I wrote some time ago about how I felt the Afghanistan situation should end, and would end. An excellent opinion piece from the LA Times makes similar arguments, now even more convincing given recent activities. This entire experience warrants more than a second of thought from serious Americans. And the real thinking needs to go back to the beginning, not how it is going to end. This is because when you have involved yourself in something that cannot end well for you, it is time to stop. From the start, the Taliban were the only legitimate, home grown, political force in Afghanistan. Their enemies had been soundly defeated. Their values were not ours! Bombing the hell out of them, scaring them out of Kabul back into the Northwest Frontier, eliminating any infrastructure that would aid terriorist groups – maybe that just had to happen to deliver our anger and vengeance. But then you are left with the consequences, the only home grown political power is hiding in the mountains. Outsiders don’t create home grown political powers. Since the end of WW II, we seem to consistently get into this trap that, hey, OK, I get it, but we are Americans, we bring the gift of democratic liberalism and modern capitalism, why wouldn’t any society embrace that?? Maybe because we are the one’s offering it, and we started with a rifle. The next time I hope we think much harder about why we are getting in, what our plan is, what the end game is, and then get out. I thought H. W Bush was a genius when he stopped Gulf War I after about three days. He was so criticized. But, he knew his objectives. And he stuck to them when the temptation was to conquer. I had deep relationships with a handful of people in the Gulf at that time, earned on the ground in Kuwait, UAE and Saudi Arabia, and I knew first hand that there was a very small level of tolerance for the US beating up on an Arab state, even from our so-called friends. I think that limit was about three days. When you consider both the costs and benefits of Afghanistan and Iraq War II, George H. W Bush’s most important place in history may be for what he didn’t do; rather than what he did do.
More on “Afghanistan”
I respect Ryan Crocker, so I will listen to his point of view. But, unfortunately, given my inadequate knowledge, I am unable to agree with it. The point of disagreement is simple: what is defined as the Afghan government? Mr Crocker defines the government as the folks in Kabul and suggests that the Taliban and Kabul need to make a deal. He also writes about the advances in the Country since the war started, all of which one can only agree and be thankful, but also a little worried. Following is the heart of his argument:
Now the United States is negotiating directly with the Taliban. A framework agreement was announced on Monday calling for a cease-fire that could lead to the full withdrawal of U.S. troops. The Taliban would commit to not harboring terrorist organizations that could threaten U.S. security. In other words, the Taliban promised no 9/11 replay.
The framework was reached without the involvement of the Afghan government. The Taliban has said all along that it refuses to negotiate with the government, considering the government the illegitimate puppet of the U.S. occupation. By acceding to this Taliban demand, we have ourselves delegitimized the government we claim to support.
This current process bears an unfortunate resemblance to the Paris peace talks during the Vietnam War. Then, as now, it was clear that by going to the table we were surrendering; we were just negotiating the terms of our surrender. The Taliban will offer any number of commitments, knowing that when we are gone and the Taliban is back, we will have no means of enforcing any of them.
It does not have to go like this. The United States could announce that talks won’t proceed beyond the framework, to matters of substance, without the full inclusion of the Afghan government. Right now, the inclusion of the Afghans is only theoretical. We could also note that unless some other solution is found, U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan as long as the current government wants them, protecting the United States’ national security interests and defending core values, such as women’s rights, that we have fostered there since 2001.
President Barack Obama proved in Iraq that the United States cannot end a war by withdrawing its forces — the battle space is simply left to our adversaries. In Afghanistan, President Trump has a choice. He can follow Obama’s example and leave the country to the Taliban, or he can make clear that the United States has interests, values and allies, and will stand behind them.
The Taliban know that the government in Kabul would not exist without US support. Why should they negotiate with Kabul? He compares today with Vietnam, and the Paris peace accord. Good. Why not? The government in South Vietnam was a complete paper tiger. Comparing that govt to Kabul is probably a fair comparison. And, yes, when we leave things will get back to normal, and normal in this case probably means Taliban rule and grief for our friends in Kabul. But, understand. It is the US which is the rival govt to the Taliban, not the good folks in Kabul. Only the US could survive in that space. So, it comes back to our national objectives. First, is it a national objective to spend lives and treasure making pre-modern countries into societies supporting democratic liberalism? Is this in the national interest? Is this in our moral interest? I might support this, but folks ought to know what they are supporting. Second, is the US to be responsible for stopping bad behavior in other nation states? Bad behavior is terrible, disgusting, outrageous. But, it goes on everywhere. Think Africa. Is this our responsibility? Then, three, it is of course in our national interest to protect the US from assault. Then, we ought to think more carefully about how we allocate our dollars. Think: objectives, alternatives, careful analysis of options, updated constantly as the world changes, selection of most optimum path, execution. Do we do this? Yes and no. Of course, to an extent. But when huge amounts of money have been spent there exist a human tendency to be impacted by sunk cost, and to shy away from cost-benefit marginal analysis. So, I love Ryan Crocker, but I think we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan – carefully – with our back side covered, using the resources that we save to create the force capabilities to respond quickly if the new government behaves stupidly, not trying to re-make the country.
According to a RAND Corporation 2019 report, the Taliban now control more territory in Afghanistan than they have since 9/11.
