Chaosistan

In his widely reported London speech earlier this month, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, described how people constantly offer him ideas for fixing that country's problems. One of the more unusual recommendations, he suggested, came from a paper that advocated using a "plan called 'Chaosistan.' " McChrystal said it advised letting Afghanistan become a "Somalia-like haven of chaos that we simply manage from outside," but there was no further explanation of its origins.

When journalists from NEWSWEEK and other media outlets asked McChrystal's entourage about where the paper came from, they were directed to an obscure Web posting—an October 1998 speech headlined "What is Chaostan [sic]?" delivered by investment adviser Richard Maybury at a New Orleans conference for gold enthusiasts. Maybury predicted that 24 wars in "Chaostan"—a vast region stretching from Poland to North Africa to China, Vietnam, and Indonesia—would eventually merge into World War III...Was this really what McChrystal was referring to?

It seems unlikely. Two U.S. intelligence officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive matter, say that the reference almost certainly comes from a recently published, and secret, CIA analysis titled "Chaosistan" (not "Chaostan"). Prepared by a "red team" of CIA analysts, the document, says one official, picks apart conventional analyses of the war and explains how forces inside Afghanistan—from hostile ethnic groups to intrusive neighbors to societal damage caused by past Taliban rule—work against the notions of a central Afghan government...

After NEWSWEEK pointed out the existence of the CIA document to McChrystal's office, an assistant to the general admitted that he had originally provided information about the Maybury Web posting following a Google search—but later determined it was more likely that the general "used an unclassified term from an official paper."...

As it is expressed, it is impossible to take the idea seriously. Although something not far from what is expressed is a strategy that both you and I have alluded to.

The idea of courting chaos hardly advances American interests. A Somalia like dark age is a state devoid of culture, devoid of restraint, and a happy hunting ground for arms dealers, drug dealers, slavers, and worse, such as crazed Islamicists arming themselves with atomic and biological weapons. In such a state of chaos it is almost impossible to hope that a reasonable Muslim government would suppress terrorists in its own interests. In fact there will be no government, but if one did exist, it would not have the intelligence assets to disrupt cells which would probably attempt an attack on our homeland. I do not see how such a seething, fetid, cauldron can be policed from a safe distance with standoff weapons. Sooner or later the pustule will burst and we will not be able to escape the consequences. We certainly do not want to attempt to police Somalia in Afghanistan-we learned our lesson in the real Somalia.

We have alluded, however, to the policy analogous to the British Raj in which the Brits set one tribe off against the other in the 18th century and beyond when Clive conquered the entire subcontinent with 900 men. The strategy was also used to good effect in the Northwest Territories. Even so, as Churchill makes clear in his book, The Malakand Field Force, the tribes were ever treacherous as well as tenacious. Not much has changed in the century and a quarter since Churchill was there except war now has an air dimension.

It seems to me that to employ such a strategy of deliberately setting one tribe against another, America must consciously set out to be ruthlessly Machiavellian and support tribes not in consideration of their rectitude but on a calculation of their utility. This means we have to get into bed with some very nasty fellows many of whom will be allied with us during the day and heroin dealers at night-and perhaps terrorists too. Would Jimmy Carter approve?

I had recommended in Iraq that we go into the Arab bazaar and cut deals with warlords. This is essentially what we did in Anbar province. I have no doubt this is what we are doing on one level or another in Afghanistan right now. Actually, if one looks at them realistically, the Karsin government is just one more warlord among many.

If this approach is a step or two removed from the chaos approach, how many steps removed is it from the Biden approach? Not many, I think. The generals tell us that Biden's approach will not work. But I think it is all Onan's circle until we properly define our war aims. I have heard little or no discussion about what it is we want out of Afghanistan. A democracy? A stalwart ally? A secular government that is inhospitable to terrorists? A government run by the Taliban with a tacit agreement that we will not bomb them so long as they do not harbor terrorists? It seems to me, then we have to figure out what we want so that we can then adopt strategy and tactics to achieve it. And we have to count the costs in lives and treasure. I don't know what the hell Obama is doing but I have no confidence that he is trying to sort out these questions in the national interest.

Excellent points. You just encapsulated our whole problem that has been troubling me on Afghanistan.

Dear Reader, General Biden and company are busy in the White House arguing over tactics without considering what is the best strategy for the USA to pursue.

To throw one of their silly slogans back in their faces, the Democrats have NO exit strategy for Afghanistan. They are merely looking at the next few months not even considering what happens the next few years.

McCrystal at least is looking at the strategic picture. His notion is that he can, with the right forces and right political support can create a fairly stable Afghanistan favorable disposed to US Interests. Considering the players and the history, I doubt it.

Biden's is the politicians answer. War on the cheap and the easy that does the least damage to his personal political prospects. If it does not work he can paper over the failures long enough that he and O will be gone and it will be some other administration's problem.

What Biden's crowd does not seem to realize this means an open ended commitment of US resources and blood. We are going to have to have legionaries standing watch at the walls guarding against the barbarians forever using his plan.

Short term Biden's plan is the easy answer, long term will it work? I doubt it.

And that, is what troubles me cause it sure looks like Biden's clique is winning the argument and Biden is a total idiot. I suppose he could be right this time but that would be the 1st time in Biden's 40 years in DC he was right on anything.

My heart hopes this notion will work because I am sick of watching good men die but my head is saying it doesn't have a chance. It's a fool's notion and we will pay the fool's price for trying it.

You have just identified the moral vacuity of the Obama administration and the man himself. We expect the left to be opposed wars waged in the national interest because they themselves are often opposed to the national interest. But Obama is beyond that here, he has acknowledged his belief that this war is in the national interest and must be waged yet he temporizes, why?

Is it because he envisions a "transformational change" so sweeping in its effect that the war in Afghanistan is but a trivial consequence and fatalities of American servicemen are but eggs which must be broken to make the omelette? If the cost is lives of American soldiers to gain the time necessary to accomplish the transformation, Obama believes that the end justifies the cost. It is not just the domestic transformation wrought by the abduction of health care, Cap and Trade, subsidization of community organizations, the nationalization of American industries, it is also the international breakthrough which he believes he will achieve.

He does not mean transformation of the domestic way of life which is encoded and protected in our Constitution, he intends the transformation of the world order and the end of the American century. That implies the end of American sovereignty because American life will no longer be principled upon individual liberty but upon socialist conceptions of "social justice" across international lines.

What do the lives of a few hundred American boys count against this utopian vision?

And that is what scares the heck out of me. He may be a benign fascist, he made be a fascist with a smiley face, but he is still a fascist. Still convinced that he knows best and we should all be humbly grateful that he will bestow on us the brave new world.

Unfortunately that happens to be the same mind set that gave us all the mass graves and murder camps of the 20th century. We were warned. The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance. Are we even awake yet?

I just noticed that the sensational comment “Maybury predicted that 24 wars in “Chaostan”—a vast region stretching from Poland to North Africa to China, Vietnam, and Indonesia—would eventually merge into World War III...” is actually false, or at least obscure. I’ve not read Maybury say that, and it’s by no means one of his main points.
_______________________________________
I have never seen him say that, and you are right, it is not one of his main points. I am almost done reading The Uncle Eric series to my kids, and we have been discussing it. I have read some of his older reports online, the subscription is very expensive, do you find it worthwhile? I would like to hear more of what this man thinks of our current events.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.