Afghanistan: The War We Can't Win

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2609

Really interesting article by A.J. Bacevich, a former US Army officer and current professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

What is it about Afghanistan, possessing next to nothing that the United States requires, that justifies such lavish attention? In Washington, this question goes not only unanswered but unasked. Among Democrats and Republicans alike, with few exceptions, Afghanistan’s importance is simply assumed—much the way fifty years ago otherwise intelligent people simply assumed that the United States had a vital interest in ensuring the survival of South Vietnam. As then, so today, the assumption does not stand up to even casual scrutiny.

I agree with the professor.  He goes on to say:

General Petraeus, now commanding United States Central Command, recently commented that “the mission is to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other transnational extremists,” in effect “to deny them safe havens in which they can plan and train for such attacks.”

The mission statement is a sound one. The current approach to accomplishing the mission is not sound and, indeed, qualifies as counterproductive. Note that denying Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan hasn’t required U.S. forces to occupy the frontier regions of that country. Similarly, denying Al Qaeda safe havens in Afghanistan shouldn’t require military occupation by the United States and its allies.

I agree that we don't need to occupy Afghanistan to keep it from becoming an Al Queda safe haven.  The problem is how do you get out of Afghanistan?  What do you say to the Afghan people?  "We tried, but it didn't work out, and now you're on your own.  Good luck." 

I can't imagine trying to actually come up with a solution.

The concepts of containment of regime and the domino effect (if one regime in the middle east came democratic, the rest would follow) will not work in Afghanistan or Iraq, just like it didn't in Vietnam.

What is it about Afghanistan, possessing next to nothing that the United States requires

This sums up all that is wrong with US foreign policy, attitudes and just why so many people around the world dislike them.
So, basically, it's ok to invade a country providing that there are resources to exploit?
And there was my thinking the reason for being in Afghanistan was to combact Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

And wasn't the defence of Southern Vietnam down to the US wanting to prevent the spread of communism?

This sums up all that is wrong with US foreign policy, attitudes and just why so many people around the world dislike them.
So, basically, it's ok to invade a country providing that there are resources to exploit?
And there was my thinking the reason for being in Afghanistan was to combact Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

I think the point he was making is the US and its allies could combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban without committing 60,000 troops to the operation.  If the goal is combating Al Qaeda and the Taliban, we shouldn't be worrying about eliminating corruption in the Afghan government, eliminating drug trafficking, building an Afghan army, or reforming the school system of a country that has historically resisted efforts by other world powers to do these things.

For another example of overreaching, in Iraq Saddam Hussein was effectively contained by no-fly zones between the first and second Gulf Wars.  There were no weapons of mass destruction, there were no connections to Al Qaeda, neither the Iraqis nor the rest of the region were crying out for their countries to be invaded to enforce western-style democracy.  We could've achieved our goal (containment of Saddam Hussein) without spending trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers' lives.  

Saddam's dead, and I think that's a good thing, but his death wasn't worth what it has cost in lives, money or America's reputation in the world.  Back to Afghanistan, we could accomplish the goal of containing Al Qaeda and the Taliban with far fewer troops for much less money.

And wasn't the defence of Southern Vietnam down to the US wanting to prevent the spread of communism?

Yes, it was, and when South Vietnam fell to North Vietnam, did Communism win?  How is Communism doing now?

I think the point he was making is the US and its allies could combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban without committing 60,000 troops to the operation.  If the goal is combating Al Qaeda and the Taliban, we shouldn't be worrying about eliminating corruption in the Afghan government, eliminating drug trafficking, building an Afghan army, or reforming the school system of a country that has historically resisted efforts by other world powers to do these things.

I think the idea there is that if a stable, low-corruption government, reduced drug-trafficking, a robust army and strong educational system are all in place, there is less chance that the Taliban could take hold of the country again. It's naive to think that the 'coalition' can implement all of this, but I think that is their general philosophy behind it.

I think the idea there is that if a stable, low-corruption government, reduced drug-trafficking, a robust army and strong educational system are all in place, there is less chance that the Taliban could take hold of the country again. It's naive to think that the 'coalition' can implement all of this, but I think that is their general philosophy behind it.

I understand, and I think you're right, but I don't think it's worth 60,000 troops and however many billions of dollars to get Afghanistan to that point.  I'd rather a small group of specialized troops backed up by air support keep the Taliban in check and leave the rest of Afghanistan to sort itself out.  As much as I think it'd be a noble thing if we could make Afghanistan a stable democracy, I don't think it's worth the amount of effort we've put into it thus far, or the amount that would be required in the future.

Solution: this, but with one added thing:

"We tried, but it didn't work out because y'all refused to work with us and now you're on your own.  Good luck." 

You can only try to help so much before the "biting the hand that feeds" gets old.  This situation certainly wasn't worth the lives lost, or the classmates I personally knew who died.  We should up and withdraw all support in a single day, and let the country collapse on itsself.  We've donated too much money, supplies, time and blood to have this crap still going.

You can only try to help so much before the "biting the hand that feeds" gets old. 

I think Gordon Brown said much the same thing today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33711487/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

LONDON - Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned Afghanistan's government on Friday to take action against corruption, saying he would not risk more British lives there unless it reforms.

Brown said in a speech that success in Afghanistan is vital to Britain's security — but declared that if the Afghan government does not mend its ways it will forfeit the world's support.

"I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm's way for a government that does not stand up against corruption," he said.

I think this is how the UK is eventually going to get out of Afghanistan.  By making the case that their commitment is contingent on improvement in the Afghan government, it paves the way (for the UK, anyway) to get out when the Afghan government doesn't improve.  That's how it looks to me, anyway. 

My hope is that Brown and Obama have discussed this, figured this was the best way to get out of Afghanistan, and Brown's speech today was step 1 of the plan.

Solution: this, but with one added thing:


You can only try to help so much before the "biting the hand that feeds" gets old.  This situation certainly wasn't worth the lives lost, or the classmates I personally knew who died.  We should up and withdraw all support in a single day, and let the country collapse on itsself.  We've donated too much money, supplies, time and blood to have this crap still going.

Well said. I would include Iraq.

On a lighter note, not particularly Afghanistan, but relevant and I hope we can all enjoy this:

On a lighter note, not particularly Afghanistan, but relevant and I hope we can all enjoy this:

That was funny as all hell.

That was funny as all hell.

I agree!