Afghanistan - David's position

In my view, we should look at the status of Afghanistan the same way as we look at the status of Iraq. Indeed, Afghanistan serves as a nice standard because I believe that every reasonable-minded person agrees that we had to go in to Afghanistan after September 11^th. The government of the state gave long-term refuge to and sponsored a terrorist organization that attacked us on our own soil. A military response was not only prudent, it was the only real course of action imaginable.

So, the question to me becomes: how was the military operation and aftermath conducted and prosecuted? I believe that we can only evaluate such questions by evaluating the results. Rather than questioning whether it would be a mistake to have more troops because the Afghanis must stand up for themselves (something that may very well appear to be self-evident), shouldn’t we evaluate what the country looks like after the war? So, what would you consider to be the objectives? I see the objectives in broad brush strokes as follows:

• Take down the existing regime (the Taliban)
• Capture or kill (preferably kill) the leader of our attackers (Osama Bin Ladin)
• Keep the old regime (the Taliban) out of power in the future
• Make the country a civil and free society

So, it sounds like the first part of your post takes the position that the last goal may be too idealistic and unattainable in this particular part of the world. Perhaps we need to be a bit more sober about the goal of “spreading freedom and democracy.” Perhaps we need to understand that these principles only take hold when the people of a country free themselves. I can buy that. If that is the case, however, it seems as if all the rhetoric we have heard from this administration about freedom being on the march is a bit hyperbolic and disingenuous, no? In other words, it seems like they are saying things that sound good, but that really have very little chance of working. If they truly believe that they can make these things come to life (in Afghanistan or in Iraq) then they are failing miserably. I don’t believe that hey can’t have it both ways.

So, if this administration is truly the honest-talking, straight-shooting group of responsible citizens they characterize themselves to be, one very reasonable response might be to recognize all of the limitations you point out and to get our boys out of there. They would make the point that it has been (and will continue to be) impossible to install a democracy in Afghanistan for all the (very good) reasons you point out and to leave. Alternatively, we could install a strong man in the region because it is important for our interests to keep law and order (we have certainly done that before and it in certain situations, I would concede that it may be a reasonable tactic).

But my guess is that there is not a good plan, nor is the administration holding itself to any real standard of accountability. I see no evidence that they really care what happens in Afghanistan. It appears that it is an aimless enterprise with an anemic amount of resources being applied as a band aid to a dreadful situation. I am not a military expert (obviously) and therefore can’t speak intelligently to your objection to the position that if we weren’t in Iraq we could be doing better in Afghanistan. But it sure seems to follow to me. Perhaps, at the very least, if we weren’t stoking up for war in Iraq, we would have accomplished goal #2, listed above.

As to the first three goals I set forth in my list, I believe we have been a miserable failure. I am truly open to the concept that these objectives have indeed been achieved, but that the mainstream media is only reporting the bad news in Afghanistan (as it is in Iraq). But in order for me to accept that position, I need to see good solid evidence that these objectives have been achieved.

Don’t we need to impose such results-oriented criteria on what our government does? I promise you that I am not Bush-bashing here. I would hold a democratic administration to the same standards. My thought is that we shouldn’t be so fast to compare the Bush administration to the Clinton administration on every choice. Perhaps they both suck. But, for better or for worse, we have chosen the current administration and given them the reigns of our government. I believe that it makes sense to make the accountable to us and to judge them using objective criteria.

I want to address your other points about the criticisms of Bush’s “rush to war,” but will do so in a new post. I think we may be ready for the big one, next: Iraq. Would love to hear your thoughts and comments on the Afghanistan issue, before we move on to that, though. I also very much want to address your comments about Bush’s motivations because I have a lot of opinions on that. It gets us into dangerous territory because it gets away from the facts and into the realm of ad hominem attacks which is what we want to try to avoid here. But, nevertheless, I have many opinions on the topic and will raise it in a subsequent post. Finally, I appreciate your giving me a personal pass on the Bush-bashing rhetoric. I will fess up that I do give it my fair share when I am in certain circles, but do try to steer clear of it when it serves no purpose (or when it doesn't address the facts in an argument).