"War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again...." It's a lousy song, not to mention the fact that the conlcusion Edwin Starr comes to is incorrect, but it does make one wonder about the costs and benefits of what's going on in Afghanistan. Like everything else in life, everything should be a cost-benefit analysis. If the benefits outweights the cost, do it! And vice versa if it's not the case. After taking a look, it seems as if we should cease operations in Afghanistan, but for argument's sake, let's take a look at what is going on:
- Current state of Afghanistan: After nearly eight years of occupation, I am sorry to say that Afghanistan is the failed state that it was beforehand. There's no centralized government, the political corruption there makes Mexico look wholesome, it still has a highly illiterate, uneducated, rural, and decentralized population, and the only real industry they have is opium. This nation sacrificed nearly 800 American soldiers in a failed attempt to turn Afghanistan into a democracy, which has lead to the unintended result of preserving the status quo over there. This brings me to another point.....
- Nation-building: Why is it America's job to partake in nation-building? A better question is "Why Afghanistan?" In terms of geo-political status, Central Asia gives the American military no strategic advantage. Even if you don't agree with that conclusion, let's analyze the initial reason to go over there in the first place: capturing those responsible for 9-11 and bring them to justice. We couldn't even capture Bin Laden and his cohorts because they went over the Pakistani border, and now are enjoying the protection of the Pakistani government. The Pakistanis, our supposed allies, aren't going to help us. As a matter of fact, the turmoil caused by the Taliban is better for the Pakistanis because it levels out the balance of power with India in that region of the world. And then you want to throw nation-building on top of that failure?! If you're just left with nation-building and "those poor Afghanis," what about Darfur? You've been hearing about that for years. Or what about Somalia or Sierra Leone? If we over-extend ourselves to help transform every nation into a democracy, America's soldier would be overburdened, foreign aid would inveitably have to be rationed, and our grandchildren would have to pay for it. Funny how that sounds like the same argument used against ObamaCare!
- America Looking Weak: This, I'm sure, is an argument that many of my conservative friends use to support it. "We need to stay the course and support our troops because if we don't stay, we'll look like we chickened out and that we're too weak to handle a puny nation like that." Wait a moment! American military, weak? Did you just use those two words in the same sentence? Even with Obama in office, America has a military that parallels no other. We are responsible for approximately half of the world's military spending, we could knock out an entire nation-state with the click of a button if we wanted to, and with our military prowess, we have a strong influence over the four corners of the globe. America won't look weak--it'll actually look quite intelligent because the world will realize that America is actually thinking with its head rather than with right-winged emotionalism of fervent patriotism (yes, conservatives can be guilty of emotionalism, but it's just that liberals do it a lot more often).
- War on Terror: Many neo-conservative friends I have will tell me that by relinquishing Afghanistan, we lose face with the terrorists. Let's face it, most Americans could not succinctly tell you what the War on Terror is about. And even if they could, they're focused on domestic issues, such as unemployment, health care, and the recession. If the American people and government want to fight "terrorists," three things have to occur:
- Stop calling the problem "terrorism." Call it out for what it is--Islamist radicals perpetuating jihadism throughout the world. By identifying the enemy, we already have part of the problem solved.
- Prioritize! Afghanistan is a lost cause, move on. Plus, they're no longer (if they were in the first place) in this "War on Terror." Two enemies (out of a myriad of enemies) that could use some emphasizing are Pakistan and Iran. Pakistan is protecting Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, not to mention supporting the Taliban. Obviously, the big problem is that they have nuclear arms, and odds are that Obama isn't going to tackle that anytime soon. But let's look at an enemy that doesn't quite have nuclear arms--Iran. Ahmadinejad said he wants to wipe of Israel off the map, but surprisingly enough, Israel isn't the only one worried about Iran. Many of the Sunni countries, including Iraq, Morroco, and much of the Arab world is worried about Shi'ite retaliation. Or if we really want to prioritize our foreign policy, let's worry about the growth of China, because if they succeed, America in deep.
- This war against Islamists will not merely be won with military might. It ultimately needs to be fought and won internally. This is one arena that a Jew such as myself cannot enter. It has to be done by moderate and traditionalist, non-violent Muslims who realize that the very essence of Islam is at stake, and if they don't win, Islam will always be a reactionary, antagonistic force in American foreign policy.
These fundamentalists won't disappear with wishful thinking. I'm sure that's a lesson Neville Chamberlin realized sometime after the "peace in his time." But to be stubborn about something that cannot be done or won is nothing more than a malignant form of obstinate pride that would make America look foolish and idiotic in the history books. That's precisely why if we're going to have any hope of eradicating this kind of evil in the world, we need to learn how to prioritize in such a way that the benefits greatly outweigh the cost.
I agree on the reasons why we went and whatnot, but I will have to disagree with you on Afghanistan, Steve. On Afghanistan, we need to be able to enter Pakistan. We cannot leave the nation like we did in the 80s. This is not some neo-conservative point I am raising but rather one of consequences to our actions. 9/11 occurred because we left Afghanistan a mess, the Taliban took over and blamed us for the mess after the USSR left. We are risking the same thing, IF we leave, the Taliban will take over again. And I know 800 soldiers seems like a lot, it is, but at the same time, we as soldiers go where we are told and do what we do best, and that's blow shit up! This war was a failure 4 years ago when the Administration of past decided to tie our generals' hands together and not give us a) resources b) the support we needed to win the war c) the power to close the Pakistani border. These three things are EXACTLY WHY WE ARE HERE NOW! Same thing with Iraq. Shock and Awe, in all seriousness, was a cheap propaganda point. The Principles of War every war leader learns have been forgotten I feel and this current administration is only going to make things worse as it continues adding political correctness in its own summation of the wars. This is WHY we do not elect leaders with no prior military experience.
ReplyDeleteI’ll forget that my analysis on the issue was totally bypassed, and will address the issues you brought up.
ReplyDelete9-11 wasn’t caused by our “hasty” departure from Afghanistan. Many factors lead to the unfortunate even. For one, Bill Clinton was offered Bin Laden multiple times, but had a severe prioritization issue. There was also a huge lack of communication between the FBI and CIA about pertinent, classified information. That is why the Department of Homeland Security was ultimately created as an umbrella department to ensure the flow of information amongst departments. The rise of radical Islam, with help of such things as the Internet and Al-Jazeera, also made a world-wide network easier to create.
Although it is true that Al-Qaeda thrived under an incompetent Taliban regime, the fact of the matter is the plotting of 9-11 took place in Hamburg. It is also ironic to point out that the pilots and planners of the 9-11 attack became more radical in Europe than they had been while living in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. By attending flight schools in Hamburg and learning how to use our own technological advances against us, they gained the necessary experience in Europe, not Afghanistan.
Even so, the point becomes somewhat moot for two reasons. Number one: Even if the US withdrew from Afghanistan today, Al-Qaeda is not going to be stupid enough to go back to Afghanistan because they know how we’d react if they tried again. Which leads me to the second issue: Bin Laden and his cohorts are in Pakistan. Al-Qaeda is not going back to Afghanistan because they enjoy such immunity in Pakistan. Why would they go back? Which begs the question, “Why are we still there?” If we want to get Al-Qaeda, we would need to go to Pakistan, but they won’t let us in. No president, Republican or Democrat, would militarily go into Pakistan because Pakistan has nuclear arms. And since they most likely have second-strike capability (although that couldn’t truly be tested until we attacked Pakistan), Americans would be reluctant to want to deal with the devastation of a nuclear attack. That is why Iran would be a better enemy to strike in this war—they don’t quite have nuclear capabilities, although if we wait much longer, that would be yet one more enemy we couldn’t confront.
As to the three necessities you mentioned, we won’t get the resources, i.e., the soldiers to succeed. Right now, there are 110,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. In Iraq, which is a third of the size of Afghanistan, we needed 160,000 to gain a moderate level of success. So just to have any chance of winning, we need triple the soldiers. Short of a draft, we’re not getting the manpower. As previously mentioned, Americans have more important things to worry about than an unpopular war they don’t even understand. Finally, the third point is moot because Al-Qaeda is not in Afghanistan, and they have no reason to return.
So, in short, as I have discussed previously in my analysis, there is still no reason why we should be in Afghanistan. There is no need to stubbornly spend billions of dollars and needlessly lose American lives in a drawn-out war we cannot win.