First Alexander the Great, then the British and later the Russians failed to conquer the mountainous nation of Afghanistan, earning it the moniker “graveyard of empires.” Now the U.S. is eight years into a war to make Afghanistan what it never has been: a Western-style democracy with a strong central government.
President Barack Obama has apparently taken the advice of Gen. Stanley McChrystal and chosen to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, as he announced in December. In moving forward with this controversial decision, Obama must be careful not to ignore the same problems he identified with the 2007 troop surge in Iraq.
In a July 2008 interview with Katie Couric, then-Sen. Obama insightfully remarked, “What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? … It doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term.” He emphasized the importance of refocusing on Afghanistan, the “central front in the war on terror.”
Now, as president, Obama’s wish is our military’s command, and we will begin drawing down troop levels in Iraq as we raise them in Afghanistan. However, these troops will not be engaging many al-Qaida fighters, only about 100 of whom remain in Afghanistan, as ABC News reported in December. American and NATO soldiers aren’t even fighting Taliban or other religiously motivated warriors, but more often ethnic Pashtuns with ties to Afghanistan who view the U.S. as an occupying power, according to U.S. intelligence reports.
If the primary goal of the war in Afghanistan remains to eliminate al-Qaida, thereby making Americans safer, why are we proposing to send 30,000 troops at a cost of $30 billion a year to a place the terrorist network has largely abandoned?
There is no central front in this war against terrorism, and if there were, it surely would not be Afghanistan. Pakistan is now home to the most al-Qaida operatives, as U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has said, but the network is diffuse, with cells also operating in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and other nations. The U.S. cannot rush carelessly into every country with an al-Qaida presence (or without one, as was the case in Iraq), destroy its government and leave because there is a “new” central front in the war. This hubris-driven strategy swells al-Qaida’s ranks almost as fast as it drains our own treasury. For a more intelligent way to fight terrorism, we must look to Biden’s “Counterterrorism-Plus” strategy, which places greater emphasis on training Afghan troops, protecting major cities like Kabul and targeting strikes on insurgents. There is no perfect method of combating something as amorphous as terrorism, but Biden’s plan is far superior to misguided attempts at regime change and nation-building.
Obama must demonstrate his awareness of the long-term consequences of his actions. The international community and especially the Muslim world rejoiced when he was elected, but should Obama continue the failed foreign policies of former President George W. Bush for too long, he may erase the gains America has made in hearts and minds around the world.
Weinberg junior Jordan Fein can be reached at [email protected].
