Rumor has it that Barack Obama is nearing his big decision about the war in Afghanistan. Will it define his presidency just as Vietnam defined Lyndon Johnson’s? Reports suggest that President Obama and his advisors have spent countless hours studying Vietnam-era decision-making; for example, why John F. Kennedy took a very different course than his successor despite largely the same advisors and information. But Afghanistan is not Vietnam.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared on Meet the Press this past Sunday that this is a war against those who attacked us. Thus, we must restore security to Afghanistan and then leave. To some extent, she and the Obama administration have it right. This is not necessarily a war against Islamic extremism or any ideology at all. It is a war of necessity to protect American security and also that of Pakistan, Iran, India and the entire region. Yet it can be argued that Vietnam was also an attempt to preserve stability in the region and protect American interests lest the entire world turn to communism. The difference is that communism was the disease, an incurable virus at that. Terrorism based in Afghanistan is a symptom that can be treated, but not cured, until adequate attention is paid to the root cause.
So what is wrong with Afghanistan? Nearly all of its ills can be traced to the fact that it is arguably the greatest development disaster of our generation. In fact, according to the United Nations Human Development Index, Afghanistan ranks 181st out of 182 countries for 2009. Seventy-two percent of the population above fifteen years of age is illiterate. That number soars to nearly ninety percent for women. The average citizen lives on less than $3 per day. Life expectancy at birth is only 43.6 years. Its population is increasing by nearly 3% each year. It is the only non-African nation to be ranked in the “low human development” category.
Poor governance is a large part of the problem, but the reason why Afghanistan lags so far behind its neighbors is that it was never even given a chance. It has been ravaged by wars for decades, from the Cold War, rule by the Taliban and the current American occupation. The country is so unstable, specifically in the southern region, that parents are afraid to send their children to school. Health clinics cannot stay open. In the recent election, women were too fearful to leave their homes to vote. The reason its birthrate is twice that of India is because it has been in desperate need of soldiers. When presented with this picture, it is no wonder that the country is a breeding ground for terrorists.
American forces are part of the problem, but a simple surge and hasty exit from the country will prevent us from being part of the solution. What the people of Afghanistan need is hope. A surge of 40,000 American troops may not sound like what the people of any nation want, but it will help secure the country, prevent the Taliban from ruling again and end the American presence sooner rather than later. That will allow its people to start living their lives again. If we want to quash terrorism out of the region, we can’t stop there, though. We must train Afghanistan’s own army as the wise Carl Levin (D-MI) has argued. Hamid Karzai poses his own problems, but diplomatic engagement along with some well conditioned aid might solve his tendency towards corruption. Lastly some assistance on human development meant to expedite the peoples of Afghanistan’s journey out of poverty could bring its own long term benefits.
These measures could easily be fully fleshed out in their own column, but I hope I have convinced you that they are necessary. Security is the number one impediment to development, and a surge of troops is entirely necessary to achieve that. Yet Obama must recognize that he cannot stop there if he hopes to bring a meaningful and lasting peace to the nation. He must deliver to the people of Afghanistan the same hope that he brought to his own country, hope that maybe some day each individual will be able to reach their full potential in life.
Thanks to Jordan’s latest post, Song of Sibyl is up and running again!! Readers: where do you stand on the surge?
My next column will be up next week. Please stay tuned.
I agree with you–we should stabilize the region before hauling ass, we should instate a workable government, we should empower women there (and we should have done THAT long before 9/11), but my concern is can we afford to do all of this? Had the Bush administration not waged an unnecessary, bloody and expensive war I’d have no hesitation about Afghanistan, but as it stands I worry that we’re depleting funds toward a goal that, if reachable, is reachable only in the distant future, and will come at a cost to us. (Of course abandoning a nation whose infrastructure we’ve destroyed will certainly come at a cost to us, though not a financial cost.)
I’m also confused about what EXACTLY we’re doing in Afghanistan–it seems like such a mess; is that only due to low troop numbers, or are their issues of mismanagement? Low funds? Military policies that don’t work? I think before Obama commits to a troop surge, he should look into these things, if he hasn’t already. If we’re going to be in this war then we MUST win it, and in these tense, death-to-America times, winning means building bridges. (Or I guess in this case, rebuilding bridges we’ve probably bombed.)
The administration’s line is that we are in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from taking power again (something the citizens of Afghanistan are deathly afraid of) and also to keep Al-Qaeda from re-establishing itself there as well. Why it has taken us nearly a decade to accomplish these goals is beyond me.
I really like the building bridges analogy. It’s very cliche but very appropriate. I think my point here is that surging and hauling ass like in Iraq won’t work in Afghanistan. For as much as I despise the governments, past and present, of Iran and Iraq, they’re pretty advanced and well developed civilizations. Afghanistan is not. Instead of having a preventative war, why don’t we use another took in our diplomatic toolbox that’s a whole lot cheaper: development. Training Afghani forces, helping them to establish stabile institutions and empowering women will be a lot cheaper than the alternative. That alternative is a sustained presence. If it really does cost $500,000 to send a single troop to Afghanistan, putting a band-aid on the problem and needing to come back five or ten years down the road is a really bad idea. Obama has a lot of smart people advising him and I truly hope that he understands this.
Nicely put take on the issues facing both the United States and Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see what Obama and his team decide to do, and what effects their decision will hold for the future development of both states.
I really think we ought to be focusing more on development of the nation, both economically and politically. Building strong institutions to leave behinde once America bails is arguably perhaps the best chance we have to prevent the backslide of Afghanistan in the future. Of course a needed component of this is security and stability. On that note, I wonder if 40,000 more troops really is enough and what the true timetable is for American involvement in their state.
Thanks for the nice comment, Sam. It’s much appreciated and great to hear from you. Is the view on Afghanistan different in London? I really wish that the American media was as superb as the UK’s. Anyway, I’m really curious to hear what the timetable is as well. The biggest question about the 30,000-40,000 troops is not the number or how many we actually need, but what our strategy will be and how they will be deployed. I don’t know much about the ground game in Afghanistan, but based on the reports I hear of civilians getting caught in the middle of the insurgent forces and the skirmishes they cause, I think their safety needs to be a priority.
[...] always insightful E.J. Dionne has penned a great piece on Afghanistan that echos the position that I took last week. Afghanistan is not Vietnam and a surge in Afghanistan is much different than [...]
[...] years. Most conspicuous is the absence of what the economic and developmental commitments will be. As I argued, these are key to disabling terror and creating an Afghanistan that will be a reliable ally, [...]
Terrific, thanks for posting To Surge or Not to Surge | The Sensible Horizon!
Nation building by the United States has failed countless times so why continue a failing idea. The U.S. put the sha in power in Iran and Islamic extremists over threw their government, and Iraq is about the same story. Nation building has almost always failed since the Wilson administration. I think the real reason the U.S. is in Iraq is because of oil. Since the 1990s the U.S. has always fought in oil rich countries. This terrorist crusade seems to be a fight for oil, and there’s no way the U.S. isn’t drilling for oil in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I have read a few of the articles on your website now, and I really like your style of blogging. I added it to my favorites website list and will be checking back soon. Please check out my site as well and let me know what you think.
I have read a few of the articles on your website now, and I really like your style of blogging. I added it to my favorites web site list and will be checking back soon. Please check out my site as well and let me know what you think.
This is a very helpful post, I was looking for this information. Just so you know I located your web site when I was doing research for blogs like mine, so please check out my site sometime and leave me a comment to let me know what you think.