In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
Tony Blankley answers yes at NR:
Thomas Paine, during the Revolutionary War, argued in The Crisis that there are serious moments in the life of a country when “to deceive is to destroy; and it is of little consequence, in the conclusion, whether men deceive themselves, or submit, by a kind of mutual consent, to the impositions of each other.”
We are at such a moment in this forlorn war in Afghanistan. Only self-deception can justify the continued sacrifice of our young men and women in uniform. Given the two presidents in command and their irreversible dispositions toward this war and each other, failure is virtually inevitable.
George Will reached this glum terminus last year. And I feel their pain, the Blankleys and Wills of the world. I only object that their bracing realism about staying in Afghanistan is married to a willful ignorance about what happens if we leave. Predator missions and a la carte commando raids won't cut it. The case for leaving Afghanistan turns on a tough, tough truth about what will happen after we're gone -- and the limits of what we'll be able to do about it.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
A simple question, that I have not heard anyone answer, what would constitute success, what does success in Afghanistan look like? The Afghan Talib have never given any indication of having any animosity towards anyone beyond their borders, and only against those that defy their Sharia law within their borders. They are strict orthodox Muslims, whose leader cut a bad deal with bin Laden by allowing him to stay in exchange for further financial support. Bad for Afghanistan, the Afghan Talib and mostly the Afghan people, who more than anything want everyone out of the country, at least after they cease handing out money and gifts (jobs). Afghans have no plan to allow Arab Al Qaeda back in the country..and non Arab Al Qaeda are simply pretenders.
I haven’t read any definition of “success,” that would do anything to make our country safer, or allow the Afghan people to live as they want.
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
James,
What does happen if we leave?
As I struggle with what comes next in a war I supported, I've been unable to satisfy myself with an answer. I'd be curious to hear what you think is a likely post-withdrawal scenario.
May '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
If we withdraw prematurely from Afghanistan, it becomes a haven for al Qaeda again. It's wishful thinking to pretend otherwise. When there was little help from the Pakistanis, the leaders of al Qaeda easily crossed the border and took refuge in Pakistan. There are major operations against al Qaeda going on in Pakistan now. The only reason the al Qaeda leadership doesn't return to Afghanistan is because coalition forces are there in strength. Add in the propaganda victory that comes from the US leaving in defeat, and it's just insane to be calling for withdrawal now. Maybe COIN will fail (Obama has made that more likely), but the cost of giving it a chance is dwarfed by the cost of not doing so.
May '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
And by the way, contra Don Robinson above, AfPak experts generally agree that the Taliban and al Qaeda are closer now than they were in 2001.
May '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
Like Don, I fail to see a clear and achieveable win condition. Eliminating Bin Laden and other key figures of Al Qaeda was a clear and possible objective. Eliminating terrorist support among the Afghans is not, and I wonder if crippling Al Qaeda is.
The pivotal question for me is: What is Al Qaeda? Is it a distinct organization with limited resources, limited membership and definite goals? Or is it merely a loosely organized coalition of like-minded groups with fluid membership, easily recovered leadership, impossible-to-end resources (IEDs, AK-47s, etc) and the general goal of killing infidels?
Even if we can't lastingly cripple Al Qaeda, our presence there possibly helps us in two ways. First, while our soldiers interact with Afghan villagers, their representation of Western values and courage might rub off on a significant portion of the locals. Affecting the culture in this way could act as a lasting defense for us. Second, hopefully, while the enemy is concentrating on fighting us over there, they are not able to devote as much attention to attacking us here. Of course, we don't want to defend ourselves at the expense of the Afghans.
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
John,
Tell me more about "the propaganda victory that comes from the US leaving in defeat." I've always wondered whether that sort of thing really matters. Do you think there are well established examples of propaganda victories -- as opposed to hard realities -- so powerful that they should be factored into whether a war should be continued?
What exactly would the propaganda victory you allude to entail? How specifically might its consequences play out?
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
All, I have, I suppose, a funny set of preferences on Afghanistan. As is my wont, I rate realities higher than perceptions, so I count the costs of leaving as minimal in terms of propaganda and substantial in terms of al Qaeda recolonization. Afghanistan is just too horrible a place to let our most implacable terrorist enemies get (re)ensconced. They won't be as easy to dislodge next time. And if you hate the financial, political, and social costs of the war now, you'll hate them all the more when we have to remobilize, re-plan, and re-invade later. I honestly wouldn't care -- in fact, I'd be fairly relieved -- if the US stayed in Afghanistan for 50 years. Not because I like that sort of thing -- I'd also draw down our forces in, say, Germany and Korea, and I think the time is right to trickle expeditiously out of Iraq -- but because Afghanistan is a unique spot on the globe, and it merits, nay demands, a unique approach.
One final note. Pulling out will not relieve Pakistan. It'll leave Pakistan either placating or throwing in with a victorious Islamist regime better able to bring down the government or peel off territory.
Jun '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
I have two former students now serving overseas. One is in Sadr City and the other somewhere along Afghanistan's north-east border with Pakistan. The news is not good. Neither place can be called a nation state in any meaningful sense. While poor Iraqis show some affinity for US soldiers, the upper and middle classes are largely indifferent to our efforts. Our boys have adopted a rather chilling euphemism to refer to the locals. They're known as "flesh puppets." So much for hearts and minds.
Afghanistan is even worse. The place completely lacks any social cohesion beyond the tribal level. I thought at one time that Karzai would be the founding father of a modern nation-state, but it turns out that he's as corrupt as any local warlord. His army is third rate at best and shows little sign of improving.
Saudi Arabia is the wellspring of global terror. Its Wahhabist creed (and local Salafist variants) is being deliberately exported. We need to attack the source. I would say that at present we're fighting in the wrong place. Come what may it's time to get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
May '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
~Paules: ...
Saudi Arabia is the wellspring of global terror. Its Wahhabist creed (and local Salafist variants) is being deliberately exported. We need to attack the source. I would say that at present we're fighting in the wrong place. · Jun 20 at 6:02am
I agree... certainly to the extent that the Saudis are the heart of the problem, regardless of how they might work with us on some things. I'm not sure how the Wahhabist strongholds can be best combated. Outright battles so close to Mecca would probably lead to a much larger war than what we're dealing with now. But, as Steyn would argue, Europe is only a generation or two away from joining the Islamic fold. We'll lose allies between now and then. We need to address that problem soon.
Jun '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
Aaron Miller
~Paules: ...
Saudi Arabia is the wellspring of global terror. Its Wahhabist creed (and local Salafist variants) is being deliberately exported. We need to attack the source. I would say that at present we're fighting in the wrong place. · Jun 20 at 6:02am
I agree... certainly to the extent that the Saudis are the heart of the problem, regardless of how they might work with us on some things. I'm not sure how the Wahhabist strongholds can be best combated. Outright battles so close to Mecca would probably lead to a much larger war than what we're dealing with now. But, as Steyn would argue, Europe is only a generation or two away from joining the Islamic fold. We'll lose allies between now and then. We need to address that problem soon. · Jun 20 at 7:23am
We need to attack the source of Wahhabist funding. That means reducing our dependence on imported oil. The second step is to convince the Saudis to stop exporting Wahhabist imams.
Jun '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
Conor Friedersdorf: John,
Tell me more about "the propaganda victory that comes from the US leaving in defeat." I've always wondered whether that sort of thing really matters. Do you think there are well established examples of propaganda victories -- as opposed to hard realities -- so powerful that they should be factored into whether a war should be continued?
What exactly would the propaganda victory you allude to entail? How specifically might its consequences play out? · Jun 20 at 2:23am
World history post US involvement in the Vietnam war and the expansion of Soviet influence in Asia, Africa and Latin America is the most obvious example.
Jun '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
What I would like to hear from the "Realists" in the US Media/political machine is some substantial thoughtful discussion on how following their doctrines got us here in the 1st place.
While I understand the emotional seductiveness of their "just go home" strategy, I am troubled intellectually by the realization we tried that one before.
When the Soviets pulled out in 1989 we did a little victory dance and promptly forgot all about Afghanistan. Bill Clinton, following the "Realists" doctrine all during the 1990s pretty much ignored the festering problem of Islamic Fundamentalism. During the 1990s the only time DC bothered to notice the issue was when the terrorists blew something up.
The "realists" response to this was to chuck around some bombs and promptly forget about the problem. There was no serious sustained program to deal with the problem posed by Islamic Fundemntalism.
Now, since the post 09-11 shock has warn off, the "Realists" are back advocating we simply go back to a 09-10-01 mindset.
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
James,
Perhaps staying in Afghanistan is the thing to do. But I'm not totally convinced because it seems to me that being there -- with troops living alongside Afghans, occasional firefights that kill civilians, etc. -- has at least the potential for blow back, and inevitably costs the lives of some number of soldiers every year, and billions of dollars in military costs.
Is blow back + cost of overseas operation + casualties greater or less than added risk of a terrorist attack originating from Afghanistan if we leave? I don't know the answer, or how to quantify those things, but I think those are the elements in the equation.
May '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
Stay or go, succeed or fail.
Whatever happens, the rules of engagement must be written to allow our troops to defend themselves, and pursue the missions they are ordered to undertake.
Jun '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
From my vantage point, perched high upon a mountain of blindness and ignorance, I completely agree with Nick.
Another possibility...stay in Afghanistan, forget about the Taliban, and mine the minerals. If it's not sticky and smokable, the Afghans probably wouldn't give a damn.
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
Here's another way to think about Afghanistan, especially for the folks who are convinced we should stay, but also for people like me who are on the fence: exactly how many dollars, lives of American soldiers, and innocents accidentally killed by American soldiers is permissible each year as the cost of staying -- that is to say, what numbers would have to be reached for you to say, "Okay, this is getting to be so expensive that the costs outweigh the benefits."
Surely there is some upper limit, after all. So what is it? I am working on coming up with an answer for myself.
May '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
Conor Friedersdorf: John,
Tell me more about "the propaganda victory that comes from the US leaving in defeat." I've always wondered whether that sort of thing really matters. Do you think there are well established examples of propaganda victories -- as opposed to hard realities -- so powerful that they should be factored into whether a war should be continued?
The withdrawal from Somalia was a very effective recruiting tool for al Qaeda -- in fact, the battle scenes from Black Hawk Down were circulated amongst jihadis to demonstrate that Americans could be beaten. Presumably if the Taliban-al Qaeda alliance regains control of Afghanistan, that will have similar recruiting value. James's preference for emphasizing the more tangible strategic costs is perfectly defensible, but if you are going to worry about blowback it seems like "The Americans are in Afghanistan" is not as likely to capture the imagination of young men inclined toward radicalism as "The Americans left Afghanistan with their tails between their legs."
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
John,
Assume you're correct that leaving Afghanistan with something short of full victory, whatever that means, is used as proof among jihadists that Americans can be beaten, a sentiment that yields x recruits to their side.
I submit the following:
-- If we stay in Afghanistan, our troops will be killed by roadside IEDs, sometimes on video, and that will yield y recruits.
-- Our troops will inadvertently kill some number of innocent Afghans, yielding z recruits.
-- Americans will be caught abusing someone in an Afghan prison. Some troubled soldier will at some point rape an Afghan girl. And other unfortunate consequences of mixing soldiers and hostile civilian populations will ensue, yielding a recruits.
-- The fact that we're occupying their country, policing their streets, arresting their fathers, killing their brothers, even justifiably, will yield b recruits.
You're talking about the abstraction of America and the idea that it can be beat. I am talking about video of a 16 year old kid successfully killing a Humvee full of guys with a bomb and a cell phone, or the wedding party of a guy's sister being inadvertantly bombed.
It seems to me that the blowback from staying far exceeds that from leaving.
Jun '10
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
Conor is asking some very good questions, John. Can we win the hearts and minds of a people who are inclined to support a regime, the Taliban, who will throw acid in the faces of their young girls because they went to school? Does the Taliban do good things for their people, or are they only malicious, women hating thugs? Do they get to rape and stone their women all day long and when one sick American goes off the reservation, we are hated for it?
The Russians got their a$$es handed to them in Afghanistan, yet they are running around today behaving as the world's greatest superpower. Did Georgia laugh at the Russians when invaded because Afghanistan proved the Russians to be weaklings? And besides, I don't know how you could say we lost, even if we left tomorrow. But if we stay, I pray that my great President, the One, can put the correct strategy in place to succeed. I don't know what that would be, other than refering back to comments #14 & #15.
Re: In Afghanistan, Is Failure the Only Option?
You've given us a pretty reasonable account of how bad it's likely to go for us if we stay. What's your account of how bad it's likely to go for us if we leave?