Time to Pack Up
Published: October 13, 2012
After more than a decade of having American blood spilled in Afghanistan,
with nearly six years lost to President George W. Bush’s disastrous
indifference, it is time for United States forces to leave Afghanistan on a
schedule dictated only by the security of the troops. It should not take more
than a year. The United States will not achieve even President Obama’s narrowing
goals, and prolonging the war will only do more harm.
Multimedia
Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. said on Friday that “we are leaving
Afghanistan in 2014, period. There is no ifs, ands or buts.” Mr. Obama indicated
earlier that this could mean the end of 2014. Either way, two more years of
combat, two more years of sending the 1 percent of Americans serving in uniform
to die and be wounded, is too long.
Administration officials say they will not consider a secure “logistical
withdrawal,” but they offer no hope of achieving broad governance and security
goals. And the only final mission we know of, to provide security for a 2014
Afghan election, seems dubious at best and more likely will only lend American
approval to a thoroughly corrupt political system.
*
This conclusion represents a change on our part. The war in Afghanistan had
powerful support at the outset, including ours, after the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001.
After Mr. Bush’s years of neglect, we believed that a new president, Barack
Obama, was doing the right thing by at least making an effort. He set goals that
made sense: first, a counterinsurgency campaign, stepped-up attacks on Al Qaeda,
then an attempt to demolish the Taliban’s military power, promote democratic
governance in Kabul and build an Afghan Army capable of exerting control over
the country.
But it is now clear that if there ever was a chance of “victory” in
Afghanistan, it evaporated when American troops went off to fight the pointless
war in Iraq. While some progress has been made, the idea of fully realizing
broader democratic and security aims simply grows more elusive. Meanwhile, more
than 2,000 American troops have died in this war, more than 50 of them recently
in growing attacks by Afghan forces, and many thousands more have been maimed.
The war has now cost upward of $500 billion.
Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, said at
the debate on Thursday: “We don’t want to lose the gains we’ve gotten. We want
to make sure that the Taliban doesn’t come back in.”
More fighting will not consolidate the modest gains made by this war, and
there seems little chance of guaranteeing that the Taliban do not “come back
in,” at least in the provinces where they have never truly been dislodged. Last
month, militants struck a heavily fortified NATO base. Officials say the
Pakistan-based Haqqani network is behind many of the attacks on Americans.
Americans are desperate to see the war end and the 68,000 remaining troops
come home. President Obama has not tasked military commanders with recommending
a pace for the withdrawal until after the election. He and the coalition
partners have committed to remain engaged in Afghanistan after 2014 at reduced
levels, which could involve 15,000 or more American troops to carry out
specialized training and special operations. Mr. Obama, or Mitt Romney if he
wins, will have a hard time convincing Americans that makes sense — let alone
Afghans. The military may yet ask for tens of thousands more troops, which would
be a serious mistake.
To increase the odds for a more manageable transition and avert an economic
collapse, the United States and other major donors have pledged $16
billion in economic aid through 2015. That is a commitment worth keeping,
but the United States and its allies have tried nation building in Afghanistan,
at least for the last four years. It is not working.
*
The task is to pack up without leaving behind arms that terrorists want and
cannot easily find elsewhere (like Stinger missiles) or high-tech equipment
(like Predator drones) that can be reverse engineered by Pakistan or other
potential foes. The military can blow those things up if it must.
After more than a decade of having American blood spilled in Afghanistan,
with nearly six years lost to President George W. Bush’s disastrous
indifference, it is time for United States forces to leave Afghanistan on a
schedule dictated only by the security of the troops. It should not take more
than a year. The United States will not achieve even President Obama’s narrowing
goals, and prolonging the war will only do more harm.
Multimedia
Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. said on Friday that “we are leaving
Afghanistan in 2014, period. There is no ifs, ands or buts.” Mr. Obama indicated
earlier that this could mean the end of 2014. Either way, two more years of
combat, two more years of sending the 1 percent of Americans serving in uniform
to die and be wounded, is too long.
Administration officials say they will not consider a secure “logistical
withdrawal,” but they offer no hope of achieving broad governance and security
goals. And the only final mission we know of, to provide security for a 2014
Afghan election, seems dubious at best and more likely will only lend American
approval to a thoroughly corrupt political system.
*
This conclusion represents a change on our part. The war in Afghanistan had
powerful support at the outset, including ours, after the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001.
After Mr. Bush’s years of neglect, we believed that a new president, Barack
Obama, was doing the right thing by at least making an effort. He set goals that
made sense: first, a counterinsurgency campaign, stepped-up attacks on Al Qaeda,
then an attempt to demolish the Taliban’s military power, promote democratic
governance in Kabul and build an Afghan Army capable of exerting control over
the country.
But it is now clear that if there ever was a chance of “victory” in
Afghanistan, it evaporated when American troops went off to fight the pointless
war in Iraq. While some progress has been made, the idea of fully realizing
broader democratic and security aims simply grows more elusive. Meanwhile, more
than 2,000 American troops have died in this war, more than 50 of them recently
in growing attacks by Afghan forces, and many thousands more have been maimed.
The war has now cost upward of $500 billion.
Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, said at
the debate on Thursday: “We don’t want to lose the gains we’ve gotten. We want
to make sure that the Taliban doesn’t come back in.”
More fighting will not consolidate the modest gains made by this war, and
there seems little chance of guaranteeing that the Taliban do not “come back
in,” at least in the provinces where they have never truly been dislodged. Last
month, militants struck a heavily fortified NATO base. Officials say the
Pakistan-based Haqqani network is behind many of the attacks on Americans.
Americans are desperate to see the war end and the 68,000 remaining troops
come home. President Obama has not tasked military commanders with recommending
a pace for the withdrawal until after the election. He and the coalition
partners have committed to remain engaged in Afghanistan after 2014 at reduced
levels, which could involve 15,000 or more American troops to carry out
specialized training and special operations. Mr. Obama, or Mitt Romney if he
wins, will have a hard time convincing Americans that makes sense — let alone
Afghans. The military may yet ask for tens of thousands more troops, which would
be a serious mistake.
To increase the odds for a more manageable transition and avert an economic
collapse, the United States and other major donors have pledged $16
billion in economic aid through 2015. That is a commitment worth keeping,
but the United States and its allies have tried nation building in Afghanistan,
at least for the last four years. It is not working.
*
The task is to pack up without leaving behind arms that terrorists want and
cannot easily find elsewhere (like Stinger missiles) or high-tech equipment
(like Predator drones) that can be reverse engineered by Pakistan or other
potential foes. The military can blow those things up if it must.
(Page 3 of 3)
Mr. Obama wants to use American troops to provide logistical assistance and
security at the elections. There were real threats to voters’ lives in the first
post-Taliban elections, but the real threat to democracy is from corruption, not
bombs. Mr. Karzai stole the last election, and he got away with it with American
forces in place. After giving him 10 years and lots of money, things keep going
in the wrong direction. Why would this now change?
Multimedia
RELATIONS WITH PAKISTAN After some bitter disputes,
Pakistan began cooperating with the United States again in June by reopening a
critical supply route to Afghanistan. American officials say the Pakistanis may
have decided that sowing chaos in Afghanistan by supporting Taliban proxies is
not in their interest after all. This could be wishful thinking. Last week, the
Pentagon blamed the Pakistani-backed Haqqani network for some of the recent
“green on blue” attacks. Islamabad’s collusion with the Taliban and other
extremist groups is the biggest threat to Afghan stability.
The United States has a huge interest in a less destructive Pakistan, a
nuclear-armed country of 170 million that supports jihad in Afghanistan, Kashmir
and Indian cities. But there is reason to argue that America’s leverage with
Pakistan on security matters is limited by its need for Pakistani bases, border
crossings and intelligence on the Taliban.
If tens of thousands of American troops were removed from landlocked
Afghanistan, that might actually allow the United States to hang tougher with
Islamabad. Pakistan officials might not listen, but at least the United States
could be more honest about what the Pakistanis were doing to worsen the threat
of terrorism and insurgency.
*
We are not arguing that everything will work out well after the United
States leaves Afghanistan. It will not. The Taliban will take over parts of the
Pashtun south, where they will brutalize women and trample their rights.
Warlords will go on stealing. Afghanistan will still be the world’s
second-poorest country. Al Qaeda may make inroads, but since 9/11 it has
established itself in Yemen and many other countries.
America’s global interests suffer when it is mired in unwinnable wars in
distant regions. Dwight Eisenhower helped the country’s position in the world by
leaving Korea; Richard Nixon by leaving Vietnam; President Obama by leaving
Iraq.
None of these places became Jeffersonian democracies. But the United States
was better off for leaving. Post-American Afghanistan is likely to be more
presentable than North Korea, less presentable than Iraq and perhaps about the
same as Vietnam. But it fits the same pattern of damaging stalemate. We need to
exit as soon as we safely can.
No comments:
Post a Comment