The United States Must Stay in Afghanistan

Shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center, President Bush began strikes on Taliban targets in Afghanistan and began a military operation to root out the radical group. But before nearly finishing the task at hand, neo-conservatives (some of whom had established the Project for the New American Century and had previously tried to push President Clinton into war with Iraq) renewed their effort to make a case based on faulty intelligence for Iraq. The effort led to a poorly thought out unilateral invasion that cost the U.S. billions of dollars, thousands of Iraqi and American deaths and tens of allies.

President Obama ran with the promise that he would bring the Iraq war to an end and refocus our attention to fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, who were our real adversaries. The promise made sense, had international appeal and gained the strong support of Democrats, independents and some Republicans, who voted to send him to The White House with a 7% advantage over his war veteran Republican opponent, Senator McCain.

But as it sometimes happens, we have begun to see some flip-flopping taking place following the election. The difference is that this time, it is not the politician, now President Obama, who is doing the flipping, but some of the very people who so faithfully supported him and his position on Afghanistan. As President Obama is getting ready to live up to his promise, renew American efforts in Afghanistan and make a number of critical decisions regarding an increase of troops, an ever-growing chorus of liberals is pressuring him to abandon Afghanistan and withdraw without any regards to what will happen next. These individuals make a number of unpersuasive arguments, from generic anti-war platitudes to faulty comparisons with other unsuccessful wars.

One of those overused comparisons has been with Afghanistan's war with the Soviets in the 1980s and the fact that the Soviets were unable to root out the Taliban after 9 years of fighting. But the Soviets' war with the Taliban was fundamentally different than ours.

First, Soviets' main objective was quite narrow: to support the Marxist government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan against the Taliban. They did not focus on defending the population, helping to educate and build schools or support development and trade. The American policy under President Obama is fundamentally different and more comprehensive. While President Bush saw Afghanistan as mostly a military project, President Obama has a comprehensive policy that goes far beyond just the military operations.

Secondly, the Taliban were in a stronger military position during their war with the Soviets because they garnered full American support. As soon as they began their war, President Carter authorized the CIA to begin a massive propaganda effort against the Marxists, making the Afghan government unpopular and Taliban popular. And shortly after President Reagan was sworn into office, the United States began training and arming the Taliban. Of course the Taliban were able to fight the Soviets more ably with the strong help of a super power like the United States. But the Taliban now have no state sponsors, putting them in a much weaker position.

And the third major difference between the Soviet's war with Afghanistan and current American efforts -- which also makes comparisons with Vietnam irrelevant -- is that while Afghans may have felt ambivalent or supportive of the Taliban in the 1980s, they are now deeply unpopular in all parts of the country. Afghans have now had the chance to live under a Taliban regime and remember the brutalities and carry the scars. Because of this experience, Afghans by and large were ecstatic to see the Taliban go and deeply fear their comeback now. This reality also makes American initiatives in Afghanistan much more popular than those of the Soviets. The same issue of popularity makes comparisons with Vietnam irrelevant (where Viet Cong was very popular and had the state sponsorship of the Soviet Union against the United States, leading to the American failure for some of the same reasons that the Soviets failed in Afghanistan).

It is true that we are not going to bring true democracy to any country. Those who believe Iraq is a full-fledged liberal democracy now should expect major cases of corruption, rigging of various elections, insurgency and inter-ethnic and inter-sect violence in the coming years. Democracy will only survive and flourish in a country if a critical mass in that country has evolved through the necessary stages that would allow them to understand the value of democracy as the system that can best serve their collective and common interests.

However, if there is one country where this rule does not apply in the short run, it's Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an extremely tribal country that lacks the most basic infrastructural elements that would enable its people to get educated about not just mathematics and biology, but nationalism, government and all the different ways in which they can take control of their own destiny. As long as they lack those necessary elements, they will not be able to evolve and embrace democracy and reject the extremism of the Taliban. The United States and NATO are now in the unique position to help modernize Afghanistan enough so that the population can have a reliable window to the rest of the world, raising their social consciousness and seeing how they, too, can live in a free, advanced and respected country. Only one aspect of the project should involve the military; others should include helping the Afghans shift their economy from opium to other areas, build schools and opening up the country to foreign companies that are willing to invest and bring communication technologies such as cell phones, satellite dishes and the internet to all parts of the country

Some may admit that there is an advantage in a comprehensive NATO strategy in Afghanistan, but still question why the U.S. should be the one to take leadership of this modernization project. For three reasons:

1. Leaving Afghanistan may be a comfortable position to take in the short-run, but will lead to the immediate rise of the Taliban and a guaranteed safe heaven for Al Qaeda. It is not so much the camps in dirt that provide Al Qaeda with the ability to attack the U.S., but the fact that whereas they are now spending most of their resources to fight NATO troops, a safe haven will free up those resources that they can then use to train and equip individuals in the United States.
2. If the United States sees itself responsible to stop genocide in places like Darfur, it must also do what it can to prevent them from happening in the first place. Leaving Afghanistan will lead to a surge of violence on the part of Taliban against those Afghans who will defy their rule. Belief in the notion that Afghans should determine their own future grossly simplifies reality in Afghanistan with the false assumption that Afghans have choices. If the U.S. leaves, there will be no choices. Talibans have the guns and brutality, and they will kill, imprison and torture whoever questions them.
3. The United States was responsible for strengthening and even perhaps the eventual rule of the Taliban following their war with the Soviets. This policy led to a long dark period of repression, torture and killing in Afghanistan. For that, we now owe it to Afghans to do what we can to help them build their own country. The United States cannot intervene in other countries to the detriment of those countries and then withdraw at exactly the time when the people that we have done harm with our policies need us the most.

As President Obama begins to consider sending more troops to Afghanistan, he should know that we can neither kill the Taliban out of existence through an exclusively military policy or withdraw and pretend the future of Afghanistan will not directly impact our national security in the long-run. We must stay in Afghanistan and begin pursuing a comprehensive strategy that speeds up the process of opening up the country's economy to foreign investments in telecommunications and technology, education and infrastructure. If our policy is truly comprehensive, then the presence of American military and NATO should be considered a necessary component in that strategy to protect the population and hold the Taliban out of the cities while Afghans have the chance to build their own country.

Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamSedaei

Comments

[gdstark]

Sam, I don't see that you've replied to any of your posts. If that's your policy it's not a dialog and I will unsubscribe. Care to share your feedback on the posts?

gary

[robeson]

We owe nothing to the war lords, drug dealers, tribal leaders, or religious fanatics that make up Afghanistan, nothing at all. Our only concern should be that they don't nurture, foster, and send out terrorists to other nations. The call to nation build in Afghanistan is beyond my comprehension. It's pure lunacy. There is no Afghanistan, never has been.

[holeybuybull]

The more we wage war against and occupy sovereign nations in the ME and Asia, where we aren't welcomed, the more resentment and blowback will ensue. The current policy is designed to create more enemies and the resultant cash flow that feeds the MIC.

[pjburke]

"...neo-co­nservative­s (some of whom had established the Project for the New American Century and had previously tried to push President Clinton into war with Iraq) renewed their effort to make a case based on faulty intelligence for Iraq."

Totally deceptive. The prime signatories to PNAC were those very same people who were then running the White House and the Pentagon... namely Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz , etcetera.

Why omit this fact?

The Taliban currently controls 80% of Afghanistan and have done so for over two years (per the International Council on Security and Development). The Taliban has still not provided "safe havens" to Al Quaida, which has only a negligible presence (per both Petraeus and McCrystal). Al Quaida has used Spain, Portugal, Germany and other countries to "plot and plan," and launch attacks... but we do not propose invading and occupying those countries in order to deny "safe havens" to Al Quaida.

The Taliban does have sponsorship and support from Pakistan's ISI.

At the time of the U.S. invasion, the poppy growing and heroin trade had been all but decimated... but under U.S. occupation, that has now been fully restored.

The main purpose for the United States presence in Afghanistan is to protect the pipeline. Secondarily, it is to protect the CIA's highly profitable heroin trade. We are not there for "the People," and our presence will never have anything to do with benefitting them, unless it happens by accident.

[ThinkCreeps]

Re: 3) The Taliban did not fight the Soviet Union. US support for the mujahideen certainly did no favors to Afghanistan, but there are many different rivers of the crazed and fervent involved.

[regellner]

The key to minimizing threats from groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is to let the civilian population know of ways to create a better quality of life. This can be achieved through social and economic programs designed to help the people in impoverished nations reach a better standard of living. Most people are searching for this and it is enough for them.
There will always be those who push this away and cling to violence; they are criminals and should be treated as criminals, not elevated to the status of enemy combatants through war.

Following is a commentary on where we need to focus our resources in Afghnaistan if we are to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda there:

http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m10d7-Difficult-decisions-abound-for-President-Obama-on-eighth-anniversary-of-Afghanistan-War

[gdstark]

Well put...

gary

[glapon]

Essentially this is the "White Man's Burden" all over again. Colonialism didn't benefit the colonized 100 years ago, and it won't benefit Afghanis today.

[Helzapoppin]

What a bunch of revisionist nonsense.
There is NOTHING to be gained in Afghanistan. The proper policy should be containment and isolation, NOT internal intervention.

[gdstark]

Isolation is also a failed policy. If the people of a repressed country can't access the outside world, they can't see the alternatives. And don't forget...dictators LOVE isolation. It helps them stay in power.

gary

[ThinkCreeps]

You can intervene with eyes in the sky rather than boots on the ground: you just can't conquer and occupy. However, flat and convenient Iraq gives a good hint into how that turns out anyway.

[Betsie]

"The United States Must Stay in Afghanistan"

Common sense says that if the USA is going to war (or in a current war) then the draft should be re-in-stated and that every able bodied person should have go to war.

Especially those that live on Wallstreet and the children of our politicans.... no exceptions.

If their children had to wear fatigues they would not support a war!!!!!

Wake up Mainstreet and STOP enlisting.... you are not fighting for your country.... you are fighting to keep putting more profits into the war-mongers pockets.

[Zenfull]

Fanned and faved! Yes, universal service for every citizen. If you don't believe in killing, then you can provide alternative service in communities, schools, or hospitals.

[Nora Ahmetaj]

Bush came to office pledging to pull the U.S. military out of many international engagements. But from Bosnia and Kosovo to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, he has wisely concluded that America's interests are best served by honoring its commitments and following through on actions already begun. In Afghanistan the case is no different. Iraq is even worse. The US administration and the UK PM shouldn’t have decided to send additional troops to Afghanistan. It wouldn’t’ make situation better, nor it will bring the Afghanis a sustainable democracy. My guess is that Afghanis themselves, with strong support of Diaspora should try and build at first place a Middle Eastern democracy, then the US and other western powers should assist with technical assistance and economic incentives.

[research]

Only World Fascism can eliminate all terrorist safe havens.

And if we have Fascism, it terrorism anyway.

The country that tortures, wages war for profit, and has a plutocracy for sale to the highest bidder,

IS NOT

CAN NOT

bring democracy or anything good to Afghanistan.

Kucinich says:

"If the Obama administration is determined to ‘win the war' in Afghanistan, then we should be prepared for another Vietnam. An unending military commitment is unacceptable to the American people and it should be unacceptable to Congress. If the Obama administration refuses to bring this war to an end, then Congress should use the power of the purse, granted by the Constitution, to end the war and bring our troops home. Many objective analyses indicate that the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan. If the Obama administration can't do it, then Congress must," said Kucinich.

[Twentylaws]

Bring the troops home or the United States will face a new draft.

[Callyson]

Mixed feelings here...
I see the distinctions between Afghanistan and Vietnam, and between the Soviet presence there and the US presence. And I definitely agree that we should not leave Afghanistan until the Afghan people action are able to defend themselves against the Taliban: I've been supportive of Obama's expansion of troops in the area (and have taken heat from those who want us to get out now.)
But--after of the recent election, which showed the extent of corruption in the Afghan government, I am very concerned that we do not seem to have a local partner that we can rely on to rebuild the country. This is a problem not only for democratization but also for post-war reconstruction, because getting "the most basic infrastructural elements" and modernization that Afghanistan needs to develop will be considerably harder without a functional government,
In the end, I agree with Sedaei: I'm not for removing our troops right now. (Adding more, I am not sure about.) But at this point, I am terrified that Obama got to the White House too late, and that the damage caused by W's neglect will not be reversed for quite some time.

[Zenfull]

I think you speak for many of us. I trust Obama to make the right decision. That is why I voted for him and not the other guy (or all the thousands of political pundits and armchair quarterbacks who think they know exactly what to do). There is a lot on this man's shoulders. We are fortunate that he listens to others and has the intelligence and will to act after he has carefully considered all input and the interests of the American people (and not the Industry Lobbyists).

[jhamm1]

"These individuals make a number of unpersuasive arguments, from generic anti-war platitudes to faulty comparisons with other unsuccessful wars."

No. You're the one with the faulty reasoning, relying on altruistic platitudes pertinent in the ridic ul ous assertions that good intentions will somehow dictate the outcome of such a campaign.

In fact, the Soviet and British misfortunes in Afghanistan are completely appropriate comparisons, which have much more to do with geography and tribal society than attempts to orchestrate imperialist objectives.

Whether we're building schools or not, the fact remains that Afghanistan spans a conglomerate of isolated villages, interspersed betweem thousands of square miles of desolate and rocky terrain, ideally suited for insurgent activities. As the resentment among the Afghani population grows about Amercans failing to adequately "protect" them, the fact remains that even 300,000 troops will not be able to sufficiently guard every major population center in the country.

Your superficial analysis bodes plenty of simplistic deductions while your inability to contemplate both history and geography hardens your incentive toward accusing others of suffering from what clearly afflicts your conception of things.

You're the one who needs to be educated, not us.

[ThinkCreeps]

Right, the russian-supported government was deep into school building. Didn't turn out so well.

[gdstark]

The problem with dumping money into Afghanistan (and make no mistake, that's exactly what we're doing) is that proponents have absolutely no sense of prespective. Just how much money is it worth to "tame" Afghanistan? 10 billion more? 100 billion more? Do you have ANY limit. The reality is that there are MANY problems in the world where we could make a difference with a fraction of all this money. Sam, I see those who think we should stay in Afghanistan for "whatever it takes" as lacking a realistic sense of perspective.

gary