I have written too many diaries on Afghanistan and Pakistan to bother reciting them. I have largely, and perhaps rightly, been labeled "pro-war" on a number of instances. The fact of the matter is no label really sticks to me any better than it sticks to anyone. I don't know anyone who calls themselves "anti-war" who would say isolationism would have been preferable during World War II. I don't know anyone who is "anti-war" who would say we should have let the South secede from the Union so that they could continue the practice of slavery. I also don't know anyone who is "pro-war" who wants to see Afghanistan become a large scale battleground littered by the corpses of sons, fathers, brothers, cousins, neighbors, friends of anyone who would be aggrieved by the tragic loss of a loved one let alone completely innocent civilians who will become caught in the cross fire.
Ultimately, those who are called "pro-war" want to see peace in the region.
Despite the rhetoric sometimes leveled, I have tried to be polite. Sometimes I fail. That happens to the best of us. To be sure, the "anti-war" camp raises points which are almost always valid.
Karzai is both corrupt and incompetent just like the warlords and drug-traffickers he is surrounded by. That is why I like "2011" given the pressure it puts on them to reform and the efforts that will allegedly be made to go around the tumors of poor governance. But it is still entirely possible for Karzai to suffocate any hope for a better Afghanistan in the smoke of opium.
People are going to die. Civilians will get killed in the cross-fire. Taliban fighters, NATO members, Afghan soldiers, police and other allies, and most importantly U.S. soldiers will also be cut down by the violence. The President of the United States, unlike the vast majority of us, will be writing letters to the families of the fallen. He will visit our wounded and he will honor the dead arriving at Dover. President Obama sees the cost of war better than most of us can begin to imagine. He said in his December 1st speech that if he thought he could order every single soldier from the war to come home he would- and I believe he meant it when he said it.
Even if U.S. and NATO forces did withdraw, many people were still going to die. Civil warfare would have continued to ravage Afghanistan for even more decades to come. Our "allies" in Pakistan will do even less to pursue Al Qaeda in FATA while they plot to attack innocent people in cities across the world. It's a two-edged blade, and the President was left with no choice but to pick it up and cut himself on one end or the other. What we have is a President who does not just consider the short term, which is often the easiest politically, but the medium and long term effects of our policies. The turmoil of Afghanistan has lasted many decades, and the most "pro-war" of them want to see relative peace and prosperity brought to a country that has lacked it for so long. It is a long shot, but it is worthy of the effort. I believe the President is genuinely interested in being the one to finally bring peace to Afghanistan- something which for decades, Afghanistan has only held for brief moments.
The most "anti-war" of them are smart enough to know a central criticism of the U.S. during the early 90's from Afghanistan and Pakistan; once we helped kick the Soviet Union out, we abandoned the area and left it flooded with weapons and Afghan warlords that took up residence in NW Pakistan. Pulling out now would have confirmed that claim. It would take all the pressure off of Pakistan to do anything about Al Qaeda. Therefore, it would have allowed Al Qaeda to continue doing what they do. It would have destroyed enormous U.S. credibility in the region despite our best attempts at rebuilding that very credibility in the wake of George W. Bush's disastrous Presidency.
I understand the reasoning behind pulling out, just as I understand the reasoning when someone proudly calls themselves "anti-war". I also understand the reason behind pushing in, just as I understand how long of a shot this is going to be. This long shot that it will be, as this escalation is going to happen no matter how hard some in Congress are about it. We can of course continue to break ourselves apart in "pro war" and "anti war" camps, but I would prefer to stick to the IGTNT diaries. I would prefer to hope for the best; as little loss of life as possible(with exception to Al Qaeda members), the best possible chance for regional peace, more nation-building at home, and of course a major hit to the world's opium market(upwards of 90% of which comes from Helmand province).
While our disagreements continue, perhaps we can agree to disagree in a civil manner. Perhaps we can avoid the over-simplification of "pro-war" and "anti-war". Perhaps we can keep our minds open to other views and ideas, and surely we can keep our hearts open to those IGTNT diaries. And perhaps when people go a little over the top, we can avoid HR'ing their tip jar to oblivion.
Happy holidays.
And an AfPak round up;
Pakistan brings soft power to Balochistan.(Dawn News)
While continuing FATA offensive, Pakistan nabs top aide to Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud.(Dawn News)
For those interested in the current and violent situation in Helmand as Marines push forward against the Taliban.(Long War Journal)
Can the Afghan army step up to surge? Some think there is hope.(Associated Press)
A picture of the political-situation as Pakistan buries the victims of Friday's mosque-bombing.(Washington Post)