"Lively" Debates about National Security.

Matt riffs off an Abu Muquwama post on the kinds of discussions going on at national security think tank Center for a New American Security. Matt makes good points about the problems in our current national security debate -- "a debate that ranges from 'we should fight a series of small wars against Muslims' to 'we should prepare for a big war against China' is really seen as 'lively' rather than incredibly cramped and narrow" -- but the piece Exum was citing, by Bob Kaplan, is actually pretty interesting:

[C]hina need not be our future adversary. Indeed, combining forces with China in Afghanistan might even improve the relationship between Washington and Beijing. The problem is that while America is sacrificing its blood and treasure, the Chinese will reap the benefits. The whole direction of America’s military and diplomatic effort is toward an exit strategy, whereas the Chinese hope to stay and profit.

... as much as we hone our counterinsurgency skills and develop assets for the “long war,” history would suggest that over time we can more easily preserve our standing in the world by using naval and air power from a distance when intervening abroad. Afghanistan should be the very last place where we are a land-based meddler, caught up in internal Islamic conflict, helping the strategic ambitions of the Chinese and others.

There are undercurrents of an overly confrontational posture toward China in this op-ed, but on the whole Kaplan is making good points on the costs and benefits of our military presence in Afghanistan that Matt probably agrees with. And Kaplan still leaves the door open for pursuing cooperation with China in Afghanistan and elsewhere, which is more than some of the China scare folks will do. While the framing of this argument is far from progressive, it is a broader look at the national security picture than you often see in mainstream discourse -- rather than, "should we stay or should we go?", this article is "what does staying or going mean in the context of the global situation?" That's a nice first step.

Another issue, raised by the first paragraph of Kaplan's op-ed: While we heard a lot about U.S. oil contracts in Iraq, there hasn't been much information -- that I've seen -- about U.S. enterprise in Afghanistan. Are there U.S. firms with natural resource concerns in the country? Should there be? The amount of trade between the countries is at a record high this year, although exports from Afghanistan are lower than they were at the same point last year.

-- Tim Fernholz