Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
Ricochet member Aaron Miller writes:
All a cave in Afghanistan offers, that I can see, is less civilized ground that is harder for intelligence agencies to find and monitor. But the U.S. has countless such areas on our own soil. There's plenty of vacant land (even caves) that can be hidden in, here and around the world.
What's so special about Afghanistan, aside from culture and local connections (which have ready substitutes all around the Middle East), that empowers terrorists?
The point is twofold: the key is not what in theory is a possible terrorist haven, but what in fact has been so in the past to such a degree as to cause a 16-acre crater in Manhattan. For a variety of unique reasons, cultural, historical and geographical, Afghanistan was seen by our enemies as the best, and for a time, about the only, valuable base for overseas operations. Its landlocked nature, rough terrain, lack of a central government, tribalism, proximity to nuclear and Islamist Pakistan, inter alia, made it a one of a kind environment for al Qaida, that found opportunity there in ways not found even is the Gulf, Somalia, or the Sudan. Note that terrorists seemed eventually to end up there after being driven from other sanctuaries: there was always an 18th century Afghanistan to offer them last-chance, guaranteed sanctuary. (e.g., what retaliatory Western power would ever want to go into Afghanistan?)
Second, like it or not, after 9/11 we made a decision to combat terrorists in Afghanistan and remove their sponsors, the Taliban. While perhaps now we do not invest that move with any particular spiritual import, our enemies most surely do, in the fashion that the Soviet defeat energized al Qaida recruitment for a decade. To withdraw with chaos in our wake, with slaughter of our friends and reformers, and with triumphant confidence among our enemies would not stop there, but convince far more would-be terrorists of the Mideast that Afghanistan is but the beginning and it is time once again to join the rising tide. (By May 1941 one could not find too many openly anti-Nazis in Europe; by May 1945 not too many openly pro-Nazis: Nazism had not changed its tenets; only its viability and reputation had altered.) We with postmodern confidence and reason laugh at neanderthal "strong-horse-ism"; our enemies unfortunately do not.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
Is anyone going to suggest that the Afghan Taliban poses a threat to anyone beyond the Afghan borders? As far a I know the only thing that would suggest that would be based on Mullah Omar making a financial arrangement with OBL that allowed bin Laden to remain in the camps with his Arab mujahedeen after the Soviet war ended.
The Taliban assaults our sensibilities, and beyond that I have never seen evidence of anything more. As noted the Sunni Muslims of The Arabian peninsula, particularly Saudi Arabian Whabbi clerics opened madrassas in Pakistan, and recruited Afghan refugees from the camps. There’s good reason that madrassas were not started in Afghanistan, by Saudi clerics.. Pakistan had long ties, economic and religious with Saudi Arabia, hundreds of thousand Pakistanis have worked in Saudi for decades, learned Arabic, and forged relationships with clerics. None of that applies to Afghanistan.. they don’t speak Arabic, don’t have relationships with Saudi Arabia..and are far more interested in Afghanistan.
Afghans do not care for Arabs.. the Arabs never recruited Afghans, where they have Pakistanis, and I see no threat from Afghan Talib. Arab Al Qaeda have left Afghanistan
Jun '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
Professor Hanson's perspective and erudition have given me a better understanding of the consequences at stake in Afghanistan, though I am no more convinced about our eventual success than I was before. I'm somewhat more optimistic knowing that General Petraeus is now in charge.
Returning to my earlier point about Wahhabism being the root of the problem I can offer you a paraphrase from The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by Col. T.E. Lawrence. He remarked that Islam has a tendency to erupt periodically in outbreaks of violence only to see such movements burn themselves out in short order when the frenzy abates. He was probably thinking about the Mahdist revolt when he wrote that statement. It seems to me that Wahhabism is continuing to add fuel to a fire that would otherwise burn itself out as per Lawrence's insight. How do we attack the root? That much remains for me the primary conundrum.
Jun '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
The problem is, when Islamic terrorists aren't running (and hiding,) they're recruiting.
May '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
Good point. Our efforts seem suppressive, and it signals to other would-be hosts that we'll make their lives uncomfortable (and, preferably, short) if they take over where the Taliban left off.
May '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
The root lies in Mecca and Medina. The goal is to take back the "holy cities," and the land of Mohammed, and it is unlikely to be something that can be done from outside.
I spent almost a decade working in the Arab world, living there for half that time, for a major American aerospace contractor. The goal was to implement defense and early warning systems surrounding Saudi Arabia, which included AWACS and ground CCC systems, to protect the nation from radical Sunni Muslims, dedicated to taking out the royal family..eliminating all vestiges of the west, including getting out of the oil business.
Since 9/11 there have been many vocal clerics in Saudi that have been quieted, or have disappeared entirely, many to Pakistan, as well as to MODA morgues. The primary threat is to Saudi ”the near enemy,” we are a pawn used for publicity and recruiting purposes, called the “far enemy.” I've fished in th Red Sea with "street Arabs," from a friends dhow, and have trekked the Rub al Khali. Perhaps 1-2% of Saudis can enjoy the Western cities that have been built..the rest resent them.
May '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
They were the breeders, Afghanistan the breeding ground, for terrorists pre-9/11. I don't see any reason they would not become so again following an American withdrawl. The challenge, it would seem, if we don't want to be there forever, is to create conditions on the ground that would make Afghanistan at least no more suitable for spawning terrorists than any of the other places F. L. Booth might suggest.
My question for Dr. Hanson is what would be his recommendation for ensuring the unsuitability of Afghanistan as a terrorist safe haven? In The Western Way of War, and The Father Of Us All Dr. Hanson has written convincingly (to my mind at any rate) of the Western penchant and mastery of force-vs-force battle. But what modifications can we make to our approach to ensure a defeat of the Taliban and Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan that would be sufficiently complete and painful (to them) to at least convince them they don't want us back? (continued)
May '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
Is it likely that the American populace would, in sufficient numbers, support "doing what it takes," whatever that might be?
My preference would have been for a short, devastating punitive expedition that would have had us out of Afghanistan by now except possibly for strategically placed garrisons. Machievelli counseled for doing all the injuries up front and as quickly as possible, then distributing largess over time. He also counseled that injuries be done completely. As the Western media and post-modernists would abhor the violence necessary to effect a convincing punitive mission, it certainly argues that it would have to be conducted quickly. Any liklihood of adopting that strategy at this late date?
May '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
Nick, "They were the breeders, Afghanistan the breeding ground, for terrorists pre-9/11." I know of nothing that would suggest that any Afghans, Talib or not, were involved in anything relating to breeding international terrorism. Mullah Omar, by allowing bin Laden and his Arabs to remain in the camps they created during the Soviet war, for a price, would seem to make them inn keepers at worst. There was also very little interaction between the Afghans and Arabs, during the war or after.
I’ve never heard it suggested that even Mullah Omar knew what they were up to in terms of 9/11 planning. The desire to put the Afghan Talib in the same league as Al Qaeda is perhaps understandable, but I don’t know of nothing that suggests any Afghan complicity in international terrorism. If all the training and planning for 9/11 had taken place in a Holiday Inn in San Jose I would we blame the Holiday Inn employees, or San Jose?
I am used to being a lonely voice on this issue, I have been a proponent of withdrawing from Afghanistan since 2003, while keeping presence on the border of Pakistan.
May '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
Thanks for the response.
I absolutely agree that, whatever our reasons for invading, we must see our military commitments through.
I can see your point that it is better that our enemies have to work for their safety than they find easy sanctuary. When victory cannot be absolute, struggle can still be justified.
Unfortunately, like others, I fail to see definite win conditions, and Americans could never stomach long wars. Eliminating the Taliban as a politically viable organization is an achieveable goal, but that does not appear to be our goal. Al Qaeda seems like a more loosely defined organization, with an indefinite hierarchy and easily replaced resources. But I know only what I read in major news outlets, so I could be mistaken. Fighting Islamic terrorism, like fighting communism, is obviously a broad umbrella which will encompass many wars and lesser conflicts.
Have our generals publicized precise win conditions? If so, what do you think of them? And have those win conditions been altered since the beginning of the war?
If the conditions of victory have not been publicized, why not? Would withholding them from public scrutiny ever be defensible?
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
I didn't always see things your way, Victor. As recently as a few months ago, I was certain that 1) Afghanistan was always going to be an unwinnable mess; and 2) we have no choice but to stay there anyway, as our absence would be filled by a resurgent (and triumphant) Taliban, and that debt would come due in a few years, on some other September morning, to some other innocent Americans.
But having read through your logic, and during our last podcast, I've come to see things your way -- a little more hopeful (but still awfully cautious) and a little more balanced. You're right: it's never going to be Carmel over there. But it might be something safer, stronger, better for us. It doesn't have to be a failed or failing state. It might be a place where people still struggle and fight for dominance for the next few years --- but it's infinitely better to have them struggling and fighting over their own land, rather than free to harbor terrorists and plots against Americans in theirs.
May '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
I'm going to do the unforgivable and re-post the same thoughts as I did at the other VDH thread.
Apparently it makes no difference what sorts of criminality we countenance out there as long as 1) Afghanistan is far enough away, 2) we have a nice gated community over here in which to hide, 3) the bad guys resist surrendering immediately, and 4) we don't want to put up with the length of time and the effort required to actually do the job. I believe that the so-called "Powell Doctrine", reflected here mostly by Aaron, regarding accomplishing all of the objectives very quickly and cleanly, may be the worst disservice that any general ever perpetrated on his country.
We don't have to "pacify" or rule Afghanistan. But anyone who believes that 1) we will have long term peace and security in our world, with Haqqani's and Hekmatyar's organizations still in business and cooperating with the Islamists in Pakistan, plus Al Qaeda (remember, Haqqani is still Zawahiri's protector), and 2) that this can be accomplished while advertising our cold feet and our pull-out deadlines, is smoking high-quality Afghan opium.
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
What I keep coming back to: who would fill the vacuum? Because somebody would. Not with a big marching army, perhaps. But there would be infiltration, influence, bribes, deals, funnels, backchannels -- any number of relationships that would cut starkly against our interest. Anyone ready to support a withdrawal has got to account not only for the Afghanistan we'd leave behind but for the Afghanistan the world would wind up with inside a year. It's not like South Vietnam. There's no neat absorption into a self-contained nation-state. It's something much, much worse. If, that is, we leave.
May '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
Presuming all this is correct -- and it may well be -- aren't would be terrorists also convinced to take us arms against the United States as a result of our army is occupying their country, policing their streets, regularly responsible for accidentally killing members of their family, etc? Again I say, we must compare the blowback costs of staying and leaving, rather than simply ignoring the former.
Also, presuming Prof. Hanson is correct in his analysis, does that mean we should be willing to spend unlimited American lives, military resources, and money pacifying Aghanistan? Surely there is some limit. What is it?
Jun '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
We have two similar threads started by Prof. Hanson, as pointed out by Duane. In the first, I discussed the new finding of very valuable mineral reserves in Afghanistan. I believe this discovery could alter the tactics, the stategy, and the ultimate goal of this war. Does anyone have any familiarity with this discovery and any thoughts about it? For a lighter view, please read the following by Matt Labash at the Daily Caller. The second half of his segment deals with this issue:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/06/ask-matt-labash-vol-xix-massages-with-michelle-obama-and-shaking-war-booty-out-of-afghanistan/
May '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
Conor Friedersdorf
would be terrorists also convinced to take us arms against the United States as a result of our army is occupying their country, policing their streets, regularly responsible for accidentally killing members of their family, etc?
Islamists aren't Islamists because our army occupies their country, etc. That may be the excuse, or the recruiting pitch. But if you read Pipes or Lewis, our sin is being Western and successful- one bin Laden video cited as grievance against us the fact that Islam no longer rules Andalusia. That dates back to before 1500.
The GWOT is not a war of our choosing, except in that we can elect whether or not to fight back or surrender and embrace conversion/dhimmitude. We can pretend that it is not there, we try to fool ourselves in the short run that we can ignore it and it will go away. I wish it wasn't there as well. That doesn't eliminate it.
I think Prof. Hanson is pointing out that we don't need a perfect society, but we doo need to excise enough of the cancer so that minimal civil discourse can exist there and we buy time.
Jul '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
While Prof Hanson may have defined the political and international reasons that we need to remain in Afghanistan, the economic reality is that subsistence societies are tribal for a reason - they can ill afford a misstep that well might take down the whole tribe. So all work under the control of the (supposedly) best leader to keep them alive.
That said, one can then define "freedom" as the "ability to fail", for when there is enough excess in a society that one member can fail and not take down the whole, then people start to experiment out, flexing their freedom in a variety of ways. Afghanistan has historically had no significant "excess", so it is little wonder it is as it is today. However, the discover of the vast riches within the borders of the nation give it the potential of rising above abject subsistence to the point of freedom. How that potential of riches is developed will be the key to whether or not we succeed there or not. The military has its role, but it will ultimately be economics that win or lose the day.
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
Good question, Conor. But how should I know? How should anyone? Any limit will be arbitrary, disconnected from the events, results, and circumstances on the ground, in the future, that are the basis for a sound judgment. Which is why a judgment that right now we've reached that limit is, at least, internally sound. But I think most people in favor of getting out now don't really think in terms of our reaching a limit. They want to get out before we reach it. I'd sooner think about the minimum degree of pacification we can accept; the minimum degree of de-Talibanization; the minimum degree of al Qaeda annihilation. Looking at things from that standpoint, it seems to me we have a long way to go -- not necessarily in time, but certainly in effort. The good news really is that it's taken so long for so little because we've been back-burnering Afghanistan to regain control in Iraq.
May '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
James Poulos, Ed.
Good question, Conor. But how should I know? How should anyone? Any limit will be arbitrary.... · Jul 10 at 4:38pm
I have never been comfortable with the notion that two human lives are better than one, or a thousand better than a hundred. Human beings are not commodities. Still, that seems to be the best moral arithmetic available to us.
As a Christian, I believe that eternal life is of higher value than mortal life. I believe the loss of a hundred soldiers to save a single person could be justified if each of those hundred soldiers chose of his or her own free will to make that sacrifice. But that is not how standing armies work. Our soldiers cannot decide the causes, so we must use different standards to weigh the risk of lives.
Sadly, we have no choice but to settle for flawed and unpleasant options.
May '10
Re: Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Not an Option
We should neither spend one moment, or one dollar, or one valued troop more, nor one moment or one dollar or one valued troop less than is necessary to secure the vital interests of the USA. The issue here constantly gets lost in the secondary rhetoric of debate between the virtual cryptoisolationists (e.g., George Will, Matt Labash) and the grand design "make the world safe for democracy" group (e.g., Bill Kristol, Frederick Kagan). Sometimes we need to step back and look at the donut for a while instead of the hole.
We go to war only to protect vital interests. That is why we got rid of Saddam and, let's face it, establish a vital strategic beachhead in the middle of that deadly swamp.
Afghanistan is a mess of corruption and tribalism, leavened by pockets of dangerous ideology. It hosts two particularly horrific warlord leaders (Haqqani, Hekmatyar) whose conduct and alliances threaten our interests, right on the border of a nuclear state that could go off the rails any instant (Pakistan).
We need to do no more and no less than is necessary to address that threat- more than some prefer, and less than others desire.