An oft-quoted description of war - "War is an Instrument of Policy" - makes it clear which order its author, German military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz, believed these events transpire. In his estimation, acts of war are a consequence of something that has happened within the field of governmental policy. Thus, the end of war is the end of the use of a political tool.
However, there are those who would disagree. Michel Foucault, for example, decided it was more accurate to invert Clausewitz's phrase. He changed it to read "politics is the continuation of war by other means." In this formulation, wars are not isolated events that erupt when diplomacy fails. Rather, they are the permanent ground upon which politics is founded. So, when we think a war has finished, in fact it has not. Instead, it continues in the brand of politics put in place at the war's end. All of a sudden, the very thing that we thought prevented war (i.e. politics) is in fact an instrument of war.
The difference in descriptions quickly becomes clear and striking. For Clausewitz, war is an exception. For Foucault, however, war is ever present, though disguised as politics. In the case the war in Afghanistan, we find that Foucault's version provides a more accurate description of the war-politics relationship.
What do we see today in Afghanistan?
In a recent appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), former British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs David Miliband made a clear distinction between what governments acknowledge as being the real situation in Afghanistan versus what the "popular imagination" believes.
On the one hand, the British government is concerned with what role it will play in bringing the war in Afghanistan to an end. And, even though there is a date set out for the cessation of the war - the end of 2014 - it is presently concerned with the "blood and treasure that is being expended there and has been expended there".
However, while a date has been announced, this is "not actually the date for all the foreign troops to leave. It's a date for the transition of leadership." So, even though the war will finish, British and other NATO troops are expected to remain in Afghanistan.
However, Miliband cautions about too much enthusiasm. He ambiguously stated that there "are questions about just Afghan leadership", without getting into what that meant. But based on the context of the comment, Miliband appears to be suggesting that Afghanistan may not be able to provide leadership that the foreign military powers will agree to exchange roles with.
So, the best way to describe the British government's position on the situation, according to Miliband, is "at the moment, [they] have an end date for the war in Afghanistan, but not an end game."
On the other hand, the people of Britain, America, Canada, Afghanistan, and many other involved countries, are being sold a bag of goods. As far as Miliband is concerned, in "the popular imagination we have a date for the end of the war." And this ruse is considered to be positive because it is believed to have "calmed a lot of publics".
Already then, based on the comments made by Miliband, the British government is keeping a watchful eye over the transition between the current state of war and the planned state of politics in Afghanistan, and one can be sure that the other NATO nations involved in this conflict have a similar eye towards the future.
So when the war "ends" at the conclusion of 2014, who will be right? According to Clausewitz's theory, the end of the war will truly be an end and politics in Afghanistan will carry on, attempting to avoid future wars at all costs. But, according to Foucault, the conclusion of the war proper will be not really be an end, but a restructuring of the war into the arena of Afghan politics.
Post-war politics as the continuation of war in Afghanistan
It is clear from Miliband's comments that the end of the war will not truly end the war in a couple of ways. First of all, the foreign military presence will remain. That it will remain at the request of the Afghan government is an even greater indication that the political situation there will be caught within the battle divisions that are visible today.
Second of all, Miliband also signaled that the qualities demonstrated by the potential Afghan leaders will have a direct impact on whether or not the transition will take place. You can be sure if NATO allies believe the new leadership in Afghanistan will not support policies that are favorable to them, then NATO will not carry through with the transfer of leadership. So, it will only be when some form of assurance that NATO interests will be protected within Afghanistan that the war will be properly transfered to the political structure there.
Conclusion
At this point, we can do nothing but speculate as to what will actually happen. But, we can make some good guesses based on prior events. Consider the present situation in Iraq. It would be foolish to believe that the current state of Iraqi politics is not an enduring state of war, in which Americans now battle that country from within its state apparatuses. The war rages on in Iraq, despite its official end in August 2010; only now it is being fought through the government.
The situation in Afghanistan is shaping up to be very much the same. Based on the comments made by Miliband, Foucault's argument that "war is the continuation of policy by other means" is an accurate one. So, pay close attention to conditions that are required in order for the official war to be over and pay even closer attention to the situation that will remain in Afghanistan once Afgans are trusted to govern themselves.
Sources
- Clausewitz, Carl Von. On War . Ch. 5, Pt. B. 1873.
- Foucault, Michel. Society Must Be Defended. 2003.
- Miliband, David and Richard N Haass. "Afghanistan: Mending It, Not Just Ending It." Council on Foreign Relations. 29 April 2011.
- Standora, Leo. "War is over: Last U.S. combat troops leave Iraq; 50,000 remain as advisers." New York Daily News. 19 August 2010.
Mark Guzylak-Shergold - Mark Guzylak-Shergold writes to clarify his thoughts and with any luck the thoughts of others.
Join the Conversation