In an interview with Fortune magazine, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says, "The last time we left Afghanistan, and we abandoned Pakistan, that territory became the very territory on which Al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th." She goes on to say, "So our national security interests are very much tied up in not letting Afghanistan fail again and become a safe haven for terrorists." She declared, "It's that simple, if you want another terrorist attack in the U.S., abandon Afghanistan."
Actually, Ms. Rice, it's not that simple. Your logic ignores the fact that terrorists can move to governed spaces. Rather than setting up in weak, ungoverned states, enemies can flourish in strong states because these countries have formally recognized governments with the sovereignty to reject foreign interference in their domestic affairs. This is one reason why terrorists find sanctuary across the border in Pakistan. Besides, 9/11 was planned in many other countries with competent law enforcement agencies, Germany and the United States included.
If there were (God forbid!) another 9/11, it would prove that invading and forcibly democratizing two Muslim-majority countries has not made America safer. In fact, if Ms. Rice is so concerned about abandoning Afghanistan, where was she in 2002 when her boss diverted America's resources away from those who attacked us on 9/11 by invading a country that did not?
Americans should reject Ms. Rice's atrocious interpretation of policy and remember that she and her ilk were adept at keeping the American public in an elevated state of panic. Fear-mongering should be rejected and replaced with a sober analysis of policy and its consequences.
Al Qaeda poses a manageable security problem, not an existential threat to America. Yet, as I mention here, policymakers tend to conflate al Qaeda with indigenous Pashtun-dominated militias. America's security, however, will not be at risk even if an oppressive regime takes over a contiguous fraction of Afghan territory; and if the Taliban were to provide sanctuary to al Qaeda once again, it would be easier to strike at the group within Afghanistan than in neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Paul Rieckhoff: "Immeasurable Courage and Uncommon Valor"-- Sgt. First Class Jared C. Monti
Last Thursday, we were reminded of what true courage, sacrifice, and heroism is all about.
Then again, she was national security advisor when we were attacked by Al Quada on 9/11/01. And obviously failed big time. So her thought on Afghanistan seem very retro, and not particularly compelling
Well don't ask her, she just like her boss, neither has ever had a clue as to what was/is going on!
Why should we listen to this Bush mouthpiece who asked about 9/11 "How could anyone have guessed that this could happen". Is she prescient now, when before she was oblivious to warnings from the CIA???
Go away, Condi. Try on a few boots and buy a pair to wear around the house, ... but your days in charge are past, and your opinion is of no consequence.
Afghanistan has been a "failed state" before -- indeed, the Taliban was one of the more successful governments -- and if we pull out, it may well fail again. But there are already several other "failed states", as well as quite a few non-failed ones, that are quite capable of harboring and/or sponsoring terrorist groups. Honestly, Dr. Rice, we cannot invade and occupy all of them.
There is a lot of value in disrupting terror organizations, and I -- despite considering myself a flaming liberal -- would fully support carefully targeted incursions into failed states (or even non-failed ones) to blow up terrorist leaders when the opportunity presents itself.But to BE useful, the targeting has to be good (e.g., avoid blowing up wedding parties and school children), and that requires "HUMINT", which requires establishing networks, which requires patience and lots of money.
That money could come from not throwing it down the occupation hole as we've been doing for years.
Condoleeza Rice was an embarrasement then and one now. America is broke and past accepting her simplistic fear mongering ideology and lies that got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. She is not Harvard material and this may explain her Bush-like simplistic conclusions on Afghanistan.Cheney and Bush needed a Condoleeza Rice to take the heat now and then and she did this willingly and in style. I dont want to ever see her in public office because of the damage she caused to our image internationally and our economy.
The truth is, is that we invite these attacks (and the resentment and anger that precede them) with our long-standing history of interference, intervention and meddling with governments that do not play ball with us from a trade perspective.
Years of intervention in Central and South America to protect business in oil and fruits. More of the same in the Middle East for oil.
We have had blinders on (or been systematically deceived) if we think that we are a faultless, selfless and saintly country unjustly reviled and attacked. The truth is we have overturned or corrupted dozens of popularly elected governments just because their domestic policies threatened American business interests.
The only way to stop terrorist attacks is to keep our hands off countries whose governments have legitimacy with their citizens. And stop propping up those who are supporting the US to the detriment of their own people.
But, I don't think she's wrong on the main point here.
If the social and economic fabric of a place is weak, criminals move in and take over. It doesn't matter if it's Afghanistan or Westside USA. When police go into our crime ridden neighborhoods to suppress crime and gangbangers, and then just roll away, the problem returns.
Afghanistan is more complicated because we helped militarize and then invaded the place. But abandoning innocent civilians to the mess we've created (as we've done many times in other places) should not be acceptable US policy.
If you're saying "I don't care" because our policy was wrong in the first place, you run the risk of being just as callous and ideological as Rice and her pals.
I agree that this is a mess that we helped to create under Reagan, and abandoning these folks is not acceptable.