did a poorer job explaining why 30,000 additional combat troops would be able to do anything different than the 68,000 troops that are currently there.
Foreign Service Officer’s Resignation May Be Rallying Point For Afghan War
Flying over Zabul. (Julie Jacobson/AP)
By Mark Memmott, NPR
Here’s a name to watch for in coming days: Matthew Hoh.
He could soon be a hero to those who think the U.S. should begin to wind down its efforts in Afghanistan, which means he could soon be all over the cable news airwaves.
As The Washington Post reports, Hoh is a former captain in the U.S. Marines who served in Iraq. Earlier this year, he joined the Foreign Service and was soon assigned to Zabul Province, Afghanistan.
But last month, the Post writes, “in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.” Continue Reading…
