The New York Times had a lead editorial today entitled “Afghanistan on Fire.”  It was a “something must be done” presentation that attempted to define four or five things that can fix Afghanistan based on the premise that if Washington fails the “more freedom al-Qaeda will have to mount new terrorist operations against this country…” 

As is frequently the case when a neocon editorial writer wants to set the stage for what follows, the initial premise is questionable.  The assumption is that al-Qaeda in Pakistan continues to be a global threat, a claim that is at best debatable based on considerable recent evidence to suggest that Salafist-like terrorist groups operate locally and with little input or support from whatever cave Usama bin Laden is hiding in this week.  Even the Bush administration has conceded that destroying Usama bin Laden is no longer a top priority (though that might be partly based on the White House’s failure to do so).

The Times then provides its remedy to the Afghan dilemma:  first, convince Pakistan to take decisive action against the terrorists sheltering in its tribal areas.  Second, more American troops on the ground.  Third, more NATO troops who are actually willing to fight the enemy.  Fourth, reign in corruption in the Afghan government and provide more aid for reconstruction. 

To give the Bushies their due (I think this is the first time I have done that), none of the suggestions are exactly new.  Pervez Musharraf tried to crack down in the tribal areas only to find out that it was impossible given his country’s internal politics.  Those politics have, if anything, become more fractious. 

As for an Afghan style “surge,” the Soviet Union had more than 100,000 men in Afghanistan and had puppet presidents (Karmal and Najibullah) who controlled much more of the country than does Hamid Karzai.  They still lost, as did the British before them.  A surge in Afghanistan will likely not work.  NATO will not provide anything more because the Afghan adventure is extremely unpopular back at home.  The Europeans, rightly or wrongly, do not see a successful outcome in Afghanistan no matter how many of their fellow countrymen they put in uniform and send to their deaths. 

Corruption?  Easy to write on a paper that it should be rooted out, but it is the glue that holds the current Afghan government together.  Lots of money for all the lads who support the government.  Foreign aid?  From whom, and how does one avoid giving it to the corrupt government so that it can be corruptly divided up to buy still more support?

So what is the point of the Times editorial?  Well, something must be done…it might be churlish to suggest that deciding that Afghanistan cannot be repaired after seven years of bad policy choices might actually be a solution.  Bringing our soldiers home would at least insure that no more of them would die in what is quite likely a lost cause.