Pressure is rising on the White House to make a decision on the request by Gen Stanley McChrystal, head of US forces in Afghanistan, for 40,000 more of those US forces. He wants to take numbers up to closer to what the Soviets had durings its long and painful occupation, although media comparisons seem mostly to be to Vietnam, not the 1980s.

Henry Kissinger, in Newsweek today, argues in favour of more troops. Failing to supply them would force the US into the more limited role - supported by VP Joe Biden - of just going after al Qaeda, or preparing to leave altogether, the former secretary of state at the height of the Vietnam war said.

Even so-called realists - like me - would gag at a tacit US co-operation with the Taliban in the governance of Afghanistan

He supports the idea of a surge, giving Obama some much-needed cover from a leading Republican for continuing the occupation. On top of that, he thinks pulling in countries from the region to offer support could help. It is hard, mind, to think many in the US right now would want to ask Iran for help, or expect to get it. And trying to get Pakistan and India to co-operate on anything is a mug’s game.

The complexity of the situation in Afghanistan is nicely summed up by a series of short recommendations from experts in Saturday’s NYT. The writers suggest hiring insurgents, focusing on corruption to build a government, beefing up local security forces and, my favourite, learning lessons from the Taliban on how to impose taxes.

One simple recommendation which could help many Afghans is made by Matthew Yglesias. It could be implemented by the US and India, among others, and give succour to legal employers: cut tariffs on Afghan exports. We’re not talking heroin here: their textiles (think gorgeous Afghan rugs) are heavily taxed. Seems an obvious and cheap way to give people something to do other than join the insurgency, grow poppies or worry about being killed by boxes of leaflets dropped by the RAF.

October 5, 2009 12:20pm in Comment | Comment