Containment in Afghanistan

Sean Kay, professor of politics and government at Ohio Wesleyan University and non-resident fellow in foreign policy at the Eisenhower Institute, has a pretty long post up at AfPak Channel arguing that instead of a major escalation in Afghanistan in support of a counterinsurgency strategy, we ought to be attempting a more limited mission he characterizes as “containment.” His suggestions are along the lines of what I was talking about here and are also reminiscent of ideas Gilles Dorronsoro advances in his essay on “The Taliban’s Winning Strategy in Afghanistan.”

The aim is basically to try to stabilize the situation, shore up the Afghan government, help defend the people who are friendly to us, and keep a lid on the Taliban. That, it seems to me, can accomplish a lot at a pretty reasonable price. The escalation alternative seems to me to drastically raise the costs we need to bare in exchange for some pretty small gains. This is why I think it’s important for people who are claiming that escalation is necessary for “victory” to give some account of what that means. We have some interests in Afghanistan but we have a lot of interests around the world, there’s no particular reason to think that pursuing maximalist goals in that country serves our overall interests.