In an unannounced visit to Afghanistan this past weekend, U.S. President Barack Obama urged Afghan authorities to rein in corruption and enforce the rule of law. "All of these things," said President Obama, "end up resulting in an Afghanistan that is more prosperous and more secure."
Given the flagrant graft and corruption of many Afghan leaders, it may sound intuitively appealing for the president to push for better governance in that country. However, that broadly accepted policy prescription falsely conflates the creation of a stable government in Afghanistan with protecting America's national security.
The uncomfortable truth is that without indefinite foreign protection, the Government of Afghanistan would probably fall to the Afghan Taliban. But Americans should not equate the fall of that regime with "losing" to al Qaeda. Violent, Islamist extremist groups indigenous to this region threaten the Afghan government, not the American government. Because these radical groups lack the ambition -- let alone the capacity -- to threaten the sovereignty or physical security of the United States, they do not merit the strategic obsession that they currently receive. Washington's continued fixation on groups that threaten Afghanistan, rather than America, presents a bigger threat to genuine American interests than those groups themselves can pose, especially since there is little assurance that 100,000 foreign troops can capture and kill more insurgents than their presence helps to recruit.
Rather than propping up a failed state, U.S. leaders should focus on countering the al Qaeda threat still clinging to life in this region. Technological advances over the past decade allow us to monitor places without having 100,000 boots on the ground. Furthermore, the blueprint for an effective counterterrorism approach is the initial U.S.-led invasion in 2001, when small Special Forces teams, working in conjunction with local militias, assembled quickly and struck effectively and cheaply at "real" enemies.
In short, Americans should reject the misguided belief that terrorists can only flourish in failed states like Afghanistan. After all, India, a major U.S. ally far more stable than Afghanistan, is fighting several internal insurgencies. Likewise, the very al Qaeda terrorists responsible for 9/11 not only found sanctuary in poverty-stricken Afghanistan, but also in politically free and economically prosperous countries like Germany, Spain, and the United States. Policymakers in Washington must stop conflating the punishment of al Qaeda with the creation of stable societies, particularly when ensuring the survival of an illegitimate foreign government distracts from the conceptually simpler task of finding and killing terrorists.
This post originally appeared in The Daily Caller on 3/29/10.
Follow Malou Innocent on Twitter: www.twitter.com/IndianBrownAle
I am amazed to see how easily you accept that the US has the moral authority to be in Afghanistan, punishing a whole nation for supposedly the crimes of a few. I would like to know what evidence was ever shown to the world that Al Quaeda was indeed behind the 9/11 attacks appart from the fact that G.W. Bush said so!
I would also very much like to know your definition of a "failed state" since you so freely use the term to refer to Afghanistan. A country that is constantly under attack by outsiders? Or a country that constantly attacks (or threatens to do so) other foreign nations, contrary to International Law? I think you probably know the answer to that question, deep down!
Finally, I burst into laughter when I read the phrase "the creation of a stable government in Afghanistan with protecting America's national security". "Stable government" and "America's national security" are code words that mean respectively "a government that cooperates with Washington" and "the interest of a few elite close to power".
Your article helps propagate the false impression that the US is in Afghanistan out of pure altruism. The american people was lied to in the illegal invasion of Iraq (just as it was in the case of the Vietnam war); I find it hard to swallow that you really believe what you say in the case of Afghanistan!
Oh there are none - sorry!
In fact, when I heard PrezBO was going there I did an immediate WTF. Don't we have enough issues right here without defending a barren moonscape against a bunch of ewoks? If Barry wants to get his hands dirty and face danger at every turn, we have a crumbling sewer system in almost every major city in the U.S.
Unless he went to Afghanistan for the climate, of course. I hear it's lovely this time of year.
Thank you very much,
The USA goes to war for lies and profit, and tortures.
The USA doesn't have the moral high ground to question Karzai, nor to bring anything but misery.
True, but another objective will be achieved. President Obama can claim that he's not soft on terror, and thus help to assure his own re-election. I may be ultracynical, but I do believe that most politicians, with Obama out front, are willing to sacrifice American blood and treasure for power.