Afghanistan’s newsworthiness of late focuses on the US and its allies giving up credibility and justifying the expense of blood and treasure. At the center is the humanitarian crisis of accommodating refugees and giving those local nationals who helped us over 20 years an escape from Taliban retaliation. These results of our chaotic withdrawal are tragic and very real. Americans need to evaluate these events and apply consequences. Over the past weeks, there has been much discussion and finger-pointing as we digest verbal and visual evidence of a bungled withdrawal. This article will leave that to the participants in the latest news cycle. Instead, it will look at the American role or lack of it on a larger scale.
Events in Afghanistan now resulted from strategic errors made since 1979 and the ignorance of historical lessons from the time of Alexander the Great. Unfortunately, it is worse than just a series of mistakes. It has been a complete lack of strategy and the absence of those with enough vision to formulate and articulate a US grand strategy. Our political leaders have been fond of telling us that we have an “interest” in a specific region or country. However, they fall well short, articulating how those interests fit into a more significant global vision and why we need to protect those interests. That lack of vision will likely result in a loss in Afghanistan and, worse, the larger Middle East. It will also put the world’s most populous democracy, India, in the crosshairs of Russia and China. The American loss of influence in Afghanistan and Central Asia will affect other regions, with Taiwan a likely next target.
Now to be clear, I do not claim to have ever been in a position to influence or formulate a national grand strategy. But as Glenn Beck sometimes describes himself, “I am a thinker.” Like many other Americans, I have increasingly asked myself what our national and allies’ goals in the Middle East have been. How our policies for the region have evolved. And why we now find ourselves floundering.
Recently, strategy and strategic thinking have become one of many buzzwords that dominate our news and political discussions. They are deliberate and designed to impress an audience with the speaker’s intellectual abilities. We see that with talking heads, journalists, people in uniform, and pretty much anyone who can grab any broadcast or social medium. Words and phrases like “strategy” and “in harm’s way” roll-off tongues smoothly but without reflection. As John Kennedy appropriately said, “Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
Before strategy, a country must have an overarching and clear vision, a Grand Strategy, that its citizens and others in its population support. For the US, China, and Russia (maybe a few others), that vision would include global influence. The US would also embrace creating an atmosphere to ensure its citizens’ safety, security, and prosperity. American founding documents are an excellent place to start. From a Grand Strategy, flows sound policies and actions. To get there, we must have leaders in our civilian government and our military and industry and entertainment capable of unfiltered and unapologetic strategic thinking. One of the best and most straightforward definitions of thinking on a strategic level comes from the Center for Management and Organizational Effectiveness. “Strategic thinking is simply an intentional and rational thought process that focuses on analyzing critical factors and variables that will influence long-term success. This level of thinking includes careful and deliberate anticipation of threats and vulnerabilities and opportunities to pursue. Ultimately, strategic thinking and analysis lead to a clear set of goals that allow for plans and new ideas required to survive and thrive in a competitive and changing environment. This sort of thinking must account for economic realities, market forces, and available resources. Strategic thinking requires research, analytical thinking, innovation, problem-solving, communication and leadership, and decisiveness.
“A leader has to be practical and a realist, yet must talk the language of the visionary and the idealist.” Eric Hoffer, The True Believer
It has been a long time since the US has had a genuine strategic thinker in a position of national power. One that could meld economic, diplomatic, and military strategy into a coherent and effective map to guide and maintain our global primacy. U.S Marine Corp General Anthony Zinni is one such thinker. He has tried his best to influence US political leadership toward an effective Middle East policy. Shah Pahlavi was overthrown in 1979. The US Embassy was overrun by Iranian militants, and 52 Americans were taken hostage. General Zinni said a successful strategy in the Middle East must be about Iran. How right he was. Persian and then Iranian influence in the Middle East as we know it has persisted since the early 19th century when Russia and Great Britain vied for power over Persian territory. Wealth, security, and territorial influence have been the prize. Afghanistan and Persian/Iranian territory and its population are geographically and culturally naturally cohesive. That sub-region has always been the central part of what Peter Hopkirk called The Great Game. Great powers have always needed influence over Afghanistan and Persian territory to achieve their grand strategy, whether that be an expansion of empire or to stop a rival power’s ambitions of adding to their wealth, influence, and territory. A quick and superficial view of history reveals Alexander the Great understood this, as did the Mongols and the Turks, Great Britain, Russia, and now the Chinese. Today, with the fall of Afghanistan, we have opened the door for Russian, Chinese, and Iranian expansion into the Middle East. How is it that we have forgotten this lesson in strategy and allowed that to happen? And yet we have.
It seems modern-day American leaders have limited strategic thought to military might. While a hammer is an essential tool, there are other tools in the box. Over decades we have allowed or leaders to ignore “critical factors and variables” that should be strategic success multipliers. Just this week, President Biden stated that our strategic interest in Afghanistan ended with the defeat of Al Qaeda and ISIS. That declaration should be proof to those Americans who still listen and care that leaders at the highest level of our government do not have a grand strategy, nor are they strategic thinkers. An examination of the announced policies of the past five administrations will yield those same grim conclusions.
Suppose General Zinni was right about the Middle East and Central Asia policy some four decades ago. Should we not have articulated a strategy and put policies in place that isolated them? Iranian hegemony since 1979 has been poisonous and destabilizing. Iranian ambitions are also a threat to the US influence in the region. There was hope that US leaders had a strategy to isolate Iran with the occupation and construction of military and diplomatic efforts in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Coupled with an existing presence in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East, Iran was surrounded. But events over the past few years have shown that US efforts were more logistically focused than strategic. US involvement in the region increased, not to isolate Iran or increase our influence but “to accommodate the increased need for supplies to Afghanistan and reduce reliance on supply lines through Pakistan.”
Yes, the Middle East and Central Asia are particularly rich in petroleum. Seen falsely as an archaic commodity. It also possesses large reserves of rare earth elements (REE), as well as precious metals. These commodities are the future. (for a good overview of REEs, see the USGS Mineral Resources Program article, The Rare-Earth Elements-Vital to Modern Technologies and Lifestyles). REEs are critical components in high technology devices, including smartphones, digital cameras, computer hard disks, fluorescent and light-emitting-diode (LED) lights, flat-screen televisions, computer monitors, magnets, and electronic displays. Why is that important, and should it be factored into our Grand Strategy? First, REE reserves in Afghanistan are estimated at $3 trillion with large deposits of lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, and veins of aluminum, gold, silver, zinc, mercury, and lithium. Second, China has provided and currently controls 85-95% of the world’s REE needs. Reports surfaced just weeks after the US announced its withdrawal from Afghanistan that China was negotiating with the Taliban to exploit these mineral reserves. As was the case with great powers of the past, we must maintain influence over regions critical to achieving our Grand Strategy. That means a direct presence and having an effective regional partner. It means denying competitors any advantage that would expand their wealth or territory. Afghanistan, Iran, indeed all of Central Asia are in the back yards of China and Russia, our two main rivals. Our Grand Strategy must deny them any opportunity to control or influence the Hindu Kush, Iran, and the Indian sub-continent. Great powers have understood this for centuries. The US must consider “economic realities, market forces, and available resources. Strategic thinking requires research, analytical thinking, innovation, problem-solving, communication and leadership, and decisiveness.” Our actions must include, account for, and tolerate cultural and religious differences. That doesn’t mean we have to change them. It does mean experiencing the discomfort of thought.