And so, it will still be Afghanistan

by Karoli on July 27, 2010 · 19 comments

My ambivalence on Afghanistan has not diminished. On an almost-daily basis I feel self-contradictory and utterly torn.

I never wanted to send troops to Afghanistan. A timeworn memory in this house is me, stomping around the house shaking my fist, ranting about it. It wasn’t at all helpful to the dialogue, but then-President Bush wasn’t really listening to me either, nor did he really much care to listen.

In fact, not too many people really did. New York, Washington DC and Philadelphia had just been attacked by wild-eyed zealots, and that turned a whole lot of otherwise rational people into wild-eyed zealots, too.

The very idea that anyone could assault us in home territory was beyond the pale to nearly everyone, including me, though I stopped short of the idea of throwing our kids into yet another war in another country in that region, particularly when one of mine was serving in the Army.

But a President is supposed to lead, and make reasoned decisions, not throw a handful of troops into a country where no world power has succeeded before; in fact, a country which had, with our assistance, out-sieged the Soviets.

I can remember shouting at the television about how utterly stupid and arrogant it was to think we had some magic formula to march into Afghanistan and declare “victory”, and how my stomach still knots at the ensuing insanity that became our invasion to Iraq. And now, as Iraq winds down and leaves behind a country ravaged and unstable, it will still be Afghanistan that holds us all hostage.

I understand the President’s argument and effort there. I understand that this ‘war’ is really not traditional at all. I understand that the region is so utterly unstable that allowing Afghanistan to collapse on itself is an ugly and inhuman idea. But if it happens, it will be because we built the Frankenstein monster in the first place. If nothing else, our 20th century habit of believing the enemy of our enemy was our friend has been exposed as the lie it is.

Someone pointed me to Charlie Wilson’s War the other day. My response was that it was Charlie Wilson’s war that gave birth to the Taliban we know as an enemy today. It was Charlie Wilson’s War that justified building up and training young men to fight the Soviets without any thought or regard to what they might do with their anger and their arms when the Soviets were no more, and American dollars stopped flowing in.

And then it became Bush’s war, but Bush abandoned it like an ADHD teenager with a new video game for Iraq. Barely gave Afghanistan the time of day, much less a strategy, a timeline, and some funding.

And now it’s Obama’s war, mostly because someone’s got to inherit it and Obama said he would step it up over there. No, he said we’d win, whatever winning is. It was the one plank of his campaign I most disagreed with, this idea of “winning” in Afghanistan. There is no winning to be had in Afghanistan. Before we were there, and after we leave, it will still be Afghanistan.

And yet, there is a reality over there in Afghanistan, too. There are power plays and too-accessible nuclear weapons in Pakistan, Iran stirs the pot by proxy, and China shares a border and an interest in the mineral wealth in Afghanistan. The region is so destabilized, so utterly upside-down, that a rapid withdrawal will leave a vacuum for someone else to fill.

It will still be Afghanistan, with its poverty and its raw, magnificent, landscapes where names are etched on centuries-old art and carpets hang in the bazaars, woven with images of a uniquely Afghan past, present and future. It will still be Afghanistan, and maybe this is what I should come to understand: If no nation has conquered it, including us, perhaps we should simply allow Afghanistan to be…Afghanistan.

Today’s defense appropriation debate was painful to listen to on a number of levels. Painful, because war is hell even when the cause feels pure, but in this case, it just feels fruitless, old, and timeworn. We turn on each other and shake our fists at the military-industrial complex and call for our troops to come home…wait. Come home to what?

Come home, brave soldiers, head back to your families, but there will be no job for you, no place in line for the brave young men and women who just risked it all over there to come back here. There will be no industry to replace the machine that ground and ground and turned the weapons and airplanes and tanks and armor off the manufacturing line onto tools on the ground.

I never forget that the circle was drawn in 2002, when George W. Bush chose to fire up the war machine and keep the fires stoked for the next 8 years. Now one dwindles and one rages. When the rage dies down, what will the cost have been?

The Afghans will line up their US baubles next to the Soviet collectibles at the bazaar. They will sell a soldier’s boots from one war, and a cheap metal star from the cap of one who fought in the other. They will bargain with each other for the best price on these small things, building an economy out of the shards of an invasion.

It will still be Afghanistan, just as it has been each and every time a nation has invaded it. And we will still be the United States, but with a fading stain of war on our heads. Ambivalence transitions to resolve. It’s time to come home.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention And so, it will still be Afghanistan -- Topsy.com

  • Jane

    Nothing much to add except that this is an excellent post, Karoli.

  • Anonymous

    Worth a read: “Bury the Graveyard .. If you want to figure out a way forward for Afghanistan, fake history is not the place to start” .. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/26/bury_the_graveyard

  • Pingback: 2112 » Blog Archive » Why Hip Hop Sucked In ’96

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    thanks, Jane…let's hope we can find a way out of all this.

  • http://www.whatsthequestion.org lsoderman

    Great post.

    I supported the originally stated mission in Afghanistan – to seek out those who had planned the 9/11 attacks and bring them to justice.

    That's what was stated. It isn't what was supported.

    As you described, the mission was underfunded, undermanned, and anemic from the get go. And the focus was lost.

    The problem now is that we can't return to that mission because so much else has been botched or put aside. We should not have been nation-building, and frankly, we shouldn't have been routing out the Taliban. Were/are they a major cause of problems for Afghanistan? Yes. But thet's not why we supposedly went there.

    I don't pretend to have the answers to what we should do in Afghanistan. I do know there are no “good” answers.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    I keep coming back to the argument against remaining; that is, “no country has ever “won” in Afghanistan”. That is true. Afghanistan has broken more empires that tried. Granted, we're not trying to “take it over”, but it's also true that Afghans seem to stand against greater powers. So maybe they just should, and we should let them.

  • http://www.whatsthequestion.org lsoderman

    I agree. We're not going to change Afghanistan. We won't end their internal corruption, we won't defeat their fierce fighting spirit against anyone they see as an intruder.

    I would still support a version of the original mission – go after those that planned the attacks on the WTC. The problem is – those guys aren't in Afghanistan anymore. They're in Pakistan. That mission cannot be completed just by throwing more troops at it. It's a different focus, and getting the Pakistanis onboard with it is no mean feat.

    That mission could be worked with far less troops, albeit more specialized. But we certainly would not need to “nation-build” to achieve it.

  • Dirk2112

    Maybe I'm misreading, but your ambivalence seems to be based on a misconception or rather a flash-forward … What I mean is that Charlie Wilson's War [which is to say our covert campaign in Afghanistan/Pakistan] isn't responsible for the Taliban. Our having first fought a proxy war there that cost somewhere north of 2,000,000 civilian lives, then abandoned the place for twelve years during which first “factional fighting” then a civil war then Taliban rule cost another 1,000,000 plus lives, turned the “country” into a bank slash training ground for virtually every violent jihadist group you could name and crippled it's capacity to adequately feed itself just for well – bonus points. Now maybe none of that is our problem, there's certainly a serious and valid argument to be made that it's time to wash our hands and come home. But we first actively, then apathetically then complicity [the Taliban takeover coincided with series of Central Asian pipeline deal negotiations] contributed to the disaster that place has become and I can't honestly say today, that we've given cleaning our mess up – our best effort.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    The proxy war we fought funded and armed those who then became the Taliban leaders. We chose to fund groups who would ordinarily be averse to our national interest because we viewed the Soviets as a greater threat.

  • Dirk2112

    True. Absolutely true. But a formulation that stops at the Soviet pullout places emphasis at a misleading historical pivot point. The Taliban weren't the logical consequence of proxy war, they were the logical consequence of our having failed to mount even a minimal effort to stabilize the country after our proxy war. In addition to the Taliban we supported individuals who could have become a responsible Afghan government and we ignored the place just long enough for the Taliban to kill all of them.

  • http://twitter.com/ivanafter5 Ivan After 5

    I'm in total agreement with you Karoli. It's time to end this nightmare.

  • So Sad

    Okay, I'll bite… If it was reported during the Bush years that victory in Afhanistan was unlikely, so war was not escalated in Afghanistan…. And, if Obama, who has the information going back over the years that would imply escalation in Afhanistan would be detrimental to the U.S., why would he go ahead and increase the war effort in Afghanistan?
    Also, if our boys have no jobs to come home to due to Obama's economic policies… why would Obama and the progressives not take the time to look at and rethink the policies that cause destruction and economic disaster?

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention And so, it will still be Afghanistan -- Topsy.com

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Sorry to have only seen this now…I've been out of town. I think both of your questions are based upon premises I've certainly not stated, nor has Obama. First, I don't think he has information that implies escalation would be detrimental to the US, beyond that which history proves; namely, that Afghanistan may possibly be ungovernable, and will always be vulnerable to invasion, but is fiercely resistant to conquering. The best we can do is to open a window. It's up to the Afghans to crawl through it.

    Second, our boys will have no jobs to come home to because cash and capital investments are being intentionally deferred by large corporations, and Republicans blocked assistance for the small community banks and businesses last week. It's small business — not the DJ 500 — that will drive this economy back to health, and small businesses are being choked to death.

    Even David Stockman puts the responsibility for the economy where it belongs — on the shoulders of the last administration. If he lacks the credibility, see Alan Greenspan's latest remarks.

  • http://ashleighburroughs.blogspot.com Ashleigh Burroughs

    Ambivalence transitions to resolve……. I love that and, if you don't mind, will use it in conversation from now on. Once again, you have written what I was thinking. I am so glad that I have you around to say it so clearly. You are so right – Alexander the Great, The USSR, the USofA….. they all tried and still, Afghanistan is Afghanistan.

    It's time to come home.
    a/b

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    thanks, and of course you can use it. But…I'm seeing Gates start the pissing match again with Obama over the July, 2011 date. It'll be interesting to see this play out, given that the Iraq troop drawdowns are right on schedule.

  • So Sad

    Regarding David Stockman, are you refering to this from Wikipedia? “The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed in which he specifically criticized the failure of Congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.” Along with his more current statements regarding why he wouldn't defend keeping the tax cuts? I see that he is being realisitic about the emergency our trillion dollar deficit is causing and that reinstating the taxes would help offset the spending that is now in place in our government. However, I don't get the idea that he would support a lifestyle that would rely on high tax rates and over-spending forever. I think he and conservatives understand living at high deficits and taxes will exhaust our economy and cause our nation to weaken both nationally and abroad.
    Our current problem is not Bush's anymore. He did run a deficit in the Billions that many conservatives disapproved of. Our problem is running a country with trillions of dollars of spending with no rainy day fund.
    Socialism is not the best way to run any country including ours.

  • Pingback: I Obot?

Previous post:

Next post: