Remember the Biden-Gelb measure of 2007? Didn’t think so.
It ambitiously proposed partitioning Iraq into four separate nations along sectarian, ethnic and regional lines. With the situation in Iraq rapidly deteriorating, the measure passed with 75 votes in the Senate, but was doomed by Iraqi officials who argued it entailed a long term U.S. presence and showed distrust in Iraqi security forces.
But this plan may actually be the blueprint for success in Afghanistan, a baby “democracy” largely divided by tribal dissidence and conflict. Though Hamid Karzai labels himself “big-tent” president and claims allies from across the spectrum, he caters heavily to his own people, the Pashtuns, to ensure political survival, often leaving Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and Turkmen minorities out in the cold.
Structural and historical realities of the state resist centralized, democratic rule and most rely on local governments, tribal councils, coalition troops and warlord rule to ensure security. A modified Biden-Gelb plan would face facts and establish a strong federal structure, diffusing power and checking local leaders to make them more accountable.
Institutions are the currency of the modern nation-state, and Afghanistan must be built upon this unmistakable truth. By reinvesting U.S. ground presence in military advisers and coordinating our efforts with local leaders, we can develop an institutional framework on military, social and political levels that can eventually constitute a strong, federalized bureaucracy.
But the White House must first determine if this war is worth fighting.
President Obama faces a double-edged sword. If the President decides to withdraw troops and Afghanistan falls, their fragile and nuclear-armed neighbor Pakistan will face grave danger. If the President calls for full implementation of General McChrystal’s recommendations, his popularity may take a substantial hit.
This war is central to our national security, and the cost of inaction could be tragic. The Biden-Gelb plan could bring stability to Afghanistan, but it is laden with sacrifices that Obama may be unwilling to make.
An interesting idea, but Biden-Gelb was wrong for Iraq and I don’t see how it works out in Afghanistan… It was simplistic to divide Iraq into ethnic regions when there were diverse faults within each sectarian group to consider. Wouldn’t Afghanistan’s actual actual power networks be far too complex for a federalization along Biden-Gelb lines to function?
The divides within broad ethnic groups vary on not just tribal but political and local lines. They have more to do with politics of the village and mountain valley in eastern and south eastern Afghanistan, while notions of broader ethnic and tribal identity are most prevalent in western Afghanistan, and south western Afghanistan. Conflict between localities largely (which often have more to do with resource, property, and personal disputes than conflicts of a tribal nature) drives violence within Pashtuns, etc… Taliban propaganda tries to galvanize Pashtun nationalism, but Karzai and his enemies within the Pashtun ethnic group don’t view their identities this way.
So what exactly would a new Biden-Gelb plan federalize Afghanistan into? I agree institutions are the key to long-term Afghan stability, but division into Pashtun, Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek (how much further do we go? Nuristanis? Heratis?), is that what we’re supposed to be pursuing? To put it simply, is the difference between the basic counterinsurgency strategy of reinforcing government at both federal and local levels and the Biden-Gelb model that the latter will explicitly divide Afghanistan’s governing authority on ethnic and tribal lines rather than the existing provincial structure?
There’s a fair difference between decentralization, federalism, and Balkanization. Which one is being advocated here?
At this moment in time, I think the most important priority for the U.S. Military is to get rid of Karzai. With his corrupt, inefficient, and sometimes authoritary rule, he is little more than a canker sore corrupting allied efforts in Afghanistan. The vast majority of Afghans do not see him as legitimate, and in most polls (statistical accuracies are abound, I admit) the current government ranks in the high single digits, just below the Taliban. He does little to provide security, and brings Kabul into unsavory partnerships with anti-American warlords in desperate attempt to expand his rule beyond being solely the “Mayor of Kabul.”
So to be frank, I’m not sure Biden-Gelb is the right answer in the wake of Karzai. It could certainly enflame dangerous tribal antagonisms that endanger the allied mission. As you mention, trombly, the logistics of an ethnic split would be practically impossible. But some fundamental restructuring needs to be done. It could take place in the form of “Balkanization” (or a process that most closely mirrors the definition) along the current provincial lines.
As of now, I’m only sure of one thing: Karzai must go.