UNIVERSITE DE TOULOUSE SCIENCES PO

War in Afghanistan A realist approach

Juan Ramiro Garza Quintanilla 10/03/2013

This essay aims at proving the statement that the United States, in the range of international relations theory, acted from a realist point of view towards Afghanistan, hence, maintaining an alignment with their national strategic interests.

2

Any measure required for state self-preservation is justified. - Schwarzenberger

A nations survival is its first and ultimate responsibility; it cannot be compromised or

put to risk. - Kissinger

The United States war on terrorism began after the attacks of September 11, 2001. As it is well-

known, this event was viewed as a breakthrough in world politics that defined the behavior of

states for the consequent years. The fundamentalist Muslim group known as Al Qaeda was

pinpointed as the perpetrators of this attack. This faction is mainly based in Afghanistan were the

Taliban regime controls most of the territory. As a paramilitary and jihadist organization, Al Qaeda

is known for utilizing terrorist tactics as a means of defending their resistance movement around

the world. This incited the United States to make a military move in the country initiating an

international conflict.

This essay aims at proving the statement that the United States acted from a realist point of view

towards Afghanistan, hence, maintaining an alignment with their national strategic interests. A

description of realist theory is defined and then analyzed under the scope of this conflict. The

discourse of U.S. Politicians will be cited to achieve the endeavor of comparing the realist

characteristics that covers their military actions as a means of achieving security and survival as a

national state.

The U.S. attack began in October 7, 2001 after the Congress supported George W. Bushs project.

The Joint Resolution accepted To utilize all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,

organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist

attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order

to prevent any future acts o international terrorism against the United States by such nations,

organizations or persons.1

With this statement, war was at stake. However, in the following years, the strategy utilized by the

United States regarding Afghanistan had to be reoriented due to the increasing security concerns

brought along with the Iraq war. Afghanistan represented a secondary effort by the U.S. military

1 107th Congress Public Law, (2001). To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those

responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States (publ040.107). Retrieved from U.S. Government Printing Office website:

3

forces. Resources were undermined, and from 2003 and after, the strategy in Afghanistan did not

succeed in the way it was initially planned.

President Barack Obama tried to change the deteriorated situation in the country shifting the

strategy to prioritize Afghanistan again in 2009. In a press office speech he stated his new strategy

and objectives. This is just one part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent Afghanistan from

becoming the al Qaeda safe haven that it was before 9/11. To succeed, we and our friends and

allies must reverse the Taliban's gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan

government.2

Even after the delineation of the new strategy brought in this speech, the war against Afghanistan

still poses a question mark when presuming success by the United States. The population is unsure

on whether the U.S. is achieving its goals and the resources allocated for them have not been

sufficient. This stresses out the importance of prioritizing the national objectives to align them

with the national interests of survival and assuring the elimination of a situation that could be a

challenge to the U.S. search for power.

A recompilation of the United States strategy, actions and objectives in Afghanistan will be

presented first in order to deepen the understanding of the conflict and the implications for the

American country. By understanding the policies made by the U.S. government, their objectives

will be enunciated more clearly.

An explanation of the realist theory will be exposed in order to maintain a clear approach at what

will be analyzed. The U.S. governments Weinberger doctrine, which is a list of points that balance

the decision to engage in war, will be explained to show its realist roots. Afterwards, the discourse

of United States politicians will be contrasted with theory. The conflict comprises two presidential

administrations, first, the George W. Bush one, which was running when the conflict started and

then the Obama administration which made a shift in strategy, modifying some objectives but

without being led astray from the realist path.

By contrasting the actions made by the government of the United States with a theoretical realist

approach in international relations, we can achieve a framework of analysis to explain the true

2 Obama, B. (2009, March). Remarks by the president on a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Office

of the Press Secretary White house, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from

4

interests of the United States. The security issues that this war represented to the United States

were the main indicators, from a realist perspective, to explain their motives.

The conflict

Afghanistan has been a center of conflict since the last decades. During the 1980s, amidst the Cold

War tensions, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to support the communist regime in Kabul.

The United States acted and supported the Afghan resistance trough military and economic

means. This undermined Soviet efforts and this proxy conflict led to the withdrawal of Soviet

forces in 1989. In 1992, the Taliban, led by Mullah Omar took control of over 90 percent of the

country.

The United States diminished its presence in the country but remained in contact with the

Northern Alliance trough CIA operations. This managed to be a useful alliance after 9/11. Since the

Taliban regime promoted the territory as a base of operations for Al Qaeda and other extremist

organizations, the United States presence was still part of the national security agenda. In 1996,

Clinton deployed Operation Infinite Reach in retaliation for the bombings in the American

embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.3 Capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden was part of the objectives

of this operation, an action that was not fulfilled.

It was not until the attacks of September 11, 2001 that Afghanistan was upgraded in priority to the

national interests of the United States. This brought the enunciation of a new strategy for

Afghanistan. The United States went into war against this country, terrorism and Al Qaeda. As

President Bush stated in his address following the attacks on American soil, I've directed the full

resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and

bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these

acts and those who harbor them.4

3 Loeb, V. (1999, January 23). Embassy attacks thwarted, U.S. says; official cites gains against Bin Laden;

Clinton seeks $10 billion to fight terrorism. The Washington Post. Retrieved from 4 Bush, G. W. (2001, September) Address to the nation. Retrieved from

5

A strategy was formulated to attack Afghanistan in the days following the attacks. In his address,

Bush made his demands to the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of Al

Qaeda who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have

unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close

immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every

terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. Give the United

States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act

immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.5

The enunciation of the strategy implemented by the United States was clear. Their objectives were

formulated. It was in the United States national interest to eliminate any terrorist organization or

country that supports them. The conflict was foreseen as a long battle, but one that had to be

fought. President Bush stated the strategy: Our response involves far more than instant

retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign,

unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert

operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against

another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue

nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a

decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward,

any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a

hostile regime.6

This stated that the United States would use anything in their national power to secure their

interests and eliminate any threat that may be of aid to terrorist organizations. This was the frame

of the origin of the war against Afghanistan. In October 2001, the United States sent their first

attacks on the country. That same year, many Taliban and members of Al Qaeda fled the country

to take refuge in Pakistan. This made this war expand its extent.

Other international organizations and countries helped U.S. interests in Afghanistan by providing

resources. To have a concise idea of the resources implemented towards the effort in Afghanistan

5 Bush, G. W. (2001, September). Address to a joint session of congress and the American people. ,

Washington, D.C. Retrieved from 6 Ibd.

6

we can see that Through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2009, nearly $40 billion in U.S. foreign and

security assistance were pledged or delivered. Other nations and international financial

institutions delivered at least $14 billion in economic assistance through FY08. ()So while it is fair

to note that the areas under the most Taliban pressure received the least aid, there were

significant accomplishments generally. Five million refugees have returned, school enrollment has

increased sixfold from Taliban days, and 35 percent of the students are female.7

However, even though there were significant improvements in Afghan living conditions, this aid

proved to be insufficient for its needs. On the other side, the Taliban received support from drug

money, Al Qaeda and other Gulf states. This complicated things for the U.S. strategy and stalled

the efforts to build successful Afghan security forces. Alongside the increased efforts made by the

U.S. in Iraq, the situation worsened. [T]he greater scope and intensity of problems in Iraq

prevented reinforcements or additional funds from being sent to Afghanistan. Another policy fault

plagued U.S. war efforts: while U.S. fortunes declined in two wars, U.S. Department of Defense

leadership refused to expand the end strength of the U.S. Armed Forces until 2006. For a short

time, the Pentagon slightly reduced U.S. troops in Afghanistan when NATO took over command

and control of the mission that year.8

When the Obama administration took over the sleighs of the United States, the conflict in Iraq was

becoming more stable. This brought Afghanistan to the top of the priorities again. By the summer

of 2010, there were more than two U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan for every one in Iraq.9 This

brought wider allocation of resources for the conflict and an even deeper effort by the

international community to assess the situation.

President Obama explicitly declared the objectives in the new strategy for Afghanistan in a West

Point speech in 2009: Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-

Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies

in the future. To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We

must deny al-Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Talibans momentum and deny it the

ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistans

7 Collins, J. (2011). Understanding war in Afghanistan. (1st. ed., pp. 1-159). Washington D.C.: National

Defense University Press. 8 Ibd.

9 Ibd.

7

security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistans

future.10

It is important to assess a systemic view on this conflict from a wider point of view. There have

been two American administrations which consider this war as a vital national interest. The

elimination of Al Qaeda still is in the priority list in U.S. security concerns. The efforts put in

Afghanistan have been amplified with time and the costs of this war have been significant to

American economy.

Realism and the Weinberger doctrine

The most widely known theory in international relations is Realism. To use a precise but general

definition of realism we can say that it is The theoretical approach that analyzes all international

relations as the relation of states engaged in the pursuit of power. Realists see the international

system as anarchic, or without a common power, and they believe conflict is endemic in the

international system.11

This shows key variables that are embedded in political realism such as power and conflict. Realists

argue that the fundamental motivation of a state is derived from their national interest and their

most basic drive is survival. As Keohane stated, their interests are calculated in terms of power.

The most influential realist is Hans J. Morgenthau; he defined realism in his book Politics among

Nations where six points are enunciated:

1. Politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.

2. The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of

international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.

3. Power and interest are variable in content.

4. Universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states.

10

Obama, B. (2009, December) Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the way forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan, West Point, New York, available at . 11

Lamy, S., Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2012).Introduction to global politics. (2nd ed., p. 544). United States: Oxford University Press.

8

5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the

moral laws that govern the universe.

6. The autonomy of the political sphere. 12

In 1983, U.S. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger delivered a speech in which he exposed a

list of points that state the feasibility of going to war. These points came to be known as the

Weinberger doctrine and their accomplishment should help decide whether the United States

should initiate conflict in any given situation. The doctrine is as follows:

1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests

of the United States or its allies are involved.

2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of

winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.

3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military

objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.

4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces

committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the

support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.

6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.13

It would be useful for the purpose of this essay to analyze Weinbergers speech and doctrine to

Morgenthaus conception of realism theory in the behavior of states. These points are linked to

Morgenthaus theory when viewing the concepts of power and national interest. Weinberger

believed that the United States should have the necessary power to control peace and that the

nation-state should be regarded as the main actor in the international system which is anarchical

in nature. All concepts shared by Morgenthaus view of international relations.

Weinberger also stated that military strength should be consistent with democracy and to a larger

extent he sees this as the main course to keep democracy, peace and freedom. These are variables

12

Morgenthau, H. cited in Donnelly, J. (2000) Realism and International Relations. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 13 Weinberger, C. (1984, November) The Uses of Military Power, National Press Club, Washington D.C. Retrieved from

9

which are commonly used in United States politicians discourse regarding their behavior towards

matters of international politics.

U.S. proceedings under the realist scope

Regarding the actions taken by President Obama when reassessing the conflict in Afghanistan we

can clearly see that his actions were coherent with Morgenthaus and Weinbergers points. Once

the war in Iraq was under control, Afghanistan became the priority of U.S. national interest once

again. One of the main objectives in this new strategy was preventing that Afghanistan became a

place for extremists groups such as Al Qaeda. To achieve this, services must be delivered to Afghan

people from their government and the Afghan National Army and National Police should expand

to provide domestic security. This was followed by a request to deploy 30,000 troops to

Afghanistan since it was deemed necessary to fulfill their objectives. This is well stated in

Weinbergers fourth point of his doctrine.

Consequently, the threat that once was posed by Afghanistan now included Pakistan also. These

two countries were faced as one threat that was considered of vital importance to national

security. Again national interests were critical to understand the behavior of the United States

towards this challenge, reflecting clearly the realist point of view in the matter.

To understand the scope of the threat felt by the United States, it is essential to look at President

Obamas speech in which he stated that this was of the utmost seriousness for the country and its

allies. He said: this is not simply an American problem, far from it. It is, instead an international

security challenge of the highest order We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that

threatens the United States, our friends, our allies.14

Once the seriousness of the situation was stated, we can compare this to the first point in the

Weinberger doctrine as it was considered of vital importance to national security. Again, interest

defined in terms of power, just as Morgenthau expressed.

14

Obama, B. (2009, December) Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the way forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan, West Point, New York, available at .

10

To compare what the Weinberger doctrine says about objectives and clarity in proceedings in

points three and four, Obama said: we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and

defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the

future. Thats the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.15

To rephrase point three of the Weinberger doctrine, there has to be a very clear and well defined

objective in order to successfully preserve national interest. The certainty of victory in Obamas

speech also relates with the commitment expressed in the first point of the doctrine.

The increases in resources destined to the war in Afghanistan were of considerable amount.

President Obama asked for support in the Congress to increase the budget and allow the extended

deployment of troops to the country. All this was done when there was uncertainty in the United

States economical situation inwards. These actions side with the realist statement that national

interests are the most important matter to take into account.

The plan for Afghanistan is in the national interest of the United States as it has been previously

stated and trough the execution of its power, they will make sure that no threat remains active.

This is a direct link to Weinbergers doctrine and Morgenthaus ideas of power and national

interest.

In 2009, Obama declared that he would approve a deployment of 30,000 soldiers and no more. To

this we can reflect on Weinbergers doctrine when he mentions and clearly specifies that the

troops should be committed to their objectives and that this should be used as a last resort only.

Morgenthau stated that Politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human

nature. Obamas unwillingness to take a political risk by deploying more troops relates to the

effect this would have in the power of the nation.

In his speech of 2009, Obama stated: I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan

and PakistanIf I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the

American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops

home16 This quote shows the belief that this conflict saw the vital national interests threatened.

15

Ibd. 16

Ibd.

11

This speech delineates the objectives, the strategy, and the policies to be implemented in

Afghanistan. All of it is a clear reflection of what the realist tradition embodies both in

Morgenthaus six points and Weinbergers doctrine.

To this point, we have outlined the United States position, strategy and objectives towards their

project in Afghanistan. The theoretical approach of realism in international relations was also

defined and contrasted with the position of the United States during two administrations. Once

Morgenthaus points were enunciated alongside the Weinberger doctrine and then compared to

many of the positions cited by politicians it became inextricably suggested that the United States

national security concerns were dealt from a realist perspective.

It is noteworthy to mention that any of the strategies and policies conducted by the United States

can be analyzed from any theoretical approach to international relations; however the realist

approach sufficed to understand the actions that derived in military conflict.

It is valid to say that the strategy, policy and objectives formulated by the United States

government can be well explained by looking at the Weinberger doctrine and Morgenthaus

theory. More importantly, if the strategy remains the same and the theory continues to be

applied, success is plausible. Although it is important to take other matters into consideration as

many other challenges can still arise that can put a dent to United States objectives and a new

reassessment of strategy could be needed.

12

Bibliography

107th Congress Public Law, (2001). To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States (publ040.107). Retrieved from U.S. Government Printing Office website: Bush, G. W. (2001, September). Address to a joint session of congress and the American people. , Washington, D.C. Retrieved from Bush, G. W. (2001, September) Address to the nation. Retrieved from Collins, J. (2011). Understanding war in Afghanistan. (1st. ed., pp. 1-159). Washington D.C.: National Defense University Press. Cordesman, A. (2010, June 16). Realism in Afghanistan: Rethinking an uncertain case for the war. Retrieved from http://csis.org/publication/realism-afghanistan-rethinking-uncertain-case-war Donnelly, J. (2000) Realism and International Relations. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Dorrien, G. (2004). Imperial designs: Theological ethics and the ideologies of international politics. Cross Currents, 54(2), 97. doi: ProQuest Social Science Journals. Hoehn, A., & Harting, S. (2010). Risking NATO: Testing the limits of the alliance in Afghanistan. (1st. ed., p. 109). California: RAND Corporation. Lamy, S., Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2012).Introduction to global politics. (2nd ed., p. 544). United States: Oxford University Press. Loeb, V. (1999, January 23). Embassy attacks thwarted, U.S. says; official cites gains against Bin Laden; Clinton seeks $10 billion to fight terrorism. The Washington Post. Retrieved from Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. (7th ed., p. 209). McGraw Hill Higher Education Obama, B. (2009, December) Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the way forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan, West Point, New York, available at Obama, B. (2009, March). Remarks by the president on a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Office of the Press Secretary White house, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from Walt, S. (2012, April 30). What if realists where in charge of U.S. foreign policy? Foreign Policy, Retrieved from http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/04/30/what_if_realists_ran_us_foreign_policy_a_top_ten_list

13

Weinberger, C. (1984, November) The Uses of Military Power, National Press Club, Washington D.C.

Retrieved from

Wolfowitz, P. (2009). Realism. Think Again, 174, 66. doi: ProQuest Social Science Journals.