Crowley versus the truth

In the current issue of The New Republic, Michael Crowley says that the Afghan war is very difficult and could become a quagmire for Barack Obama.

But Crowley's article is based on a string of cliches from armchair analysts, like this one:

Meanwhile, the recent savagery in Mumbai has India and Pakistan at each other's throats again, a development that indirectly benefits Afghan insurgents.

This single sentence is enough (although there are many more in this ponderous article) to demonstrate Crowley's cluelessness.

The "recent savagery" in Mumbai is the handiwork of the Pakistani extremist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, a long-time protege of the Pakistan military. The Mumbai attackers were trained, according to the captured terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab, by military officers.

Given this, India has shown remarkable restraint. India and Pakistan are not at each others' throats, because they understand what Crowley and his ilk don't --- that the civilian government in Pakistan lives in fear of the Pakistan army. It is the Pakistan army that is against peace with India. It is the Pakistan army that will not countenance any Indian help for Afghanistan --- it made that a condition for helping the Americans. It is the Pakistan army that is responsible for harboring the Afghan Taliban in Quetta, and allowing them to stage raids into Afghanistan to kill U.S. soldiers. And it is the Pakistan army that prevents the U.S. from prosecuting its war within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA in Pakistan. This is what makes the Afghan war difficult, not some romantic notion of unconquered Afghans since Alexander the great, another cliche that Crowley presses into service.

Crowley's entire article is shallow. Boston Brahmin hopes that Obama has better counsel, or God help us.