Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Share

For a long time I've thought that the key to economic reconstruction in Afghanistan would be restoring its traditional role of carrying goods from South Asia (full of nice cheap consumer goods) to Central Asia (now featuring oil and gas revenues). To do this, the "ring road" that connects the country's major cities and the spur roads to the borders need to be made relatively safe from bandits, Talibani, and thieving officials. But every time I've raised this, I've been greeted with eye-rolling and such.

So I was pleased to see a genuine Central Asian expert,  S. Frederick Starr of Johns Hopkins, make a similar, more considered proposal:

Both General Mc Chrystal and President Obama have affirmed the need for "economic" and "governance" measures in Afghanistan.  They're right, of course. Without them the U.S.'s stated goals -- to destroy Al Queda and cripple the Taliban-remain purely negative and not compelling to most Afghans, to the countries neighboring Afghanistan, and even to our own NATO allies. But what are these "economic" and "governance" measures? Neither Mc Chrystal nor Obama has spelled these out. It's time to do so.

To succeed, any such measures must meet four criteria. First, they must directly and positively affect the lives of Afghans, Pakistanis, and people in those Central Asian states that have become key to this region-wide project. If ordinary people across the region are convinced that they will benefit from America's effort they will support it. If not, they will stand aside.  Second, the economic measures must leave the Afghan government with an income stream. Today the U.S. is paying the salaries of all Afghan soldiers and civil servants. This can't go on forever. Third, it must be possible to pursue the economic measures simultaneously with the military effort, and in a way that enhances the military campaign. And, fourth, these initiatives must work fast, and begin to show results within the next 18-24 months.

Since 2001 the U.S. and other countries have done much good in Afghanistan, far more than is generally known. Progress in major health indicators and education are only part of an impressive record. But late in 2009 these do not suffice. To meet our four criteria a more powerful engine is needed.

Fortunately, such a force exists. The U.S. should immediately focus its energies on opening continental transport and trade across Afghanistan and the region. This will immediately open large markets to Afghan and Pakistani producers in scores of legal areas. Ordinary Afghans will be able to get their goods to markets now closed to them. The yield on truck tariffs will provide a steady income for the government in Kabul. Such trade can start immediately, for it involves removing bureaucratic impediments at borders, not vast infrastructure projects.

Some argue that this cannot happen until the stability situation improves. They may be confusing cause and effect. If only a few trucks traverse a road it is easy for bandits to interdict them. If hundreds of trucks do so, some may still be hit. But most will bore their way through. Soon locals will be providing the truckers with food, gas, storage, and repair services, as well as good for shipment. As this happens, the local population gains an interest in keeping the road open.

But can this really happen quickly? The Asian Development Bank has shown convincingly that the goods and truckers are there, waiting for a green flag. These are not just local haulers but transcontinental shippers running from Hamburg to Hanoi, Damascus to Delhi, the Urals to Hydarabad. Surveys show that the truckers themselves see the main impediments not as bad roads or the absence of physical security.  These are tough guys, used to getting through under the worst conditions. But they are stopped dead by corrupt and inefficient practices at borders, especially in Afghanistan. Remove these and the dam will break, releasing a vast force of trade that existed across Eurasia for 2,500 years but which has been blocked in recent centuries. The International Union of Roads and Transport in Geneva reports that large numbers of its members are poised to move, once the impediments are removed. And since the key to removing these impediments at borders is to improve governance and remove corruption at these points, the project provides a perfect laboratory for improving governance elsewhere in Afghanistan.

The U.S. Army's network for delivering supplies to our forces in Afghanistan provides a skeleton for the emerging network of routes crossing Afghanistan. The U.S. needs only to open the same routes to civilian traffic to get the ball rolling. Soon truckers will want to cross Pakistan as well, passing on into India and beyond. Is this a fantasy?

In spite of the Pakistan-India conflict over Kashmir, some $3 billion of goods cross the India-Pakistan land border each year legally, and another $15 billion illegally. Both are products like refrigerators and stoves, not narcotics. Given this enormous economic pressure, it is quite conceivable that Indians and Pakistani could choose to open selective routes, even as they continue to spar over Kashmir.

The biggest surge in Afghanistan will fail if it is not intimately linked with an economic program, and one that pushes Kabul to improve governance. By releasing the engine of continental trade, the U.S. can achieve this. Such a project is not against anyone, and will enable the U.S. to engage constructively with every power in Eurasia, including China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Europe, the Middle East and even Iran, for which participation in such trade could be an important carrot. 

However, Washington has yet to embrace this as a top strategic priority, let alone to organize its mission in Afghanistan and the region in such a way as to achieve it. This last is particularly important, for it requires a degree of civil-military coordination that has not existed in the U.S.'s Afghan effort since 2005. The good news is that it is not yet too late to do this.  Once such a strategy and tactics are in place, the U.S. will have unleashed a force that generated wealth across Eurasia, and especially in Afghanistan and its neighbors, over several millennia. It's time to act.

To this, I would add that a little help from the U.S. military could go a long way here. Initially, at least, I would have Afghan forces organize large convoys of perhaps 200 to 300 trucks. Also, remove most of the checkpoints and have American troops over-watching those that remains. Meanwhile, other American forces could do some route clearing. Then assign a few Strykers to every convoy and have Apaches on tap in case there is trouble. Finally, perhaps organize caravanserais every 40 miles or for overnight stays, meals, and maintenance, and also to drop off broken-down trucks. (And hire locals to work at those places, giving them a huge incentive to cooperate against local Talibani.)

Bonus fact: I just learned also that Professor Starr is a world-class jazz clarinetist.

ASGHAR ACHAKZAI/AFP/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

WATSON

4:57 PM ET

October 20, 2009

Keep on trucking

Using force selectively in support of commerce** is sensible for the reasons stated by Messrs. Ricks and Starr.

But be ready for the tactic used back in the days when Carter and Reagan were supporting the violent Islamists. They would wait for a convoy to enter uneven terrain, disable the first and last vehicle, and then attack the other vehicles. Air support is problematic when the attackers are “hugging” their targets like that, and particularly if the attackers are seeking martyrdom.

(** We should use this approach at home. We have enough weapons and security personnel that there should be no unsafe neighborhoods in the US.)

 

JPWREL

5:09 PM ET

October 20, 2009

Starr’s comments make a ton

Starr’s comments make a ton of sense. If the Afghan population could begin to feel the consequences of trade in a meaningful way it goes a long way to enticing them to do those things to protect and increase that trade. Tom’s ideas on convoy protection would not require a lot of assets and the result of contributing forces to escort duty would be far more efficient and productive than chasing ghosts as many of our forces are now doing.

Like the great convoy battles during the battle for the Atlantic in WW2, the convoy was an enticing target, which attracted wolf packs. While there was always a risk to the convoys the risk to the wolf packs (Taliban) became even greater as a result of their concentration and lack of submerged (on foot and off road) mobility. If they surfaced they were easily detected and attacked. If they didn’t attack they in fact lost the battle.

The historical lesson here is obviously not exact but large commercial convoys if tactically supported in an intelligent fashion could be highly frustrating to the Taliban who would feel compelled to interrupt a process of growing commercial trade as a threat to themselves.

Whether we could get the military to cooperate in such a venture is hard to say. The Royal Navy originally thought they needed to follow their tradition and go out and seek and destroy the enemy. But the ocean was vast and the U-boats were comparatively few. Using scarce resources in such a manner was inefficient and unproductive. But, the convoys, which were essentially salt licks attracted U-boats like deer to their destruction.

 

TYRTAIOS

5:37 PM ET

October 20, 2009

The key to running convoys is

The key to running convoys is maintaining discipline and traning at it. Seems obvious but few even in the military do it. Smart convoys also run at night. Unfortunately, civilian convoys of the size mentioned would most likely lead to a disaster, since training and maintaing discipline would be absent from the get-go.

Perhaps paying a toll periodically along the way might ensure safe passage, as long as military cargo isn't part of the manifest?

 

ZATHRAS

6:01 PM ET

October 20, 2009

Though I've heard worse ideas...

...I wonder if this is another one of those suggestions for solving the Afghan problem as it existed in 2002. A lot has changed since then, and Dr. Starr's talk about "unleashing wealth-creating forces" is a little too vague to persuade me he has factored this into his analysis.

Surface traffic between South and Central Asia would need to traverse two war zones, for instance, not just one. Securing road routes through northern Pakistan into Afghanistan might be as formidable a challenge as fending off Taliban attacks inside Afghanistan itself. A better case might be made for attempting to secure commercial surface traffic between East Asia -- i.e., China -- and Iran, but for obvious reasons the American government is likely to be unenthusiastic about this idea.

I'm not saying Starr's idea isn't worthy of careful consideration. I think it is. I'm just always a little skeptical about proposals to address intractable problems by "unleashing" some nebulous force. I've had enough dogs to know that unleashing one doesn't always mean it will go anywhere.

 

STEVE358

6:26 PM ET

October 20, 2009

Building on the past

Tom:

One thing we learned in Iraq was that it is critical to build on the past, and to ask locals for answers to the question: What went on hear before we came?

In Northern Iraq in 2008, we learned that reopening the regional transportation links was critical, and now-LTG Hertling put an appropriate priority on it in a manner consistent with Dr. Starr's approach.

We also learned, however, that even in Pre-2003, large movements, such as crop-to-market, were fraught with peril. So, even in those days, farmers would get together in groups at certain points from which military/police escorts secured the movement.

But the effort to secure "Tarik al Amin" (Safe Passage) for regional commercial movements was much tougher than pre-2003, and will be even tougher in today's Afghanistan: route clearance & protection, bridge protection, convoy protection and management.

Yesterday, Al Jazeera reported that Afghan instability is moving northward as a our convoys begin to use the northern road routes for military resupply.

Of course, too, opposition forces in Iraq continue to target regional transportation routes. They know the disproportionate impact of such actions on the civilian side.

Nonetheless, the turning point is the decision about priorities: civilian restart vs. fighting the "enemy." No one can pretend that any choice is fraught with challenges.

Thanks for highlighting Dr. Starr's important insights.

Steve

 

JANBEKSTER

6:34 PM ET

October 20, 2009

Keep trucking and keep burning.

Only today, 16 NATO supply trucks have been burnt down inside Afghanistan.

khairi janbek.paris/france

 

TOM RICKS

3:55 PM ET

October 21, 2009

Doesn't?

Doesn't that undercore the need for a different approach?
Thanks,
Tom

 

DRLAKE777

6:39 PM ET

October 20, 2009

Land and Water are different

Starr, as well as some of the commentators, seem to assume that the dynamics of convoys are the same whether on land or sea. Except at the most basic level, they aren't. Convoys on land are far more constrained than they are at sea, especially in areas with congested terrain like mountains (or cities). By channeling the convoys down limited pathways, which can be completely blocked, terrain makes successful use of convoys much harder on land than at sea. As Watson points out above, look how well convoys worked for the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s. The idea this is a fix is a pipe dream, I'm afraid.

 

TOM RICKS

2:24 AM ET

October 21, 2009

Channeling?

Nope. Afghanistan already has such limited pathways that there is only one route (at best) for trucks between major cities.

 

ZATHRAS

2:51 AM ET

October 21, 2009

Channeling

Wasn't that the last poster's point? Afghan roads are already channelized, besides which the terrain must force most of them to pass through numerous choke points that allow traffic no room to maneuver.

 

DRLAKE777

3:08 PM ET

October 21, 2009

Yep, that's my point. At sea,

Yep, that's my point. At sea, convoys can at least try to avoid raiders by varying their path. On land that isn't an option, particularly when there is only one route through. I think back to how heavily armed Soviet convoys were, and the troubles they still had, and simply don't buy this as an option.

 

TOM RICKS

4:12 PM ET

October 21, 2009

But

But this would be convoy protection in a counterinsurgency context, bringing the locals into it (in the caravan serais, or truckstops) and also aiming to show them the benefits through lower prices for essentials such as rice, beans, cooking oil, and cooking fuel. So, I would hope, very different from the bad old Soviets.
Best,
Tom

 

DRLAKE777

9:43 PM ET

October 21, 2009

Perhaps.

Might work, but what kind of troop commitment would be required?

Say, 1000 miles of road to cover? (very rough guess)
Caravan serai every 40 miles = 26 (including border stops)
NATO troops per serai = 1 company? Plus ANA?
NATO troops per caravan = no clue, but it would be significant.
Support for the entire exercise = Unknown, but includes supplies for the deployed troops and caravan guards, patrols of the roadway to deal with IEDs and ambushes, and engineering support to keep the road open.

So, might be doable.

 

JPWREL

7:22 PM ET

October 20, 2009

You are quite right to bring

You are quite right to bring up the considerable differences between convoys at sea and those on land. My primary point was that since NATO forces have such difficulties finding the Taliban in order to engage them they might as well provide worthwhile targets (convoys) for the Taliban to attack so that we may use our firepower and mobility to destroy them.

 

DRLAKE777

3:10 PM ET

October 21, 2009

Interesting point, however...

I'm not sure that the central obstacle to our success is finding the Taliban. Sure, this may draw more of them out, but killing them Taliban members has limited value when it comes to "winning" this war (whatever that means).

 

INTELTROOPER

10:01 PM ET

October 20, 2009

Insurance Fraud

Another advantage of embedding or coordinating movement of large convoys with military escorts is the decreased likelihood of fraudulent reports of "attacks" on convoys, especially fuel trucks. A common technique is to empty the fuel trucks' fuel, then shoot the empty truck with an RPG or two and claim that everything was lost in a Taliban "attack."

A negative second order effect I see is an increase in IEDs in culverts or adapting IED technology to fire into trucks from the side of a paved road.

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More