Like many of you, America's military escalation in Afghanistan has been very troubling to me. More of our soldiers are dying. More Afghans are dying. More money is being spent. More uncertainty seems to loom.
As Democrats are becoming more divided on this issue, I have been thinking of my own views:
On the one hand, I shudder at the thought of the brutal, vicious Taliban coming back into power. On the other hand, I worry about the Karzai government and the obvious corruption that is discouraging so many Afghans.
On the one hand, I worry about Al Qaeda reestablishing a base in a failed state. On the other hand, Al Qaeda and other terrorists are dispersed around the world and we can't afford to put our eggs in one basket.
As I have tried to sort these complex issues out in my own mind, I am troubled by some obvious parallels to Vietnam.
No two wars are exactly alike and I am not saying Afghanistan is another Vietnam. But, I do have these three questions that remind me of questions our leaders should have been asking about Vietnam that I think are very pertinent today.
- Are the Afghans for whom we are ostensibly fighting capable of unifying and governing the country? Will we realistically be able to hand governing and security responsibilities over to a national government and a national force that will be seen as legitimate and effective in the eyes of the majority of the Afghan people?
Looking at the parallel from Vietnam, we never had a viable partner in the South Vietnamese. Their leaders were weak and corrupt and unable to win over the support of the Vietnamese people or to govern their territory with legitimacy.
Granted, the Taliban are much less legitimate in the eyes of most Afghans than were the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. However, they appear to be just as determined to liberate Afghanistan and drive the U.S. out.
Which brings me to question #2.
- Which side of this fight is more determined to win? American forces are only going to be able to continue to fight the Taliban over the long haul if most Afghans are determined to continue the fight. We know the Taliban are extremely determined. Are the folks we're supporting equally committed?
Again, as in Vietnam, I don't think we can "win" in Afghanistan if the majority of the Afghans are not determined to fight for their own independence from the Taliban. If average Afghans are not fully committed to the fight, no amount of U.S. support will help them win in the long run. Ultimately, they have to fight this and be at least as determined as the Taliban are.
All of which presupposes question #3.
- Does it matter to our national security who governs Afghanistan? As stated above, Al Qaeda and terrorist extremists are dispersed throughout the world. And reports suggest that only a small handful of Al Qaeda militants are in Afghanistan right now.
If our goal is to prevent these networks from building up their resources sufficiently to carry out attacks on America and/or our allies, what is the direct need of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan? Yes, we know that the Taliban previously allied themselves with Al Qaeda and provided a training ground for their terrorist network. But, assuming the Taliban comes back to power, are there other less costly and less direct ways we can contain the terrorist threat from Afghanistan?
In Vietnam, our mistake was to accept the Domino Theory as a fact without thoroughly examining the underlying assumptions. We assumed that if South Vietnam fell, the rest of Southeast Asia would fall, then Japan and Australia and New Zealand, then, as the theory went, Hawaii would fall. It was a very irrational fear fueled by the extreme psychosis of Cold War paranoia.
In this case, a similar fallacy seems to have taken root. If we "lose" Afghanistan, the Taliban wins. If the Taliban wins, Al Qaeda wins. If Al Qaeda wins, the terrorists win and America will lose the "War on Terror."
But, is any of this true? Even if the Taliban ultimately prevails and takes over Afghanistan again, we now know the threat. And, we can, I believe, monitor the threat and contain it just like we are currently containing the terrorist threats from Somalia and Qatar and elsewhere.
Taking a step back, I think we need a mature and honest national debate about these and other very important questions. Unfortunately, it is so easy to incite fear. It is so easy to bark these simpleton sound bites on Fox News and other cable shout shows and to undermine reasoned debate.
I remember the presentation Colin Powell made to the UN to drum up support for our war in Iraq. I remember him talking about Iraq having unmanned aerial vehicles theoretically capable of spreading chemical or biological weapons. And I remember asking, "So what?"
Seriously, what's the point? So what if Saddam had unmanned aerial vehicles. Was Powell seriously suggesting that Iraq would launch these vehicles and they would fly over Syria or Jordan, then over Israel or Egypt, then these vehicles would fly over the Mediterranean Sea then through the Straights of Gibraltar and all the way across the Atlantic, without refueling, and somehow evading detection and find their way to New York or Washington to attack us?
It was a joke. Only, too many of the cable news shock jocks and inside-the-Beltway know-it-alls took it seriously.
Afghanistan is not a joke. But, I think these three questions have not been sufficiently debated and I don't think the answers we would honestly provide to these questions would support our continued military involvement there.