Specious comparisons to Lincoln and Churchill? (Where are the comparisons to LBJ or Nixon, or the USSR, if you're going to pick and choose?) Basing our policy in Af/Pak on a gut feeling of "determination" in one person? Not even addressing the Hoh resignation, even just to tear it down, if that's what you believe?
I am not qualified to have an opinion on whether we should stay in Afghanistan, but going by my gut as Brooks would have me do, I don't think we can achieve an acceptable "win" scenario by military force. Even though nuclear Pakistan is some scary shit. Our troop presence in Afghanistan just seems to be providing the Taliban and local militias with more targets to blow up. The argument that instability in Afghanistan is bleeding over into Pakistan sounds a lot like domino theory to me, but even buying that that is the case, I think our efforts would be better served by trying to shore up Pakistan by focusing on, well, Pakistan. In Afghanistan we have aligned ourselves with an even less legitimate, respected, and powerful government than the Pakistani government. Even if we create a safe space for democracy there, that's not even half the battle in terms of getting a viable democratic government off the ground. Meanwhile the situation in Pakistan is deteriorating in spite of our increased efforts in Afghanistan. (While the official troop increase is still being discussed, extra support personnel have been quietly deployed to the country.)* And that's without bringing Matt Hoh's resignation letter and "Valleyism" into the argument.
It would be a travesty for the Taliban to regain its hold of Afghanistan, especially for women. It would be a boon to Al Qaeda.** But the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Western Europe, not from a cave in Kandahar. And they are still less fatal than if we were to continue diverting our resources to the Middle East instead of focusing on universal health care, infrastructure, climate change, gun violence, poverty, the food supply, rape culture, and preparedness for natural disasters, which are outcomes we can actually positively affect without sacrificing thousands of American lives in the battle.
*ETA from Mr. Kristof: "In Afghanistan, for example, we have already increased our troop presence by 40,000 troops since the beginning of last year, yet the result has not been the promised stability but only more casualties and a strengthened insurgency. If the last surge of 40,000 troops didn’t help, why will the next one be so different?"
**ETA from Mr. Friedman:
"What if we shrink our presence in Afghanistan? Won’t Al Qaeda return, the Taliban be energized and Pakistan collapse? Maybe. Maybe not. This gets to my second principle: In the Middle East, all politics — everything that matters — happens the morning after the morning after. Be patient. Yes, the morning after we shrink down in Afghanistan, the Taliban will celebrate, Pakistan will quake and bin Laden will issue an exultant video.
And the morning after the morning after, the Taliban factions will start fighting each other, the Pakistani Army will have to destroy their Taliban, or be destroyed by them, Afghanistan’s warlords will carve up the country, and, if bin Laden comes out of his cave, he’ll get zapped by a drone."
No comments:
Post a Comment