From the outset, President Obama has been admirably firm in his support for our intervention in Afghanistan, calling it a “war of necessity.” But as time has progressed, skepticism at home and abroad is mounting. According to the most recent Gallup Polls, U.S. support for the war in Afghanistan is at an all-time low. At present, more Americans than not still believe we should be there. But looking at the trend, that soon might not be the case; the poll was conducted immediately before the most recent NATO airstrike which killed many civilians. Being that the war is likely to become increasingly unpopular and ugly and that General McChrystal will soon be requesting troop increases, it behooves us to determine whether we should continue to be there. Many opinions on this issue can be found all over the internet; I bring you two of the more thoughtful.
Andrew Bacevich of Boston University, questions the assumption that Afghanistan is of vital interest to the United States. He does not challenge the assumptions that Afghanistan has a weak government, that a Taliban takeover following a NATO withdrawal would be likely, and that a Taliban-controlling government would allow al-Qaeda to operate freely within its borders. However, he insists that the United States could mitigate these threats without engaging tens of thousands of soldiers and spending hundreds of billions of dollars in a war that will never have a happy ending. Bacevich and like-minded thinkers advocate the use of “intensive intelligence, Predator drones, cruise missiles, raids by Special Operation commandoes, and even payment to local warlords to deny haven to al Qaeda.” Advocates of this approach claim that in addition to being less costly would “have at least as much chance of preventing attacks on the United States as a large-scale insurgency effort…”
On the other side, Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, claims that the US has two basic interests in Afghanistan. They are: keeping it from becoming a terrorist haven against the US and keeping it from destabilizing its neighbors. However, Biddle argues as a causus belli, only the second interest carries real weight; the first interest could have us engaged anywhere from Yemen to Somalia to the Philippines (my birthplace). However, Pakistani state collapse is certainly the most likely scenario in which a terrorist organization could ever get a hold of atomic material. Were the Taliban to regain control of Afghanistan, it would certainly be destabilizing to Pakistan as they are currently in the middle of civil war that is “not going well.” Biddle argues that because we have so little influence in Pakistan, we should at least do our best to not harm them.
No matter what Obama does, he will be wide open to criticism fromm the Republican Party. If he keeps fighting and the inevitable difficulty follows, he is an inept commander in chief. If he withdraws, he is a radical leftist. I think this discussion is important to have right now because the rhetoric is about to become thoughtless. If we can articulate clear reasons for staying or not staying, then we will have a framework for making the best decisions in the months and years ahead.
